THE MEMBERS of the group whose education, career, and marriage choices were relatively unrestricted, seemed either to have come from non-Catholic families or had parents who had lived and studied, and even worked abroad (in the diplomatic service). If labels are to be used, they would be considered “liberal” as opposed to “conservative.”

In my case, both parents — my mother was not only college educated (UP) but was also a government pensionada sent to the States for further studies, and was one of the first professional social workers in the country — wanted the best for their children, with no gender stereotyping of career choices. A college degree was the minimum, as far as they were concerned. And since UP was the only university recognized internationally (for academic excellence), they encouraged all of us to study there.

If my parents did not interfere with education and career choices, neither did they interfere with our life-partner choices. And while they certainly would have wanted for their five girls to get married and have our own families, they also made sure that we were equipped to be able to support ourselves so we were not forced into any undesirable situations, or could get out of them. Frankly, I think they were ahead of their time, because while their attitude was the exception then, it is certainly the rule now.

Fast forward to the present. Most of the Walking Group have grandchildren, and even great grandchildren. And they marvel at the political, social, and educational freedom that their granddaughters enjoy. Mine is only six years old, but being with the UP for over 35 years as a teacher, I do see what is going on in the campus.

During my time, for example, holding hands in public was just not done between male and female students who liked each other — the girl’s reputation would be damaged. Now, holding hands is the mildest of the affectionate gestures between them. Back then, having a boyfriend was a serious thing; a girl who changed boyfriends was immediately considered “loose.” And this was in the UP, mind you. Today no one raises an eyebrow.

At the start of the semester, I sometimes ask my freshmen and sophomore students how they picture themselves 10 years into the future. At most one or two will see themselves as being married and with children. It seems almost a given that the females will actively pursue a career of their choice, even the one or two who see offspring within the next decade. Actually, the statistics verify this: with 19 million families and a labor force of 33 million, it does not take a genius to come to the conclusion that families with two breadwinners are now more the rule than the exception.

NO DOUBT that women’s opportunities and freedom of choice have improved considerably not only in the last 50 years, but since the days when it was thought that being a “Maria Clara” was the epitome of womanhood. Still and all, three final points provide a lot of food for thought.

The first point is that before the Spaniards came and thrust Maria Clara down the throats of our ancestors, there were no gender stereotypes and certainly no male domination in Philippine society — this according to historians and sociologists. Women and men worked side by side at home and in the fields, in religion and governance — they were considered equal partners. So if pre-Spanish Philippines is used as the point of reference it is clear that although we may have come a long way, our present situation is nowhere near as good as what it was before the friars came and spoiled it all.

The second point is that more than 200 years ago (at the end of the 18th century), when Great Britain and the United States conducted their first censuses, the labor of housewives in their homes was recognized, and they were considered economically active, partners with their husbands in the production of goods and services for home consumption. But by the end of the 19th century, housewives and their home labor were no longer recognized, and they were assigned the status of “dependents,” along with children and the aged, even if they were performing as many, if not more tasks as before.

This downgrading of the status of housewives (which is why, when asked what they do, they invariably say “I’m just a housewife”) is being perpetuated, unfortunately, by the United Nations, through its System of National Accounts. It is ironic that the economic contributions of those responsible for the production, care, and feeding of a country’s present and future labor force, are not acknowledged — so that when a paid nurse-housekeeper marries her employer, the Gross Domestic Product of the country goes down.

The third and final point has to do with the answer to the second question I asked my friends (did you think I forgot?): If you had your druthers, would you rather belong to this generation of women or stick to your own?

The answer was overwhelmingly, although not unanimously, stick-to-our-own. Why? Life was simpler — you knew where you stood. There was more order. The roles were delineated. The rules were clear. The world was a kinder place. A little more probing, and the real reasons surface: Coming a long way has a downside to it — while there are certainly more opportunities and choices open to women now, there is also more pressure on them to compete, to excel, to perform, not just among women but among men too. Who needs that kind of stress?

Who, indeed?

Solita C. Monsod is a professor of economics at the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City. A former economic planning minister, she has a regular column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and is a public-affairs show host at GMA-7.