Anonymous wrote:My father is no Steve Jobs, but he had an executive job with some travel and he wasn't around as much as my mom when we were young. My mom was a SAHM and raised us. That was a pretty standard division of labor back in the 70's, and in some families (not mine) it's still the norm.

I think for me, if I had vision, ambition and potential like Steve Jobs, I'd either not have kids or I'd find a less ambitious spouse to pull more weight at home. I don't happen to have his drive/vision, so I'm cool with a lesser role at work and pulling more of the weight at home.

Having kids is an important job, but someone has to be out there doing things that improve the world and our lives. I don't think those two should be mutually exclusive things. (and frankly, if innovative geniuses don't have kids, what happens to the gene pool?)

Well, all of these arguments are pretty fascinating. I think an argument could be made that America in general starting with the Industrial revolution leading up to the mid 1950's made the kind of progress it made because of the sacrifice of women. Men were freed up with the combination of technology and more leisure time to create great things with the support of family money Rockefeller, Edison, Chase, Darwin, Pasteur, etc., these men were born into wealth they could attract a $$ to give birth to kids. (of course back then the offspring--Churchill, Roosevelts, Vanderbilts, were raised by a governess AND a nanny and only saw mummy and daddy briefly.) Jobs was a typical rogue really; he spent his early creative years building a network and nerd cred. Yes, he was fired but his close circle of nerd friends never left him because of the $$. He was able to attract a good wife with his nerd cred and $$. He didn't have to raise children in the conventional sense because he resources were more aptly spent elsewhere. He paid lip service to spending time with his kids but if anyone of them really writes a meaningful truthful book, we shall see what the impact of this sort of "genius" has on childrearing. I'm guessing it probably "sucked " to have this sort of parent. $$ and genius certainly does not make you a good parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In all of this discussion, what I find strange are the SAHMs who are ignoring the very obvious fact that BECAUSE they choose to SAHM, their husbands - the fathers of their children - very likely feel much more pressure to succeed and likely spend much less time with their kids.

So why is this so admirable? My mother SAH with me and my siblings. And that was fine. But it meant I never saw my father. Perhaps I would have preferred her to work at least part time so some of the pressure was off my dad...

Your valid point has been brought up on DCUM, but very few acknowledge it - thinking that it's only a woman's job to care for the children.

I often wonder how same-sex couples handle their situations? Does a gay male who decides to SAH feel "emasculated?"

I work PT, which definitely allows my husband to spend more time with the kids b/c my salary pays for tuition and activities.

Let's face it. Where is there true "balance" when kids see more of their mothers than of their fathers?

I don't agree with this. I think you either want to succeed at your job or you don't. You either are the type to spend 80 hours a week working or you aren't. It generally has nothing to do with whether or not your partner is working part time. That part time income doesn't impact the actual job that the other person has.

I think that for many mothers, careers are not viewed this black and white. I am good at my job, but I am not "great." I want to succeed, but have no desire to spend 80 hours a week at my job (some people I know definitely push this envelope).

I also think that in the Big Law environment, men definitely feel more pressure to become partner and not leave for more satisfying, but lower paying work (e.g., fed govt) when their wives SAH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In all of this discussion, what I find strange are the SAHMs who are ignoring the very obvious fact that BECAUSE they choose to SAHM, their husbands - the fathers of their children - very likely feel much more pressure to succeed and likely spend much less time with their kids.

So why is this so admirable? My mother SAH with me and my siblings. And that was fine. But it meant I never saw my father. Perhaps I would have preferred her to work at least part time so some of the pressure was off my dad...

Your valid point has been brought up on DCUM, but very few acknowledge it - thinking that it's only a woman's job to care for the children.

I often wonder how same-sex couples handle their situations? Does a gay male who decides to SAH feel "emasculated?"

I work PT, which definitely allows my husband to spend more time with the kids b/c my salary pays for tuition and activities.

Let's face it. Where is there true "balance" when kids see more of their mothers than of their fathers?

I don't agree with this. I think you either want to succeed at your job or you don't. You either are the type to spend 80 hours a week working or you aren't. It generally has nothing to do with whether or not your partner is working part time. That part time income doesn't impact the actual job that the other person has.

It's all about priorities. Yes, MY PT job does indeed allow my husband to stay where he is - in a job that's not high-paying but that allows him to spend more time with our kids and to help out at home. If I stayed home, he'd have to move up. His job makes him happy. Do I push him toward something he doesn't like b/c I FEEL the need to be the household manager?

FWIW, I like my job, and I want to be a model for my children. I want my daughter to have choices - more choices than we offer our women today.

Anonymous wrote:My father is no Steve Jobs, but he had an executive job with some travel and he wasn't around as much as my mom when we were young. My mom was a SAHM and raised us. That was a pretty standard division of labor back in the 70's, and in some families (not mine) it's still the norm.

I think for me, if I had vision, ambition and potential like Steve Jobs, I'd either not have kids or I'd find a less ambitious spouse to pull more weight at home. I don't happen to have his drive/vision, so I'm cool with a lesser role at work and pulling more of the weight at home.

Having kids is an important job, but someone has to be out there doing things that improve the world and our lives. I don't think those two should be mutually exclusive things. (and frankly, if innovative geniuses don't have kids, what happens to the gene pool?)

I agree with this. First of all this discussion is amusing in that 99.9% of people aren't going to face this. Steve Jobs (obviously working with others, but he was the leader) changed the way we communicated and changed the way we did our jobs. There are a lot of smart people out there, even geniuses, and a lot of leaders out there, but not many of this caliber. So it's not something that most working parents have to struggle with.

But as someone who was also raised by a SAHM who was happy to let my executive dad who traveled a lot get to the top of his career and have a high achieving career (and like the PP not saying he was Steve Jobs, just that he had a high level successful career) I think if you are going to devote that kind of time and energy to a career you need to have a spouse who maybe doesn't have the same goals if you want kids.

It is certainly possible and quite common in my circle to have both parents have a somewhat successful and fulfilling career without having the kind of high achieving careers Steve Jobs or even my dad had, and raise kids with some balance. A lot of us don't have to struggle with this.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, this conversation.

Do SAHMs of daughters who blast "ambitious women" plan to stress stay at home as the best option for their daughters and chide them if the do not? WIll you be the evil MIL to the working spouse of your sons?

do you also stress school achievement for your daughters? if yes why? ONly fluency in math and reading is really necessary. Why take up space in higher ed? why send them to preschool? enrichment classes? try to get them into AP, GT programs? college? and please don't let them take up space in grad school or take scholarships from the ambitious.

13:52, your last 'graf makes me chuckle. Takes me back to college where a few guys complained about women taking up slots in law and med school. "All you are going to do is have kids." These guys did not like that there were some hard-working women in our class, who had laser focus and were all consumed with professional school admissions. I assumed at the time - and still do - that they heard their fathers and other older men complain that these admissions were more difficult because of the increased number of women applying to these programs.

My father is no Steve Jobs, but he had an executive job with some travel and he wasn't around as much as my mom when we were young. My mom was a SAHM and raised us. That was a pretty standard division of labor back in the 70's, and in some families (not mine) it's still the norm.

I think for me, if I had vision, ambition and potential like Steve Jobs, I'd either not have kids or I'd find a less ambitious spouse to pull more weight at home. I don't happen to have his drive/vision, so I'm cool with a lesser role at work and pulling more of the weight at home.

Having kids is an important job, but someone has to be out there doing things that improve the world and our lives. I don't think those two should be mutually exclusive things. (and frankly, if innovative geniuses don't have kids, what happens to the gene pool?)

Anonymous wrote:PP here and I do the EXACT same thing.
I do admit that I find it kind of ironic when SAHM's push for their daughters to be in the BEST activities, go to the BEST schools, etc. What do you want for them that you didn't want for yourself? I know we all have choices to make, but it seems like it's worth discussion.

I'm not a SAHM but I think it would be to give their daughters options so they can decide for themselves which path they would like to choose. I dont think it's because the mothers didnt want those things for themselves......