Please stop assuming women with lower salaries are un- or under-educated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You know what? I think you would have opted out even if you'd been offered work from 10 to 1 three days a week. How badly did you really want to stay in? What were your reasons for wanting to work - career development, cash, ????

Lots of women would opt out no matter what. Some of us stay at home purely by choice just like some women work purely by choice. Either is fine with me. I probably would have opted out for a few years no matter what. I worked for two reasons: to make money, and to feel personally fulfilled and productive by doing good work. I no longer need the money and I feel more personally fulfilled and productive staying at home with my toddler. It was a very easy choice for me and I feel lucky. For my fellow moms who knew immediately they always wanted to continue working and now do so, I hope they feel equally lucky.

[Anonymous]

So PP, are you one of the posters who's arguing that we should all support alternative and reduced work schedules to retain more mothers in the workforce?

[Anonymous]

To the poster who is anti-alternative/reduced work arrangements, not sure I understand where you are coming from. I see your point that reduced scheduling usually means reduced pay and that has population-wide consequences in terms of salary and equality, but alternative scheduling just makes good sense for many folks. I work for a pretty progressive company and manage and work with a team, many of whom are working moms and working dads (with working wives). "Work life balance" is a touchy-feely term, but I can assure you my company ran the numbers and it makes good financial sense to offer these work arrangements.

My husband works from home full time and this is not because his employer is interested in helping him balance his life. They are not based where we live, they need someone who can do what he does where we live, so they pay him well to do it. His work arrangement helps me out quite a bit I must say - I rarely do laundry or cook which works for me.

My team and I take advantage of telecommuting (me not so much because my commute is not all that bad). I'm a very practical person. So if I can save someone with an hour commute two hours twice a week, that is four hours they can be doing something productive (rather work productive or dealing with their home life, either way it's not wasted time in gridlock traffic) and that means they can be focused on delivering what I need them to deliver. And I don't see the point of both parents working 8:30-5:30 when they have school-aged children and one can go in early and one late and not deal with before-care programs. Again that means fewer logistics they need to deal with (and me too since we don't do before care) and more time focused on work. It also means the dad who comes in at 10 is staying until 6 or 7 and that means more coverage. Win-win.

If someone wants to work from 9-11 at night and leave work at 3 some days, I don't see that is a problem if they/I get what needs to be done, done. If someone wants to work 8:30-5:30 and take a lunch hour from 12 to 1 or 1-2, which was my only option when I graduated college years and years ago and was just starting out, that's fine. But that doesn't work for everyone and if you have "paid your dues" and are producing on time and on budget, then you should be able to work within a different structure. Many leading companies and many government agencies see it this way as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So PP, are you one of the posters who's arguing that we should all support alternative and reduced work schedules to retain more mothers in the workforce?

Hmmm....not the PP you refer to, but I don't like where this is going/implying. I think your point is that the PP said she and many others would choose to opt out no matter what, and so why give women these breaks if they won't take advantage of them? I don't think that that very small percentage of the workforce who would choose to opt out should dictate what those of us who stay in the workforce are stuck with (rigid schedules that worked well when most men had SAH wives but don't work so well now).

Implying that we should keep the workforce rigid because moms will just opt out anyway (knowing that anyone who can opt out is a very elite group and not representative of most of the country) is giving too much credence to the Reagan-era, far right belief that women really want to be home and are genetically programmed to not leave their children. Which means that women who want to work are missing a mom gene. And that makes me uncomfortable.

I personally believe that of the small group of women who can opt out, a bunch of them would love to stay in if they could have some good options. I think smart women want to work. I have no problem with women who don't - I get why it works for some families and I get that not everyone needs a paying job to feel fulfilled - I am not saying SAHMs should work, I'm saying that I think a lot more would if they had some good options.

[zumbamama]

I take full advantage of the alternative work schedule. In this age, many jobs can be performed well outside the conventional 9-5 day at the office. All my work can be done electronically, and as long as I meet my deadlines, I can work whatever hours suit my schedule. This benefits both my company and my family. Not every job can be efficiently done outside the office, but as technology evolves it allows for new ways to structure our work week for people like me, and I'm sure many others. I'm all for better balance if you can make it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I am not saying SAHMs should work, I'm saying that I think a lot more would if they had some good options.

The land of the free. Do not ask for more options.
If you want options go and live in a European socieaty that is more equal

[Anonymous]

To 20:46

"And I don't see the point of both parents working 8:30-5:30 when they have school-aged children and one can go in early and one late and not deal with before-care programs."

If you can advance your career by working non standard hours, go for it. In many workplaces, you need to be in the office when others are there to strengthen your connections. Work per se can be done anywhere, but in every place I've ever worked, facetime and workplaces alliances are the keys to getting ahead. Depends what you do and what others are doing.

Personally, I come in by 8 and try to leave by 5 and I have a short commute. My DH works 9 to 5:30 but has a long commute. We need 10 hours per workday of childcare and that's average for two full time working parents in our neighborhood. And we both work at home a lot in the evenings once the kids are in bed. Getting in before 8 would not enable me to leave before 5. I don't have a clock watching type job, but a customer service oriented one.

[Anonymous]

To 21:13 -

"I don't think that that very small percentage of the workforce who would choose to opt out should dictate what those of us who stay in the workforce are stuck with (rigid schedules that worked well when most men had SAH wives but don't work so well now)."

I think a high percentage of the female, mother workforce would choose to opt out no matter what the workday and workplace structure is like. Over and over again on here, I read about women with jobs, not careers, women who don't think it's worth it to WOH FT to clear 5 figures plus maxing out their 401(k)s, and I know what I see with the SAHMs and pt WOHMs where I live. It's a lack of a desire to work that drives them to opt out, plain and simple. They don't think they should have to crank it at work now that they're moms.

I don't get why both parents working 8:30 to 5:30 doesn't work for the vast majority of families (those without special needs children who require lots of appointments). Can you explain that to me?

[Anonymous]

To 22:09, zumbamama:

"In this age, many jobs can be performed well outside the conventional 9-5 day at the office."

So your work is all electronic, you get promoted strictly based on output and not at all to do with personal relationships? Are you in a career, family-supporting type job or a less intense position?

[Anonymous]

To 8:20, I don't care if employers want to offer options in their workplaces. I just don't see why two able bodied parents with average, normal children need flexibility. Don't most people build their lives around their work hours and demands?

[zumbamama]

Anonymous wrote:To 22:09, zumbamama:

"In this age, many jobs can be performed well outside the conventional 9-5 day at the office."

So your work is all electronic, you get promoted strictly based on output and not at all to do with personal relationships? Are you in a career, family-supporting type job or a less intense position?

I still maintain relationships with my colleagues and superiors, and see them on a weekly basis, but I don't need to be in the office daily to communicate or meet deadlines. If I need to talk to them during business hours I just pick up the phone or send them an email. My company is family friendly in that I can set my own hours, work on or offsite, or take my kids into the office if I need to. At previous jobs in similar line of work, I could only dream of this set up. But I'm at a point in my life where I do not want to be chained to a desk 40 hours a week. Limiting my design work to 20 hours frees up time for my kids and other professional pursuits outside of my field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 8:20, I don't care if employers want to offer options in their workplaces. I just don't see why two able bodied parents with average, normal children need flexibility. Don't most people build their lives around their work hours and demands?

Not if they don't have to! Given the choice, most people would prefer for family to come first and work second. This is why some women stay at home if they can and why many opt out due to lack of flexibility even if they would prefer to continue working in some capacity.

Given your many posts on this topic across a number of threads, you seem to have pretty warped priorities (work always! work comes first!) and way too much time to pass judgment on other people who choose differently than you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 7/3 18:55 - yup, I'm real and these are my real beliefs.

I believe that having a modern military force is valuable, yet my children will serve only over my dead body.

Interesting. I guess that's the difference between people like you, and decent people.

See, IF I believed that we should have a military presence overseas, I would HAVE to support my children's participation. That's what my principles dictate. If I want to drive on nice roads and have the police respond to my calls, I have to pay taxes. So I don't complain about them, because I want those things.

[Anonymous]

To zumba mama at 10:12

" I still maintain relationships with my colleagues and superiors, and see them on a weekly basis, but I don't need to be in the office daily to communicate or meet deadlines."

In my experience, the best working relationships are built on chance encounters in the hallways, or chats directly after in person meetings. A phone call or e-mail just isn't as good. I wouldn't be able to build close enough enough relationships with colleagues and superiors by seeing them only once a week. Your work is obviously of a type that allows you to do that. My work is not primarily about a finished, objectively veriable work product.

[Anonymous]

To 10:26

"Not if they don't have to! Given the choice, most people would prefer for family to come first and work second. This is why some women stay at home if they can and why many opt out due to lack of flexibility even if they would prefer to continue working in some capacity."

But it's not a choice of work or family coming first. It's starting from the predicate that all able bodied adults should be able to, should the need arise, support themselves entirely on their own, including any children they have. How is that not putting family first?

"Given your many posts on this topic across a number of threads, you seem to have pretty warped priorities (work always! work comes first!) and way too much time to pass judgment on other people who choose differently than you do."

I'm sorry you think having a good work ethic means my priorities are warped. I'm not passing judgment, I'm trying to understand other people's outlook. I'd think that trying to find a job to fit your family's schedule is not only difficult, but would be hard to continually adjust as your kids got older, your spouse's job situation changed, etc. To me, it's just way easier to plan for both parents to WOH FT and build everything around that. At least that's not variable.