NYT: professional moms who opted out of work after kids are now opting back in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question.

If your husbands wanted to be SAHD and you work, what would be your responses?

Would you be ok with it only if he made less money than you? if so, why?

Do you think only women should be stay-at-home? if so why?

My husband does want to be a SAHD and I'd love it if we could afford it.
We're considering moving to a cheaper region of the country to better afford this change and help make it happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?

Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?

We aren't supposed to believe that, but we actually do believe that. Because if we didn't believe that, we would have things like paid maternity and paternity leave, paid sick days, and high-quality subsidized day care and preschool.

What we actually believe: If you took time off from work to stay at home with the children, that shows that it is possible for you to think that work is not your first priority, and a good employee's first priority is always work.

What we also actually believe: A good mother's first priority is always her children.

Therefore: It is not possible to be a good employee and a good mother.

It's rubbish, and it has to stop.

Please, it doesn't matter what we believe. It only matters what corporations "believe" -- and what they value. Until huge corporations care about families (hint: it will be never unless it impacts their bottom line), things will not change.

At least not in a society where corporations are people and money equals free speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree that i would have a hard time getting an equivalent job at a new firm but I've been assured by the leadership at my firm that I could have my job back whenever I want it, so I am not concerned about that. My issue was more the assumption made by the mothers who never took time off that I don't deserve my job back. To me that just sounds like bitterness and I don't understand it. As I said, I don't want to be promoted to where I would be because I haven't earned that. But I did earn the job I had and still am qualified for it.

I took 3 months off and when I came back they had given my job to somebody else. They gave me an "equivalent" job which means I made the same money with the same job title. But I had a different boss, locations, job duties, career track...

They could not just let my job sit for 3 months. They also could not just take away the job from the the person that was doing my job for 3 months.

While this never happens to the man that has the stroke or heart attack I do understand it is a balancing act.

I think it would have been arrogant just to expect to walk into my old position as if the world had stopped for 3 months.

It is a shame that this isn't possible, because it is exactly what is successfully practiced in other countries, such as Germany, where women can take up to 2 years off and have their job guaranteed. In the meantime, someone else is hired with a contract limited to that time to fill in for her. That way, mothers (and maybe fathers, too) can stay home without tolling the death knell for their career.

I just went back to work after 3 years and my job was kept for me. A contractor was hired for 3 years until my return. I work for an IFI,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you guys know any families whose life balance you particularly admire?

Both parents working 30 hour jobs would be just about right, maybe.

Or two teachers who would have the same school holidays as the kids.

My neighbors. Mum is a part time lawyer who changes her work days to suit her kids' schedule and dad is a full time doctor but schedules his hours so he is home when his kids are home. His schedule is something like
Mon-6-2
Tues-2-9
Wed-6-2
Thurs-off
Friday -6-3
Sat-6-1

For us, my husband works full time at home in his own business so he is very flexible. I just went back to work after 3 years off. My job was kept open and they employed a contractor for 3 years who stayed with the organization afterwards in another department. I work from 7:30 to 3:30. I have decided though, to scale down to part time next year.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps these are women who would have been unhappy no matter what they chose. They are perfectionists and part of parenting, let alone balancing parenting and careers is letting go some and keeping expectations reasonable.

I opted out for a child with SN for 4 or 5 years, then opted back in part time and I'm content. I'm not part of their high SES crowd and while I am well educated with advanced degrees, my earning potential was not anywhere near those women, but that's fine with me. I wish there was a study to really look at this more in depth. I really don't think this is such a huge trend. I think it reflects a small group of women of privilege.

Maybe some people just have unrealistic expectations. I was raised to believe you CANNOT have it all. Life is full of compromise. You may have all the things you want, but not at the same time. Once you have kids everything changes and you better be ready to re-arrange things for them. Nobody is guaranteed easy, low needs kids.

I am much more concerned about women in the low SES group who have fewer choices and really are struggling to find balance. They probably don't have time to call up their PTA pals and offer to be in an article. They can't afford the level of help these rich ladies can. These are the women who need us to wake up and figure out how to make good childcare affordable and how to make it so they can flex work schedules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you guys know any families whose life balance you particularly admire?

Both parents working 30 hour jobs would be just about right, maybe.

Or two teachers who would have the same school holidays as the kids.

My neighbors. Mum is a part time lawyer who changes her work days to suit her kids' schedule and dad is a full time doctor but schedules his hours so he is home when his kids are home. His schedule is something like
Mon-6-2
Tues-2-9
Wed-6-2
Thurs-off
Friday -6-3
Sat-6-1

For us, my husband works full time at home in his own business so he is very flexible. I just went back to work after 3 years off. My job was kept open and they employed a contractor for 3 years who stayed with the organization afterwards in another department. I work from 7:30 to 3:30. I have decided though, to scale down to part time next year.

This is similar to my schedule. The enticement in taking my current job are the 7-3pm hours. My husband works 3-11 in a nearby office.
The schedule has helped cut down on childcare costs and we both get to spend time with the kids.
The trade off? We have to focus couple and family time on the weekends.
Also, we haven't gone for promotions that would alter this schedule and can't volunteer for those career boosting extra overtime assignments.

[Anonymous]

My SIL is a veterinarian who opted to work one day a week after she and my BIL had their young daughters. He is a dentist who once took a job as a prison dentist because the state would pay his dental school debts. After several years he is now able to work the hours he chooses in a private practice--giving him more time to concentrate on his family and Christian ministry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are all right. My husband's schedule as a law partner over the last 7 years has been ridiculous and the recession has hit us hard. I've considered going back to work about every 6 months over the last few years for security. Problem is the school schedule has a ridiculous number of random days off throughout the year. Are we supposed to warehouse our children during this time because childcare costs $17 per hour? I honestly have no idea how women manage a full-time job and full-time parenting. The culture of work of Washington, DC and major urban areas is sickening. Sometimes, I just want to move to Idaho.

If your DH is a partner, I very much doubt it will hurt your finances much to pay $17/hr for backup childcare a few days every school year.

Clearly, you have no idea about the state of law firms do you? The anxiety, stress and uncertainty has been a awful and there is no end in sight. And, by the way, where are these magical child care providers who will swoop in every other week to provide care? My point is that a part-time salary will not cover the cost of childcare. A full-time job will ultimately put further stress on our kids and marriage with a very few benefits. So until there are larger policy decisions made about how we can make jobs scalable to provide quality of life issues, then everyone loses. Employers lose highly skilled labor, families lose income and the economy continues to teeter on the brink of recession.

On the contrary, my DH is a senior associate at a mid-size firm. Unlike you, I continued to work because of the uncertainty (which seems like a better option than finding excuses not to work, which is what it sounds like you are doing). I'll bet DH and my incomes combined do not equal your husband's, and yet, here we are, paying for full-time childcare! So I literally have no idea how your family cannot afford $17/hr for backup care. Or you could take vacation days when your children are off school. Or find a part-time job with flexibility for the days you work so you're at home. Or a WAH full-time career (which is what I have, btw).

And many jobs now offer intermittent childcare as a benefit (for emergencies or for families that have kids in school and only need a few days off here and there).

Seriously, are you using 10 school vacation days a year as an excuse to never rejoin the workforce? Because it sounds like, from your anxiety over your husband's job, you'd feel better returning to paid work. LOTS of families make those school vacations work. Seriously, just...mind blown.

In DCPS there are 32 days during the school year where children do not have school. This, of course, doesn't count sick days, drs. appointments, classroom volunteering, summer break and in-school activities that require parents to take time off from work to attend. We have no family in the area, no au pair, etc. I worked in the arts for many years. If I were to go back part-time, the salary would be between $20-25 per hour, before taxes, so my take home would be about the same as the nanny -- great. BTW, I have a master's degree and have taken many classes throughout the years to keep my skills relevant. But for the sake of this argument let's say I go back full-time and start over again. I'd make around 60K per year. After taxes, childcare, additional help around the house to do the JOB that I now do, I would net maybe $15-20K, along with the added stress and time it would take away from my children. Wow. I think there is a real problem by not providing a work-life balance and not penalizing families for raising children. Duh. And maybe instead of tearing each other down we could start working together to make careers more scalable because at this point our culture's obsession about work is unhealthy. I don't think this article advances the the story for women and families b/c Warner focuses only on high-income earners. If you take a look a person with an average salary, maybe you can see how this seems like a no win situation. Not so mind-blowing, just the reality.

[Anonymous]

I am much more concerned about women in the low SES group who have fewer choices and really are struggling to find balance. They probably don't have time to call up their PTA pals and offer to be in an article. They can't afford the level of help these rich ladies can. These are the women who need us to wake up and figure out how to make good childcare affordable and how to make it so they can flex work schedules.

Clap clap clap clap clap etc.

When the hell is the NYT going to profile these women and their career "dilemmas"?? When is a US politician going to make it his or her mission to fix the childcare system in this country with the same commitment that the entire domestic political establishment has devoted to healthcare?

Look, I get why this new NYT mag story interests many DCUMs. I'm sure I'll read it, and I'll identify with a lot of the women. I'm overeducated and am lucky to have incredible flexibility and an interesting job, but I have no family whatsoever and managing 2 kids and 2 jobs often feels like hand-to-hand combat. Most of my female friends from a high-flying undergrad school, most of whom were raised in much better-off families than mine, have opted out for more than a decade. But whenever I feel like feeling sorry for myself or whenever I begin to think I'm superwoman for getting through the week - I think about the women who work at my kids' daycare. A lot of them have their kids enrolled at the same center, and I see them trudging into work from the bus, with a kid or two in tow, often in lousy weather. And I remember how INCREDIBLY lucky I am to have the luxury of obsessing over my choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.

What are the priorities a parent is showing, when he or she stays home with the kids instead of working?

That the children are more important than the job? That the kids come first?

Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?

Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?

So why would taking time off of work for a while, mean that you don't prioritize work, just want to balance things? The balance when the kids were small meant you went one way; but now that the kids are older, you are able to balance your kids and career JUST AS IF you had been working all that time.



Your ignorance is showing, or your intellect has been stifled by years on the gravy train a pp referred to. Are you so naive and sheltered that you really believe the average working woman, even in DC, has a choice whether or not to work? We don't all have husbands who are BigLaw partners (which I'd never support - not fair to him or the kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.

What are the priorities a parent is showing, when he or she stays home with the kids instead of working?

That the children are more important than the job? That the kids come first?

Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?

Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?

So why would taking time off of work for a while, mean that you don't prioritize work, just want to balance things? The balance when the kids were small meant you went one way; but now that the kids are older, you are able to balance your kids and career JUST AS IF you had been working all that time.

Your ignorance is showing, or your intellect has been stifled by years on the gravy train a pp referred to. Are you so naive and sheltered that you really believe the average working woman, even in DC, has a choice whether or not to work? We don't all have husbands who are BigLaw partners (which I'd never support - not fair to him or the kids). Actually, her post makes sense, unlike yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.

What are the priorities a parent is showing, when he or she stays home with the kids instead of working?

That the children are more important than the job? That the kids come first?

Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?

Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?

So why would taking time off of work for a while, mean that you don't prioritize work, just want to balance things? The balance when the kids were small meant you went one way; but now that the kids are older, you are able to balance your kids and career JUST AS IF you had been working all that time.

Your ignorance is showing, or your intellect has been stifled by years on the gravy train a pp referred to. Are you so naive and sheltered that you really believe the average working woman, even in DC, has a choice whether or not to work? We don't all have husbands who are BigLaw partners (which I'd never support - not fair to him or the kids).

I'm the PP you are responding to, and for the record, I did stay home for about 10 years when my children were young; at the time my husband was earning about $85K, which is about $15K less than the woman quoted at the start of the article was, sadly, reduced to earning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you guys know any families whose life balance you particularly admire?

Both parents working 30 hour jobs would be just about right, maybe.

Or two teachers who would have the same school holidays as the kids.

My neighbors. Mum is a part time lawyer who changes her work days to suit her kids' schedule and dad is a full time doctor but schedules his hours so he is home when his kids are home. His schedule is something like
Mon-6-2
Tues-2-9
Wed-6-2
Thurs-off
Friday -6-3
Sat-6-1

For us, my husband works full time at home in his own business so he is very flexible. I just went back to work after 3 years off. My job was kept open and they employed a contractor for 3 years who stayed with the organization afterwards in another department. I work from 7:30 to 3:30. I have decided though, to scale down to part time next year.

We both work part time. About 60 hours total for the two of us, with good flexibility for both.

How did we get here? (1) We each developed lucrative and in-demand specialties in the years before kids, working 60+ hours a week each. (2) We lived WELL BELOW our means and avoided the golden handcuffs. And (3) We ruthlessly prioritized quality of life for BOTH of us, at the same time, while our kids were young. It became our primary goal once our kids were born, and we never lost sight of it.

True , society does NOT make this easy. There are a lot of obstacles to overcome. But it is possible. Step one for most people is getting control of the finances (shifting the spend vs. save ratios) to allow for greater professional risk-taking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my opinion, the lack of meaningful part-time work options really hurt all parents.

I agree. DH and I have been lucky enough to find excellent part-time opportunities. Both of us.

It took a lot of effort and hard work to get to this point, but it was worth every minute. Now that we're here, it really is Nirvana. We both have excellent balance and the equality in our relationship is natural and effortless. We are grateful beyond belief.

I truly wish everyone could have the option, assuming they want it. This is a societal issue, not a women's issue. It would benefit everyone, including the kids.

Agree that PT work would be the best of both worlds (I tried at my agency, wanting to work 70 hours a pay period, not 80, and was told no- could only do 80 or 64 or less. No in between). I know many people who are PT but work FT hours with PT pay. Have you run into this in your own careers?

No. We negotiated good deals and we stick to them.

Dont take no for an answer. If your agency wont give tou what you want, try another agency. In fact, make it your mission to meet as many part-time government workers in as many agencies as possible. Network and research relentlessly until you learn which agencies and offices fit your needs. And then use everything you can think of to get in there. The word here is "relentless." Quality PT work is a hard thing to get, but it's damn we'll worth the effort in my opinion. GL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question.

If your husbands wanted to be SAHD and you work, what would be your responses?

Would you be ok with it only if he made less money than you? if so, why?

Do you think only women should be stay-at-home? if so why?

My husband SAH for 2 years when our kid was young. I was thrilled. He also enjoyed it, though of course it wasn't always easy -- and luckily enough he was able to find a job and go back to work, though if he ever wanted to SAH again, I'd be fine with it.

He currently makes much less money than me. I don't care. Why don't I care? I don't know -- I guess I just don't equate salary with someone's worth as a human being and partner in life. If the roles were switched and I made less money than him, I don't think he would care either. It's not a competition!

Obviously, I don't think only women should SAH. Having seen my husband with my kid, I don't think that mothers have some exclusive hold over bonding or whatever with their kid, or that there is something magic about me that means that I and only I am the most fit to nurture and raise my child. I agree with the PP who said that the focus should be on what is best for the kids-- but I don't think that this necessarily means that the mother needs to stay at home, or even that the father needs to stay at home -- just that in general there needs to be more structural support for families so that they are not so stretched. How about good public schools, state-supported creches like they have in France, state-supported "mother's helpers" in the first few months, stipends or subsidies for child care, etc. I don't think kids suffer from having two working parents -- but I do think they suffer from having one or both parents who are constantly overworked, stressed-out, and worried about money even though they work!