The latest news in the opt-out wars comes from two Berkeley economists - Jane Leber Herr and Catherine Wolfram - who report on a study of almost 1,000 Harvard graduates at their 15th reunion. Their main finding is that the profession these women went into had big effects on their odds of remaining employed. The employment rate was much higher for doctors (94%) than for lawyers (79%) and especially for MBAs (72%). These differences were virtually unchanged when they controlled for such factors as marriage and childbearing, spouse earnings, job characteristics, and so on. One thing that did make a big difference was the work environment: "women who worked in family friendly environments before motherhood are much more likely to remain in the labor force afterwards."
This result dovetails nicely with an excellent book by Pamela Stone, Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Stone interviewed professional women who dropped out of the workforce after having children. Most had tried to negotiate flexible work arrangements - part-time work, telecommuting, job-sharing - but met resistance from their bosses, who worked in the old, male-dominated put-your-career-first-or-else mindset. So "opting-out" wasn't their first choice.
All this suggests the "opt-out" phenomenon is not as simple as it looks. Here are three things you should know to handle the flow and counter-flow of opt-out reports:
1. Employment rates have stalled for all women, not just professionals with high-earning husbands and young children. The biggest increase in employment rates for women was in the 1970s, when the percentage of 25-54 year-olds employed jumped from 48% to 61%. In the 1980s the increase was 10 points, in the 1990s it was just 4 points (to 75%), and that was the peak. Since 2000, the rate has dropped back down to 73%. This is not a big decrease, and it's still the case that most women, especially professionals, are employed. But the slowing progress and eventual reversal is unprecedented in modern history. And it is apparent among rich and poor women. Something is going on, and it's not just the recession.
2. Progress toward gender equality has stalled in most areas, not just employment rates. Indicators of the gender wage gap, occupational segregation, public attitudes toward gender equality, and women in state government, all slowed or stalled in or around the 1990s. (Progress has continued toward educational attainment equality.) Other research shows men's housework and childcare contributions have also stalled a long way before reaching equality.
3. Women's employment "choices" are governed by pushes and pulls both at home and at work. Don't let anyone tell you that the employment levels alone mean women have changed their minds about working. Families and workplaces are both sticky institutional environments, slow to change. Women have increased their earning potential by getting more education and work experience - and ratcheting up their career expectations. That shifts the decision-making balance in favor of working, but if home and work don't keep evolving toward gender balance, the employment trend - and all it means for gender equality - can only go so far.