How far should we "Lean In?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

You can be unhappy in any kind of marriage, but it's a lot better to be unhappy and financially independent than unhappy and financially dependent.

Wrong. As I see it, you actually can't be unhappy in a *good* marriage. Maybe focus a little on improving your relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Maybe you should "Lean In" as much as you want because it does not seem you really want to be with your kid. It is ok. Some women are not the maternal type. I hope though that you have a high powered career like Sheryl, because leaning in when you are making a pittance and when your salary is needed at home, is not "leaning in" - it is your constraint.

That is then another thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

You can be unhappy in any kind of marriage, but it's a lot better to be unhappy and financially independent than unhappy and financially dependent.

Wrong. As I see it, you actually can't be unhappy in a *good* marriage. Maybe focus a little on improving your relationship.

Sweet of you to worry about the state of my relationship. It doesn't change the basic truth of what I said. Better to be unhappy and rich than unhappy and poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Maybe you should "Lean In" as much as you want because it does not seem you really want to be with your kid. It is ok. Some women are not the maternal type. I hope though that you have a high powered career like Sheryl, because leaning in when you are making a pittance and when your salary is needed at home, is not "leaning in" - it is your constraint.

That is then another thread.

Maybe you should stop making pronouncements about people you'll never meet. Makes you sound silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Is myopic vision a necessary trait of a surgeon?

[Anonymous]

"Better to be unhappy and rich than unhappy and poor."

And old!

[Anonymous]

Best to investment in your marriage and be happy!

Your children need to learn how to 'get along'
more than anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

Of course it can, but it's a fact that it was much more of a problem when women had less rights and were more dependent upon men. I know plenty of working women who are divorced. The fact is money equals independence for many in our society. There are men who will take advantage of women who are dependent upon them. Just look at other countries where women are expected to take care of home and have babies, those women usually have far less rights and live in worse conditions. There are also good men who fully support their wife staying at home as well.

Everyone should do what works best for their family. Those who chose to lean out should accept their decision without bashing those who have chosen to lean in. I do believe it's fully possible for a family to have two successful working individuals especially with family support. I believe some women like to yell that this is not possible because they feel threatened by super successful women like Sheryl. She is obviously secure in her decision, yet insecure women constantly want to tear her down for her decision.

I'm seeing exactly the opposite on DCUM threads concerning the SAH/WOH issue. Most WOHMs (at least on this forum) like to bash SAHMs for being "dependent, leeches, wasting their educations, etc." I leaned out and am fully confident of my decision. I don't feel "threatened" by super successful women like Sheryl Sandberg. I may have decided to shelve my career for a time, but that doesn't mean I'm not "super successful" in my own right. There are many ways to measure success, and professionally is just one. The people who continually criticize SAHMs are only displaying their own insecurity with their decisions. Why should it matter to them in any way whether a mom (or dad) chooses to stay home?

I see plenty of working moms being bashed as not putting their kids as a priority, saying our kids are being raised by strangers, etc. In my belief women need to accept that people have the right to stay at home and work. Just because a person works does not mean they are not doing what is best for their family. Providing financial support to me is being a good parent, whether that comes through the mom, dad, or both. Women should not be told that we need to forgo our careers just because we have children. Not every woman is interested in full time home making and I don't think that should be something we are forced into because we are women. Plenty of women get real enjoyment and satisfaction out of working. I think working actually makes me more efficient at home too.

I agree. But do you also agree that women shouldn't be told they have to work all their lives if they feel staying home with children is a priority? And that not every woman is interested in F/T employment and shouldn't be guilted into it because a few militant posters feel they're wasting their lives? And that plenty of women get real enjoyment and satisfaction out of taking care of their children and being at home? Because all I keep hearing on DCUM is that women are making a huge mistake if they choose to SAH. And in my experience, nothing could be further from the truth.

Go ahead and SAH. More jobs for those of us who choose to continue to WOH Seriously though, many of my friends who SAH for the past 10 or 15 years are wondering what's next. Their kids have all been in full time school for years, they are not yet 50 and have no idea what to do with themselves. That would be a tough position to be in, especially if they live another 40 years or so[i].

I really respect the women, and the mothers around me who work. It is difficult to maintain a successful professional career or working class job for an entire lifetime, while also managing all of life's obligations. I made a different decision, however, after I had my fourth child. I left a full-time professional (which required an expensive graduate education) career at the age of thirty-three, and I will be fifty-three years old by the time the last of my children leaves the house for college.

At that age, I am not fooling myself, I will have no career to go back to. In fact, at that age I may be seeing some of my professional peers begin to slow down or retire themselves, as they pursue other life opportunities. I have developed a skill set which I currently employ as a volunteer for an organization that helps new immigrants families settle into their local communities and schools, and stay in this country. As my children grow up and leave the house, I expect that I will have more time for similar work.

If I can look back at the first part of my life, when I am in my mid-50s, and have the satisfaction of having raised my children, supported my working spouse, and helped those in need in our local community, I can honestly say that - though I may not have achieved professional success - I have lived a worthy life nevertheless.

Absolutely. Beautifully said.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

You can't compare their roles directly: the surgeon performs an act that takes a few hours, and never sees her patients again. A nanny becomes a primary caregiver: reading to the children, singing to them, asking the children about their day, comforting them, feeding them. The value of what a nanny (or parent) does is in the aggregate - the many small acts performed through the years.

The kid isn't going to remember the surgeon who saved his life. He will remember the love and care he received from his nanny. Maybe you don't see that as being as valuable as what the surgeon does, but I do. You can't compare the way a person was raised with the medical care they received during an emergency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not the PP, but what you've said is truly astounding to me. "Nannies impact a very small segment of society... a nanny's contribution is less valuable to society than the contributions of a lawyer or doctor." This is the person you've entrusted your own children to. The person who is supposed to keep them safe from harm, every minute that you're not with them. I'm appalled at your complete lack of empathy towards your own children. I guess anyone with a pulse and a driver's license will do just fine.

No matter how much I love my children and want them to be well taken care of, a pediatric cardiac surgeon who saves ten lives a day, every day, is objectively more important to society than my nanny. It has nothing to do with how much empathy I have for my children. It has everything to do with recognizing there are other things - besides my children - that are important to this world. If my nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is two children who had mediocre care. The impact of a surgeon not doing his job is ten dead children a day. I think we can all do the math.

Again - wow. Now you're attempting to use hyperbole to illustrate the ridiculous example of the hypothetical surgeon not doing his job, resulting in "ten dead children a day". If your nanny does a mediocre job, the impact of that is YOUR two children having had mediocre care. But that seems to be just fine with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

You can be unhappy in any kind of marriage, but it's a lot better to be unhappy and financially independent than unhappy and financially dependent.

Wrong. As I see it, you actually can't be unhappy in a *good* marriage. Maybe focus a little on improving your relationship.

Sweet of you to worry about the state of my relationship. It doesn't change the basic truth of what I said. Better to be unhappy and rich than unhappy and poor.

I'm wondering where the "unhappy" tangent came from. Why are you assuming unhappiness from the get-go? Plenty of happy marriages out there; you seem to be focused on the bad. Maybe personal experience?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

You can be unhappy in any kind of marriage, but it's a lot better to be unhappy and financially independent than unhappy and financially dependent.

Wrong. As I see it, you actually can't be unhappy in a *good* marriage. Maybe focus a little on improving your relationship.

Sweet of you to worry about the state of my relationship. It doesn't change the basic truth of what I said. Better to be unhappy and rich than unhappy and poor.

I'm wondering where the "unhappy" tangent came from. Why are you assuming unhappiness from the get-go? Plenty of happy marriages out there; you seem to be focused on the bad. Maybe personal experience?

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Most positions of responsibility that require you to lean in also require you to make a choice between work and family in terms of priority. If you have work/life balance you dont have a high lowered job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Better to be unhappy and rich than unhappy and poor."

And old!

Every soul will taste old age. Few things are more pitiful than an old poor woman.