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

[Anonymous]

I feel like I've read this a thousand times.

[Anonymous]

"Always said it was Martha Stewart's fault. She created the need for a perfect lifestyle and suburban household excess. And she has made a fortune doing it."

And continues to rake in the money after becoming a convicted felon and serving prison time.

Fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like I've read this a thousand times.

Me too. And I didn't even bother to open the link.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:to me the money paragraphs were the one about how these women were fine with the child care, but drew the line at having to do the housework too, even though that was clearly part of the job description of stay-at-home spouse. so, they were fine doing one kind of menial labor but not another. like they expected their husbands to come home from their day and help them pick up their workspace (i.e. the house)

You again?

[Anonymous]

Blah blah blah rich white people problems blah blah.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I'm a woman and agree with this--a lot of childcare is menial, meaning that you don't need a lot of skill to do it. (The education these women have was not to prepare them to be good mothers, and very very few parents have education and training in childhood development or early childhood ed.)

Regarding housekeeping--not many people enjoy vacuuming or scrubbing toilets. If both parents work, you can justify/afford to outsource the parts you don't want to do, or at least have a legitimate basis for dividing them up (e.g., we're both tired). If one person is home all day....very easy to see how the other person would expect them to pick up that slack. If I worked and my husband stayed home, I would be really annoyed if the house wasn't clean, laundry wasn't done, etc., and even more annoyed if he'd spent the day decorating or baking or volunteering--doing fun things he enjoys, but not the hard work, which he would expect to share with me (after I'd been working hard all day). I'd prefer more stress and more mess (and, to be fair, more money) to a situation where we resent each other rather than feel "we're in this together."

You might have the right to be annoyed if you have school-aged children, but if children are young and at home all day, the spouse is not just sitting around doing nothing - s/he has hands full all day long.

[Anonymous]

More than anything, I was surprised by how open and candid people were about their marriages.

They used their real names, and they aired their dirty laundry in a NY Times Magazine article by a well-known writer. They must have known that their peers, colleagues, neighbors and eventually children would read it. I found it amazing they would share their marital ugliness so openly.

Maybe others disagree, but to me, most of the marriages just seemed awful. I certainly understand how the challenging the situation can be -- navigating changing roles, differing expectations, disappointments and even envy. But even so, I was struck by how flat out selfish and petulant some of the husbands seemed. Many seemed to have a me-against-you mentality (competitive) rather than us-as-a-team mentality (cooperative). Painful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe that people of this social class did not just have house cleaners come on a regular basis.

Besides that, this article made me really grateful for my feminist husband who is capable of respecting me and having an equal relationship through 20 years of various permutations of jobs and income. The problem for most of these women was the marriage, not the work (at home or otherwise).

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe that people of this social class did not just have house cleaners come on a regular basis.

Besides that, this article made me really grateful for my feminist husband who is capable of respecting me and having an equal relationship through 20 years of various permutations of jobs and income. The problem for most of these women was the marriage, not the work (at home or otherwise).

+1

Yup. The line I hate: "My husband wanted me to stay at home." Ugh.

[Anonymous]

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.

Indeed, more flexible jobs and more value for raising children would much more greatly improve the lives of the 95%+ of women aged 25 to 44 with children are
not women in their mid- to late-thirties who have advanced degrees. Somehow they never get a feature article in the New York Times Magazine, though.

[Anonymous]

^^^with children WHO are not women in their mid- to late-thirties