Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Leaning in" had nothing to do with the demise of this man. He died while on a vacation and while taking care of his health in a freak accident.

He did not die because his wife was "Leaning In", and he was working two jobs and looking after his kids and was stressed and had a heart attack at his office desk!

In fact, because his wife "leaned in", she is not a widow who is struggling financially now, even when her DH died suddenly at a very young age.

- A SAHM who did not "Lean In"

Thank you. I am not a paragon of career ambition but some people's reactions to this tragedy are disgusting. They apparently had a wonderful, loving, supportive marriage. They were lucky enough to have 10 great years together. It is very, very sad; why are some people looking at his death and seeing vindication for their own decision to NOT lean in?

It's not necessary to abnegate one's career interests so totally that one SAH.

I'm wondering why people never celebrate the marriages of a couple in which one parent is completely supportive of the other parent staying home to take care of their children? By all accounts, Dave Goldberg did everything possible to facilitate his wife's career - good for him. That career is the path she chose. What about men who support their wives who have chosen the path of leaving the workforce to care for the family's children? I say good for them as well. I'm eternally grateful to be married to such a man - a true partner in every sense of the word.

People do celebrate these marriages. Women have been staying at home since the beginning of time. It's nothing new or novel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

Of course it can, but it's a fact that it was much more of a problem when women had less rights and were more dependent upon men. I know plenty of working women who are divorced. The fact is money equals independence for many in our society. There are men who will take advantage of women who are dependent upon them. Just look at other countries where women are expected to take care of home and have babies, those women usually have far less rights and live in worse conditions. There are also good men who fully support their wife staying at home as well.

Everyone should do what works best for their family. Those who chose to lean out should accept their decision without bashing those who have chosen to lean in. I do believe it's fully possible for a family to have two successful working individuals especially with family support. I believe some women like to yell that this is not possible because they feel threatened by super successful women like Sheryl. She is obviously secure in her decision, yet insecure women constantly want to tear her down for her decision.

I'm seeing exactly the opposite on DCUM threads concerning the SAH/WOH issue. Most WOHMs (at least on this forum) like to bash SAHMs for being "dependent, leeches, wasting their educations, etc." I leaned out and am fully confident of my decision. I don't feel "threatened" by super successful women like Sheryl Sandberg. I may have decided to shelve my career for a time, but that doesn't mean I'm not "super successful" in my own right. There are many ways to measure success, and professionally is just one. The people who continually criticize SAHMs are only displaying their own insecurity with their decisions. Why should it matter to them in any way whether a mom (or dad) chooses to stay home?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I think it's really great that my DH and I have equally split the parenting and bread winning duties for 15 years. Specialization - one of us SAH and one of us WOH - would have led to resentments and marital issues. Life is generally exhausting if you do it right.

"Specialization" - never looked at it that way, but it does seem an apt term - has definitely worked for our family. I don't resent my husband for working. In fact, I'm very grateful he enjoys and is good at what he does. The direct result of that is that I'm able to be home with our kids, something that I very much wanted to do. We don't have marital issues, and neither of us is exhausted. If we were, that would be a sure sign that we weren't "doing it right".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm wondering why people never celebrate the marriages of a couple in which one parent is completely supportive of the other parent staying home to take care of their children? By all accounts, Dave Goldberg did everything possible to facilitate his wife's career - good for him. That career is the path she chose. What about men who support their wives who have chosen the path of leaving the workforce to care for the family's children? I say good for them as well. I'm eternally grateful to be married to such a man - a true partner in every sense of the word.

By HER accounts. The more I learn (I hadn't really dug deeply into their family when reading Lean In), the more I'm not so convinced that's the case. I think he was supportive, but he was also a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. No way he was taking on the home/family responsibilities to the degree she laid out in the book.

Without his death, I honestly wouldn't have known he was the CEO of SurveyMonkey (or that SurveyMonkey was such a growing company). I wouldn't have read a lot about his life and all the great things he did (he sounds like he was a great guy, truly).

AND... because of her huge popularity around Lean In, it's making me question her message. Because one of the absolutely foundation principles was that you will need a partner who is a "True partner" and will take on at least half the work of the family.

I think the outsourced even more than we knew, more than was speculated... and frankly, that makes me angry. I feel like Lean In was selling a bill of goods that wasn't attainable for most women in the real world. And that's really only become apparent to me now as I've learned more about her husband's career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

Of course it can, but it's a fact that it was much more of a problem when women had less rights and were more dependent upon men. I know plenty of working women who are divorced. The fact is money equals independence for many in our society. There are men who will take advantage of women who are dependent upon them. Just look at other countries where women are expected to take care of home and have babies, those women usually have far less rights and live in worse conditions. There are also good men who fully support their wife staying at home as well.

Everyone should do what works best for their family. Those who chose to lean out should accept their decision without bashing those who have chosen to lean in. I do believe it's fully possible for a family to have two successful working individuals especially with family support. I believe some women like to yell that this is not possible because they feel threatened by super successful women like Sheryl. She is obviously secure in her decision, yet insecure women constantly want to tear her down for her decision.

I'm seeing exactly the opposite on DCUM threads concerning the SAH/WOH issue. Most WOHMs (at least on this forum) like to bash SAHMs for being "dependent, leeches, wasting their educations, etc." I leaned out and am fully confident of my decision. I don't feel "threatened" by super successful women like Sheryl Sandberg. I may have decided to shelve my career for a time, but that doesn't mean I'm not "super successful" in my own right. There are many ways to measure success, and professionally is just one. The people who continually criticize SAHMs are only displaying their own insecurity with their decisions. Why should it matter to them in any way whether a mom (or dad) chooses to stay home?

I see plenty of working moms being bashed as not putting their kids as a priority, saying our kids are being raised by strangers, etc. In my belief women need to accept that people have the right to stay at home and work. Just because a person works does not mean they are not doing what is best for their family. Providing financial support to me is being a good parent, whether that comes through the mom, dad, or both. Women should not be told that we need to forgo our careers just because we have children. Not every woman is interested in full time home making and I don't think that should be something we are forced into because we are women. Plenty of women get real enjoyment and satisfaction out of working. I think working actually makes me more efficient at home too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

Of course it can, but it's a fact that it was much more of a problem when women had less rights and were more dependent upon men. I know plenty of working women who are divorced. The fact is money equals independence for many in our society. There are men who will take advantage of women who are dependent upon them. Just look at other countries where women are expected to take care of home and have babies, those women usually have far less rights and live in worse conditions. There are also good men who fully support their wife staying at home as well.

Everyone should do what works best for their family. Those who chose to lean out should accept their decision without bashing those who have chosen to lean in. I do believe it's fully possible for a family to have two successful working individuals especially with family support. I believe some women like to yell that this is not possible because they feel threatened by super successful women like Sheryl. She is obviously secure in her decision, yet insecure women constantly want to tear her down for her decision.

I'm seeing exactly the opposite on DCUM threads concerning the SAH/WOH issue. Most WOHMs (at least on this forum) like to bash SAHMs for being "dependent, leeches, wasting their educations, etc." I leaned out and am fully confident of my decision. I don't feel "threatened" by super successful women like Sheryl Sandberg. I may have decided to shelve my career for a time, but that doesn't mean I'm not "super successful" in my own right. There are many ways to measure success, and professionally is just one. The people who continually criticize SAHMs are only displaying their own insecurity with their decisions. Why should it matter to them in any way whether a mom (or dad) chooses to stay home?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be frank here, ladies. Everyone has their own priority in life. In the dual career families, the children are the ones getting short changed. I'm the nanny who's expected to pick-up the pieces. I'm not interested in being another parent to your children. I don't want your children more waking hours than you care for your own children.

I'm the mom in a dual-career family and believe me, our children see plenty of both of us. I'm glad you aren't our nanny.

When exactly? Skype? Dinner, when you manage to have the time and energy? Sandberg said they tried to at least do that... before dashing BACK to work. Who do you think gave the children their evening baths, read them bedtime stories, and tucked them into bed every night? I don't suppose ANYONE knows how many nannies they've burned through over the years to maintain that ultimate Silicon Valley power couple status. One can at least hope those nannies were well-compensated for their long hours of demanding work.

And btw, I no longer care to work with your type. I find it much more satisfying to devote myself part-time to several families who are all doing their share of caring for their own children themselves. I've seen enough horrors with children who's parents don't know them.

Fleeting moments of so-called "quality time" doesn't cut it, and deep down, you know it.
We all do.

Lol, you know good and well you are not a nanny. Any person that is a nanny loves watching children and does not make these types of judgements. You are paid to do a job. If you can't do it, find other employment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

Of course it can, but it's a fact that it was much more of a problem when women had less rights and were more dependent upon men. I know plenty of working women who are divorced. The fact is money equals independence for many in our society. There are men who will take advantage of women who are dependent upon them. Just look at other countries where women are expected to take care of home and have babies, those women usually have far less rights and live in worse conditions. There are also good men who fully support their wife staying at home as well.

Everyone should do what works best for their family. Those who chose to lean out should accept their decision without bashing those who have chosen to lean in. I do believe it's fully possible for a family to have two successful working individuals especially with family support. I believe some women like to yell that this is not possible because they feel threatened by super successful women like Sheryl. She is obviously secure in her decision, yet insecure women constantly want to tear her down for her decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Leaning in" had nothing to do with the demise of this man. He died while on a vacation and while taking care of his health in a freak accident.

He did not die because his wife was "Leaning In", and he was working two jobs and looking after his kids and was stressed and had a heart attack at his office desk!

In fact, because his wife "leaned in", she is not a widow who is struggling financially now, even when her DH died suddenly at a very young age.

- A SAHM who did not "Lean In"

Thank you. I am not a paragon of career ambition but some people's reactions to this tragedy are disgusting. They apparently had a wonderful, loving, supportive marriage. They were lucky enough to have 10 great years together. It is very, very sad; why are some people looking at his death and seeing vindication for their own decision to NOT lean in?

It's not necessary to abnegate one's career interests so totally that one SAH.

I'm wondering why people never celebrate the marriages of a couple in which one parent is completely supportive of the other parent staying home to take care of their children? By all accounts, Dave Goldberg did everything possible to facilitate his wife's career - good for him. That career is the path she chose. What about men who support their wives who have chosen the path of leaving the workforce to care for the family's children? I say good for them as well. I'm eternally grateful to be married to such a man - a true partner in every sense of the word.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be frank here, ladies. Everyone has their own priority in life. In the dual career families, the children are the ones getting short changed. I'm the nanny who's expected to pick-up the pieces. I'm not interested in being another parent to your children. I don't want your children more waking hours than you care for your own children.

I'm the mom in a dual-career family and believe me, our children see plenty of both of us. I'm glad you aren't our nanny.

When exactly? Skype? Dinner, when you manage to have the time and energy? Sandberg said they tried to at least do that... before dashing BACK to work. Who do you think gave the children their evening baths, read them bedtime stories, and tucked them into bed every night? I don't suppose ANYONE knows how many nannies they've burned through over the years to maintain that ultimate Silicon Valley power couple status. One can at least hope those nannies were well-compensated for their long hours of demanding work.

And btw, I no longer care to work with your type. I find it much more satisfying to devote myself part-time to several families who are all doing their share of caring for their own children themselves. I've seen enough horrors with children who's parents don't know them.

Fleeting moments of so-called "quality time" doesn't cut it, and deep down, you know it.
We all do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I think it's really great that my DH and I have equally split the parenting and bread winning duties for 15 years. Specialization - one of us SAH and one of us WOH - would have led to resentments and marital issues. Life is generally exhausting if you do it right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be frank here, ladies. Everyone has their own priority in life. In the dual career families, the children are the ones getting short changed. I'm the nanny who's expected to pick-up the pieces. I'm not interested in being another parent to your children. I don't want your children more waking hours than you care for your own children.

I'm the mom in a dual-career family and believe me, our children see plenty of both of us. I'm glad you aren't our nanny.

When exactly? Skype? Dinner, when you manage to have the time and energy? Sandberg said they tried to at least do that... before dashing BACK to work. Who do you think gave the children their evening baths, read them bedtime stories, and tucked them into bed every night? I don't suppose ANYONE knows how many nannies they've burned through over the years to maintain that ultimate Silicon Valley power couple status. One can at least hope those nannies were well-compensated for their long hours of demanding work.

And btw, I no longer care to work with your type. I find it much more satisfying to devote myself part-time to several families who are all doing their share of caring for their own children themselves. I've seen enough horrors with children who's parents don't know them.

Fleeting moments of so-called "quality time" doesn't cut it, and deep down, you know it.
We all do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Leaning in" had nothing to do with the demise of this man. He died while on a vacation and while taking care of his health in a freak accident.

He did not die because his wife was "Leaning In", and he was working two jobs and looking after his kids and was stressed and had a heart attack at his office desk!

In fact, because his wife "leaned in", she is not a widow who is struggling financially now, even when her DH died suddenly at a very young age.

- A SAHM who did not "Lean In"

Thank you. I am not a paragon of career ambition but some people's reactions to this tragedy are disgusting. They apparently had a wonderful, loving, supportive marriage. They were lucky enough to have 10 great years together. It is very, very sad; why are some people looking at his death and seeing vindication for their own decision to NOT lean in?

It's not necessary to abnegate one's career interests so totally that one SAH.

I'm wondering why people never celebrate the marriages of a couple in which one parent is completely supportive of the other parent staying home to take care of their children? By all accounts, Dave Goldberg did everything possible to facilitate his wife's career - good for him. That career is the path she chose. What about men who support their wives who have chosen the path of leaving the workforce to care for the family's children? I say good for them as well. I'm eternally grateful to be married to such a man - a true partner in every sense of the word.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the brief, postwar period in which one parent (usually the man) worked and the other (usually the woman) stayed home and took care of kids really is the ideal. Except I would want to update it so that men would be just as likely to stay home as women would.

My spouse and I both work and both try to be there for the kids (doctor visits, camp and ballet sign ups, cooking meals, trips to the playground, etc.). Let me tell you, it's exhausting. Specialization would be better. But few can afford to live on one salary in the modern economy.

I don't. Domestic violence was rampant when the majority of women stayed home. Lots of women stayed in bad marriages because they had no way to financially support themself. I'm all for extended maternity leave, but I don't think it's a good idea for the majority of women to check out of the workplace.

It's such a relief women can do what's best for themselves and their families and not have to worry whether or not anyone "thinks it's a good idea". Guess what? Domestic violence can occur in any type of partnership - with SAHMs or WOHMs. Bad marriages and divorce are rampant even now, regardless of work status. I find it incredibly amusing when some women insist that WOH is the only way to protect oneself from divorce, or a cheating spouse, or domestic violence. Bad things can happen in any type of partnership or work situation. At some point, you have to find a partner you trust and do what works best for your own family. Honestly, the best thing I ever did was "check out of the workplace" - or "lean out," if you will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be frank here, ladies. Everyone has their own priority in life. In the dual career families, the children are the ones getting short changed. I'm the nanny who's expected to pick-up the pieces. I'm not interested in being another parent to your children. I don't want your children more waking hours than you care for your own children.

I'm the mom in a dual-career family and believe me, our children see plenty of both of us. I'm glad you aren't our nanny.

I'm guessing one or both of you have some sort of flexible schedule or staggered schedule, not the types of demanding work lives Lean In advocates.