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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few generations before the opt out generation that now wants back in were the Real Housewives of the Cold War.
The mid-century housewife knew in her heart - because all the magazines confirmed it to be so- that love, marriage and children was The career for women. My own mother Betty would follow in the footsteps of another Betty, Betty Crocker, seemingly satisfied in her role as housewife and mother. But in the fall of 1960 another magazine article appeared in Good Housekeeping questioning the role of women. It wouldn't be until 1963 when the article's author Betty Friedan's book the Feminine Mystique appeared.The problem that had no name was so unfathomable to many homemakers at the time no one even thought they had a problem. It was buried as deeply as our missiles underground and would cause the same explosion when they were released. For a look at the real housewives of the Cold War visit

http://envisioningtheamericandream.com/2013/03/07/the-real-housewives-of-the-cold-war/

Love you!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, but the fact is that most women don't "opt out" (Google opt out myth), and guess what? Employers still discriminate against mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You manage both because you are doing only a small percentage of the childcare work. So, you are prioritizing work outside the home. Nothing wrong with that, but that was the point PP made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think the working world or previous posters are anti-SAHM, the working world simply does not credit experience that is not relevant, for whatever reason. Many work places actually cater to moms that are willing to attempt the balance. I think such work places want to keep these women because they don't want to miss talent. That is just good business sense. To say any company is being selfish by prioritizing its profits over your children is, frankly, entirely missing the point. Enduring companies are -- and will always be -- in the business of remaining profitable, not of subsidizing your family. A company in the latter business is not a business at all and will quickly go out of business. If you want to stay home and take care of your family, I think that is a noble endeavor but the working world owes you nothing for making that choice. And, really, expecting the world to pay you back demeans your choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I really liked the article. I found the interviews with the still-working (resentful) parent pretty fresh. Show me other "working SAHM" articles, anywhere, with that level of candor.

+1
It hit very close to home for me. I left the workforce almost a year ago so that DH could pursue a great job in a different state. The couple dynamic changed almost immediately, DH became one of those ogres, and I don't think we'll ever be the same again. I am networking and interviewing to go back to work, because, while I'm happy to have been home for DC's first year, I don't want to become one of those women in the article.

I am in a similar situation except in a different country. My husband, on the other hand, has been wonderful. He's been very supportive and does help a lot home when he comes home. I know that I will eventually go back to work and I am ok with the idea that I will probably earn less or take a less glamorous job. I have been on both sides. Whether you SAHM or WOHM, the choice is never easy. You just have to do what is best for you and your family at the time.

[Anonymous]

I find it hard to believe that in this country people are so willing to accept these intolerable pressures on their work and home life. It does not have to be this way. It should not be this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe that in this country people are so willing to accept these intolerable pressures on their work and home life. It does not have to be this way. It should not be this way.

It is this way, though. What do you suggest we do to change things?

[Anonymous]

I find it hard to believe that in this country people are so willing to accept these intolerable pressures on their work and home life. It does not have to be this way. It should not be this way.