Women's basketball's biggest star, 22-year old Candace Parker, made a surprise announcement last month: she and her basketball star husband, Shelden Williams, are expecting. Parker was the 2008 league MVP and Rookie of the Year for the Los Angeles Sparks. Why would she have a baby now of all times? Her reply: I want my children to have the benefit of young parents.
This may be a sign of another gender revolution quietly underway. The revolution is a function of Millennial values, and may be amplified by the economic crisis.
Let's start with values. Millennials do not see themselves tied to anyone else's timetable. Many younger women are opting to have children now, before their careers are established. It may be a reaction to watching their own mothers struggle to balance an established career with motherhood. Or perhaps it's just a sign of the confidence these young women feel in their own abilities? Nevertheless, as I have noted before, birthrates are up and young mothers (20-24) are largely responsible for the surge.
A recent comment in response to my July 21 post, "What the Cool Kids Want: A Baby?", provides extra evidence that this emphasis on family may be relatively new, and influenced by cultural icons having babies and making it look attractive. Here's what 'Anonymous' has to say:
"I'm a first-wave millennial, a newlywed, 24 years old, so child-bearing has been on my mind the past year or so. This blog is really interesting because I've noticed a 'change in the wind' with women my age. Whereas growing up as a preteen and high schooler it seemed like having a kid was a curse, along with the whole 'domestic' lifestyle. Shows like FRIENDS, and Seinfeld showed that it was clearly stupid to waste your life being married and having babies. For first-wave Millennials like myself however, we were coming of age just as all the characters on FRIENDS were starting to settle down and even have babies. I think girls my age thought "Why am I going to waste a decade trying to find myself, when in the end what I'm looking for is a family?" Also- I think the number of unmarried women having babies (ages 25-29) are the 'inbetween' generation from Gen X to Millennial. It seems like they are less wary of taking on the single-mom life, and opt for abortions less and less. I think there is still a bit of a cynical attitude towards marriage in that age group however. I think people in their early 20s are starting to warm up to the idea of marriage (influenced partly by TV romances like Pam & Jim on NBC's The Office). I think people are starting to realize that maybe marriage can be a good thing- an idea Millennials didn't grow up with."
Why do I say the trend may be accelerated by the economic crisis? In the past, economic woes led to smaller families. However, this crisis may be different, due to its unequal impact on men and women. According to Lionel Tiger, a Rutgers anthropologist, fully 82% job losers are men ("From Liberation to Obligation" Wall Street Journal, Feb 7). Tiger's prediction is that the economic crisis will put a heavier burden on women. I disagree. It's possible more men will opt to stay home and watch children, freeing moms rather than encumbering them. If more young men do stay home, it may become more socially acceptable, 'liberating' women to work without the usual juggling. Of course, it could the opposite way, with men opting out of family life altogether (Tiger's thesis).
While a 'heavier burden on women' may be true of Gen X and older groups, I don't think it will be the case with Millennials who have already shown their willingness to decouple identity from work. If I'm right, Gen Y may finally bring the kind of gender equality feminists in the 60's only dreamed of.
Marketers have been slow to catch on to men as a target for CPG products traditionally marketed to women, but that may be changing. Advertising Age today exhorts marketers to embrace and possibly facilitate the change. ("Why Package Goods Companies Should Market to Men", Ad Age, Feb 9)
Marketing to men and portraying them as caretakers of and shoppers for the family can attract additional consumers to a brand while encouraging men to become greater participants in the maintenance of their families and homes. And the more men are accepted and accept themselves in that role, the more they'll be interested in brands that solve the needs or enhance the enjoyment of home and family care. And, of course, the more they'll shop for those products.
Basing strategies for tomorrow on current marketing data, sensible as it may seem, is shortsighted, even dangerous. ...Reaching out to a seemingly less lucrative, smaller target market such as men isn't quixotic but rather a strategy to attract more consumers, encourage greater innovation, and even affect the roles men and women shape for themselves, now and in the future. Instead of emulating those Detroit execs who ignored or resisted change, why don't we embrace, guide and, ultimately, benefit from it?
Posts
