Money | 10/17/2009 5:00 am
Yes! (Or, Oh No): Time's The State of the American Woman
A comprehensive report shows that women have made their way to the top in several aspects of career and life — but with that has come an additional burden that our mothers never felt … Share with us an anecdote in your life that helped carry us to this moment.

Time’s latest special report on "The State of the American Woman" presents facts and figures on how women have become not just equal to men, but have even outdone the Y chromosome in several aspects of corporate, collegiate and everyday life. While the news initially calls for a celebration, it’s giving some cause to do a double take. Now, more than ever, the expectation is on women to have and manage it all … So, tell us: What’s your reaction to Time’s special report? What part of the study really jumped out at you? Share anecdotes from your own life that have helped carry us to this moment in the comment section below.
Here are links to components of the special report that are now live on TIME.com:
Gallery on poll results























19 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
In 1969, I graduated from college and applied to graduate schools. I was accepted at the University of Virginia in the Philosophy Graduate Program and I was rejected at Johns Hopkins for the same program for, as they wrote in the rejection letter, I "would get married and never use my degree, so there was no point in accepting me into the Philosophy Masters Program".
I never married and went on to have fabulous careers in male-dominated industries and experienced being the "first woman" at board meetings and to hold various positions in the corporations. At least the men who I worked with believed I could do more than procreate.
Some studies indicate that too much choice leads to unhappiness. I disagree, at least on a personal level: I am very happy to have choices that my grandmothers never had.
That said, I believe in CHOOSING, i.e., either/or. You are only one person and there are only 24 hours in the day. On Gibbs’ remarks: I think women who want children AND a high-powered career are cheating themselves, their children, and their employer, unless they have a partner who will shoulder the childcare duties. Having grown up with a single (widowed) parent, I am not a fan of single parenting by choice, nor of the choice to have two highly demanding careers while leaving the kids to nannies and daycare, although that is pretty much the norm now.
On Shriver’s remarks: yes, we have away to go, still, but I think real, true equality will always elude us. So much conspires against us just based on the biological realities of pregnancy and child-rearing, of our smaller, weaker stature, of testosterone and competition, and of the very nature of sexual attraction.
As to the choices I have had available to me, I have been more limited by my physical characteristics and personal talents than my gender. I had a long and successful Army career in positions of authority and responsibility. I was not allowed to choose Infantry, but then I did not want that and would have been a truly lousy Infantryman anyway. I got the career choices I asked for, and did well. In the civilian world it would have been no different, I think.
I’m curious, Lila, about your statement that "I think real, true equality will always elude us. So much conspires against us just based on the biological realities of pregnancy and child-rearing, of our smaller, weaker stature, of testosterone and competition, and of the very nature of sexual attraction."
I disagree with this and I think the younger generation is disproving this. The book "Alpha Girls" is a psychologist’s discussion of it.
It frustrates me to see women say this without looking at the issues more closely. You discourage others, particularly young women and men when we do this. Your comment about "the very nature of sexual attraction" is particularly frustrating to me as it may lead young women to believe that they need to play into patriarchy to find a mate. I think this is not true. I think sexual attraction and power have become conflated under patriarchy and an awful lot of people seem to have difficulty untangling them (or maybe don’t want to).
It may be that the values at work in the military have led you to this conclusion? I cannot imagine a more patriarchicial institution than the military (maybe Wall Street as it is currently constituted).
Hi, Kansas, actually the military gave me much more power and responsibility, and expected much more of me physically, than most civilian employers ever would have. In general (yes, there are always exceptions), you are treated as fully competent until you prove otherwise, and they are only too happy to give you all the responsibility you can handle. I also got exactly the same pay and exactly the same promotion opportunities as my male counterparts. I don’t think my views originated with the military; if anything, civilian employers could learn a thing or two from them. My views have originated from decades of observation.
Small weak men and large strong women aside, MOST men are bigger, stronger, and faster than most women. Biological fact. This will always affect our opportunities; preaching equal opportunity is great until you get a 4’11", 95-pound fireman coming up the ladder to carry an unconscious adult down four stories to safety. However passionately that small woman wants to be a fireman, and however physically fit she is, she is not going to get that job. Maybe some other fire department job. A very small man won’t get that job either, but many more women are affected by this type of physical requirement.
On sexual attraction and rape: with very few exceptions, men don’t get forcibly raped. Seduced, yes, but he MUST be aroused for sex to occur, even unwillingly. A woman need not be aroused or even conscious to have sex, whether consensual or not, nor to get pregnant. A woman can pursue a man, but it is entirely up to him whether anything comes of it. A man can pursue a woman, and being rejected, he can force his way whether she likes it or not. That’s just the physical situation. I am not talking about morals or laws or what anyone likes, just what’s biologically possible and what’s not. I can not slip my husband a mickey and date-rape him. He, however, can do so to me. And women ARE attracted to powerful men. Bill Clinton. David Letterman. Any 60-year-old rock star. Etc. Personally, I don’t find those guys very attractive, but others obviously do.
On pregnancy and child-rearing: until men get pregnant and lactate, women will always be the ones who miss work for reproductive reasons, and that can and does impact one’s career. Men can CHOOSE to miss work to attend the birth and bond with the baby, but their bodies don’t force them to. Women have NO choice on that. In cases of unintended pregnancy, it is the woman who is ditched with the baby, not the man. It is incumbent on the woman to file a paternity suit. It is an unfair burden and will always be so.
On the military and "patriarchy": A lot changed during my career. My male counterparts early in my career assumed women would not be put into combat situations. I was in combat within two years of getting commissioned. There was no way to pull women out of their units for "safety" and still function, and there were no assets for evacuation, anyway. We just went and did our jobs. A year later, I was in combat again; this time there was still a lot of press commentary (they seem surprised every time), but the military men took it as a matter of course. Now - in Iraq and Afghanistan - women are doing more than ever, going on patrols, conducting searches, kicking in doors when necessary. Initially there was worry that the women would be hindered by the Middle Eastern culture; far from it, we found that the women are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for dealing with 50% of the local population… the local women, who should not have interactions with men outside their families.
Not only have I looked at these issues closely, I have lived them. I don’t intend to discourage young women. I got the jobs I wanted. My pay was exactly equal to my male peers. I married the guy I wanted, and we are still married. But all the foregoing is still true.
Hi Lila-
I am not sure we are defining "patriarchy" the same way. What is your definition?
Many of the things you state as "biological facts" become significant under patriarchy (as I define it - I am using the definition feminists commonly use; a book called The Gender Knot has an explanation of it). Outside of patriarchy (which can really only be imagined now, since what is real is still pretty patriarchical), the differences (such as women having wombs, breasts) are still there, they don’t have the power differential that they do under patriarchy so they become less equality-busting than you describe.
The very reason some women pursue powerful men I think is because of patriarchical conditioning. I suspect as women develop better psychology, self-respect and autonomy, men of power will be less attractive and men of well-rounded quality, parenting skills and productiveness will be more attractive.
Kansas, I think of patriarchy as men having authority/responsibility over the family, and on a larger scale, over society. The implication is that women end up in subordinate roles and don’t accede to positions of power. Is that your definition (feminist definition)?
As far as biological facts - agreed, they are not COMPLETELY equality-busting, but they do have an effect. I am in a society where my anatomy has no direct impact on anything I have chosen to do. I feel very, very lucky and empowered compared to my forebears. There is no reason that I, on my own, can’t be a soldier or a CEO. However, childbearing DOES change things, and the more children you have, the heavier the impact.
My grandmother had 11 children. I have a choice that she did not; but had I chosen to bear 11 children, do you really think I could have served in the Army? Even with a stay-at-home husband, the amount of MY time lost to pregnancy and maternity alone would have derailed my career; it would have been roughly 90 months of not serving in combat zones, not deploying, not working around chemicals or fuels, not being able to fire weapons, carry a rucksack, participate in unit fitness training, and on and on. This would have made me a burden for my unit, rather than a contributor, and completely non-competitive for promotion, or even for continued service. And I have seen this type of impact, to a lesser degree, on female officers who had only two or three children. I expect the same goes for women CEOs, doctors, lawyers, cops, or anything else that requires responsiveness to a hectic and unpredictable schedule, lots of travel, etc.
Incidentally - most leadership positions will have a similar culture. This is not a patriarchal value set - it’s simply expecting someone to fully perform in a high-stakes job.
As far as women pursuing powerful men - some believe that phenomenon is ingrained by the way we have evolved. I don’t know what to think about that; I have never been particularly impressed by or attracted to powerful men. And I sure don’t crave the company of jerks. I was attracted to my hubby because he’s nice-looking, I like his personality, and he treats me like a complete equal. Maybe I have evolved! ; )Having known and seen "the military" well, I have to agree. I’d have been kicked out! Lila had to do something to survive.
If women want to feel, watch some of the movies from the early 70s, and think and watch (i.e: Up the Sandbox - 1972). Reality will hit you in the face if you’re "real."
I agree with Lila (above) regarding two demanding careers and children: it is detrimental to the family. Early in our marriage, my husband and I decided that it would better if one parent’s career to a backseat to the kids for the first years. Not forever, just until they were established in school and not as needy. As it turned out, my husband was the one to be the stay-at-home parent. My career was earned more and had more potential for growth. He’s now back in his career (since the kids are all in school) and doing well.
Re: the article. I read the whole thing last night and it was interesting. The poll data was especially thought provoking. Women are still expected to carry the majority of the workload at home, and now we are carrying the majority of the workload at work too. And we get less of the benefits. It seems we have gone backwards. Back in the days before suburbs, women worked in the factories and fields 10-12 hours a day and then took care of the home and children.
My biggest complaint is not that women are doing more (we’re used to it) or that men resent us for making more (I have never seen that), it’s that society and businesses have not caught on yet. Think of the productivity and success the country could have if companies were more family friendly. With technology as it is, there should not be such a thing as an 8-5 M-F schedule.
I am glad that my 19 year old daughter’s generation will not face some of the issues that I and my mother have faced. She is already accustomed to seeing more women than men in college classrooms and getting equal pay for equal work. It’s a good start!