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

[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?

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[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?

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's a happy medium between your exaggeration and staring on the bottom of the ladder with the 2013 college grads. If she's qualified, why shouldn't she be able to start at the same level where she left off, or maybe just a notch down?

[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.

Thank you. Reading all of those posts even as a WOHM was disheartening!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Hello...the rest of us have been making these choices since our kids were born. I am tired of SAHMs re-entering the workforce and doing the woe-is-me about "putting their kids in aftercare" and "having their kids raised by nannies." Nope, no sympathy for you here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with you. However, I have to admit, the 'townhouse in Chevy Chase next to a Safeway' horror story did make me cringe. Please..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's a happy medium between your exaggeration and staring on the bottom of the ladder with the 2013 college grads. If she's qualified, why shouldn't she be able to start at the same level where she left off, or maybe just a notch down?

Because in this world you can't have both. Of course she's not entry-level, but it's not fair to the women who haven't taken time off (chose not to or weren't able to). If there were no career sacrifice, this wouldn't be a choice for anyone. I don't expect to leave my job for 7 years and come back where I left off. That just isn't the way the world works. Staying home is noble, but it comes with sacrifices. Just like working does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Hello...the rest of us have been making these choices since our kids were born. I am tired of SAHMs re-entering the workforce and doing the woe-is-me about "putting their kids in aftercare" and "having their kids raised by nannies." Nope, no sympathy for you here.

She is not asking for your sympathy. She is just stating that she doesn't want a job that forces her to put her kids in before- and aftercare. And the fact that there are no proportionally paying part-time jobs available is a valid criticism of our job market, and a point made in the article that this thread is about.

[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.

Wholeheartedly agree.

[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.

Wholeheartedly agree.

+1 I don't think the article even mentions the kids--the whole reason for opting out...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wholeheartedly agree.

+1 I don't think the article even mentions the kids--the whole reason for opting out...

Did you even read it?

The culture of motherhood, post-recession, had altered considerably, too. The women of the opt-out revolution left the work force at a time when the prevailing ideas about motherhood idealized full-time, round-the-clock, child-centered devotion. In 2000, for example, with the economy strong and books like “Surrendering to Motherhood,” a memoir about the “liberation” of giving up work to stay home, setting the tone for the aspirational mothering style of the day, almost 40 percent of respondents to the General Social Survey told researchers they believed a mother’s working was harmful to her children (an increase of eight percentage points since 1994). But by 2010, with recovery from the “mancession” slow and a record 40 percent of mothers functioning as family breadwinners, fully 75 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “a working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work.” And after decades of well-publicized academic inquiry into the effects of maternal separation and the dangers of day care, a new generation of social scientists was publishing research on the negative effects of excessive mothering: more depression and worse general health among mothers, according to the American Psychological Association.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wholeheartedly agree.

+1 I don't think the article even mentions the kids--the whole reason for opting out...

I read the article, and I was thinking the same thing!

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP who said "you can't get by on one income". You're right. It is possible. I should have said this: "You can't get by on one income unless it's very high, and you aren't living in a very expensive area like DC, and you aren't adequately saving for retirement or college." Or I should have just said "You can't get by on one income now as well as you could 30 years ago or 50 years ago." Because THAT is certainly true.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the choice of 50+ hours or nothing is what makes it difficult. Even two 40-hour, flexible jobs would make things so much easier. Or 1 30-hour job. But those seem so few and far between.

I couldn't help but wonder, what happened to the women who did not opt out? Where are the stories of the women whose marriages fell apart while both parents stayed in the workforce full-time? Aren't those stories just as illustrative?

Finally, what about people who only want to stay home for a year or two? Why does it have to be 7 or 10 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm not that poster but I think the point is - what did you expect? Do you think that you should re-join the workforce at the same level as women who have made other choices, sacrificed time with their families, struggled with WOHM issues, etc? Yes, it's unfortunate that the world works this way, but you made a choice and now you are paying for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There's a happy medium between your exaggeration and staring on the bottom of the ladder with the 2013 college grads. If she's qualified, why shouldn't she be able to start at the same level where she left off, or maybe just a notch down?

Because in this world you can't have both. Of course she's not entry-level, but it's not fair to the women who haven't taken time off (chose not to or weren't able to). If there were no career sacrifice, this wouldn't be a choice for anyone. I don't expect to leave my job for 7 years and come back where I left off. That just isn't the way the world works. Staying home is noble, but it comes with sacrifices. Just like working does.

Your mindset is part of the problem. She's not asking to unfairly take the positions of her colleagues who made the "career sacrifice". Her former peers are miles ahead of her on the ladder already. She's just asking for a job that she is qualified for, and starting at the bottom is unfair, a waste of education and brain power. Not to mention that many won't hire you even for starting positions if you're overqualified.
In all other developed countries, you can do just that - take 1-2 years off and get your old job back. Most women would not SAHM if we had those type of policies here.

[Anonymous]

Question.

If your husbands wanted to be SAHD and you work, what would be your responses?

Would you be ok with it only if he made less money than you? if so, why?

Do you think only women should be stay-at-home? if so why?