This is not, to be sure, the fashion that feminists burnt their bras to achieve. But feminism as we have known it is in its descendency, and it's just possible that the fashion now emerging reflects the old allure that aims to attract a man for keeps, rather than for a fleeting "hookup." When The New York Times reported that certain Ivy League women say they intend to set aside a career in favor of raising their children, the newspaper was bombarded with angry letters of feminists decrying a return to a '50s mindset. Nevertheless the examples spoke eloquently. In interviews, considerably more than half of 138 freshmen and seniors at Yale said they intend to cut back on work, or quit entirely when they have children.
A decade or two ago, it was the professional woman who enjoyed status at high-school class reunions. Now it's often the full-time mothers who dominate the alumni websites with news and photographs of their babies. Professional achievements are often the footnotes.
Many women in their late 30s have experienced pangs of regret for having put motherhood on hold, and feel betrayed by their bodies and by the feminist rhetoric that didn't warn them that by waiting they would find it more difficult to get pregnant. When Shirley Tilghman, the president of Princeton, welcomed incoming freshmen this year, she emphasized that the goal of education was for men and women to be leaders in the broadest sense, including careers in education, medicine and engineering. She later found it necessary to expand the description of leadership to include "stay-at-home parents" who can make an impact in the community.
The day-care debate has morphed into a concern for the importance of sustaining parental support for children in the adolescent years. The "home alone" experience is now considered as treacherous as the years of the "terrible twos." The pendulum of feminism, like that of fashion, describes a wide arc. We've come a long way, baby, but that means it's a long way back.