To parent or not to parent, should that be the question?

The members of the class of 1998 at Barnard College in New York City received an interesting message during their commencement. Joyce Purnick, the metro editor of The New York Times, gave the keynote speech at the college, her alma mater. She warned the members of the all-female graduating class that they may some day have to choose between having children and excelling in their career.

"If I had left the Times to have children," she said, "I wouldn't be where I am." Simple, straight and to the point. Choose a family or choose a career. Choose soccer games and picnics with the kids or choose business meetings and after-work trips to the bar.

Jack Schillaci Slam It to the Left

Why this disturbs me may seem a bit odd. I won't ever face this situation, being male and all. Further, if put in the same situation as Purnick describes, I would probably have done the same thing she did - sacrificed parenthood to get ahead in the workplace.

The reason that Purnick's statements bother me is that it casts a bad shadow on working motherhood that smacks of old stereotypes that have plagued our society for years. Women have to make a choice: They can be good mothers or they can have a good job. Not both. One or the other.

Granted, this is a better message than was sent to generations of women preceding. Then the choice was a little worse: Men worked, women stayed at home with the children. Only old spinsters worked because they didn't have a family to take care of.

What Purnick was trying to get across was that these women had to face their choices. She talked about the "biological clock." She admitted that women have to make their decision about having children before their "window" closes.

But the way she got the message across posited that they would never get anywhere if they chose to act before their biological clock was up.

I grew up in a home with two working parents. I was a member of a generation of latch-key kids who came home to an empty house at the end of the school day. Oftentimes, I wouldn't see my mother until late into the night.

This is where Purnick's argument loses its cred. She says that if she had left at 6 o'clock rather than 9 o'clock every night, she never would have made it at The Times. She asserts that working parents must spend a certain amount of time with their children in order to be successful. Quality versus quantity. Was my mother inadequate because some days I would only see her for an hour or two?

Hell no. Perhaps I'm somewhat biased, but the time I would spend talking with my mother after she got back from a 12-hour day at work was my favorite part of the day. She always made time for me, to listen to my problems, to hear about my day. Some of my friends had essentially 24-hour access to their parents, but they seemed to end up resenting it more than cherishing it. The fact that I couldn't get at my parents whenever I wanted made the time I did have with them all that more valuable.

Yes, Purnick, working mothers face an uphill battle. But corporations, including The Times, should be trying to make the hill flatten out. The business world should realize that what working mothers may lack in willingness to work constantly they greatly make up for in other areas. After all, hopping from business trips in California to band parents' meetings back home can't be that easy. Just ask my mother.

-- Jack Schillaci can be reached over e-mail at Previous Article Next Article