When I read last week that a former Goldman Sachs vice president-- a
woman-- was suing the firm for firing her a week before she returned
from maternity leave (NY Times, 3/24/2010), I felt like we had
regressed back to the pre-Gloria Steinem era. What good was the
women’s lib movement, after all, if women are still unable to hold
down big jobs and have kids, too?
I graduated from Princeton in 1990. Like other young women who came of
age in the 70s and 80s, I was told that I could do anything, be
anything, that the world was my oyster. In my early 30s, with two
degrees and ten years of work experience under my belt, I quit my job
to stay home and raise my children. I wasn’t educated or trained to be
a mother, God knows. But, with a husband who traveled extensively for
work, an extended family that lived three thousand miles away, and a
workplace that was unforgiving towards mothers, I felt I had no
choice.
As I crawl around the floor picking up Cheerios and toys, I wonder
where the women's lib movement has brought us. How liberated are women
today, really? When we look at the life of the "superwoman" career
mom-- cramming 36 hours worth of obligations into each 24 hour day,
putting the needs of a whiny toddler above her own, caving in to the
pressure of other people’s expectations and her own desire to excel in
every aspect of her life-- the picture is far from liberating.
Firing a woman who was out on maternity leave is illegal, and
hopefully Goldman will be held accountable for their actions if this
proves to be the case. But I can’t help but think that a society which
either forces a mother to choose between her job and her family life,
or ensures she can’t succeed when she pursues both, is just tragic and
cruel.
Hope they go down hard.... GS, that is.
ReplyDelete