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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

you are over-thinking this. there are options for those days short of a full time nanny. there are places that have camps for days when DCPS is closed, you can contact a nanny service for a temp nanny for those days, you can find another mom at the school to split the days with, you can find a SAHM who would be willing to watch your kids those days for $$, you can work from home those days, your husband can work from home some of those days, you can try to find a job with back up day care, you could get an au pair, you could look for a babysitter for those days (you'll know about them in advance), you could ask a neighbor who has a nanny whether her nanny could watch your child for extra cash on those days, some of those days are presumably days you would take off anyway for vacation (xmas and spring break).

In your case, I think the main issue is that you wouldn't net enough cash to justify the hassle of working. But if you would eventually make more, it might be worth the initial sacrifice to get there. Or if you really enjoyed the job, netting $20K would be worth it to you.

[Anonymous]

I loved this response to the article:

http://www.the-broad-side.com/the-problems-with-still-talking-about-opting-out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I loved this response to the article:

http://www.the-broad-side.com/the-problems-with-still-talking-about-opting-out

I didn't. Sounds like some women are tired of this conversation that they supposedly heard hundreds of times, but I'm new to it. It is a real problem that affects pretty much all women who become mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved this response to the article:

http://www.the-broad-side.com/the-problems-with-still-talking-about-opting-out

I didn't. Sounds like some women are tired of this conversation that they supposedly heard hundreds of times, but I'm new to it. It is a real problem that affects pretty much all women who become mothers.

Are you really new to the conversation? You've never heard this before? That's incredibly surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved this response to the article:

http://www.the-broad-side.com/the-problems-with-still-talking-about-opting-out

I didn't. Sounds like some women are tired of this conversation that they supposedly heard hundreds of times, but I'm new to it. It is a real problem that affects pretty much all women who become mothers.

+1 The author of the blog post does not seem to have read the whole article, which I thought thorough discussed the "marriage is a partnership" angle of the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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'd be interested to know more about these contract workers. What kinds of benefits do they get (i.e., up to 2 years off)? What about pay? Are they desperately trying to get one of these permanent guaranteed jobs? Why would someone choose to work on the contracts vs holding a permanent guaranteed job?

Not the original PP, but my understanding is that often people take these jobs as a way of proving themselves in a more high-level job than they could secure as a permanent employee. In European countries with good benefits, like national health care and parental leave policies, employers do not need to provide the same level of benefits that professional workers in the U.S. look for.

I'm in a similar situation in Canada, which has decent maternity leave policy (though not nearly as good as Germany's) and I've found that lots of great opportunities open up for me when people go on mat leave or a sick leave for a year. I can develop new skills and contacts without the employer having to hire me permanently, and it has allowed me to negotiate a 4-day work week for the past 2 years, which works well for my family. I actually turned down a permanent position to do more interesting work on a 1-year contract because it will position me better in the job market.

[Anonymous]

My mom was a high achieving professional (lots of awards and name reconition in her field). She is now 73 with Alzheimer's. She left my dad and so I am left responsible for her care. Despite her career accolades no one from work calls or comes by to visit (and since her work was her life she didn't have very mny outside friends). I've stopped working bc I have 3 kids and just couldn't fulfill my job responsibilities having to leave sporadically to deal with her emergencies plus the kids normal illnesses etc (my husband works long hours, travels etc). I never ever imagined myself a sahm (I spent 20 years working post college plus working during high school college) but feel life is so much more balanced for me now. My mom prioritized job over kids and I'm not sure how much that really gets you at the end of the day...I'm not sure my point - I guess maybe its that I do believe you can't have it all and different decisions are ok for different points in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mom was a high achieving professional (lots of awards and name reconition in her field). She is now 73 with Alzheimer's. She left my dad and so I am left responsible for her care. Despite her career accolades no one from work calls or comes by to visit (and since her work was her life she didn't have very mny outside friends). I've stopped working bc I have 3 kids and just couldn't fulfill my job responsibilities having to leave sporadically to deal with her emergencies plus the kids normal illnesses etc (my husband works long hours, travels etc). I never ever imagined myself a sahm (I spent 20 years working post college plus working during high school college) but feel life is so much more balanced for me now. My mom prioritized job over kids and I'm not sure how much that really gets you at the end of the day...I'm not sure my point - I guess maybe its that I do believe you can't have it all[b] and different decisions are ok for different points in life.

Though, really, from just your story, it sounds to me like you can have it all, if you're a man. You just can't have it all, if you're a woman. And why? Because we still regard caring for people (children, people with disabilities, aging parents) as women's work.

[Anonymous]

If my DH left his job for seven years ... he would NOT be welcomed back with open arms at the same pay level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It makes me so angry that these discussions (the article and here) completely overlook the root of the problem, which is that society doesn't value childrearing and caring for the home, and there aren't enough flexible and part-time jobs available in the professional world.

Just because a woman stays home does not mean she is no longer her husband's "intellectual equal." Working at a computer from 9-5 somehow makes you intellectual, but cleaning, teaching, shopping, playing, and cooking from 9-5 makes you an idiot? That's ridiculous. SAHMs (and dads!) are not just sitting around. They're doing an unbelievable amount of very important work. This is literally the job of raising the next generation! (Also, would you consider someone who works as a nanny or preschool teacher to be somehow unintellectual and worthless, or does the fact that they make money for this work somehow change the value of their activities??)

We need to work to teach each other the value of the work done at home. This needs to come into the media, classrooms, and our everyday conversations.

And the workforce needs to change so that parents -- men and women -- can have sustainable careers and good family lives. As the article points out, a "good" job is one that requires travel, 50+ hours a week, etc. So, the only options a woman has then are to (1) work all the time and spend very little time/energy with her kids, (2) work in a mediocre, "second-rate" job for which she isn't valued any more than she would if staying at home, or (3) stay at home and be devalued by society. The professional workforce needs to offer more part-time positions, more flexibility for consulting roles, and an understanding that employees who feel supported in their family life will also be good workers.


The conversation is, frankly, really selfish. Where is the discussion about our kids? Is it really best for our kids to be raised in daycare from the time they're a couple weeks old, rarely seeing either parent? And we can't protect ourselves against every awful future possibility, so the idea of having to "protect yourself" from the possibility of future divorce by working today despite the fact that you have an excellent relationship is ridiculous.

I can't believe that all the other PPs are so anti-SAHM.

+1 I agree with this, and here is another side of the story. I live in a neighborhood with very busy biglaw husbands with wives and children. They are NEVER home, and in addition they are often travelling. So some of the wives are staying home to take care of their children. If both of them worked at 60+ hour a week jobs, there would be no one taking care of their kids but the nannies. The mothers, who all had professional jobs before kids, made a choice that they wanted to be there for their kids. After 10 years out of the job market, re entry would be hard, if not impossible, in the job they left. It would be the same if their husbands left for that long also. They know that. But look around in a Biglaw firm -- very few of the wives have significant jobs. In fact, there is a study that once a man is making more than $300K, he has a non-working wife in most cases, something like 80%. Re-entry is very hard for anyone-- even these elite mothers profiled in the article.

[Anonymous]

^^ two years for a young mom is one thing, but 7-10 years is a long time for ANYONE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ two years for a young mom is one thing, but 7-10 years is a long time for ANYONE.

You get to decide what is right for you and your family. That's it. It's none of your concern about how a family chooses to raise their family and how long a parent stays home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mom was a high achieving professional (lots of awards and name reconition in her field). She is now 73 with Alzheimer's. She left my dad and so I am left responsible for her care. Despite her career accolades no one from work calls or comes by to visit (and since her work was her life she didn't have very mny outside friends). I've stopped working bc I have 3 kids and just couldn't fulfill my job responsibilities having to leave sporadically to deal with her emergencies plus the kids normal illnesses etc (my husband works long hours, travels etc). I never ever imagined myself a sahm (I spent 20 years working post college plus working during high school college) but feel life is so much more balanced for me now. My mom prioritized job over kids and I'm not sure how much that really gets you at the end of the day...I'm not sure my point - I guess maybe its that I do believe you can't have it all and different decisions are ok for different points in life.

This was my mother also. One of the reasons I decided to be a SAHM besides the 3 kids, one with SNs and the fact that DH has a grueling work schedule. I was also Big Law before deciding to SAH. My mother passed away recently and truthfully, I don't miss her much. I am just glad she did not suffer a long illness and left quickly doing what she wanted. Ashame she never bothered to know her grandkids, she was too busy doing whatever it was that kept her busy.

My marriage is good, kids are doing great. I won't be going back to work. By the time my youngest starts HS, DH will be retiring and we plan on enjoying ourselves and travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes me so angry that these discussions (the article and here) completely overlook the root of the problem, which is that society doesn't value childrearing and caring for the home, and there aren't enough flexible and part-time jobs available in the professional world.

Just because a woman stays home does not mean she is no longer her husband's "intellectual equal." Working at a computer from 9-5 somehow makes you intellectual, but cleaning, teaching, shopping, playing, and cooking from 9-5 makes you an idiot? That's ridiculous. SAHMs (and dads!) are not just sitting around. They're doing an unbelievable amount of very important work. This is literally the job of raising the next generation! (Also, would you consider someone who works as a nanny or preschool teacher to be somehow unintellectual and worthless, or does the fact that they make money for this work somehow change the value of their activities??)

We need to work to teach each other the value of the work done at home. This needs to come into the media, classrooms, and our everyday conversations.

And the workforce needs to change so that parents -- men and women -- can have sustainable careers and good family lives. As the article points out, a "good" job is one that requires travel, 50+ hours a week, etc. So, the only options a woman has then are to (1) work all the time and spend very little time/energy with her kids, (2) work in a mediocre, "second-rate" job for which she isn't valued any more than she would if staying at home, or (3) stay at home and be devalued by society. The professional workforce needs to offer more part-time positions, more flexibility for consulting roles, and an understanding that employees who feel supported in their family life will also be good workers.


The conversation is, frankly, really selfish. Where is the discussion about our kids? Is it really best for our kids to be raised in daycare from the time they're a couple weeks old, rarely seeing either parent? And we can't protect ourselves against every awful future possibility, so the idea of having to "protect yourself" from the possibility of future divorce by working today despite the fact that you have an excellent relationship is ridiculous.

I can't believe that all the other PPs are so anti-SAHM.

+1 I agree with this, and here is another side of the story. I live in a neighborhood with very busy biglaw husbands with wives and children. They are NEVER home, and in addition they are often travelling. So some of the wives are staying home to take care of their children. If both of them worked at 60+ hour a week jobs, there would be no one taking care of their kids but the nannies. The mothers, who all had professional jobs before kids, made a choice that they wanted to be there for their kids. After 10 years out of the job market, re entry would be hard, if not impossible, in the job they left. It would be the same if their husbands left for that long also. They know that. But look around in a Biglaw firm -- very few of the wives have significant jobs. In fact, there is a study that once a man is making more than $300K, he has a non-working wife in most cases, something like 80%. Re-entry is very hard for anyone-- even these elite mothers profiled in the article.

But why all or nothing? Why not 2 40-hour-a-week jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
+1 I agree with this, and here is another side of the story. I live in a neighborhood with very busy biglaw husbands with wives and children. They are NEVER home, and in addition they are often travelling. So some of the wives are staying home to take care of their children. If both of them worked at 60+ hour a week jobs, there would be no one taking care of their kids but the nannies. The mothers, who all had professional jobs before kids, made a choice that they wanted to be there for their kids. After 10 years out of the job market, re entry would be hard, if not impossible, in the job they left. It would be the same if their husbands left for that long also. They know that. But look around in a Biglaw firm -- very few of the wives have significant jobs. In fact, there is a study that once a man is making more than $300K, he has a non-working wife in most cases, something like 80%. Re-entry is very hard for anyone-- even these elite mothers profiled in the article.

But why all or nothing? Why not 2 40-hour-a-week jobs?

Because that would require ambitious men to cut back on their ambitions to balance work and family. And right now, that is something we only expect women to do.