What percentage of women mommy track themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends what you call mommy tracking.

For example among my friends, most of us of both genders left biglaw after a few years because we wanted better work-life balance. That was before any of us had kids and some still don't and don't plan to.

I think mommy tracking is a pejorative term that encompasses a lot of choices. If I make $300k for a WFH job where I am viewed as an expert in my field, am I "mommy tracking" because I'm not trying to be the CEO and I'm happy with my current schedule?

Classic DCUM salary drop. But yes conscious decelerating career is mommy tracking

I'm that PP. But you didn't address my basic point that a lot of ppl want work-life balance and not partner hours. What counts as mommy tracking per se?

I included my salary to say yeah it's a real job but it's not 1M+ like a law firm partner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. Women were sold a myth that we could have it all. It was a lie. To be a good parent, you must scale back on work. You can’t do both. I cut back and changed career trajectory. I am with my kids out the door to school and when they get home. So happy about that

Do you mean to be a good mom? Because I’m OP’s example, the dads did not scale back.

No, I mean to be a good parent. Dads who likewise refuse to scale back and don't see their kids are not being the best parent that they can. My father never scaled back. He made good money but I never saw him. Ever. Was that socially acceptable? Absolutely. But was he a good dad? I don't view his parenting role like that. So if you are an absent parent by choice, I would question if you are a "good" parent. In some circumstances, it cannot be helped. I'm not judging those circumstances. I speak only to those who have a choice and pick career over all else. These days, it goes both ways, though it is still less socially acceptable for a man to scale back for parenting reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most women who reach senior exec positions do so because of family money, connections, the right private schools, privilige

For the rest, there is no alternative than to mommy track. Children are a gift and your life, it is tough when you cannot afford a nanny, to deal with the daily grind of day care, work, cook dinner, bath kids, clean house, grocery shop, dr appointments
Even harder if your work doesn’t tell you ahead of time that you need to work overtime, if your spouse is a 40 min drive away from day care, if you struggle to get time off for their medical appointments

Agreed. For really senior women (partners, SVPs, etc) it’s really a village. Good friend is a partner at a big law firm in NYC. Two nannies (one for each kid) and one live-in, expensive preschool, housekeeper. Her DH is an MD at an investment bank. Lots of family money allowed them to have kids and ramp up without missing a beat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends what you call mommy tracking.

For example among my friends, most of us of both genders left biglaw after a few years because we wanted better work-life balance. That was before any of us had kids and some still don't and don't plan to.

I think mommy tracking is a pejorative term that encompasses a lot of choices. If I make $300k for a WFH job where I am viewed as an expert in my field, am I "mommy tracking" because I'm not trying to be the CEO and I'm happy with my current schedule?

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course. Women were sold a myth that we could have it all. It was a lie. To be a good parent, you must scale back on work. You can’t do both. I cut back and changed career trajectory. I am with my kids out the door to school and when they get home. So happy about that

This is the one thing I plan to really talk to my daughters about (I.e. certain professions are easier for when you have kids, timing of children, it really does matter how much your DH helps, exc...)

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends what you call mommy tracking.

For example among my friends, most of us of both genders left biglaw after a few years because we wanted better work-life balance. That was before any of us had kids and some still don't and don't plan to.

I think mommy tracking is a pejorative term that encompasses a lot of choices. If I make $300k for a WFH job where I am viewed as an expert in my field, am I "mommy tracking" because I'm not trying to be the CEO and I'm happy with my current schedule?

This

What role is this? It seems likely so unique to be unrepeatable? How did you end up here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends what you call mommy tracking.

For example among my friends, most of us of both genders left biglaw after a few years because we wanted better work-life balance. That was before any of us had kids and some still don't and don't plan to.

I think mommy tracking is a pejorative term that encompasses a lot of choices. If I make $300k for a WFH job where I am viewed as an expert in my field, am I "mommy tracking" because I'm not trying to be the CEO and I'm happy with my current schedule?

This

What role is this? It seems likely so unique to be unrepeatable? How did you end up here?

NP. It's not that unique. I work for an insurance company where many mid-level positions pay that much and allow you to WFH full time. Oh, and WFH started before Covid; we historically had multiple offices and it wasn't unusual to have teams spread across different locations, so we were used to working/collaborating/managing remotely. But you have to have the right experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends what you call mommy tracking.

For example among my friends, most of us of both genders left biglaw after a few years because we wanted better work-life balance. That was before any of us had kids and some still don't and don't plan to.

I think mommy tracking is a pejorative term that encompasses a lot of choices. If I make $300k for a WFH job where I am viewed as an expert in my field, am I "mommy tracking" because I'm not trying to be the CEO and I'm happy with my current schedule?

This

What role is this? It seems likely so unique to be unrepeatable? How did you end up here?

NP. It's not that unique. I work for an insurance company where many mid-level positions pay that much and allow you to WFH full time. Oh, and WFH started before Covid; we historically had multiple offices and it wasn't unusual to have teams spread across different locations, so we were used to working/collaborating/managing remotely. But you have to have the right experience.

So a finance or legal role?

[Anonymous]

Why do you have to start mommy wars about someone's career choices, OP?

I'm not the type of person that would have made an executive-level position, I make $200K in my senior-manager level position in a very flexible job (I worked in the office 5 days a week pre-pandemic, but it was still flexible, I could leave for kid stuff and nobody questioned it). I don't consider this mommy tracking myself, I consider it being happy with a flexible job that allows me to have a life. I see my former colleagues who went all in on partner-track at consulting firms and their life just seems miserable. I wouldn't want that with or without kids.

[Anonymous]

Less than half of friends l graduated with. Several of us have husbands with less demanding careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends what you call mommy tracking.

For example among my friends, most of us of both genders left biglaw after a few years because we wanted better work-life balance. That was before any of us had kids and some still don't and don't plan to.

I think mommy tracking is a pejorative term that encompasses a lot of choices. If I make $300k for a WFH job where I am viewed as an expert in my field, am I "mommy tracking" because I'm not trying to be the CEO and I'm happy with my current schedule?

This

What role is this? It seems likely so unique to be unrepeatable? How did you end up here?

NP. It's not that unique. I work for an insurance company where many mid-level positions pay that much and allow you to WFH full time. Oh, and WFH started before Covid; we historically had multiple offices and it wasn't unusual to have teams spread across different locations, so we were used to working/collaborating/managing remotely. But you have to have the right experience.

So a finance or legal role?

I'm the PP who posted earlier. I'm an in-house attorney at a large company. I feel fortunate but not unique - there are similarly situated jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you have to start mommy wars about someone's career choices, OP?

I'm not the type of person that would have made an executive-level position, I make $200K in my senior-manager level position in a very flexible job (I worked in the office 5 days a week pre-pandemic, but it was still flexible, I could leave for kid stuff and nobody questioned it). I don't consider this mommy tracking myself, I consider it being happy with a flexible job that allows me to have a life. I see my former colleagues who went all in on partner-track at consulting firms and their life just seems miserable. I wouldn't want that with or without kids.

This - it basically describes most normal people. Esp those with enough education or marketable skills to have a decent HHI without working a gazillion hours like people who have to work multiple jobs etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends what you call mommy tracking.

For example among my friends, most of us of both genders left biglaw after a few years because we wanted better work-life balance. That was before any of us had kids and some still don't and don't plan to.

I think mommy tracking is a pejorative term that encompasses a lot of choices. If I make $300k for a WFH job where I am viewed as an expert in my field, am I "mommy tracking" because I'm not trying to be the CEO and I'm happy with my current schedule?

This

What role is this? It seems likely so unique to be unrepeatable? How did you end up here?

NP. It's not that unique. I work for an insurance company where many mid-level positions pay that much and allow you to WFH full time. Oh, and WFH started before Covid; we historically had multiple offices and it wasn't unusual to have teams spread across different locations, so we were used to working/collaborating/managing remotely. But you have to have the right experience.

So a finance or legal role?

I'm the PP who posted earlier. I'm an in-house attorney at a large company. I feel fortunate but not unique - there are similarly situated jobs.

$300 for in house is pretty high unless you are GC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends what you call mommy tracking.

For example among my friends, most of us of both genders left biglaw after a few years because we wanted better work-life balance. That was before any of us had kids and some still don't and don't plan to.

I think mommy tracking is a pejorative term that encompasses a lot of choices. If I make $300k for a WFH job where I am viewed as an expert in my field, am I "mommy tracking" because I'm not trying to be the CEO and I'm happy with my current schedule?

This

What role is this? It seems likely so unique to be unrepeatable? How did you end up here?

NP. It's not that unique. I work for an insurance company where many mid-level positions pay that much and allow you to WFH full time. Oh, and WFH started before Covid; we historically had multiple offices and it wasn't unusual to have teams spread across different locations, so we were used to working/collaborating/managing remotely. But you have to have the right experience.

So a finance or legal role?

I'm the PP who posted earlier. I'm an in-house attorney at a large company. I feel fortunate but not unique - there are similarly situated jobs.

$300 for in house is pretty high unless you are GC

Ummm DP but the GC at like a Fortune 100 company would be making WAY more. And working a ton obviously.

Our Bethesda neighborhood is full of WFH parents that clearly make pretty high salaries. Just look outside and people are home all day. Not sure why this is so hard to believe?

Another salary at that range would be Of Counsel at a law firm, working reduced hours for better work-life balance. I have a few friends in those roles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends what you call mommy tracking.

For example among my friends, most of us of both genders left biglaw after a few years because we wanted better work-life balance. That was before any of us had kids and some still don't and don't plan to.

I think mommy tracking is a pejorative term that encompasses a lot of choices. If I make $300k for a WFH job where I am viewed as an expert in my field, am I "mommy tracking" because I'm not trying to be the CEO and I'm happy with my current schedule?

This

What role is this? It seems likely so unique to be unrepeatable? How did you end up here?

NP. It's not that unique. I work for an insurance company where many mid-level positions pay that much and allow you to WFH full time. Oh, and WFH started before Covid; we historically had multiple offices and it wasn't unusual to have teams spread across different locations, so we were used to working/collaborating/managing remotely. But you have to have the right experience.

So a finance or legal role?

I'm the PP who posted earlier. I'm an in-house attorney at a large company. I feel fortunate but not unique - there are similarly situated jobs.

$300 for in house is pretty high unless you are GC

Agreed. I’m in Chicago and the roles paying that are in the far north suburbs and require a few days in person.