Anonymous wrote: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?
Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do you guys know any families whose life balance you particularly admire?
Both parents working 30 hour jobs would be just about right, maybe.
Or two teachers who would have the same school holidays as the kids.
My neighbors. Mum is a part time lawyer who changes her work days to suit her kids' schedule and dad is a full time doctor but schedules his hours so he is home when his kids are home. His schedule is something like
Mon-6-2
Tues-2-9
Wed-6-2
Thurs-off
Friday -6-3
Sat-6-1
For us, my husband works full time at home in his own business so he is very flexible. I just went back to work after 3 years off. My job was kept open and they employed a contractor for 3 years who stayed with the organization afterwards in another department. I work from 7:30 to 3:30. I have decided though, to scale down to part time next year.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.
What are the priorities a parent is showing, when he or she stays home with the kids instead of working?
That the children are more important than the job? That the kids come first?
Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?
Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?
So why would taking time off of work for a while, mean that you don't prioritize work, just want to balance things? The balance when the kids were small meant you went one way; but now that the kids are older, you are able to balance your kids and career JUST AS IF you had been working all that time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.
What are the priorities a parent is showing, when he or she stays home with the kids instead of working?
That the children are more important than the job? That the kids come first?
Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?
Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?
So why would taking time off of work for a while, mean that you don't prioritize work, just want to balance things? The balance when the kids were small meant you went one way; but now that the kids are older, you are able to balance your kids and career JUST AS IF you had been working all that time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Because you've shown your priorities to be elsewhere. Which, again, is FINE and totally respectable, but to say you're as qualified/prepared/motivated as someone who's worked straight through to the senior associate level without time off is just false (and why situations you described - SAHMs coming back as senior associates - don't happen). I'm not the pp you're responding to, but WOHM struggles do exist. As do SAHM struggles. To say they don't, and that the 'reward' (career success, continued earning power, financial independence) shouldn't belong to those who made the sacrifice - is naive and insulting.
I am much more concerned about women in the low SES group who have fewer choices and really are struggling to find balance. They probably don't have time to call up their PTA pals and offer to be in an article. They can't afford the level of help these rich ladies can. These are the women who need us to wake up and figure out how to make good childcare affordable and how to make it so they can flex work schedules.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You are all right. My husband's schedule as a law partner over the last 7 years has been ridiculous and the recession has hit us hard. I've considered going back to work about every 6 months over the last few years for security. Problem is the school schedule has a ridiculous number of random days off throughout the year. Are we supposed to warehouse our children during this time because childcare costs $17 per hour? I honestly have no idea how women manage a full-time job and full-time parenting. The culture of work of Washington, DC and major urban areas is sickening. Sometimes, I just want to move to Idaho.
If your DH is a partner, I very much doubt it will hurt your finances much to pay $17/hr for backup childcare a few days every school year.
Clearly, you have no idea about the state of law firms do you? The anxiety, stress and uncertainty has been a awful and there is no end in sight. And, by the way, where are these magical child care providers who will swoop in every other week to provide care? My point is that a part-time salary will not cover the cost of childcare. A full-time job will ultimately put further stress on our kids and marriage with a very few benefits. So until there are larger policy decisions made about how we can make jobs scalable to provide quality of life issues, then everyone loses. Employers lose highly skilled labor, families lose income and the economy continues to teeter on the brink of recession.
On the contrary, my DH is a senior associate at a mid-size firm. Unlike you, I continued to work because of the uncertainty (which seems like a better option than finding excuses not to work, which is what it sounds like you are doing). I'll bet DH and my incomes combined do not equal your husband's, and yet, here we are, paying for full-time childcare! So I literally have no idea how your family cannot afford $17/hr for backup care. Or you could take vacation days when your children are off school. Or find a part-time job with flexibility for the days you work so you're at home. Or a WAH full-time career (which is what I have, btw).
And many jobs now offer intermittent childcare as a benefit (for emergencies or for families that have kids in school and only need a few days off here and there).
Seriously, are you using 10 school vacation days a year as an excuse to never rejoin the workforce? Because it sounds like, from your anxiety over your husband's job, you'd feel better returning to paid work. LOTS of families make those school vacations work. Seriously, just...mind blown.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do you guys know any families whose life balance you particularly admire?
Both parents working 30 hour jobs would be just about right, maybe.
Or two teachers who would have the same school holidays as the kids.
My neighbors. Mum is a part time lawyer who changes her work days to suit her kids' schedule and dad is a full time doctor but schedules his hours so he is home when his kids are home. His schedule is something like
Mon-6-2
Tues-2-9
Wed-6-2
Thurs-off
Friday -6-3
Sat-6-1
For us, my husband works full time at home in his own business so he is very flexible. I just went back to work after 3 years off. My job was kept open and they employed a contractor for 3 years who stayed with the organization afterwards in another department. I work from 7:30 to 3:30. I have decided though, to scale down to part time next year.
Anonymous wrote:Do you guys know any families whose life balance you particularly admire?
Both parents working 30 hour jobs would be just about right, maybe.
Or two teachers who would have the same school holidays as the kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I agree that i would have a hard time getting an equivalent job at a new firm but I've been assured by the leadership at my firm that I could have my job back whenever I want it, so I am not concerned about that. My issue was more the assumption made by the mothers who never took time off that I don't deserve my job back. To me that just sounds like bitterness and I don't understand it. As I said, I don't want to be promoted to where I would be because I haven't earned that. But I did earn the job I had and still am qualified for it.
I took 3 months off and when I came back they had given my job to somebody else. They gave me an "equivalent" job which means I made the same money with the same job title. But I had a different boss, locations, job duties, career track...
They could not just let my job sit for 3 months. They also could not just take away the job from the the person that was doing my job for 3 months.
While this never happens to the man that has the stroke or heart attack I do understand it is a balancing act.
I think it would have been arrogant just to expect to walk into my old position as if the world had stopped for 3 months.
It is a shame that this isn't possible, because it is exactly what is successfully practiced in other countries, such as Germany, where women can take up to 2 years off and have their job guaranteed. In the meantime, someone else is hired with a contract limited to that time to fill in for her. That way, mothers (and maybe fathers, too) can stay home without tolling the death knell for their career.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: Is the reverse true? Are moms and dads who work and use childcare saying that their career is more important than their children? That their jobs come first and their kids will come second?
Because we aren't supposed to believe that, right? We all know that people can prioritize BOTH their children AND their work -- they balance them right? Working, while you have small children with a nanny or in daycare, doesn't mean you don't prioritize your kids and think they are important... right?
We aren't supposed to believe that, but we actually do believe that. Because if we didn't believe that, we would have things like paid maternity and paternity leave, paid sick days, and high-quality subsidized day care and preschool.
What we actually believe: If you took time off from work to stay at home with the children, that shows that it is possible for you to think that work is not your first priority, and a good employee's first priority is always work.
What we also actually believe: A good mother's first priority is always her children.
Therefore: It is not possible to be a good employee and a good mother.
It's rubbish, and it has to stop.
Please, it doesn't matter what we believe. It only matters what corporations "believe" -- and what they value. Until huge corporations care about families (hint: it will be never unless it impacts their bottom line), things will not change.
Anonymous wrote: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?