Preface

My objective is to ask a big question in a small way. What will it take for men and women to be truly equal? Philosophers and social critics have answered this question in many complex ways, but most agree that men and women must have equal positions in central social and economic pursuits. More to the point, men and women must be economic equals if they are to be equal in other spheres of social life.

I have studied a small but growing segment of American society in which men and women are economic equals: dual-career married couples in the corporate world. In this book I examine men's and women's paths to their careers—how they got there and why—and assess what relative economic equality has meant for crucial aspects of these couples' shared and individual social lives. The question that inevitably arises from such an exploration is whether success in the work world has fundamentally changed the nature of marriage and family.

Through an analysis of their experiences, I will suggest that dual-career couples are "more equal than others" in two senses. First, their relative economic equality has made possible important shifts in their roles as husbands and wives. They relate to each other and to their relationship as partners with equivalent goals, aspirations, and pressures. The boundaries between "breadwinner" and "homemaker" are difficult to see when neither spouse can lay claim to higher status or greater influence based on who is working outside the home or who is making more

money. Unlike two-paycheck marriages, in which the husband may have a career and the wife a job (or temporary employment), the dual-career couple holds greater potential for equality in marital roles. Second, "more equal than others" also refers to the ways in which equality for some couples may be contingent on the availability of other people, often married couples, for whom equality is not common. In drawing attention to how dual-career couples achieve labor market success and develop marital equality, it will also be essential to show how structures of occupational and family stratification aid in the process.

Dual-career couples are by no means the vanguard of the American population in consciously pursuing gender equality. Indeed, they are one of the results of a changing economy: the startling expansion of white-collar employment and the growth of career opportunities for female college graduates have combined to make two careers in one family a more likely option. The composition of the pool of potential mates for well-educated, occupationally mobile men and women has altered over the past two decades; when a career-oriented individual encounters a potential mate today, it is increasingly likely that the "candidate" will also have a career.

Although only a few of the men and women I interviewed for this book considered themselves "liberated," most are grappling with questions of gender equality and marital equity in response to the pressures of their work. Equally demanding careers, similar incomes, and concerns about finding a balance between work and family have forced these couples to act differently than their more traditional parents and one-career family peers. These two-career couples negotiate household responsibilities and develop innovative solutions to managing finances. They talk about symmetry and equality in

the context of her career, his career, and their marriage. They cannot, as often happens in noncareer settings, devalue her career as supplemental or "targeted," without tarring his career with the same brush.

These men and women are participating in an important process of social change. That they do so behaviorally more than attitudinally argues for an often overlooked perspective on societal change: if behaviors are changed, attitudes congruent with the change will often follow. In this instance men and women who have benefited from the labor market shifts and the achievements of the women's liberation movement are becoming advocates of gender equality even though they were not initially proponents of this cause.

Becoming an advocate, however, is not quite the same as being one. The change process in which dual-career couples participate also requires that they cope with an extraordinarily powerful and robust system of societal values. As these men and women seek roles and relationships that will enable them to combine work and marriage, they run up against a conventional vision of success, which tempers their perception of what is possible. Success in this context means independence, self-sufficiency, and finding individual solutions to individual problems.

This definition of success is woven into the fabric of the American economy and, most important, into the very concept of a corporate career. Those who successfully pursue such careers adroitly combine personal drive and ambition with a commitment to organizational goals. Having a career in the corporate world means one must demonstrate uniquely individual qualities, while sacrificing excessive individualism in order to be a "team player." The economic rewards for playing the game—

as an individual and as part of the corporate team—are considerable.

Meshing two careers in one family stretches the conventional definition of success and may pose an alternative definition. The couples in this study have struggled to adhere to the conventional definition by using the economic rewards from their careers to buy independence and self-sufficiency and by developing individual solutions to problems such as housekeeping, childcare, and recreation. To compensate for two equal sets of demands on their time and physical energy, they hire somebody else to clean the house. Because they cannot be home to supervise their children, they hire someone else to do so.

In their efforts to cope with career, family, and household, they look to themselves, to the marketplace, and ultimately to their checkbooks for solutions. In only a few instances do they look to their employers, to other couples in similar situations, or to society for help. Making solutions part of the employment contract or becoming involved in communal efforts remains for most couples an unconventional and unlikely approach. "Because we make so much money," they say, "we should take care of ourselves."

Thus, for some gender equality may be achievable without fundamentally challenging the hegemonic notion of success. But, as I hope to show in this book, the process of change may still continue—led, paradoxically, by those whose personal drive for success stretches the limits of conventional definitions.

Besides wanting to explore the big question of male and female equality, I also felt compelled to study gender equality by my undergraduate students, many of whom are planning corporate careers. Currently, social work and teaching are out as career goals, and business careers

and making money are in—Lee Iaccoca and Mary Cunningham have replaced Abbie Hoffman and Betty Friedan as inspirations. Students preparing for careers in business make it a point to know about the career paths and salaries of investment bankers, securities brokers, and partners in accounting firms. Yet for all their research and networking, they know very little about how they will meet the simultaneous demands of corporate careers and family life. Goaded by newspaper and magazine articles that detail the lives of men and women who "have it all," most students simply assume they can accommodate both work and family. The realities of juggling both these responsibilities escape even the best career strategist in the classroom.

Throughout the writing of this study, my dissertation committee (Janet Abu-Lughod, Howard Becker, Christopher Jencks, Janet Lever, and Allan Schnaiberg) offered support and encouragement, and I thank them for their patience and their comments on earlier drafts. The members of this committee had the wisdom to tell me to write a book, not a dissertation. Once I stopped worrying about what Marx, Weber, and Durkheim would say, I was ready to write the story of these couples in my own words. Several of my committee members have dual-career marriages; their personal experiences were of great help and insight. Allan Schnaiberg chaired the dissertation committee and guided by career as a graduate student at Northwestern University. I especially thank him for knowing when to challenge and push me and for knowing when to go easier.

The manuscript also benefited from the suggestions and criticisms of the following people: Walter Allen, Asa Baber, Arlene Daniels, William Gamson, Harriet Gross, Barbara Heyns, Jonathan Imber, Joseph Pleck, Lillian Rubin, R. Stephen Warner, Martin Whyte, and two re-

viewers for the University of California Press, Naomi Gerstel and Jacqueline Wiseman. Several of these people I have never met personally, and I particularly appreciate the time they took from their busy research and teaching schedules to respond to my request for comments and criticism. I would also like to thank my editor at the University of California Press, Naomi Schneider, for her support and enthusiasm for the project.

Joy Charlton, Chip Wood, and Vivian Walker shared the anxieties and elations of graduate school and first jobs with me, and I still rely on their advice and support. My dance classes and MCI's phone service provided me with much-needed outlets during the process of research and writing. A special thanks to Nancy Weiss Klein for the many nights she spent typing the dissertation and to the Wellesley College Faculty Awards Committee for providing the resources necessary to complete revisions on the manuscript.

I am especially indebted to Bob Thomas, who read every word of every version—and there were many. He helped me find the important ideas buried beneath sometimes half-baked thoughts. On later drafts, as my "theory consultant," he helped me to move beyond simply writing a "recipe book" for dual-career couples to confront the broader implications of these couples' lives. Equally important was his courage in moving to Boston so we would not have to continue commuting between cities. This move enabled us to meld two careers and a personal life. His belief in me, even when I stopped believing in myself, made a difference.