Is it disingenuous to get a new job when I plan to try to get pregnant with in 1-1.5 years?

[Anonymous]

FMLA kicks in at 12 mos., so, not disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Collective wisdom of DC Urban Moms (and Dads)

I'm a mid-30s professional woman. I'm a consultant now at a good firm, manager level, successful and close to a promotion point. I'm one of the most senior women on my team, but I don't feel like gender has gotten in the way of my career... yet. However, the hours of the job are grueling (65-80 per week), and the travel can be pretty difficult as well. It is not a sustainable option should I decide to have children, unless I give up client-facing work for a while. I'm still learning a great bit, but not sure the post-promotion point role is right for me (not sure I want to sell consulting work), and I have been thinking of leaving for some time.

I'm starting to family plan and would like to start trying for a baby within the next year. The question is: should I stay in my current role for pregnancy / maternity or start something new which may be more compatible with mom hours, only to start and have to go on maternity leave a year or less into the role?

I have an opportunity to move into a Director level position at a company - the role is exciting and the team seems great. I have great benefits at my current job (decent maternity, opportunity to take an extended period off with a small portion of salary after that, invitro benefits, adoption benefits, etc.)... while I think I could get through pregnancy / maternity in my current role, I think I couldn't continue on as a client-facing consulting for the first few years of child rearing. Alternatively, the maternity / benefits at the new role are less favorable, but I think I could swing it as a mom longer term (instead of 12-16 hours per day, more of an ~8 hour schedule, albeit still trying at times) and still be in a career advancing position. To be clear, I think I would like to be a WM not a SAHM (although I have tons of respect and admiration for the latter, it may not be the right choice for me).

So do I stick it out in the current job through pregnancy/ maternity and find something afterwards? Or jump now to a great opportunity, but have to have the difficult conversations around maternity and parenthood?

And which is worse from an employer perspective? Take extended maternity and then leave, or start something new and then take maternity leave?

No. Do it.
Would a man ever ask himself something like this?
Working through a normL pregnancy during an office job is not too difficult, and 12 weeks off for leave flies by.
Drop in the bucket to a company where you will stay 3, 5, or 7pkus years. Many companies take two years just to hire the right fit person, why would mat leave make them reconsider?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Collective wisdom of DC Urban Moms (and Dads)

I'm a mid-30s professional woman. I'm a consultant now at a good firm, manager level, successful and close to a promotion point. I'm one of the most senior women on my team, but I don't feel like gender has gotten in the way of my career... yet. However, the hours of the job are grueling (65-80 per week), and the travel can be pretty difficult as well. It is not a sustainable option should I decide to have children, unless I give up client-facing work for a while. I'm still learning a great bit, but not sure the post-promotion point role is right for me (not sure I want to sell consulting work), and I have been thinking of leaving for some time.

I'm starting to family plan and would like to start trying for a baby within the next year. The question is: should I stay in my current role for pregnancy / maternity or start something new which may be more compatible with mom hours, only to start and have to go on maternity leave a year or less into the role?

I have an opportunity to move into a Director level position at a company - the role is exciting and the team seems great. I have great benefits at my current job (decent maternity, opportunity to take an extended period off with a small portion of salary after that, invitro benefits, adoption benefits, etc.)... while I think I could get through pregnancy / maternity in my current role, I think I couldn't continue on as a client-facing consulting for the first few years of child rearing. Alternatively, the maternity / benefits at the new role are less favorable, but I think I could swing it as a mom longer term (instead of 12-16 hours per day, more of an ~8 hour schedule, albeit still trying at times) and still be in a career advancing position. To be clear, I think I would like to be a WM not a SAHM (although I have tons of respect and admiration for the latter, it may not be the right choice for me).

So do I stick it out in the current job through pregnancy/ maternity and find something afterwards? Or jump now to a great opportunity, but have to have the difficult conversations around maternity and parenthood?

And which is worse from an employer perspective? Take extended maternity and then leave, or start something new and then take maternity leave?

NO! Just because you "plan" to get pregnant doesn't mean that you will or can. that is a mighty long time from now! for god's sake woman!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the one who made the original statement and I find it hard to believe that the majority of men are taking less time consuming positions 18 months before trying to have children. I do believe the situation changes for some men after the children arrive.

It's the deliberately obtuse or exceedingly biologically impaired poster again!
Men and women are exactly the same feminism is so so tiring

Oh look--it's that adverb happy poster again who thinks that women should stay in the kitchen. Yeah, men and women are equally responsible for parenting. Sorry that makes you tired.

I leaned out before I got pregnant and stayed in a job that was less than maximally challenging. I'm glad I did. I was very ill with both pregnancies and it was all much harder than I expected. I was glad to be in a job where I had already established a reputation and made friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FMLA kicks in at 12 mos., so, not disingenuous.

+1, you're fine as long as you qualify for FMLA. Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Men NEVER do this! Women should NEVER do this!

[Anonymous]

I got a new job when I was four month pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW- men never ask themselves this question and if you married the right person his job will be impacted as much as yours.

Agree with PP, this is not true. My DH took a boring (although ok on salary) government job over research because of his family. The kind of research he does means long hours and nights, a lot of travel, and not really great pay. He didn't want that for his family.

To answer the question in your title, not, lots of people end up having a baby after they start a new job, and I don't think it's disingenuous to do so. However, in your case, I would agree with PP's and advise waiting on your switch. You never know how things will go. You also don't mention how the pay compares, but that would be a factor for me. If it's close and you'd be fulfilled, it would be worth it to me to not work so many hours. Family time is valuable to me, though, even before we had children, and I could have never worked the schedule you have for any long period of time without burning out.

[Anonymous]

I would switch now, IF the new job is something you would want to do even if you don't succeed in getting pregnant (quickly or at all). It sounds like you're thinking of leaving your current position anyway as it's getting too grueling. That's respectable. There's nothing that says you must work as many hours as there are in a day just because you don't have children. Of course many times people switch jobs because they have children, but it's perfectly fine to recognize that you'd like to switch before that point. In addition, it gives you time to establish yourself in your new job before the baby arrives.

I'll give you my experience: DH and I were both law firm attorneys working insane hours. We knew we wouldn't want to stay at the firms long-term, both so we could have a family, and for our own mental health. DH jumped to government after five years, I jumped to government after four (two years after him). I put in 2.5 years at my new job, long enough to establish myself as an excellent employee, then got pregnant. I took a lengthy maternity leave and then returned to a job I love and can balance with my home life. But here's the thing -- I would have wanted to get out of biglaw even if I hadn't had any intention of having kids. And I would have taken this job to do so. Same with DH.

I don't consider myself to be mommy-tracked or to have "leaned out." While it's true that my government job is less prestigious and high-paying than my firm job, I am a star in my office, whereas I was one of many very good associates who would not have made partner. I will go farther in my government job than I ever would have at the firm, although I make a fraction of the salary. The only extent to which I am "mommy-tracked" is that if it weren't for my kid, I would probably be looking to switch to a different agency to change things up. I am not willing to do that because I know I could never replicate what I have now in terms of flexibility. If the kid weren't in the picture, I would be more willing to take chances.

[Anonymous]

You need to consider what is in the best interests of the Firm.