Be honest- what do you think about women who are content to be just wives and mothers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

LOL. You sound absolutely insufferable and I guarantee (just from reading your BS) that if your “team” was dissolved tomorrow it would have absolutely zero effect on society (although I’m sure you’d all miss your paychecks that you suck out of the system by essentially being useless middlemen).

I’m sure you’re really good at meetings and shaking hands and speaking in corporate jargon, but I also am fairly certain that you possess no actual skills or particular knowledge that is good for anything other than transferring wealth from one hand to another. For example, you seem to think the only time sensitive jobs are those that directly involve saving lives. Clearly you have never worked with scientists, or the military, or sanitation or utilities, etc.

And I 100% believe that people would get demoted to work on your “team” since it sounds like you’re essentially running an adult playhouse where nothing of actual value gets done.

Or maybe your business is an MLM. You kind of sound like the type.

But as interesting as this side topic has been, I’m out! Good luck with your #girlbossing.

don't go. international development is known as a field that does more harm than good in a world. it largely works of paying themselves to propose solutions to societies they know nothing about. someone gotta pay the leadership make two calls a day while their baby plays.

You know I’ve now googled it and there are more than 200 companies in the United States which have as a policy being allowed to bring a baby. My set-up was an accommodation because I was not going to stay otherwise, but there’s more than 200 companies willing to offer it to anyone.

No offense, but surely you know all that money spent to retain you to take a couple calls each day for a couple years could have been better spent on the actual work…its examples like this that give some of these organizations a bad rap.

[Anonymous]

Why is it any different to company providing a daycare vs you picking a daycare near your office? Either way kid is in daycare, not with parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

LOL. You sound absolutely insufferable and I guarantee (just from reading your BS) that if your “team” was dissolved tomorrow it would have absolutely zero effect on society (although I’m sure you’d all miss your paychecks that you suck out of the system by essentially being useless middlemen).

I’m sure you’re really good at meetings and shaking hands and speaking in corporate jargon, but I also am fairly certain that you possess no actual skills or particular knowledge that is good for anything other than transferring wealth from one hand to another. For example, you seem to think the only time sensitive jobs are those that directly involve saving lives. Clearly you have never worked with scientists, or the military, or sanitation or utilities, etc.

And I 100% believe that people would get demoted to work on your “team” since it sounds like you’re essentially running an adult playhouse where nothing of actual value gets done.

Or maybe your business is an MLM. You kind of sound like the type.

But as interesting as this side topic has been, I’m out! Good luck with your #girlbossing.

don't go. international development is known as a field that does more harm than good in a world. it largely works of paying themselves to propose solutions to societies they know nothing about. someone gotta pay the leadership make two calls a day while their baby plays.

You know I’ve now googled it and there are more than 200 companies in the United States which have as a policy being allowed to bring a baby. My set-up was an accommodation because I was not going to stay otherwise, but there’s more than 200 companies willing to offer it to anyone.

No offense, but surely you know all that money spent to retain you to take a couple calls each day for a couple years could have been better spent on the actual work…its examples like this that give some of these organizations a bad rap.

Not really. Parenting young kids is a blip in a long professional career. And the data is clear that parents who are accommodated stay in their workplaces.

Have you ever heard the term “crabs in a bucket”?

[Anonymous]

I LOVED being a SAHM. In retrospect those were the happiest years of my life.
While I was going thru it, the early years felt like constant hard thankless work. I wanted every moment to be edifying for my kids and I wore myself out. I honestly think my children's successes thus far were partly due to their nature and partly my nurture.
When I started working again, I could not believe how satisfying it was to drink my morning tea quietly and check work emails without a child bothering me as I started my day. I loved that too.

Like anybody, SAHMs come in different varieties. If someone has worker-bee energy, they will bring that to everything they undertake.

[Anonymous]

My dog shits outside, sometimes to the backyard or front yard, the sidewalk, etc.

We do not fking care about who stays at home or not

Everyone makes a choice and should be respected. As staying home or go out work.

Still there rapists, murderers. Teach men to not lower women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Inspired by a quote by Nicole Kosman’s character from the Expats. What do you truly think about women who just want to stay home, tend to the family and are happiest doing this if they can afford to?

I think "Good for them". I've been working since I was 14, paid my own way through college and gradschool, have a 25 years + career, pay 50/50 for everything with my husband and frankly, if someone said - just stay at home and don't work, I would love it at this stage of the game. I am tired and spread too thin, sandwiched between childcare and aging parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I LOVED being a SAHM. In retrospect those were the happiest years of my life.
While I was going thru it, the early years felt like constant hard thankless work. I wanted every moment to be edifying for my kids and I wore myself out. I honestly think my children's successes thus far were partly due to their nature and partly my nurture.
When I started working again, I could not believe how satisfying it was to drink my morning tea quietly and check work emails without a child bothering me as I started my day. I loved that too.

Like anybody, SAHMs come in different varieties. If someone has worker-bee energy, they will bring that to everything they undertake.

Relate so much to this. Going back to work after being a SAHM to young kids was like a vacation. It's just easier. But I still loved being a SAHM.

[Anonymous]

Wow, do folks really find it appealing to take their toddler to work like that PP? (I think most of us would love longer and more fully paid maternity leaves, sure, not questioning that.)

My oldest starting walking at 12 months and dropped her morning nap at 14 months. She would have been utterly miserable cooped up in my office every morning, and regardless of when I had calls scheduled, I can't imagine I would have gotten any work done! Truly, just sounds hellish.

[Anonymous]

Not reading all the posts here, so I'll just respond to the OP. I don't see a problem with it. If a woman wants to do that, and dedicates time and effort to doing it well, it is a very valuable thing that can really benefit kids and the home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My dog shits outside, sometimes to the backyard or front yard, the sidewalk, etc.

We do not fking care about who stays at home or not

Everyone makes a choice and should be respected. As staying home or go out work.

Still there rapists, murderers. Teach men to not lower women

Yes AND per this thread women are doing a great (yet very sad!) job of lowering other women.

We can't win.

[Anonymous]

I love being a SAHW/M. And once they are off in college, I'm spending my days at the gym, spa, museums, take art classes, go to lectures, and of course, travel--to visit my children (on occasion) and wherever I want. Finally I can go to Vietnam for a 2 week long yoga immersion workshop taught by my favorite teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

I don't feel strongly on either side of this debate (represented above), but I do think that we need to consider what it means if you can be so highly accomodated as a high-performing person but not as a low-performing parent or professsion of any type. I am NOT in favor of Scandanavian style accomodations because I hve experienced first hand the sexism and unintended consequences of them (hint: all the paid leaves are great. And they result in even more sexism). but I do think that we are asking parents to be EXTRA amazing at their job so that only if you are the best professional can you be the best mother and have options

[Anonymous]

Was thinking about this thread last night during a conversation with my DH about our retirement plans. We are still in our 40s and won't be fully retiring until closer to 60, and I think I'll probably want to work in some capacity even past that because I think some kind of work is good for mental health (including the unpaid work of caring for children).

My DH will qualify for a pension at 51, though. His/our plan is to take his pension as soon as he qualifies, and then shift into a job he likes more or with less responsiblity/stress -- with his pension he can take a much lower paying job without impact his income.

But as we get closer to this point, he has become more and more burnt out on work and I can see the toll it's taking on him. I suggested last night that maybe he take a year or two off after he gets his pension, before moving into some other kind of work. I suggested he could focus on our DC, who will be in middle school at that point, and not worry about making money since between my income and his pension, we'll still be in very good shape.

I thought he'd push back against this, the idea of being a SAHD for a bit. But he kind of lit up about it. He loves his family and I think the idea of focusing on his kid and planning meals and doing stuff around the house sounded good to him. I get it. I SAHMed for 2 years after DC was born. I found it rewarding and a needed reset on my career, which at the time was quite stressful and not very personally rewarding. I could see a similar experience being really good for DH in the same way it was good for me.

So the premise of this thread -- that we should judge women who are happy to "just" be wives and mothers -- strikes me as inherently suspect. I doubt anyone will judge my DH for spending couple years taking care of our kid and tending to the house. In fact I bet many of you who are scolding women for doing this would applaud him for it. Because there is nothing wrong with just wanting to focus on your kids and your family. Assuming you can financially afford to have someone at home, there are a lot of reasons why it can work well for a family.

Human being should be allowed to do what they want with their lives, assuming they can find a way to make it work. Caring for children, families, and homes is vital work that many people do for a living anyway. Why woud I judge ANYONE for deriving personal satisfaction from these important, necessary jobs within they own families? What a weird impulse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

I don't feel strongly on either side of this debate (represented above), but I do think that we need to consider what it means if you can be so highly accomodated as a high-performing person but not as a low-performing parent or professsion of any type. I am NOT in favor of Scandanavian style accomodations because I hve experienced first hand the sexism and unintended consequences of them (hint: all the paid leaves are great. And they result in even more sexism). but I do think that we are asking parents to be EXTRA amazing at their job so that only if you are the best professional can you be the best mother and have options

Can you explain further? Because I have Scandinavian male colleagues who also take their parental leave. It's not just the moms staying home for a year, it's often one parent and then the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, do folks really find it appealing to take their toddler to work like that PP? (I think most of us would love longer and more fully paid maternity leaves, sure, not questioning that.)

My oldest starting walking at 12 months and dropped her morning nap at 14 months. She would have been utterly miserable cooped up in my office every morning, and regardless of when I had calls scheduled, I can't imagine I would have gotten any work done! Truly, just sounds hellish.

I don't know anyone who does that IRL, but I do know some who WAH and are keeping a baby at home for 1-2 years while they work. That wouldn't have worked well for me either, but they are saving some significant money.