SIVACRACY.NET

Remember all those stupid newspaper stories about how more and more women (of course, no statistics offered) are choosing not to work so they can become full-time breeders etc? Back when they appeared, we here at Sivacracy did our best to ridicule them. But, of course, there was no real social science either behind these "opt-out" stories or our refutations of them.

Well, now it turns out that someone has done the work. And we were right. I love saying that. We were right. No opt-out.

A press release about the paper, written by sociologist Christine Percheski and published in American Sociological Review reads:

... Despite anecdotal reports of successful working women returning to the home to assume child care responsibilities, less than 8 percent of professional women born since 1956 leave the workforce for a year or more during their prime childbearing years, according to the study.

Percheski's research shows that the number of women with young children who work full-time year-round has increased steadily, growing from a rate of 5.6 percent of women born 1926 to 1935 (referred to as the "Baby Boom Parents" by Percheski), to 38.1 percent of women from Generation X (born 1966 to 1975). More professional Generation X mothers of young children were working full-time year-round than their counterparts in any previous generation.

Percheski finds that among mothers of older children (those age 6 to 18), full-time employment is the norm for professional women of Generation X.

When examining general labor force participation rates, Percheski finds even more drastic growth. About a third of women with young children from the Baby Boom Parents group participated in the labor force while their children were under age 6, but the rate increased to a little more than three-quarters for Generation X mothers of young children.

According to Percheski, the employment gains of recent cohorts do not seem to have been achieved through reductions in fertility, as fertility levels have remained similar across women born from 1946 to 1975.

Not only are more women with children working, but Percheski's research shows a trend of women working longer hours. The percentage of professional women working more than 50 hours a week increased from less than 10 percent of women born before 1935 to more than 15 percent for most women born after 1956. Long hours were more common even for mothers of young children. Ten percent of Generation X mothers with young children worked more than 50 hours a week; but just over 1 percent of their Baby Boom Parent counterparts worked more than 50 hours a week. For those with older children, the rate was 15 percent of Generation Xers working long hours versus about 2 percent of Baby Boom Parents doing so.

Percheski also examined the characteristics of professional, college-educated women in their main reproductive years, ages 25 to 39, who were not employed or enrolled in school the previous year. Although the vast majority of non-working women have children at home, Percheski found that an increasing percentage of women in the younger groups she studied did not. Fewer of these non-working women were married as well. Percheski asserts that this is evidence of the weakening influence of children and marriage on women's employment rates. ...

Kathy G writes:

... The main findings of the study, which is by a sociology graduate student at Princeton named Christine Percheski, is that the notion that increasing numbers of women are opting out of the work force is a myth. Using government data from the Census and the American Community Survey, she shows that the labor force participation of professional women has continued to increase. Moreover, these women are working longer hours, and the employment rates of women with children and women in male-dominated professions continue to climb. In addition, the fertility rates of professional women have remained steady, and college-educated women have the highest marriage rates of all educational groups.

Now, there is nothing new about these findings. As I wrote last summer when I was guest blogging for Ezra, all the recent empirical studies done by economists like Cornell's Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn, Harvard's Claudia Goldin, and Heather Boushey of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, who all, like Percheski, used large datasets and rigorous methodologies, showed the same thing: no opt-out revolution. No decline in labor force participation among women in general, or mothers in particular, or even among professional class mothers or the mothers of very young children.

Yet, in spite of these strong and consistent findings, the myth of the "opt-out revolution" persists. Perhaps the most interesting part of Percheski's paper is the section that explores why this is so. First, she says, for women, having children does continue to be associated with lower levels of employment, and even though more professional women are working than ever before, many of them still don't work full-time, year-round. ...

... In addition to Percheski's arguments, I would add that the media has a lot to answer for here. Over the past decade, the New York Times has run many flimsy, poorly sourced but attention-getting articles that would have you believe that women were leaving the work force in droves. Even the liberal American Prospect published an excerpt from Linda Hirshman's book Get to Work, in which Hirshman, a feminist, claimed that women were indeed opting out -- her main evidence for this being a survey of women whose wedding announcements ran in the New York Times, which obviously is not exactly a representative sample.

Echidne of the Snakes often makes the point -- as she did here -- that "studies" and research that reinforce retrograde, sexist stereotype tend to get wall-to-wall saturation media coverage, while those that don't tend to be ignored. Wondering whether this was the case with the Percheski paper, I looked it up on Google News (using several different search terms -- "American Sociological Review," Percheski, "opt out", etc.). And what did I find? A grand total of four mentions of the study: in a Reuters article, in a column in the Orlando Sentinel, and in blog posts for the Wall Street Journal and Business Week websites. That was it.

Is there any doubt that if her study did indeed show a decline in women's labor force particpation, that every newspaper and website in the land would be shouting it from the rooftops?

Indeed.