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

[Anonymous]

My spouse and each work 60+ hrs/wk and our kids are in daycare/school/aftercare 8 hours a day. We work slightly staggered hours and at home at night to make this possible. Our employers value work product more than hours at the office, however, which makes a world of difference.

[Anonymous]

I totally agree with 21:03, why when or or both parents are big law (or something similar) is the answer often for one to stop working altogether - instead of both parents dialing back a bit??? Why not have both parents go in house or work for the government. Part of me wonders if some of these people would rather not work at all (or have their wife not work) than loose the prestige and rank that comes with a super high salary and long hours. But honestly, where I grew up most of the moms stayed at home and most of the dads were MIA all week working long hours and spending a lot of time commuting. It's not a life I'd want for my kids, even if it came with a 6 bedroom house and an annual personalized photo album for each grandparent.

[Anonymous]

I cannot fathom why anyone cares what the other families do. I work. It's one part of my life. I like my job but it isn't a calling. I don't cure cancer or put humans into space. I am a lobbyist. Why would anyone care that I might have quit? Why congratulate for staying? If my job precluded me from spending real time with my family I would quit. Didn't we quit trying to win the rat race I'm the 80s? Who are these people who have such little else going on that they view working for a living to be the great fulfillment in life? Fulfillment may be found through many channels. There is no reason we women should expect to be matching sets with matching dreams. But the obsession over what others are doing all the time is downright creepy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot fathom why anyone cares what the other families do. I work. It's one part of my life. I like my job but it isn't a calling. I don't cure cancer or put humans into space. I am a lobbyist. Why would anyone care that I might have quit? Why congratulate for staying? If my job precluded me from spending real time with my family I would quit. Didn't we quit trying to win the rat race I'm the 80s? Who are these people who have such little else going on that they view working for a living to be the great fulfillment in life? Fulfillment may be found through many channels. There is no reason we women should expect to be matching sets with matching dreams. But the obsession over what others are doing all the time is downright creepy.

+1. Thanks for saying it so well. I was a lawyer. Like the world needs more lawyers and my quitting made it possible for 2 bright eyed law grads to get hired and me to spend more time with my kids and less stress for DH. Everyone happy. Win win for all .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a first world problem, at least a 1% problem
I notice they didn't highlight a family where single income "dad" lost his job.
I think people don't do enough research on how women worked in the past. They worked as cooks, maids, secretaries and other jobs, many which were "pin" money - but was really necessary for the household. Many of the jobs weren't reported in economic number. Women have always worked. We just had a little blimp there were more stayed home than the usual top classes.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And maybe because it would mean lost income? Doesn't a big law partner make like $800K? If both had 40-week jobs, could they make nearly that much combined? I don't know, I'm just asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And maybe because it would mean lost income? Doesn't a big law partner make like $800K? If both had 40-week jobs, could they make nearly that much combined? I don't know, I'm just asking.

I meant 40-hour/week jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And maybe because it would mean lost income? Doesn't a big law partner make like $800K? If both had 40-week jobs, could they make nearly that much combined? I don't know, I'm just asking.

I meant 40-hour/week jobs.

I think the point is that no one "needs" that much money. 2 jobs, parenting together, still a great income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And maybe because it would mean lost income? Doesn't a big law partner make like $800K? If both had 40-week jobs, could they make nearly that much combined? I don't know, I'm just asking.

I meant 40-hour/week jobs.

I think the point is that no one "needs" that much money. 2 jobs, parenting together, still a great income.

PP here. I agree with that (we live on a lot less). But I imagine the people who have gotten used to those exorbitant incomes can't fathom living on middle-class pay.

[Anonymous]

I think it is so embarrassing, to every single one of us women, that we spend SO much time worrying about what other moms are doing. Work outside the home, work primarily at your home, work part time, work full time, work because you need the money, work because it's part of who you are or a calling, DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO for your family and your own personal happiness. Since when is a career synonymous with personal fulfillment? Are we all so one-dimensional? I don't assume that a big time job haver gets her personal fulfillment exclusively through work anymore than I assume a non-paycheck earning mom gets her fulfillment exclusively through their kids. I am sure there are some women who check one of those boxes or the other, but most of us, thank god, are complex people who manage to do a ton of things in life that offer us fulfilment. Some of us find child rearing to be tedious. Some of us find working to be tedious. Some of us find both things to be tedious! Some of us are working for the weekend and some of us can't wait to go to work on Monday. Who the hell cares? To be clear: I care if you are a crappy mom or parent, because your kids are valuable human beings who deserve good parenting. But I don't care which road you take to get there. There is not one right answer.

It's embarrassing that we complex, nuanced, intelligent women believe in the Santa Clause type fallacy that there is ONE path to fulfillment, security, happiness, and ONE right thing to do, and for fuck's sake, that that thing is the rat race.

Signed, a woman with a kick ass job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

...and the employer gets to decide if 10 years is too long to get your old job back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And maybe because it would mean lost income? Doesn't a big law partner make like $800K? If both had 40-week jobs, could they make nearly that much combined? I don't know, I'm just asking.
A huge amount of lost income. Very, very few 40 hour/week jobs make that kind of money. More typical, $85, and $85, which would be $170K, a loss of $600K per year. Some just do not want to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is so embarrassing, to every single one of us women, that we spend SO much time worrying about what other moms are doing. Work outside the home, work primarily at your home, work part time, work full time, work because you need the money, work because it's part of who you are or a calling, DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO for your family and your own personal happiness. Since when is a career synonymous with personal fulfillment? Are we all so one-dimensional? I don't assume that a big time job haver gets her personal fulfillment exclusively through work anymore than I assume a non-paycheck earning mom gets her fulfillment exclusively through their kids. I am sure there are some women who check one of those boxes or the other, but most of us, thank god, are complex people who manage to do a ton of things in life that offer us fulfilment. Some of us find child rearing to be tedious. Some of us find working to be tedious. Some of us find both things to be tedious! Some of us are working for the weekend and some of us can't wait to go to work on Monday. Who the hell cares? To be clear: I care if you are a crappy mom or parent, because your kids are valuable human beings who deserve good parenting. But I don't care which road you take to get there. There is not one right answer.

It's embarrassing that we complex, nuanced, intelligent women believe in the Santa Clause type fallacy that there is ONE path to fulfillment, security, happiness, and ONE right thing to do, and for fuck's sake, that that thing is the rat race.

Signed, a woman with a kick ass job.

Preach it, sister! Agree with your post 1000%!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is so embarrassing, to every single one of us women, that we spend SO much time worrying about what other moms are doing. Work outside the home, work primarily at your home, work part time, work full time, work because you need the money, work because it's part of who you are or a calling, DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO for your family and your own personal happiness. Since when is a career synonymous with personal fulfillment? Are we all so one-dimensional? I don't assume that a big time job haver gets her personal fulfillment exclusively through work anymore than I assume a non-paycheck earning mom gets her fulfillment exclusively through their kids. I am sure there are some women who check one of those boxes or the other, but most of us, thank god, are complex people who manage to do a ton of things in life that offer us fulfilment. Some of us find child rearing to be tedious. Some of us find working to be tedious. Some of us find both things to be tedious! Some of us are working for the weekend and some of us can't wait to go to work on Monday. Who the hell cares? To be clear: I care if you are a crappy mom or parent, because your kids are valuable human beings who deserve good parenting. But I don't care which road you take to get there. There is not one right answer.

It's embarrassing that we complex, nuanced, intelligent women believe in the Santa Clause type fallacy that there is ONE path to fulfillment, security, happiness, and ONE right thing to do, and for fuck's sake, that that thing is the rat race.

Signed, a woman with a kick ass job.

Thank you for wasting our time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and it's not just a rich white problem. Increasingly flexible jobs and more value for raising children would greatly improve the lives of ALL women in the U.S., particularly those who earn less and may be immigrants or women of color.

+ 1. As to paraphrase one PP, the game is capitalism. That's why you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Individually, and as a society, we do not value children. Otherwise, childcare would be affordable. There would be such a thing as paid parental leave. quote]

I think this is the key. Maternity leave in America is called "disability" !!!! Daycare/preschool does not cover a full work day and parenst have to find other after scholl options.
I work for one of those companies that are ranked as the best for working moms and i see how hard it is to be a mom and progress in your career. I cannot imaging what women in other places do.