How far should we "Lean In?"

[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?

This is where it came from:

Poster 1: It's traditional SAH marriages where abuse, violence and disenfranchisement (paraphrasing) were rampant.
Poster 2: That's unfair, abuse, violence and unhappiness can occur in any marriage, including the ones with working women.
Me: If you HAVE to be abused and unhappy, it's better to be that way with money (from your salary) than without.

Trust that clears it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree that everyone will get old. But for me few things are more pitiful than someone who thinks money buys happiness. Good luck with that.

[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.

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.

Of course you can compare these roles directly. Remember, the conversation was about "who is more valuable to society", not to any one individual personally. A pediatric surgeon who brings a dozen children to life every day is more valuable than a nanny who helps raise two children well. That's pure math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Also, "what a kid is going to remember" is a meaningless standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree that everyone will get old. But for me few things are more pitiful than someone who thinks money buys happiness. Good luck with that.

Money doesn't buy happiness any more than poverty doesn't guarantee happiness. What money buys is security. If you HAVE to be unhappy, better to be that way with money than without.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Of course you can compare these roles directly. Remember, the conversation was about "who is more valuable to society", not to any one individual personally. A pediatric surgeon who brings a dozen children to life every day is more valuable than a nanny who helps raise two children well. That's pure math.

I don't think you understand what math is.

[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.

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.

We were discussing relative importance of different jobs to society, not to me or any one personally. In the context of societal good, ten children kept alive are more valuable than two children raised well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We were discussing relative importance of different jobs to society, not to me or any one personally. In the context of societal good, ten children kept alive are more valuable than two children raised well.

I guess that's how some people need to rationalize their choice to not be there for their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We were discussing relative importance of different jobs to society, not to me or any one personally. In the context of societal good, ten children kept alive are more valuable than two children raised well.

I guess that's how some people need to rationalize their choice to not be there for their children.

Feel free to propose an alternative theory without getting personal - if you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We were discussing relative importance of different jobs to society, not to me or any one personally. In the context of societal good, ten children kept alive are more valuable than two children raised well.

I guess that's how some people need to rationalize their choice to not be there for their children.

Feel free to propose an alternative theory without getting personal - if you can.

The alternative theory is that when you have the luxury of having the choice to work or stay at home there are some people who are narcissists. They rationalize their preference for personal professional fulfilment, money, recognition and prestige by convincing themselves that this path is also what is best for their children. That may or may not be true, but it is soothing to these narcissists to believe it is true in all cases, even when they are inflicting damage on their children. I've seen many of these narcissists in the DC metro area and the damage they do to their families; unfortunately they are not rare.

[Anonymous]

9:58, do you see narcissism whenever someone makes a choice different from yours? It certainly sounds like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:58, do you see narcissism whenever someone makes a choice different from yours? It certainly sounds like it.

I clearly said some people are narcissists. I can't help it if you chose to put yourself in that category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We were discussing relative importance of different jobs to society, not to me or any one personally. In the context of societal good, ten children kept alive are more valuable than two children raised well.

I guess that's how some people need to rationalize their choice to not be there for their children.

Feel free to propose an alternative theory without getting personal - if you can.

The alternative theory is that when you have the luxury of having the choice to work or stay at home there are some people who are narcissists. They rationalize their preference for personal professional fulfilment, money, recognition and prestige by convincing themselves that this path is also what is best for their children. That may or may not be true, but it is soothing to these narcissists to believe it is true in all cases, even when they are inflicting damage on their children. I've seen many of these narcissists in the DC metro area and the damage they do to their families; unfortunately they are not rare.

1. Narcissists exist across all segments of society - including those that have the choice to work or not, and those that do not.

2. Narcissists may rationalize any choice, whether to work or stay at home, and in both cases they will convince themselves that it will be the best choice.

3. One can argue that a true narcissist deciding to stay away from their children is actually a good thing. Peruse the family relationships forum for a sampling of complaints from women raised by stay-at-home narcissistic mothers and the damage they did.

[Anonymous]

4. One can argue that good therapy can be a good thing to learn how to be a good parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4. One can argue that good therapy can be a good thing to learn how to be a good parent.

One may, but it would have nothing to do with the argument at hand.