. I completely agree. It also adds to the whole "I told you so" vibe.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.
Totally agree. And I work full time.
Another full time working mom agreeing with you.
Also agree with another pp. these People had huge marriage problems. The wohm / sahm issue was nothing more than a sidebar.
Anonymous wrote:For Sheilah O’Donnel, I have zero sympathy. All I can say do is smirk and think "idiot ... thought she had it made with a rich husband who was going to take care of her ...."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force.
I don't think anyone is doing that in an interview, but they may raise the fact that they have recent experience, which many employers value. That's all. Companies and businesses care who seems most likely to get the job done well. That is it. They don't care about your life decisions other than the extent to which they are relevant to that issue.
What good is that since you're recently married, will likely get pregnant soon, and need extended maternity leave anyway? I'd rather get someone who's BTDT and now focuses again on work as a priority.
See, once you start discriminating, there's no end to these type of ramifications.
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.
Anonymous wrote:I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force.
I don't think anyone is doing that in an interview, but they may raise the fact that they have recent experience, which many employers value. That's all. Companies and businesses care who seems most likely to get the job done well. That is it. They don't care about your life decisions other than the extent to which they are relevant to that issue.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:But I don't care which road you take to get there. There is not one right answer
I agree with most of what you said, and this as well, but perhaps part of the point of the article is that there is really no right answer, not just that there are different right answers for different people. We need more family friendly policies here in the US.
Agree with you 100 percent. Completely! But unfortunately, I didn't see that in the article at all. To me, it came across as a gigantic "I told you so" to the women she saw as selling out on their sisters by "opting out" as if it's anybody else's business.
Anonymous wrote:I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force.
I don't think anyone is doing that in an interview, but they may raise the fact that they have recent experience, which many employers value. That's all. Companies and businesses care who seems most likely to get the job done well. That is it. They don't care about your life decisions other than the extent to which they are relevant to that issue.
Anonymous wrote: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?
I work outside the home and obviously don't speak for everyone. But I would LOVE it if he would be a SAHD. I make more money and have a more secure job than he does. He travels a lot; so I end up doing more childcare duties too. And I'm ambivalent about our current daycare situation, though DD seems to love it. I would throw him a damned ticker tape parade if he said he wanted to SAH. The constant juggling at both ends is rough on all 3 of us.
I added that value and since I also make hiring decisions, I would be really turned off by a candidate who is trumpeting about how she deserves more simply because they stayed in the work force.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why not stay at home if u can afford it?
Because of some insecurity that the spouse may leave?
Ok I will send my kid to day care just in case, then.
Ever heard of pride? Financial independence? Equality in marriage? Setting a good example? I could go on..
Working mom here. I actually don't need work for any of those things. I was lucky in that a lucrative job put me in a good place with investments before marriage and my skills won't expire after some years away. And as for setting a good example, I hope I'm doing that by leading a responsible life and treating others with love and respect. I hope my job is not the only or primary way I set an example for my kids. I love my job, don't get me wrong, but it is just a tiny part of who i am and the legacy I hope to leave behind.