Get The Story Straight: Is The Economy Leading Women Back Into the Workforce Sooner? Or Leading Them To Stay At Home In Greater Numbers?

The evidence is thin and the data are self-selecting, but the Wall Street Journal claims that economic concerns are leading new mothers to take shorter maternity leaves or to otherwise return to the paid workforce earlier than they had planned. Makes sense to me, especially since we already know that for a variety of reasons this recession is hitting men and women in different ways: job losses have been more concentrated in jobs dominated by men, like manufacturing and construction; more women are the sole breadwinners for their families; and that even so, women are still doing disproportionately more work around the house. So if her husband's job is on wonky footing, and her own is no sure thing either, wouldn't it follow that these factors might be accellerating women's workforce re-entry? Seems to me like the rational actress would want to be shoring up her family's financial position as soon as she can, even if it comes at an unhappy cost.

This has other implications on family finances, of course. If her partner or other family member isn't able to stay home with the babe, you're looking at a new childcare bill, too, and infant care is really expensive. A clinical psychologist quoted in the article points out that the money stress and disrupted expectations about one's plans to take a maternity leave could lead to an increased likelihood of depression and post-partum anxiety.

More specious is the "trend" identified by National Public Radio, in which laid off women are opting to ride out unemployment by staying at home with their children. "For many of these women, unemployment has no doubt been terrifying. But for some — particularly those who have the financial resources to ride out the storm — it has been a precious opportunity to get to know their children a little better."

Rule of thumb: when a trend article is premised completely on anecdata about well-to-do women, that's a good sign you should be crying "Belkin." And why are we focusing on a job-loss-motivated return to domesticity by women when the piece itself admits that women are less likely to be out of work right now than men? Hullo, the fact that it's a handy meta-narrative doesn't mean it's a correct one. I can trade anecdata for anecdata, here: I don't know any women who have done this following a layoff, but I do know several men who have. How do you like that overturning of social expectation, NPR?

Why is this silver lining meta-narrative so troubling to me? First, it is theory passed off as fact, which always chafes my bottom. Second, it explicitly reinforces sexist stereotypes about women's real desires regarding work life versus family life (family life wins!), and implicitly reinforces sexist stereotypes about men's desires on these same subjects (men don't care about family life!) that are both personally restrictive and socially counterproductive. It might not be legal to admit it, but when a manager is looking at making layoff decisions between two equally valued employees, I have to believe that a subconscious belief that the woman would actually enjoy the layoff as an opportunity to stay home with her kids in a way her male counterpart would not is going to play a part in the decision of who to lay off. I don't doubt that in some cases, if you've got the means to float yourself, having some time off the clock to re-focus on meaningful non-work pursuits could be revitalizing. But that is mere background noise in this gendered, facts-optional treatment.