Gothamist
A non-profit newsroom, powered by WNYC.
Gothamist
Listen Live
Arts & Entertainment
The Glaser Conundrum, Continued
By
Jill Priluck
Published Dec 9, 2006
Modified Mar 7, 2008
Share
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Never miss a story
Email address
By submitting your information, you're agreeing to receive communications from New York Public Radio in accordance with our Terms .
By
Jill Priluck
Published Dec 9, 2006
Modified Mar 7, 2008
Share
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
We rely on your support to make local news available to all
Make your contribution now and help Gothamist thrive in 2026. Donate today
Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations
Earlier this week, we reported on the 92nd Street Y event where New York magazine co-founder Milton Glaser attributed the low number of high-profile female designers to the fact that women who have children and stay at home with them are less visible professionally.
First, some clarification (for The NY Times’ Tom Zeller, Jr. ): the comment came during the Q&A session following lectures by Glaser, Chip Kidd and Dave Eggers. An audience member asked why there are so few female rock-star designers.
Here is Glaser’s complete response (per our taped version):
I think there's a real reason for it and I don't think it's structural. The reason is that women get pregnant, have children, go home and take care of their children and those essential years that men are building their careers and becoming visible are basically denied to women who choose to be at home.
I don’t know how to overcome this issue because there is no substitute for a mother raising her child and I think mothers suffer because of this if their objective is to have a big career because in the middle of the time when they should be building their career, being in the world and being visible, they are at home taking care of the kid. Unless something very dramatic happens to the nature of the human experience, then it’s never going to change.
The real question is why have they not ascended to the privileged areas that men do and I do think, fundamentally, it’s because the opportunity for this is denied because they’ve made a choice in their life about having a family and raising that family. There are all kinds of ways of working around that issue, day care and nannys, [but] none of them are good solutions.
No one can deny that women who choose to stay at home with their children are making a decision that inevitably extracts time from building their careers - and that it's a decision many mothers wholeheartedly embrace. But Glaser’s comments hit a nerve because it brings back the not-so-age-old argument regarding child-rearing.
Of course, there’s no such thing as a mother substitute. But it’s the “either/or” construction that frazzles us over here at Gothamist. Sure, men have similar pressures: if they want to spend more time with their families, then they may suffer climbing-the-corporate-ladder consequences. Partner-track lawyers, for example, don't expect to be home for family dinners five nights - or even one night - a week.
But the pressures are so much more poignant for women who, yes, play a certain role in the human experience. Big career vs. big family. Stay-at-home Mom vs. Work-outside-the-home Mom. Tea Lounge sing-alongs vs. Midtown power breakfasts.
Eggers voiced the alternative, a half-time arrangement between spouses. Of course, his wife is a novelist, a job description that requires long bouts of alone (not cubicle) office time. That said, because of the arrangement, it means that being a mom isn’t the sacrifice it could be if there were no arrangement at all.
Glaser's comments are off-putting because they ignore the women who establish their careers before they have children, the women who don't have children, the women who have husbands like Eggers who share child-care responsibilities and the women who think day care and nannies are adequate solutions (even if others disagree).
They also neatly sidestep the less-pervasive-but-still-existing reality of being high-profile and female in many professions. Hint: it's still not exactly the norm.
Um, we better go get some Advil now.
In 1987 (!) film Baby Boom, Diane Keaton's JC Wiatt had to leave the corporate rat race and escape to Vermont (though she did become an entrepreneur). Today, as portrayed in Desperate Housewives, Felicity Huffman's Lynette Scavo leaves her high-powered job to raise her kids (which sort of looks like it sucked), but then goes back to work as hilarious as well as realistic antics ensue
Tagged
baby
Baby Boom
blogs
business
children
Chip Kidd
comments
construction
dave eggers
Desperate Housewives
diane keaton
felicity huffman
film
gothamist
Jr.
kids
midtown
Milton
milton glaser
new york
News: NYC
ny times
race
rat
Street Y
style
tea lounge
The NY
the ny times
this week
Jill Priluck
Read more
Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations
Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations
MORE arts-entertainment
Inside the hidden chamber that controls Lincoln Center's magnificent fountain
Gothamist went behind the scenes to learn how the NYC landmark keeps its majestic waters flowing.
By
Sonia Rao
Published Oct 23, 2026
In the algorithm age, NYC college radio DJs are still broadcasting the funky stuff
We dropped by WNYU to see what the next generation of radio DJs is up to. The answer is "Br00tal Beats To Study/Relax To."
By
James Ramsay
Arts & Entertainment
In the algorithm age, NYC college radio DJs are still broadcasting the funky stuff
We dropped by WNYU to see what the next generation of radio DJs is up to. The answer is "Br00tal Beats To Study/Relax To."
By
James Ramsay
A Queens prop shop shutters, bunnies find a home uptown, and more openings and closings
By
Hannah Frishberg
A new film invites you to eavesdrop on one of the greatest conversations in NYC history
By
Sonia Rao
The Knicks are NBA champions. Now they have to start dressing the part.
By
Sonia Rao
Never miss a story
Catch up on the most important headlines with a roundup of essential NYC stories, delivered to your inbox daily.
Sign upEmail address
By submitting your information, you're agreeing to receive communications from New York Public Radio in accordance with our Terms .