This is an archived page. Images and links on this page may not work. Please visit the main page for the latest updates.

 
 
 
Read my book, TEACHING BEAUTY IN DeLILLO, WOOLF, AND MERRILL (Palgrave Macmillan; forthcoming), co-authored with Jennifer Green-Lewis. VISIT MY BRANCH CAMPUS AT INSIDE HIGHER ED





UD is...
"Salty." (Scott McLemee)
"Unvarnished." (Phi Beta Cons)
"Splendidly splenetic." (Culture Industry)
"Except for University Diaries, most academic blogs are tedious."
(Rate Your Students)
"I think of Soltan as the Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere,
except that Maureen Dowd is kind of a wrecking ball of a writer,
and Soltan isn't. For the life of me, I can't figure out her
politics, but she's pretty fabulous, so who gives a damn?"
(Tenured Radical)

Saturday, November 26, 2005

More on Brain Geishas


[For background, see UD.]



UD calls “brain geishas” those large numbers of American women who, having summited the college and grad school mountain, take a look or two around at the rarefied air, plant their Rapid Learner flag in the snow, and then gather their equipment and roll back down to the ground, becoming non-working wives and mothers.

All those years of struggle upward! Those lofty Fulbrights and Luces! Those majestic tuition payouts -- courtesy of their schools, their parents, and we the people! (That was a Tom Wolfe imitation.)

All so they can more enunciatively narrate Babar to the brood.

These women, their advanced professional brains and credentials marked Display Purposes Only, evoke for UD something like what the vast star-studded robes and hyper-elaborated facial makeup of geishas evoke for her -- an enigmatic lushness, the mystery of over-refinement. Brain geishas convey a sense of silent luxuriant expanses of untapped thought. They whisper to us that this country is so wealthy, even an education can become an object of insouciant throwaway consumption.




Linda Hirshman, in a tough, feisty, and extremely well-written American Prospect essay, elaborates on this striking feature of contemporary American culture.

From her title on, Hirshman does not mince words:

The Truth About Elite Women

Half the wealthiest, most-privileged, best-educated females in the country stay home with their babies rather than work in the market economy. …The number of women at universities exceeds the number of men. But, more than a generation after feminism, the number of women in elite jobs doesn’t come close.


Does it represent the best use of very scarce elite educational resources to graduate significant numbers of women from Princeton, Yale, and Harvard who aren’t going to work?

…Princeton President Shirley Tilghman described the elite colleges’ self-image perfectly when she told her freshmen last year that they would be the nation’s leaders, and she clearly did not have trophy wives in mind. Why should society spend resources educating women with only a 50-percent return rate on their stated goals?


Hirshman now directly addresses her reader:

…Educated and affluent reader, if you are a 30- or 40-something woman with children, what are you doing? Husbands, what are your wives doing? Older readers, what are your married daughters with children doing? I have asked this question of scores of women and men. Among the affluent-educated-married population, women are letting their careers slide to tend the home fires. If my interviewees are working, they work largely part time, and their part-time careers are not putting them in the executive suite.





The problem’s a complicated one. Ivy admits (for the sake of convenience, and because they’ve been studied more than other elite grads, we’ll restrict ourselves to the Ivies here) are, overwhelmingly, rich people; and the trend toward exclusively super-affluent incoming classes is increasing at most of these schools.

A rich person - male or female - doesn’t have to worry about money, now or ever. Male rich people, by and large, however, seem to resemble male non-rich people in feeling compelled -- through competitiveness, or desire for yet greater personal wealth than they have inherited, or attraction to power, or a decision to give something back, or hormones, or whatever -- to work, and work hard. So they are in the public realm, and some of them are making a real contribution. Female rich people, on the other hand, seem less compelled to work.

…Every Times groom [Hirshman followed couples who appeared in the New York Times wedding announcements] assumed he had to succeed in business, and was really trying. By contrast, a common thread among the women I interviewed was a self-important idealism about the kinds of intellectual, prestigious, socially meaningful, politics-free jobs worth their incalculably valuable presence.

[To begin solving this problem, women] must treat the first few years after college as an opportunity to lose their capitalism virginity and prepare for good work, which they will then treat seriously.


Already-rich elite female grads think of themselves as Lady Bountifuls, Hirshman suggests, promoting good cheer and right thinking in pleasant surroundings, primarily by lending these surroundings what Hirshman nastily calls their “incalculably valuable presence.”

They need to learn to screw, market-wise.






…At marriage, [the women featured in the New York Times wedding pages] included a vice president of client communication, a gastroenterologist, a lawyer, an editor, and a marketing executive. In 2003 and 2004, I tracked them down and called them. I interviewed about 80 percent of the 41 women who announced their weddings over three Sundays in 1996. Around 40 years old, college graduates with careers: Who was more likely than they to be reaping feminism’s promise of opportunity? Imagine my shock when I found almost all the brides from the first Sunday at home with their children. Statistical anomaly? Nope. Same result for the next Sunday. And the one after that.


Ninety percent of the brides I found had had babies. Of the 30 with babies, five were still working full time. Twenty-five, or 85 percent, were not working full time. Of those not working full time, 10 were working part time but often a long way from their prior career paths. And half the married women with children were not working at all.


So it’s about babies, right? Not necessarily.

…This isn’t only about day care. Half my Times brides quit before the first baby came. In interviews, at least half of them expressed a hope never to work again. None had realistic plans to work. More importantly, when they quit, they were already alienated from their work or at least not committed to a life of work. One, a female MBA, said she could never figure out why the men at her workplace, which fired her, were so excited about making deals. “It’s only money,” she mused.


That is, the whole money grubbing and market manipulating thing doesn’t work with a lot of these women. Why, for instance, are all the Harvard money men men? Because they love to play brilliant and convoluted games with other people’s money in order to yield sufficient funds for their institutions in order in turn to earn for themselves thirty million dollars a year in compensation. If they were women, these men might pause and say things to themselves like Why should I feel good about screwing scholarship students out of money by taking so much of this non-profit’s money for myself? They might ask Isn’t thirty million a year under any circumstances rather obscene for one human being? Such questions are the beginning of the end. They are the sorts of questions you ask when you’re not just a virgin, but a pussy.

Hirshman is concerned to toughen up women so they begin thinking like Harvard's money men. She starts by reminding them that

…The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.”

……A good life for humans includes the classical standard of using one’s capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way, the liberal requirement of having enough autonomy to direct one’s own life, and the utilitarian test of doing more good than harm in the world. Measured against these time-tested standards, the expensively educated upper-class moms will be leading lesser lives.


But why pick on rich women?

….The privileged brides of the Times -- and their husbands -- seem happy. Why do we care what they do? After all, most people aren’t rich and white and heterosexual, and they couldn’t quit working if they wanted to.

We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated, even by people who never get their weddings in the Times. This last is called the “regime effect,” and it means that even if women don’t quit their jobs for their families, they think they should and feel guilty about not doing it.

…As for society, elites supply the labor for the decision-making classes -- the senators, the newspaper editors, the research scientists, the entrepreneurs, the policy-makers, and the policy wonks. If the ruling class is overwhelmingly male, the rulers will make mistakes that benefit males, whether from ignorance or from indifference.





UD’s take on all of this is a little different. It bothers her sense of justice that many women from wealthy and well-connected families are taking seats in Ivy League classrooms because of that background and its advantages, even though - again arising out of those same privileges - they ain’t got no fire in their belly. She thinks scrappy middle-class women who’ve always assumed they’ll have to work, and who assume they’ll work in a real setting rather than some soft-lit good-works lounge, should be admitted instead.

Also - it’s not clear that by losing their capitalism virginity women “do more good than harm in the world.” Legions of male lawyers and money movers and lobbyists do more harm than good, but that’s precisely where Hirshman wants these girls to set up shop.

Still, I agree with much of what she says. I have no difficulty with a woman making a principled decision, after getting a good BA in the liberal arts, that she primarily wants children and a home. I have mucho difficulty with a woman who rushes aggressively and expensively onto an elite career track and then collapses in the first heat. She’s wasted a lot of money and a lot of institutional good will.