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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my observation there are two main factors that lead to mothers leaving the paid workforce:

1) A husband/partner with a rigid job requiring long hours, lots of travel travel, and/or unpredictable scheduling;

2) 3 or more kids.

3) Special needs child(ren)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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 she has been out of the game. I have no problems with SAH parents sacrificing their careers for their home. But I have a problem with them saying that the workforce is just supposed to accept them back open arms. Honestly, things have changed in the workplace, and it makes sense that after a large gap in their service, they need to reprove themselves. And those of us that have stayed and struggled with the issues of WOH should continue on their track. It's not bitterness, it's common sense. So if you come back making close to entry level, it makes sense. You are coming back and need to relearn your tricks. If you were truly on top of your game, you should be able to rebound eventually. But there is no way that an employer will take you at your word that you can come back full speed.

Several people on the NYTimes comments have argued that you are using "skills" in the home that are transferable to work. (One person even said: "How precisely is it not the same experience as someone involved in operations? That's what the "stay at home" is about, you keep track of all that is going on and ensure that the proper logistics are there, the proper oversight etc....They are not on vacation and they too are accumulating knowledge and professional skill sets.")

As a senior person who does a lot of hiring--and as a working mom who runs a household--I would not advise women returning to the workforce to make that part of the argument. I get that raising teenagers requires a lot "negotiating" and keeping the house requires "organizational skills" etc etc. It is not equivalent to the work world. Mostly, the power relationships are totally different. Managing your spouse and kids is not the same as managing subordinates, working with bosses, and dealing with clients. Even overseeing subcontractors is different in a business environment--renovating your bathroom and dealing with the plumber and tile guy is not the same as overseeing a contract...being responsible for someone else's money and an organization's legal risks is just a different kettle of fish. Professional relationships and activities are bound by any number of legal and regulatory/compliance issues that never enter in anything you have to deal with at home.

If anything, these kinds of statements are a red flag to me because if you've been "running the show" at home and see that as being equivalent, I'd be concerned about your ability to fit into a team environment where you can't always decide the priorities, or to understand the risks and challenges of a business environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
In my opinion, the lack of meaningful part-time work options really hurt all parents.

I agree. DH and I have been lucky enough to find excellent part-time opportunities. Both of us.

It took a lot of effort and hard work to get to this point, but it was worth every minute. Now that we're here, it really is Nirvana. We both have excellent balance and the equality in our relationship is natural and effortless. We are grateful beyond belief.

I truly wish everyone could have the option, assuming they want it. This is a societal issue, not a women's issue. It would benefit everyone, including the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it would interesting to look at SAHDs or dads who daddytrack/go part time while mom is the major breadwinner. . .
Even more alarming, they seem to feel it emasculated their husbands and made them less desirable/attractive. I find that both interesting and sad.

This is interesting, and sad. Work usually done by women is often devalued, so I can totally see that a SAHD would have to deal with people (even women, even his wife) devaluing the work that he does and considering him "less of a man" for doing it. Men in pink collar professions (nursing, elementary school teaching) have faced the same issue. Until, of course, enough men enter the profession that it isn't thought of as "women's work" anymore, at which point, the compensation and respect for the work rise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes me so angry that these discussions (the article and here) completely overlook the root of the problem, which is that society doesn't value childrearing and caring for the home, and there aren't enough flexible and part-time jobs available in the professional world.

Just because a woman stays home does not mean she is no longer her husband's "intellectual equal." Working at a computer from 9-5 somehow makes you intellectual, but cleaning, teaching, shopping, playing, and cooking from 9-5 makes you an idiot? That's ridiculous. SAHMs (and dads!) are not just sitting around. They're doing an unbelievable amount of very important work. This is literally the job of raising the next generation! (Also, would you consider someone who works as a nanny or preschool teacher to be somehow unintellectual and worthless, or does the fact that they make money for this work somehow change the value of their activities??)

We need to work to teach each other the value of the work done at home. This needs to come into the media, classrooms, and our everyday conversations.

And the workforce needs to change so that parents -- men and women -- can have sustainable careers and good family lives. As the article points out, a "good" job is one that requires travel, 50+ hours a week, etc. So, the only options a woman has then are to (1) work all the time and spend very little time/energy with her kids, (2) work in a mediocre, "second-rate" job for which she isn't valued any more than she would if staying at home, or (3) stay at home and be devalued by society. The professional workforce needs to offer more part-time positions, more flexibility for consulting roles, and an understanding that employees who feel supported in their family life will also be good workers.

The conversation is, frankly, really selfish. Where is the discussion about our kids? Is it really best for our kids to be raised in daycare from the time they're a couple weeks old, rarely seeing either parent? And we can't protect ourselves against every awful future possibility, so the idea of having to "protect yourself" from the possibility of future divorce by working today despite the fact that you have an excellent relationship is ridiculous.

I can't believe that all the other PPs are so anti-SAHM.

Totally agree. And I work full time.

I agree, too. And I SAH. There should have been something along the lines of what the PP wrote above in the article. There just aren't that many choices when it comes to child-rearing. And I find it odd that moms are judgmental of other moms. The women's movement was about women being able to make choices. So, why judge others for their choices? We should be supporting each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my observation there are two main factors that lead to mothers leaving the paid workforce:

1) A husband/partner with a rigid job requiring long hours, lots of travel travel, and/or unpredictable scheduling;

2) 3 or more kids.

Even more predictive, in my observation, is if one partner has a job that they are not invested in and/or would like to make a career change from. If staying home with your child seems more enjoyable than your job, and if you don't care about getting back to your job/career after a period of time off, and if the family can get by one one income, then being a SAHP, at least for a few years, makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my opinion, the lack of meaningful part-time work options really hurt all parents.

I agree. DH and I have been lucky enough to find excellent part-time opportunities. Both of us.

It took a lot of effort and hard work to get to this point, but it was worth every minute. Now that we're here, it really is Nirvana. We both have excellent balance and the equality in our relationship is natural and effortless. We are grateful beyond belief.

I truly wish everyone could have the option, assuming they want it. This is a societal issue, not a women's issue. It would benefit everyone, including the kids.

Agree that PT work would be the best of both worlds (I tried at my agency, wanting to work 70 hours a pay period, not 80, and was told no- could only do 80 or 64 or less. No in between). I know many people who are PT but work FT hours with PT pay. Have you run into this in your own careers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and it's not just a rich white problem. Increasingly flexible jobs and more value for raising children would greatly improve the lives of ALL women in the U.S., particularly those who earn less and may be immigrants or women of color.

+ 1. As to paraphrase one PP, the game is capitalism. That's why you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Individually, and as a society, we do not value children. Otherwise, childcare would be affordable. There would be such a thing as paid parental leave. And sick leave. You realize that the majority of working Americans can't take a sick hour from work to get a flu shot, much less to stay home for a few weeks after giving birth?

I am not saying that everything in countries with these polices is hunky dory, but our tax policy etc reflects our values: a one earner wage traditional house hold.

So, I am sorry if I don't have a lot of sympathy for these women, particularly the well-connected, wealthy ones. Most women don't have these "choices" and I am so tired of hearing about the lowered economic status following a divorce, partner's job loss, or trouble re-entering the workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree, too. And I SAH. There should have been something along the lines of what the PP wrote above in the article. There just aren't that many choices when it comes to child-rearing. And I find it odd that moms are judgmental of other moms. The women's movement was about women being able to make choices. So, why judge others for their choices? We should be supporting each other.

Feminism is not about women being able to make choices. It's about social, political, and economic equality for men and women. Obviously this includes women making choices. But it is certainly does not include women being able to make choices immune from criticism about how those choices fit into larger societal issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In my opinion, the lack of meaningful part-time work options really hurt all parents.

I agree. DH and I have been lucky enough to find excellent part-time opportunities. Both of us.

It took a lot of effort and hard work to get to this point, but it was worth every minute. Now that we're here, it really is Nirvana. We both have excellent balance and the equality in our relationship is natural and effortless. We are grateful beyond belief.

I truly wish everyone could have the option, assuming they want it. This is a societal issue, not a women's issue. It would benefit everyone, including the kids.

I would kill to work part-time. It seems much more common in my country (UK) than here, for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my observation there are two main factors that lead to mothers leaving the paid workforce:

1) A husband/partner with a rigid job requiring long hours, lots of travel travel, and/or unpredictable scheduling;

2) 3 or more kids.

3) Special needs child(ren)

All the SAHM in my acquaintance meet at least 2 out of 3 factors on this list and some all three. They all had the same type of high powered careers mentioned in the article. Can't fault them for doing what works best for their family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, too. And I SAH. There should have been something along the lines of what the PP wrote above in the article. There just aren't that many choices when it comes to child-rearing. And I find it odd that moms are judgmental of other moms. The women's movement was about women being able to make choices. So, why judge others for their choices? We should be supporting each other.

Feminism is not about women being able to make choices. It's about social, political, and economic equality for men and women. Obviously this includes women making choices. But it is certainly does not include women being able to make choices immune from criticism about how those choices fit into larger societal issues.

Thank you. I'm so sick of hearing women (generally SAHMs) talk about how feminism is supposed to be all about making the "choice" to continue staying at home. Actually, the original feminists were fighting for the "right" - not the choice - to vote, to own property, and to be able to enter the workforce. It's only since this silly "opt-out" debate began that women have started using the feminist cause to support their choice to opt out of the work force. Yes, ideally, women *and men* should be able to make choices about childcare and workplace responsibilities, but until we get to a place where women are actually afforded equality in the workplace and in the larger political scheme, SAHMs aren't really advancing the feminist cause.

[Anonymous]

I think it is interesting that the women in the article seem less invested in their marriages than the men. It's not just a work/motherhood balance that is out of whack. The couples seem to not be well-connected. The men are struggling to be heard and the women are struggling to be respected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 she has been out of the game. I have no problems with SAH parents sacrificing their careers for their home. But I have a problem with them saying that the workforce is just supposed to accept them back open arms. Honestly, things have changed in the workplace, and it makes sense that after a large gap in their service, they need to reprove themselves. And those of us that have stayed and struggled with the issues of WOH should continue on their track. It's not bitterness, it's common sense. So if you come back making close to entry level, it makes sense. You are coming back and need to relearn your tricks. If you were truly on top of your game, you should be able to rebound eventually. But there is no way that an employer will take you at your word that you can come back full speed.

I am curious - what is it that you do? What is "the game"? I am a lawyer - worked Biglaw for many years before taking a break to stay home. I can still write a brief. I can still negotiate a settlement. I have kept up with legal developments in my practice area. I may be a tad rusty but I'd need about a month tops to get back into the swing of things. Why would I need to "reprove" myself as a first year? I don't think I should be rehired as a counsel or partner (which is what I would be if I stayed), but why wouldn't I go right back in as a senior associate (which is what I left as) if I chose to return? Also, framing your issue as one of your "struggle" definitely sound like bitterness.

I agree with this. In my field and other fields I'm familiar with, one could come back after years of absence and either prove herself through testing, or go through 1-2 weeks of training. There's really no need to start entry level. I can imagine there would be a few fields where the rolodex is most important and it would be hard to jump in after years out of the network, but, come on - for most jobs that is not an issue, and this excuse is used to punish women who've SAH.

[Anonymous]

"That said, what I did find really interesting was the message that marriage is hard whether you stay home, work, or go back to work. Seems like it's just tough to balance having anyone work (meaning even if the husband just works) plus all the things we feel like we have to do as parents and make time for each other, our marriage etc."

"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."

Disagree. I think the root of the problem is the expectation of longer work-weeks, on-going job insecurity even among established professionals, and the need for two-incomes to maintain the same lifestyle once maintained with one income. It's not just that both parents are working, it's that they are working longer hours, including when they get home, and are more stressed. This makes them more exhausted and less able to connect and spend time with their spouses.