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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

. Plus one! Omg those must be some seriously embarrassed dudes right now!!!

[Anonymous]

Agree with PPs who said the people had marriage problems unrelated to the working/staying home issue. Their marriages probably would have dissolved either way. They also may have had self-esteem issues -- feeling devalued and trying to please to feel better about themselves and their relationships. I do think that SAHMs are often devalued, but these women seemed particularly searching for some meaning/value in their lives aside from this.

[Anonymous]

I tend to like Judith Warner but wow was that article condescending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a first world problem, at least a 1% problem
I notice they didn't highlight a family where single income "dad" lost his job.
I think people don't do enough research on how women worked in the past. They worked as cooks, maids, secretaries and other jobs, many which were "pin" money - but was really necessary for the household. Many of the jobs weren't reported in economic number. Women have always worked. We just had a little blimp there were more stayed home than the usual top classes.

Another in a long line of NYT/WaPo articles that people making under $300k a year needn't give a shit about. I guess living in Rockville was just too much for many of these women to bear.

I also suspect many/most of the "women jobs" expected you'd be handling the minor kid emergencies.

Plus, you can take a 10-year break from those jobs, and re-enter the workforce w/o a hitch. Childcare (I suspect) was cheaper and different -- it was either throw the kids in front of a TV, be at home while the kids run around the neighborhood, or have recess at a day-care facility for 8-9 hours a day. None of this Monte$$ori stuff.

I'd still like to know what's so terrible about expecting a SAHM to do the lion's share of cleaning/cooking.

Also -- I suspect many of these marriages sucked before the woman decided to SAH, and they continued to suck after the woman decided (or was pushed) into SAH.

/Ob Dowager Countess: What's a week-end?

[Anonymous]

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.

I'm a FT WOHM and you make some good points, but the fact is it is just going to be more difficult for some women with big gaps in their resume to get back in the workforce (if you aren't rubbing elbows with loaded people who will gladly commit to investing in your new business over cocktails). You seem to be saying, what is best for our kids? But I disagree that it would be best for either our boys or our girls to be raised in a society where it is expected that a woman become a mom or have a career. Sorry, but that has implications that I don't think anyone wants. Grad schools and colleges and employers would be much less likely to invest in girls if the thinking is that they will probably just quit to raise kids. And you clearly have a bias. We've used both daycare and a nanny, and neither has raised our child, though they certainly have helped raise them and I'm very grateful for them.

And actually, you can protect yourself from bad circumstances by working. Economic security is pretty critical.

I do agree that the workforce needs to change for both men and women. I do not think a mom staying home while dad works 80 hour weeks and never deals with a sick kid, field trip, etc. is not ideal, and that happens a lot in this area. I think that unfortunately for many, technology instead of giving you more freedom has just meant you can work longer, and that's silly and counter-productive at some point. Honestly, we blame companies but a lot of it is individual. Some people are addicted to work and could do just as good a job in fewer hours. I see that a lot around here. But I do think overall our workforce is not that friendly for many two parent working families, and I think it would be better for everyone if it was. I know a lot of women who feel forced out of the workforce because it is 50 hours or nothing and their husbands have that too.

[Anonymous]

I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

Boo hoo.

What did you do to ease reentry into the workplace?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

Boo hoo.

What did you do to ease reentry into the workplace?

Why the sarcasm? Am I not allowed to join this discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

Boo hoo.

What did you do to ease reentry into the workplace?

Why the sarcasm? Am I not allowed to join this discussion?

Not the sarcastic PP -- there is no good reason for the sarcasm. Some people on DCUM are just like that. If you say anything's hard, they'll belittle it because it's not as hard as something else, or it's your own fault, or whatever. You're right, it is hard. It's all hard. And the notion that we were supposed to know this at 20 and therefore plan careers that would allow us to be part-time or mostly-home mothers (and know that we would want that) is ludicrous. At 20, for all I knew, I'd never find someone worth marrying. The truth is we have a bad economy, falling real wages, and therefore you can't get by on one income anymore, unless it's one really unusual income. And even then, that will likely mean your kids won't know that parent.
good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was glad to be able to stay at home but now I'm facing the professional consequences.

I had a master's degree and many years in the workplace and then left it all to stay at home with DD (now 7). Now it's a struggle to get back in. Fortunately I have a supportive husband who has admitted on several occasions that what I do with DD and at home is much more difficult than his career (in finance). But it still sucks that now I have to choose between having a job for which I'm grossly over qualified and being available to my family OR getting back on the career track and have to put DD in before and aftercare every day.

It's frustrating and I don't know which way I will go. It's a shame that I have to choose (no high powered friends in my circle).

Boo hoo.

What did you do to ease reentry into the workplace?

Why the sarcasm? Am I not allowed to join this discussion?

Not the sarcastic PP -- there is no good reason for the sarcasm. Some people on DCUM are just like that. If you say anything's hard, they'll belittle it because it's not as hard as something else, or it's your own fault, or whatever. You're right, it is hard. It's all hard. And the notion that we were supposed to know this at 20 and therefore plan careers that would allow us to be part-time or mostly-home mothers (and know that we would want that) is ludicrous. At 20, for all I knew, I'd never find someone worth marrying. The truth is we have a bad economy, falling real wages, and therefore you can't get by on one income anymore, unless it's one really unusual income. And even then, that will likely mean your kids won't know that parent.
good luck.

I agree with you about the unwarranted meanness of previous PP's reaction, and I can totally sympathize with first PP's situation - but to say that "you can't get by on one income anymore" is losing touch. Of course you can, even as a middle-class family where the one person working makes 140K, which I assume is not what you have in mind when you speak about an "unusual" income. We do it. It's tight since we do live in NW DC with two kids, but it's possible.

[Anonymous]

I thought it was a very good article, but wish they had profiled more average, middle class women. For the blue collar moms (who certainly don't have it easy otherwise), reentry with a gap on the resume is not that hard; for the wealthy - clearly you can get a sweet gig after 10 years of SAHM through PTA connections. But what about the majority of educated, middle-class women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not the sarcastic PP -- there is no good reason for the sarcasm. Some people on DCUM are just like that. If you say anything's hard, they'll belittle it because it's not as hard as something else, or it's your own fault, or whatever. You're right, it is hard. It's all hard. And the notion that we were supposed to know this at 20 and therefore plan careers that would allow us to be part-time or mostly-home mothers (and know that we would want that) is ludicrous. At 20, for all I knew, I'd never find someone worth marrying. The truth is we have a bad economy, falling real wages, and therefore you can't get by on one income anymore, unless it's one really unusual income. And even then, that will likely mean your kids won't know that parent.
good luck.

Note also that women are supposed to plan careers that will allow them to be part-time, or mostly-home, or in-any-case-have-a-flexible-job mothers, while there is no comparable expectation for men. The continuing expectation that child care is the mother's responsibility is bad for women, bad for men, and bad for children.

(For what it's worth, my family gets by on one income, which is below the median for jurisdiction we live in. So it's not impossible (if you have good health insurance). It is probably impossible, though, to get by on one income and do all (or most) of the things you might want to do if you had two incomes!)

[Anonymous]

The viciousness directed towards the women in the article by the first several posters is just ugly and a negative reflection on the posters, not the women being interviewed. Why should we be angry about their decisions, reactions to their current situations, and their choices? They were willing to open themselves up to the writer for no pay, probably because they believed this is a discussion worth having in our society today. They are not asking for our sympathy or our support. The woman living in Chevy Chase clearly came from a less wealthy upbringing than she experienced as an adult, and she has had to go back to working hard to pay her bills now. Why the ugly resentment. And negative comments about their looks, please. They are all bright, attractive (not that it should matter, but they are), open, hardworking women in their communities who love their families and have had to make choices, just like anyone reading the articles. Enough with the backstabbing.