In 2017, Corinne Low welcomed her son into the world while simultaneously navigating a promising career as a tenure-track economist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Despite the challenges of a two-hour commute from New York City to Philadelphia, she felt equipped to balance her professional aspirations with her responsibilities as a mother.
However, this precarious balance shifted dramatically due to unexpected track repairs that extended her commute, leading to moments of despair, including times when she was forced to pump breast milk in an Amtrak bathroom.
In her search for a term to encapsulate the experience of working mothers in similar situations, Low coined the phrase “the squeeze.” This concept is supported by data highlighting the burnout women often face while juggling home and work demands, particularly when raising young children.
Throughout her career, Low has been dedicated to understanding how women navigate a workplace environment historically tailored for men. Her latest publication, Having It All: What Data Tells Us About Women’s Lives and How to Get the Most Out of Yours, provides insights into the structural failures that hinder working women.
In her words, the book serves as a “love letter to women,” aiming to validate their struggles and encourage them to redefine what “having it all” means amidst societal pressures. Low emphasizes that women are economic agents capable of making reasoned decisions, yet their contributions have frequently been overlooked.
Low points out the common narrative surrounding the gender wage gap that attributes it to women’s preferences and choices. She argues that this perspective neglects the economic realities influencing women’s decisions. “When we think about the fact that women spend, on average, more time outside the labor force … we’re like: ‘Oh, well the gender wage gap is because women have different preferences’,” she asserts. This narrative, she contends, oversimplifies complex societal factors.
Historically, unpaid labor performed by women at home has been devalued compared to men’s earnings. Low argues that this division of labor allowed husbands to concentrate on their careers, supporting the family financially. However, this structure becomes precarious if the relationship deteriorates, particularly in light of changing divorce laws that emerged in the 1970s, enabling women to seek independence through education and careers.
Low acknowledges that women of lower socioeconomic status have always engaged in the workforce out of necessity, contrasting this with previous perceptions of stay-at-home motherhood as an indicator of privilege. The need for economic independence has driven women to augment their skills to secure their livelihood, especially with the threat of divorce looming over traditional family structures.
With societal changes, the expectations of parenting have intensified, creating a dilemma for working mothers. While many women now earn competitive salaries, men’s contributions to home production have remained static. “If you understand women entering the labor force as a gender revolution … then of course, men’s role would change, too,” Low remarks, suggesting that societal pressures have largely remained on women.
The advice popularized by figures like Sheryl Sandberg, who encourages women to assert their place in the workplace, misses the broader structural issues affecting women’s autonomy. Low cautions against this perspective, which often overlooks fundamental gender disparities. She reflects on her own experiences during pregnancy and the differing environments faced by her male colleagues, illustrating a dichotomy in societal expectations.
This ongoing gender gap has extended to the dating landscape, where women report frustrations with men’s reluctance toward committed relationships. Low emphasizes that women face biological timelines regarding family planning, adding another layer of pressure as they strive to build careers amidst societal expectations.
In response to the burdens highlighted by the “girl boss” movement, some women have begun to romanticize traditional gender roles, seeking solace in the idea of being a “tradwife.” Low warns, however, of a lack of historical awareness about the potential risks associated with such a dynamic, particularly regarding the financial vulnerabilities it can create for women in the event of divorce.
To foster change, Low suggests two key approaches: Firstly, systemic adjustments need to occur to bridge ongoing disparities in both the workplace and household. This includes advocating for policies like federally mandated paid maternity leave, which can alleviate some of the disincentives preventing companies from hiring women.
Secondly, she encourages women to reflect on their individual “personal utility function,” a term that signifies the unique factors that contribute to life satisfaction. Low argues for a more holistic view that recognizes the complexities of balancing professional and personal aspirations, emphasizing that achieving fulfillment does not require an all-or-nothing mindset.
After navigating her own challenges and a divorce exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Low relocated to Philadelphia, allowing for a more manageable lifestyle that eventually led to a conducive work-life balance. “I do have a career, but I also like spending time with my kids,” she stated, underscoring her commitment to being an engaged parent.
Ultimately, Low encourages women to recognize the legitimacy of their choices and to embrace the complexity of their unique journeys. “You’re not failing and you’re not bad at this. This is that hard; it is difficult,” she asserts. Providing women with the necessary tools to make informed decisions ensures that whatever path they choose is valid and reflective of their individual circumstances.
