A memorable scene in the movie \Mona Lisa Smile"" occurs when at a 1950s private, east coast women's college, a student about to graduate decides to forego Yale Law School for marriage and a family. In historical context, this woman's decision seems acceptable, yet not as desirable in today's society. However, a similar sickening trend is appearing in our nation's highly regarded educational institutions, threatening to reverse the advancements made toward gender equality in the last few decades.
In a recent New York Times article, surveys and interviews of female undergraduates at Ivy League schools show a growing trend of women planning to end their careers within ten years in order to raise children. The main reason the young ladies cite for wanting to be stay-at-home moms is so their children could receive constant, positive support from a parent. However, only two out of 138 women interviewed at Yale expected their husbands to stay home with the children.
Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, in the article said, ""so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn't constructed along traditional gender roles."" Instead, many of the female students who have taken the limited enrollment spaces at these accredited universities are wasting their education and their potential to help society by scaling back their careers to start families.
The importance of this education is made trivial by attending such a school, and then not pursuing the highest in one's field. An Ivy League diploma opens many doors that the average college diploma does not. And while there is no shame in being a homemaker, squandering a Harvard degree to do so is a slap in the face to every career-oriented woman who has ever received a rejection letter from that college. The time and opportunities, not to mention the tuition money spent on an education, are rendered obsolete when highly educated women decide to follow the status quo of ""family values.""
However, this blind adherence to the norms and total disregard for financial implications is only logical. Money is no object for the majority of the students attending elite universities. Also, the world of the upper/upper-middle class is the precedence on which the status quo is formed. To fight against it would threaten the stronghold they possess on America as a whole, leaving room for potential success for those less privileged.
Thus the select few contribute to a cycle of elitist breeding, based on gender roles: brilliant and privileged girl meets equally privileged boy on famed college campus, boy and girl marry, girl works for a trivial amount of time so education appears not in vain, boy and girl produce the social average 2.5 children. These unappreciative, over-privileged potential movers and shapers of America proceed to clog the highly coveted enrollment spots in the nation's most renowned educational establishments, and then onward to hold the top positions in our governing and economic bodies.
The trick to changing social standards of gender roles is to attack the issue at the highest level: the policy makers. Women with high opportunities can choose to use their advantage either for the good of others or for only the good of their immediate family. They can exert their influence on the government to push for reforms, such as maternity leave, or better government aid for working mothers. Or, they can continue to selfishly take educational opportunities away from others who would utilize their skills to the fullest capacity, thus preventing other women from finding the success that they desire.
The bottom-up approach of activism that has been in process for decades is no longer effective. Until more advantaged females, namely Ivy League graduates, refuse to accept their role as a ""Stepford Wife"" and challenge the status quo of gender-designated parental responsibilities, unfortunately, sexist social norms will remain for all women.
