How far should we "Lean In?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be frank here, ladies. Everyone has their own priority in life. In the dual career families, the children are the ones getting short changed. I'm the nanny who's expected to pick-up the pieces. I'm not interested in being another parent to your children. I don't want your children more waking hours than you care for your own children.

I'm the mom in a dual-career family and believe me, our children see plenty of both of us. I'm glad you aren't our nanny.

When exactly? Skype? Dinner, when you manage to have the time and energy? Sandberg said they tried to at least do that... before dashing BACK to work. Who do you think gave the children their evening baths, read them bedtime stories, and tucked them into bed every night? I don't suppose ANYONE knows how many nannies they've burned through over the years to maintain that ultimate Silicon Valley power couple status. One can at least hope those nannies were well-compensated for their long hours of demanding work.

And btw, I no longer care to work with your type. I find it much more satisfying to devote myself part-time to several families who are all doing their share of caring for their own children themselves. I've seen enough horrors with children who's parents don't know them.

Fleeting moments of so-called "quality time" doesn't cut it, and deep down, you know it.
We all do.

You are a nightmare and also very, very wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

Of course it can, but it's a fact that it was much more of a problem when women had less rights and were more dependent upon men. I know plenty of working women who are divorced. The fact is money equals independence for many in our society. There are men who will take advantage of women who are dependent upon them. Just look at other countries where women are expected to take care of home and have babies, those women usually have far less rights and live in worse conditions. There are also good men who fully support their wife staying at home as well.

Everyone should do what works best for their family. Those who chose to lean out should accept their decision without bashing those who have chosen to lean in. I do believe it's fully possible for a family to have two successful working individuals especially with family support. I believe some women like to yell that this is not possible because they feel threatened by super successful women like Sheryl. She is obviously secure in her decision, yet insecure women constantly want to tear her down for her decision.

I'm seeing exactly the opposite on DCUM threads concerning the SAH/WOH issue. Most WOHMs (at least on this forum) like to bash SAHMs for being "dependent, leeches, wasting their educations, etc." I leaned out and am fully confident of my decision. I don't feel "threatened" by super successful women like Sheryl Sandberg. I may have decided to shelve my career for a time, but that doesn't mean I'm not "super successful" in my own right. There are many ways to measure success, and professionally is just one. The people who continually criticize SAHMs are only displaying their own insecurity with their decisions. Why should it matter to them in any way whether a mom (or dad) chooses to stay home?

Professional success is important to a lot of people.

If both people in a marriage feel that way, please explain the obsession with having children, and then outsourcing most of their care as soon as possible? At every opportunity, I compliment people who understand the enormous work of parenting, and avoid that route because they both know their careers will always be the priority.

No one has it all. No one.

My husband and I gave up shooting for high professional success in favor of more moderate success, for both of us, and being able to raise our children together. Works for us.

[Anonymous]

It's a debate that only the well-educated can afford to have.

While professional women engage in hand-wringing about whether they're "leaning in" enough, they don't stop to consider that for the nanny they employ, no amount of leaning in on her behalf will ever lead to a discernible increase in her salary/ benefits/ prestige.

Leaning in only considers the concerns of the professional class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm wondering why people never celebrate the marriages of a couple in which one parent is completely supportive of the other parent staying home to take care of their children? By all accounts, Dave Goldberg did everything possible to facilitate his wife's career - good for him. That career is the path she chose. What about men who support their wives who have chosen the path of leaving the workforce to care for the family's children? I say good for them as well. I'm eternally grateful to be married to such a man - a true partner in every sense of the word.

By HER accounts. The more I learn (I hadn't really dug deeply into their family when reading Lean In), the more I'm not so convinced that's the case. I think he was supportive, but he was also a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. No way he was taking on the home/family responsibilities to the degree she laid out in the book.

Without his death, I honestly wouldn't have known he was the CEO of SurveyMonkey (or that SurveyMonkey was such a growing company). I wouldn't have read a lot about his life and all the great things he did (he sounds like he was a great guy, truly).

AND... because of her huge popularity around Lean In, it's making me question her message. Because one of the absolutely foundation principles was that you will need a partner who is a "True partner" and will take on at least half the work of the family.

I think the outsourced even more than we knew, more than was speculated... and frankly, that makes me angry. I feel like Lean In was selling a bill of goods that wasn't attainable for most women in the real world. And that's really only become apparent to me now as I've learned more about her husband's career.

I haven't read the book so don't know if she addressed this, but I think it really matters that executives at their level have the funds to hire truly *excellent* childcare, and can afford nannies that the majority simply can't afford. It's a truly different calculus if the nanny for your child is a twenty something ex-teacher with a degree in child development who can focus exclusively on kid stuff because other staff takes care of the household management chores.

I'm wondering why a twenty-something ex-teacher with a degree in child development who can focus exclusively on kid stuff is considered excellent childcare and something to celebrate - while a parent with the same credentials (or much better) staying home to "focus exclusively on kid stuff" is sneered at by so many posters. Having a parent at home is the "truly different calculus". It's the gold standard. So why is having the great nanny celebrated, but having the SAHP not?

Brilliant question.

Why is it the gold standard? First, you have to have one of the two parents who WANTS to SAH. Do you really think little Johnny is more successful if his mother gives up her great job to focus exclusively on raising him? Meanwhile, the family has given up her income and her career ambitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the person and since we don't know what will happen in the future, it's a cr@pshoot.
That said, I leaned out and will never regret it. Years of infertility and miscarriages, a sister being killed by 16yo in car crash and leaving 2 kids behind etc. having a job I really didn't care for - it just was clear for me. I was super lucky that I could lean out since many can't because of financial and other reasons.

The last thing you mention is a job you didn't like. Well, duh, if you don't like it and you don't need the money, of course you'll SAH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sheryl Sandburg and her husband leaned-in in the way it worked for them and their family. Why are we becoming judgemental and petty-minded about their choices? They are not us.

Because she wrote a book where some people believe she mis-represented what it took to make that situation work, and presented it as anyone could make it work if they just "lean in" more. But if they had lots of hired help they didn't disclose (she did mention that her salary allowed them to hire help, but that's about all that was said on it), it really isn't something that a vast majority of women have within their reach. Multiple nannies, housework, yard work, private planes vs commercial flights, someone cooking meals, etc etc.

Good for her that she wrote a book and made money. Just like good for Amy Chua for writing about Tiger moms. Stupid of you or others to take these ladies seriously and to start to froth and foam at mouth about their ideas. They were laughing all the way to the bank.

On the other hand - discussing her personal tragedy gleefully as if it was in someway connected to her one idea about career choices that women can make, and thus she got her comeuppance in some way because her husband got killed in an accident, is pretty vile and inhumane.

Now, don't go protesting that you are not doing that, or this is not in some way a SAHM/WOHM thing, or that I lack reading comprehension etc. This has been the underlying thread of all the threads connected to her on DCUM in the past week.

You can hate or disagree with Sheryl Sandburg and her ideas. This is just not the time to do it. Show more class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm wondering why people never celebrate the marriages of a couple in which one parent is completely supportive of the other parent staying home to take care of their children? By all accounts, Dave Goldberg did everything possible to facilitate his wife's career - good for him. That career is the path she chose. What about men who support their wives who have chosen the path of leaving the workforce to care for the family's children? I say good for them as well. I'm eternally grateful to be married to such a man - a true partner in every sense of the word.

By HER accounts. The more I learn (I hadn't really dug deeply into their family when reading Lean In), the more I'm not so convinced that's the case. I think he was supportive, but he was also a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. No way he was taking on the home/family responsibilities to the degree she laid out in the book.

Without his death, I honestly wouldn't have known he was the CEO of SurveyMonkey (or that SurveyMonkey was such a growing company). I wouldn't have read a lot about his life and all the great things he did (he sounds like he was a great guy, truly).

AND... because of her huge popularity around Lean In, it's making me question her message. Because one of the absolutely foundation principles was that you will need a partner who is a "True partner" and will take on at least half the work of the family.

I think the outsourced even more than we knew, more than was speculated... and frankly, that makes me angry. I feel like Lean In was selling a bill of goods that wasn't attainable for most women in the real world. And that's really only become apparent to me now as I've learned more about her husband's career.

I haven't read the book so don't know if she addressed this, but I think it really matters that executives at their level have the funds to hire truly *excellent* childcare, and can afford nannies that the majority simply can't afford. It's a truly different calculus if the nanny for your child is a twenty something ex-teacher with a degree in child development who can focus exclusively on kid stuff because other staff takes care of the household management chores.

I'm wondering why a twenty-something ex-teacher with a degree in child development who can focus exclusively on kid stuff is considered excellent childcare and something to celebrate - while a parent with the same credentials (or much better) staying home to "focus exclusively on kid stuff" is sneered at by so many posters. Having a parent at home is the "truly different calculus". It's the gold standard. So why is having the great nanny celebrated, but having the SAHP not?

Brilliant question.

Agreed, this hits the nail on the head. How is hiring the perfect child care provider better than being the perfect child care provider?

Depends on whether either parent wants to give up their professional experience and education to care for the kids to the exclusion of paid work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

Of course it can, but it's a fact that it was much more of a problem when women had less rights and were more dependent upon men. I know plenty of working women who are divorced. The fact is money equals independence for many in our society. There are men who will take advantage of women who are dependent upon them. Just look at other countries where women are expected to take care of home and have babies, those women usually have far less rights and live in worse conditions. There are also good men who fully support their wife staying at home as well.

Everyone should do what works best for their family. Those who chose to lean out should accept their decision without bashing those who have chosen to lean in. I do believe it's fully possible for a family to have two successful working individuals especially with family support. I believe some women like to yell that this is not possible because they feel threatened by super successful women like Sheryl. She is obviously secure in her decision, yet insecure women constantly want to tear her down for her decision.

I'm seeing exactly the opposite on DCUM threads concerning the SAH/WOH issue. Most WOHMs (at least on this forum) like to bash SAHMs for being "dependent, leeches, wasting their educations, etc." I leaned out and am fully confident of my decision. I don't feel "threatened" by super successful women like Sheryl Sandberg. I may have decided to shelve my career for a time, but that doesn't mean I'm not "super successful" in my own right. There are many ways to measure success, and professionally is just one. The people who continually criticize SAHMs are only displaying their own insecurity with their decisions. Why should it matter to them in any way whether a mom (or dad) chooses to stay home?

I see plenty of working moms being bashed as not putting their kids as a priority, saying our kids are being raised by strangers, etc. In my belief women need to accept that people have the right to stay at home and work. Just because a person works does not mean they are not doing what is best for their family. Providing financial support to me is being a good parent, whether that comes through the mom, dad, or both. Women should not be told that we need to forgo our careers just because we have children. Not every woman is interested in full time home making and I don't think that should be something we are forced into because we are women. Plenty of women get real enjoyment and satisfaction out of working. I think working actually makes me more efficient at home too.

I agree. But do you also agree that women shouldn't be told they have to work all their lives if they feel staying home with children is a priority? And that not every woman is interested in F/T employment and shouldn't be guilted into it because a few militant posters feel they're wasting their lives? And that plenty of women get real enjoyment and satisfaction out of taking care of their children and being at home? Because all I keep hearing on DCUM is that women are making a huge mistake if they choose to SAH. And in my experience, nothing could be further from the truth.

Go ahead and SAH. More jobs for those of us who choose to continue to WOH Seriously though, many of my friends who SAH for the past 10 or 15 years are wondering what's next. Their kids have all been in full time school for years, they are not yet 50 and have no idea what to do with themselves. That would be a tough position to be in, especially if they live another 40 years or so[i].

I really respect the women, and the mothers around me who work. It is difficult to maintain a successful professional career or working class job for an entire lifetime, while also managing all of life's obligations. I made a different decision, however, after I had my fourth child. I left a full-time professional (which required an expensive graduate education) career at the age of thirty-three, and I will be fifty-three years old by the time the last of my children leaves the house for college.

At that age, I am not fooling myself, I will have no career to go back to. In fact, at that age I may be seeing some of my professional peers begin to slow down or retire themselves, as they pursue other life opportunities. I have developed a skill set which I currently employ as a volunteer for an organization that helps new immigrants families settle into their local communities and schools, and stay in this country. As my children grow up and leave the house, I expect that I will have more time for similar work.

If I can look back at the first part of my life, when I am in my mid-50s, and have the satisfaction of having raised my children, supported my working spouse, and helped those in need in our local community, I can honestly say that - though I may not have achieved professional success - I have lived a worthy life nevertheless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since when is raising a child, "not working"?

Hope you don't tell the nanny, she's "not working."

You don't need a graduate degree to raise a child.

[Anonymous]

13:24, I stopped at two children because, among other reasons, I couldn't reasonably have expected to be able to keep working full time if I had any more. I also venture to say that if you love kids so much you have four, you enjoy spending the vast majority of your time around them. Different personality type than mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when is raising a child, "not working"?

Hope you don't tell the nanny, she's "not working."

You don't need a graduate degree to raise a child.

But you DO need some brains to succeed at raising a child, no? Don't we all know parents WITH graduate degrees, and they STILL fail at parenting. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a debate that only the well-educated can afford to have.

While professional women engage in hand-wringing about whether they're "leaning in" enough, they don't stop to consider that for the nanny they employ, no amount of leaning in on her behalf will ever lead to a discernible increase in her salary/ benefits/ prestige.

Leaning in only considers the concerns of the professional class.

Truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when is raising a child, "not working"?

Hope you don't tell the nanny, she's "not working."

You don't need a graduate degree to raise a child.

I have two graduate degrees and I retired at the ripe old age of 40 to stay at home. Having saved every single penny of my earnings, I was in a good position to do that + my DH is in a secure and well paying job. No debts, low mortgage and pension and savings, fully funded college and tons of insurance means that I can rest easy.

I think my graduate degree actually enabled me to be a SAHM with financial security, unlike a nanny. Another thing - there is a huge difference in the interaction any child will have with a very educated mom vs. a poorly educated child care provider. We all want to give our children the best advantage in life. In our family's case - I was the best advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a debate that only the well-educated can afford to have.

While professional women engage in hand-wringing about whether they're "leaning in" enough, they don't stop to consider that for the nanny they employ, no amount of leaning in on her behalf will ever lead to a discernible increase in her salary/ benefits/ prestige.

Leaning in only considers the concerns of the professional class.

Truth.

I also agree. It's part of the "feminist" mantra: I want MY rights on the job, but the hell with my domestic workers hidden behind my closed doors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop with the Lean In already !

Here's a tip, be a leader not a follower.

Well said! So, so sick of "Lean In." I've never heard of this woman or her book before her husband's death, and I consider myself a well-educated person.