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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not stay at home if u can afford it?
Because of some insecurity that the spouse may leave?
Ok I will send my kid to day care just in case, then.

Ever heard of pride? Financial independence? Equality in marriage? Setting a good example? I could go on..

Working mom here. I actually don't need work for any of those things. I was lucky in that a lucrative job put me in a good place with investments before marriage and my skills won't expire after some years away. And as for setting a good example, I hope I'm doing that by leading a responsible life and treating others with love and respect. I hope my job is not the only or primary way I set an example for my kids. I love my job, don't get me wrong, but it is just a tiny part of who i am and the legacy I hope to leave behind.

So what's your point? Why do you work? You refuted pp's reasons but provide none of your own.

[Anonymous]

Someone asked what a good or reasonable schedule would be, ideally.

My husband works from home FT and I work 25 hours a week outside the home, with preschool/early elementary age kids. We think it's ideal for us. Agreement to start back FT next year.

More secrets: we make a good bit of money combined, but do not live in an expensive house or drive expensive cars, and our local public school is not one of those "we only want the best for our kids" kind of school, but we really like it anyway. So there are no golden handcuffs and no fights about money.

[Anonymous]

I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force.

I don't think anyone is doing that in an interview, but they may raise the fact that they have recent experience, which many employers value. That's all. Companies and businesses care who seems most likely to get the job done well. That is it. They don't care about your life decisions other than the extent to which they are relevant to that issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I work outside the home and obviously don't speak for everyone. But I would LOVE it if he would be a SAHD. I make more money and have a more secure job than he does. He travels a lot; so I end up doing more childcare duties too. And I'm ambivalent about our current daycare situation, though DD seems to love it. I would throw him a damned ticker tape parade if he said he wanted to SAH. The constant juggling at both ends is rough on all 3 of us.

I am a working mom of three and the sole breadwinner. I never expected this to be the setup for us and even somewhat romanticized the notion of being a June Cleaver someday but my multi-degreed husband is now a SAHD and rocks it. I honestly think he is a better SAHD than I would be a SAHM and "gets it" in a way that most SAHMs don't. It makes perfect sense for him to be responsible for the housework. He cooks, he cleans. He has a bourbon waiting for me when I get home. (Good lord, I may grow a penis soon!! Ha!) He actually fired me from doing the laundry (because, as it turns out, I suck at it). There is no equality drama. We respect each other's contributions. I am good at what I do. So I go do what I do best and he does what he does what he does best. He spends his day happily building forts and working on lego. It totally works.

[Anonymous]

oh BOO HOO!

"(Wo)man up!" I say.

They made their beds . . .

[Anonymous]

Another ideal combo. Neighbors with toddlers. Parent 1 is a speech therapist who works with babies in the AM before their naps. Parent 2 is a psychiatrist who works with teens in the afternoons and evenings after school.
*from 1-2 every day the kids nap and they have afternoon delight*
OK, I made the last part up, but wouldn't that be icing on the cake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force.

I don't think anyone is doing that in an interview, but they may raise the fact that they have recent experience, which many employers value. That's all. Companies and businesses care who seems most likely to get the job done well. That is it. They don't care about your life decisions other than the extent to which they are relevant to that issue.

+1

Employers don't care about your priorities or moral fiber unless it is relevant to your ability to perform your job. Someone who has stayed in the work force has more experience and no gaps in remaining current in an expertise. I would always hire that person over someone with fewer years of experience in the distant past. There is no such thing as equivalency credit for years spent on endeavors with no relevance to the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But I don't care which road you take to get there. There is not one right answer

I agree with most of what you said, and this as well, but perhaps part of the point of the article is that there is really no right answer, not just that there are different right answers for different people. We need more family friendly policies here in the US.

Agree with you 100 percent. Completely! But unfortunately, I didn't see that in the article at all. To me, it came across as a gigantic "I told you so" to the women she saw as selling out on their sisters by "opting out" as if it's anybody else's business.

+1 The writer was expressing her opinion. The women are quoted, but quotes can be massaged. I note that only a few even agreed to have their names used. They knew that the author was going to twist their words to make a point. Such as, "oh so sad I live in a townhouse now..."

[Anonymous]

I continue to wonder why these elite women, with their high income husbands, are doing the domestics job and acting like their main contribution is cleaning. No housekeeper? No nanny? No take out meals? Just PTA volunteering and scrap booking? No wonder they are depressed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force.

I don't think anyone is doing that in an interview, but they may raise the fact that they have recent experience, which many employers value. That's all. Companies and businesses care who seems most likely to get the job done well. That is it. They don't care about your life decisions other than the extent to which they are relevant to that issue.

What good is that since you're recently married, will likely get pregnant soon, and need extended maternity leave anyway? I'd rather get someone who's BTDT and now focuses again on work as a priority.

See, once you start discriminating, there's no end to these type of ramifications.

[Anonymous]

^^ I hardly think valuing recent work experience is discrimination.

Perhaps you need to look up the definition.

[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.



Wait - seriously? Because if you're working and you have kids, you're managing both. If you've dropped work, then you're not managing both. That's why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force.

I don't think anyone is doing that in an interview, but they may raise the fact that they have recent experience, which many employers value. That's all. Companies and businesses care who seems most likely to get the job done well. That is it. They don't care about your life decisions other than the extent to which they are relevant to that issue.

What good is that since you're recently married, will likely get pregnant soon, and need extended maternity leave anyway? I'd rather get someone who's BTDT and now focuses again on work as a priority.

See, once you start discriminating, there's no end to these type of ramifications.

If most women didn't opt out, then employers wouldn't worry about hiring women who might have children, because they'd assume the women will continue to work.

See, once you set the norm as "once a woman has kids, she opts out for a few years," employers see all women of childbearing years as potential opt outs. But if there isn't a "norm," then employers hire based on a person's qualifications and commitment and doesn't expect that if that person is a woman, she's going to quit in a few years.

But putting all of that aside, a gap in employment is a problem for most employers. It doesn't matter what the gap was for (kids, caring for an elderly parent, illness, whatever). It's still a gap, and it's a problem. Any employment agency or headhunter will confirm. That's why if you have any plans on jumping back into the work force, you still continue to do some kind of work (off-site, part time, consulting).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For Sheilah O’Donnel, I have zero sympathy. All I can say do is smirk and think "idiot ... thought she had it made with a rich husband who was going to take care of her ...."

Her problem is she married an asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally agree. And I work full time.

Another full time working mom agreeing with you.

Also agree with another pp. these People had huge marriage problems. The wohm / sahm issue was nothing more than a sidebar.

. I completely agree. It also adds to the whole "I told you so" vibe.

I think is is important, just less so because this article really seems to want to suggest that all dudes will becomes douches if women choose to stay home.