Doin' it for the kids

I'm in a bit of a pickle, and I think I share my conundrum with many of you readers. The dilemma is this: In a few short months, I will graduate. Then what? Graduate school? A career? The Peace Corps? Teach for America?\nI have spent 16 years going to school. That's nearly 75 percent of my life. I'm not sure I know how to do anything else. So helpful friends try to assist me; they ask: "What is it, exactly, that you want to do with your life?"\n"Oh, I don't know. Maybe take a vow of poverty and live on a hilltop in the Himalayas thinking deep thoughts."\n"Really?"\n"Maybe. I've been to the Himalayas. They're astonishingly beautiful, but that's only one of many possibilities."\nOf course, this option is a little facetious. As beautiful as the Himalayas are, I doubt I could think deep thoughts for more than a few days. And even if I outlasted my deep thoughts, it gets very cold, snowy and lonely in the Himalayas.\nThe truth is that I have a few goals for my life. But most of these goals have almost nothing to do with my future career. The one that most influences my career aspirations is this: I want to have a career that leaves my wife free to raise children (preceding this goal, of course, is the goal to "meet and marry the woman of my dreams").\n"You misogynistic pig! What kind of freedom is raising children?!" At least that's the response I always expect for my honest answer, so I pretend to consider philosophizing on a mountaintop instead.\nIt is abundantly obvious that the essence of love is self-sacrifice. From Hollywood to Holy Scriptures, examples abound. To cite only one, Jesus said that there is no greater love than that of a man who would lay down his life for his friend.\nIn this respect, a woman biologically has an advantage in her capacity to love: Procreating very literally demands a woman to sacrifice her body for her child. Given that every person needs to love and be loved, how could I possibly reciprocate in the face of such love? The most fundamental, tangible way to love such a woman is to provide for her and our child.\nOf course, such an aspiration is not particularly helpful in making career decisions.\nIf feminism has taught us anything, it's that women can do everything men can, and this seems to generally be true. On the other hand, no man can be a mother.\nAny career I take will require me to specialize: I will be Abram the Chemist or Professor Hess or the Philosopher on the Mountain. Conversely, the calling of motherhood requires a woman to be many things: teacher, linguist, counselor, confidant, etc. To paraphrase the philosopher G. K. Chesterton, is it better to be one thing to every person or to be everything to one person?