In the 1940s, one woman’s dilemma
Ponder this situation, if you will. It is the 1940s. A young woman who has recently graduated college has been offered a full scholarship to a good law school. If she accepts the scholarship, she will become one of America’s first female lawyers (the profession was just barely opening up to women in the 1940s). Yet she’s also met a man and has fallen in love, and they want to start a family. She knows she will not be able to handle children and attend law school at the same time, because in those days, women stayed home and took care of the children and their husbands were the breadwinners. Becoming a lawyer would mean putting off kids for at least a decade. So she has to make a difficult choice: start a family or attend law school? What do you think she should do?
A lot of you are probably thinking she should choose to become a lawyer. After all, she would become one of the very first female lawyers, an accomplishment not to be taken lightly. She would be breaking through gender barriers and possibly become an inspiration to generations of women to come. Starting a family is so mundane and commonplace; how could you ever choose that over an excellent career?
But I’m in no position to judge. The woman in question is my maternal grandmother, and had she chosen to become a lawyer, I wouldn’t be here. She certainly doesn’t regret the choice. She’s gotten a lot more satisfaction out of her children and her grandchildren than she ever would have gotten out of a career as a lawyer. So the next time you ever consider a situation in which a woman is forced to choose between career and family, don’t judge too harshly. Having a family can be a lot more meaningful than anything else.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:01
I am brought to mind of the story of a woman I once had the distinct pleasure to briefly meet some years ago. She was in a very similar situation, albeit a decade later, but her choice was go to to law school. Upon graduating, she was unable to find work as a lawyer, but soldiered on anyway, finding work as a legal secretary until finally convincing someone to give her a try as a lawyer. Even so, most of her work as a lawyer was poorly-compensated, and she eventually moved on to a teaching position and did most of her legal work in pro bono publico positions.
She went on to be the second woman appointed the United States Supreme Court.
I don’t recall offhand (and Wikipedia does not indicate) whether Ruth and Martin ever had children. I do seem to recall that she and Martin met during their undergraduate years at Cornell, and married before either went to law school. The sad but true fact in the legal profession is that female lawyers, even today, are penalized in the pursuit of their careers by the assumption that they will abandon them to have a family.
March 16th, 2008 at 14:31
The Ginsburgs have two children. Jane C. Ginsburg is Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law at the Columbia Law School (and has two children) and James Ginsburg is a classical record producer.
I do think that your grandmother’s choice was the correct one, if it was her choice, because it was /her/ choice. I do not, however, think that it’s possible to make any correct statements regarding which choice would have produced the “better” life.