Anonymous wrote:At 25-40 hours a week you can do both career and family. But, anything more the kids will truly suffer.
I am working up a theory!
The optimal TOTAL working hours of BOTH PARENTS is around 80 hours a week.
So it's do-able if both partners work 40 hours or so.
But if one partner has a regular 40+ job, the other will need to work less to compensate at home.
I think this is the point where you see women leaving the paid workforce - their partners are working too many 40+ hour weeks, and their own job isn't flexible to go enough below 40 to get their combined family working hours below 80.
80 is the magic number!
What do you all think?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How is "lean in" new? I remeber in the 70's when my mom went back to work (and I became a latch key kid) because she was told she could "have it all."
I haven't read the book (not like most of you have, either) but the concept resonates with me because I went to a women's college and saw firsthand how women hold themselves back even in the abselce of institutional barriers. As I understand it, that's what "leaning in" is about. Not "having it all,"but having enough confidence to not sell yourself short. I don't know a single woman at any level of success who couldn't use reminding about that and I work with very confident women at the top levels of my fed agency.
Anonymous wrote:I think it would be more accurate to call it Cashing In (at the expense of gullible women)

Anonymous wrote: You're wrong. My DH spends more time with our children because I work 45 to 50 or even 55 hours a week some weeks. It doesn't HAVE to be all mom all the time, especially if you have boys.
Disagree with "especially if you have boys." Research has shown that a predictor for girl's success is her relationship with her dad.
My DH has twice pitched in with our girls when I "leaned in" and my career took precedence. He was home PT with our older daughter from age 3 months to 18 months. He was home with our 2 girls FT for 2 years (younger daughter ages 2-4; older daughter ages 5-7).
I love the close relationship that they have. But I will admit it was hard in the beginning to "let" DH take over the "special place" of being the at-home parent. You have to let go of the way you would do it, and let your DH find his own way of doing things. Many women have great difficulties doing this.
Like a PP, I also attended a single-sex school (pre-college). I haven't read the SS book, but I have heard her TED talk. I totally hear her message - I feel like she speaks to me. And I don't feel like she is telling me that I'm supposed to work 80+ hours per week and want to be CEO at the expense of everything else. To me, it's the same message that I got in single sex school - don't discount yourself. In an all-girls school, the best kid in science and math is always a girl. And that is empowering - to have that feel natural. Make sure the choices you are making are your choices.
You're wrong. My DH spends more time with our children because I work 45 to 50 or even 55 hours a week some weeks. It doesn't HAVE to be all mom all the time, especially if you have boys.
Disagree with "especially if you have boys." Research has shown that a predictor for girl's success is her relationship with her dad.
My DH has twice pitched in with our girls when I "leaned in" and my career took precedence. He was home PT with our older daughter from age 3 months to 18 months. He was home with our 2 girls FT for 2 years (younger daughter ages 2-4; older daughter ages 5-7).
I love the close relationship that they have. But I will admit it was hard in the beginning to "let" DH take over the "special place" of being the at-home parent. You have to let go of the way you would do it, and let your DH find his own way of doing things. Many women have great difficulties doing this.
Like a PP, I also attended a single-sex school (pre-college). I haven't read the SS book, but I have heard her TED talk. I totally hear her message - I feel like she speaks to me. And I don't feel like she is telling me that I'm supposed to work 80+ hours per week and want to be CEO at the expense of everything else. To me, it's the same message that I got in single sex school - don't discount yourself. In an all-girls school, the best kid in science and math is always a girl. And that is empowering - to have that feel natural. Make sure the choices you are making are your choices.
At 25-40 hours a week you can do both career and family. But, anything more the kids will truly suffer.

Anonymous wrote:How is "lean in" new? I remeber in the 70's when my mom went back to work (and I became a latch key kid) because she was told she could "have it all."
Anonymous wrote:Raise your hand if you have worked with Sheryl.
I have. I know her values and personality. Her "Lean-In" philosophy is not supposed to be applied to most women. She only wants it applied to Ivy educated, upper bracket women.
I will not join a "lean-in" circle. We need more institutional support and less finger waging.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How is "lean in" new? I remeber in the 70's when my mom went back to work (and I became a latch key kid) because she was told she could "have it all."
I haven't read the book (not like most of you have, either) but the concept resonates with me because I went to a women's college and saw firsthand how women hold themselves back even in the abselce of institutional barriers. As I understand it, that's what "leaning in" is about. Not "having it all," but having enough confidence to not sell yourself short. I don't know a single woman at any level of success who couldn't use reminding about that and I work with very confident women at the top levels of my fed agency.
Anonymous wrote:How is "lean in" new? I remeber in the 70's when my mom went back to work (and I became a latch key kid) because she was told she could "have it all."