I don’t care what other women do, and I assume people make the choice that works best for them and their families, but I do always cringe when people on these threats dismiss work, or say it’s pointless.

Even the most privileged among us are living better lives because there are more women with careers than in our mother’s and grandmother’s generations.

We need women in middle management and leadership, we need women doctors and researchers, we need women in all levels. We all know what would happen and we’ve all seen what happens when women are not around and it’s not great.

None of us live in a world where it is assumed that women will become mothers so we shouldn’t educate them or hire them. you certainly don’t have to stay in a job once you have kids, but I am certainly glad women do! Yes of others pointed out many stay at home moms eventually do go back to work. Fine if they don’t but silly too just label people as one of the other when women have different roles throughout their lives.

These labels are temporary anyway, ladies. Everyone of us will launch kids one day and will have a different label.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

LOL. You sound absolutely insufferable and I guarantee (just from reading your BS) that if your “team” was dissolved tomorrow it would have absolutely zero effect on society (although I’m sure you’d all miss your paychecks that you suck out of the system by essentially being useless middlemen).

I’m sure you’re really good at meetings and shaking hands and speaking in corporate jargon, but I also am fairly certain that you possess no actual skills or particular knowledge that is good for anything other than transferring wealth from one hand to another. For example, you seem to think the only time sensitive jobs are those that directly involve saving lives. Clearly you have never worked with scientists, or the military, or sanitation or utilities, etc.

And I 100% believe that people would get demoted to work on your “team” since it sounds like you’re essentially running an adult playhouse where nothing of actual value gets done.

Or maybe your business is an MLM. You kind of sound like the type.

But as interesting as this side topic has been, I’m out! Good luck with your #girlbossing.

don't go. international development is known as a field that does more harm than good in a world. it largely works of paying themselves to propose solutions to societies they know nothing about. someone gotta pay the leadership make two calls a day while their baby plays.

You know I’ve now googled it and there are more than 200 companies in the United States which have as a policy being allowed to bring a baby. My set-up was an accommodation because I was not going to stay otherwise, but there’s more than 200 companies willing to offer it to anyone.

you know, there are also all those companies where you can have a "unlimited vacation days". you seem to believe your own BS. i guess i can see how that might be necessary to become such a strong leader in your area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

woman - you haven't worked hard a single minute of your life! you obviously don't understand what it means to produce work of any substance.

You really seem fixed on that idea. And yet you haven’t identified what fields you think have “substance” except “scientist” (which is funny when you consider how many professors routinely bring their kids to campus) and the military— which is certainly one idea of adding global value— and sanitation.


Do you really think in today’s capitalist universe there are teams of 50+ being kept on the books to do literally nothing? And if so, and no substance is needed. Why do you think more women aren’t taking up the chance to be with their kids and retain their financial independence?

absolutely

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

LOL. You sound absolutely insufferable and I guarantee (just from reading your BS) that if your “team” was dissolved tomorrow it would have absolutely zero effect on society (although I’m sure you’d all miss your paychecks that you suck out of the system by essentially being useless middlemen).

I’m sure you’re really good at meetings and shaking hands and speaking in corporate jargon, but I also am fairly certain that you possess no actual skills or particular knowledge that is good for anything other than transferring wealth from one hand to another. For example, you seem to think the only time sensitive jobs are those that directly involve saving lives. Clearly you have never worked with scientists, or the military, or sanitation or utilities, etc.

And I 100% believe that people would get demoted to work on your “team” since it sounds like you’re essentially running an adult playhouse where nothing of actual value gets done.

Or maybe your business is an MLM. You kind of sound like the type.

But as interesting as this side topic has been, I’m out! Good luck with your #girlbossing.

don't go. international development is known as a field that does more harm than good in a world. it largely works of paying themselves to propose solutions to societies they know nothing about. someone gotta pay the leadership make two calls a day while their baby plays.

You know I’ve now googled it and there are more than 200 companies in the United States which have as a policy being allowed to bring a baby. My set-up was an accommodation because I was not going to stay otherwise, but there’s more than 200 companies willing to offer it to anyone.

Those MIT scientists being accommodated by their labs are obviously just phoning it in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/06/18/mit-professor-crib-lab-mother/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am kind of jealous. I think in many ways they have a much easier life because is simpler.

I somewhat enjoy my career but mostly view it as an ends to a mean. I find watching young children to be tedious and boring. Working is easier and I get paid.

My interests include working out, skiing, hiking, traveling, socializing and other activities. I don’t find playing with young kids to be fun. I could enjoy being a 1950s housewife where the kids play outside while mom keeps house. But today’s SAHM who is a glorified nanny? No thanks.

Honest question -- why have kids? Why not just say, I don't really like kids and am taking a pass? Life would be a lot easier without that massive ball and chain.

Because it’s nice having a family. I don’t dislike kids. I simply don’t want to spend the majority of my time watching young kids and doing things like playing legos.

Most wealthy people have full time help especially for childcare. Your average middle class SAHM is lying to you about enjoying staying home with kids. It’s simply better than the mediocre low paying job she had pre-kids.

No, we aren’t lying. I have a PhD and love spending time with my kids. I like taking them to do things— hiking, museums, camping, travel, etc. Also spending time with them at home. It’s weird that think that because you find it boring, everyone does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

woman - you haven't worked hard a single minute of your life! you obviously don't understand what it means to produce work of any substance.

You really seem fixed on that idea. And yet you haven’t identified what fields you think have “substance” except “scientist” (which is funny when you consider how many professors routinely bring their kids to campus) and the military— which is certainly one idea of adding global value— and sanitation.


Do you really think in today’s capitalist universe there are teams of 50+ being kept on the books to do literally nothing? And if so, and no substance is needed. Why do you think more women aren’t taking up the chance to be with their kids and retain their financial independence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am kind of jealous. I think in many ways they have a much easier life because is simpler.

I somewhat enjoy my career but mostly view it as an ends to a mean. I find watching young children to be tedious and boring. Working is easier and I get paid.

My interests include working out, skiing, hiking, traveling, socializing and other activities. I don’t find playing with young kids to be fun. I could enjoy being a 1950s housewife where the kids play outside while mom keeps house. But today’s SAHM who is a glorified nanny? No thanks.

Honest question -- why have kids? Why not just say, I don't really like kids and am taking a pass? Life would be a lot easier without that massive ball and chain.

Because it’s nice having a family. I don’t dislike kids. I simply don’t want to spend the majority of my time watching young kids and doing things like playing legos.

Most wealthy people have full time help especially for childcare. Your average middle class SAHM is lying to you about enjoying staying home with kids. It’s simply better than the mediocre low paying job she had pre-kids.

The fact that it is so important to you to believe the bolded makes me sad for you and for society at large.

Some people really do enjoy kids, enjoy spending time with small kids and doing things with them. There are downsides, as there are with virtually any job. But some people like it.

I SAHMed from when my first was born until my youngest was 3. Some of the best years of my life. I'm a lawyer. I worked in firms prior to becoming a SAHM and liked my job, but was ready for a change of pace, plus had very difficult pregnancies and needed a break. I loved playing with my kids, loved how physical they are at that age, all the snuggles and pats and tickles. I loved seeing the world through their eyes, fielding their questions about people and society and science and art, asked totally without pretense or cynicism. I loved doing art projects or learning about space with them. It's super cheesy, but I feel I learned so much from them.

I also loved the downtime of being a SAHM. I read books and wrote in my journal while they napped or played on their own. The rhythms of being a SAHM meant I slept more and ate better, in part because I was focused on them sleeping and eating well and in so doing took better care of myself. I liked taking them to cultural events (museums, concerts, music classes, etc.). Some of it was kid-focused and that can get tedious at time, but I also took them to classical music concerts and art museums, and have cultivated those interest in them.

I also loved, after years of being beholden to partners and clients, being my own boss. I decided our schedule, our priorities. It was so liberating. I decided when and how we potty trained, what to feed my kids, our policy on screens. My DH participated in these choices but I had the last say with everything because I was the one who would be implementing it 90% of the time.

I don't think being a SAHM is the same once the kids are in school, and I was ready to go back to paid work by then. But being a SAHM ruined me for being a desk jockey. I run my own business now, consulting for small and mid-size business on strategic issues related to my old legal practice. I make my own hours, can be picky about clients, and take most of the summer off. I never would have had the guts to do this if I hadn't quit to SAHM for those years. It made me realize how much bigger the world is, and what ACTUALLY matters. Most of the stuff we do professionally doesn't really matter. Some of it does -- my relationships with clients matter, I care about helping organizations solve problems, and the money I make pays for things that matter. But sitting in an office, going to meetings, promotions and office politics? This matters no more than children play acting the same stuff with dolls (which they do). I seek to minimize those meaningless aspects of modern work as much as I can.

The fact that you think someone like me doesn't exist, and that caring for young kids, even your own young kids, could not possibly be interesting or fulfilling, is fascinating for me. I don't think everyone should SAHM or that you have to SAHM to be a good mom. But I LOVED it, and I'm a smart, accomplished, well-read, and well-educated person. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

woman - you haven't worked hard a single minute of your life! you obviously don't understand what it means to produce work of any substance.

Anonymous wrote:Good for them! Hope it works out.

Same. Why wish ill will or misery on others? The ideal expression of feminism is that women get choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

LOL. You sound absolutely insufferable and I guarantee (just from reading your BS) that if your “team” was dissolved tomorrow it would have absolutely zero effect on society (although I’m sure you’d all miss your paychecks that you suck out of the system by essentially being useless middlemen).

I’m sure you’re really good at meetings and shaking hands and speaking in corporate jargon, but I also am fairly certain that you possess no actual skills or particular knowledge that is good for anything other than transferring wealth from one hand to another. For example, you seem to think the only time sensitive jobs are those that directly involve saving lives. Clearly you have never worked with scientists, or the military, or sanitation or utilities, etc.

And I 100% believe that people would get demoted to work on your “team” since it sounds like you’re essentially running an adult playhouse where nothing of actual value gets done.

Or maybe your business is an MLM. You kind of sound like the type.

But as interesting as this side topic has been, I’m out! Good luck with your #girlbossing.

don't go. international development is known as a field that does more harm than good in a world. it largely works of paying themselves to propose solutions to societies they know nothing about. someone gotta pay the leadership make two calls a day while their baby plays.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for people who didn’t have options.

My job let me take a year of maternity leave per baby, promoted me while I was on maternity leave, empowers my flexible schedule so my babies spend nearly every waking minute with me until preschool, and has provided my children (and parent, and sometimes spouse) with incredible opportunities for foreign travel and enrichment. It adds to our family life. The women in my family tend to have that kind of jobs where the work is enriching to the family. The men tend to work in roles that are more “grind” (ex my husband is in finance my FIL is an attorney)

I don’t think less of women who leave menial jobs to stay home. I feel for women who leave jobs they love and which are truly meaningful because they have no choice. But if I was choosing between menial office work that didn’t benefit my family I don’t see staying at home as a service-provider to be necessarily a worse choice?

I'm really curious what this job is. And by flexible schedule to spend every waking minute with your children, did that mean working part-time? I don't care how flexible your job is, fitting in 8 solid hours of work while simultaneously being a fulltime caregiver for toddlers sounds impractical/exhausting. Maybe I'm just really poor at multitasking, lol.

I work in international development. I took a year off with each baby. After my first, I came to the office with my daughter at 10 every day and she took her morning nap at the onsite day care, or if she was off schedule she slept in my office. I had my meetings scheduled between 10-11:30. At noon we nursed again, went for a walk (sometimes with a colleague, sometimes just us) and at one she played on the floor in my office. Form 2-3:30 she took her afternoon nap and I took a second meeting if needed. At four we went home. I did programmatic calls after she went to bed at 8 (actually seen as super accommodating when working with overseas colleagues) and before she woke up. I never stopped working full time but I’m sure there were days I put in fewer than eight hours as there were days I put in more than eight. When she dropped her morning nap I had to move my day around again, and at 2 she started preschool (I know there’s debate— some will say daycare— I don’t mind what you call it but it’s an accredited preschool).

When she was 13M she and my husband came with me to Thailand and Singapore on my first post-baby business trip and she and my dad came with me to Europe when she was 2. Her brother was a COVID baby and so no travel for him until he was 2, but he also spent every waking moment with me because we went fully remote. Our whole family went to Europe again this winter and my dad will join us for a trip to South America in the spring (I hope).

honestly, this sounds a little ridiculous. i mean i can believe that that you had days like this, but the way you describe it defies credulity. the only way any of this is possible if your dad is some kind of trustee or something at this organization. no way a random mom is going to take two calls a day for many months and call it full time.

No “random moms” don’t get these accommodations. High performers the leadership is keen to retain do.

I’m not a big fan of the grind culture. If my workplace wasn’t willing to make these accommodations I was happy to leave and my leadership knew it.

Also, examine your internalized misogyny. I already said the men in my family aren’t in this field. Some women do actually have professional success without a man’s help.

oh please. your work is obviously worthless - otherwise you wouldn't allowed to phone it in for months and months on end. are they allowing little babies in a surgery room so that they play while their mom works?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

exactly. she is just an ordinary climber doing a work a million men/women could do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

When I’m meeting someone who doesn’t work outside the house I am usually bracing for a comment like this, since they are handed out freely with out care for any of the reasons some one might have chosen to work. I have no other thoughts about their choices- how would I know better for them than they do for themselves?

What if I love my work and feel passionately about it and what it does for society, and chose to work even if I don't 'have' to -- do you think those people are less-than parents, too?

I don’t think SAHMs are leaving jobs like this, they’re leaving dead-end menial work. People who are happy and accommodated and valued stay.

I left my career in which I was happy, accommodated, valued, and relatively highly paid. But I couldn’t handle the lifestyle anymore of juggling that career while having three kids, one in daycare and two in before and after care, not to mention the chaos of summer camps and school breaks and snow days. We were all stressed and no one was happy at home. I miss my job sometimes, but my kids are so much happier that so far it’s been worth the sacrifice. I can always go back to work later, when we can all handle it better.

If things like snow days and school breaks are chaos then no, you’re not being accommodated. Some jobs just can’t— ER docs, nurses, etc.— but in 2024 a job that is done at a desk isn’t a matter of life and death, and a couple snow days per winter and breaks known about a year in advance should pose 0 hardship for a well organized employer. The other kind is who people leave.

Hmmm… I am in a better position than you to understand and speak to how I was treated by my employer. Have you never had a presentation or important meeting the same day as your spouse, and then whoops now a kid is sick or it’s a snow day! And school breaks add up to MONTHS out of the year (you know summer break is a thing right? and planning for, booking, and then doing the daily drop off and pick ups can get pretty complicated, especially with multiple kids)… You’re being ridiculous.

The reality is: It can be really hard to have two full time working parents and multiple kids, even (gasp!) school age kids! I am not ashamed to admit that I reached a point where I just couldn’t handle it all anymore, and more importantly, I didn’t WANT to handle it all anymore.

DP and I don't understand your reaction here. Read the post again. It sounds to me like they are criticizing your old employer, not you. Saying that if they (your employer) were truly accommodating, you wouldn't have felt that things like snow days caused chaos.

I continue to work full-time but agree that kids' schedules cause a lot of stress when you are trying to balance everything. The truth is that there are vanishingly few employers in the US who are truly family friendly.

No I fully understand that they were criticizing my employer. However, I had already stated in no uncertain terms that my employer treated me wonderfully. So this person was trying to explain to me why I am wrong and why I don’t understand my own life or situation as well as she does. I find that quite condescending.

You also stated in no uncertain terms that you weren’t in charge and there was a ton of politics and BS. So which was it?

I most certainly did not. Re-read the quoted thread here. You are confusing me with a different poster.

You’re right, I did confuse you for another poster.

You are the poster whose job did not accommodate sick/snow days and school drop offs, and you feel that job “valued and accommodated” you.

I think it’s smart that you left. I think it’s strange that you have such low standards.

Have any of you princesses ever had an actual job before, you know one in which the work they’re paying you for actually needs to get done? Because lots of other people are counting on that work getting done?

I think some of you are REALLY confused as to what constitutes an “accommodation” versus your employer just being happy to let you not do your job, period. My job actually mattered; it is clear that yours do not.

Is Marissa Mayer someone whose job you think mattered? Yahoo built her twins a whole nursery.

There are always going to be accommodations available to some that aren’t available to others. That doesn’t mean the people being accommodated have jobs that “don’t matter” it means the companies will do more to keep them.

Honestly, no.

OK, would you like to share what jobs you think matter? Since number of people counting on you isn’t the metric apparently.

Because in every field I can think of, someone is getting huge accommodations to let them parent. Tammy Duckworth got the rules of the Senate changed for her daughter, it really shouldn’t surprise you that high achievers can have meeting times rescheduled.

I’m sorry but are you the same poster who basically said that women should leave jobs that don’t accommodate them, otherwise they have low standards? Because if so, I just want to point out that the examples you have trotted out are 1) the CEO of an absolutely huge corporation, and 2) a US Senator. I don’t think you are making your case the way you think you are.

And if not, it seems your point is just that the top fraction of a percent of all job performers can essentially make their own rules, then… okay? What’s that got to do with the rest of us?

And finally, what about all of the MANY other participants in those meetings? Think the people who actually know things (subject matter experts, for example) and are required to inform people like senators? Should they all quit their jobs because not only are they NOT being accommodated, they’re being jerked around by some flaky “high achiever”?

(Refresh my memory, wasn’t Mayer’s highest “achievement” suggesting google keep an overall blank screen on their search page? Then she gets treated as some business genius capable of running an entire company? I highly doubt anyone was acting counting on her to get any work done. The people doing the work probably had to figure out how to get it done in spite of her. She is the business equivalent of a lottery winner, IMO.)

You still haven’t shared what kind of jobs you think are actually important— you don’t think a CEO or a Senator is, I have already agreed that in lifesaving professions like ER docs and nurses accommodation isn’t possible, so who do you think is important?

I will say on my team, when we went to fixed meeting times, adjustable start and end times, and made changes to help people travel with their families, we significantly increased the number of internal applicants to all our roles. We have had people essentially seek demotion just to join our office. So people obviously didn’t feel jerked around internally if they are applying to work on the team that only holds meetings within certain windows.

And it’s also true that it’s never going to be for “everyone else”. I said earlier I’m working hard to make sure I retain two specific people who are at the kid stage of life. When another woman on my team who was again a very high performer (has since been promoted within the organization) went on her first post-baby business trip and was stressed about traveling with the baby, I personally upgraded her hotel room to a suite, using my own hotel points. I wouldn’t do that for someone who I was indifferent about their future in the organization. So yes I think someone who isn’t viewed as a high performer can certainly leave and seek better elsewhere.

LOL. You sound absolutely insufferable and I guarantee (just from reading your BS) that if your “team” was dissolved tomorrow it would have absolutely zero effect on society (although I’m sure you’d all miss your paychecks that you suck out of the system by essentially being useless middlemen).

I’m sure you’re really good at meetings and shaking hands and speaking in corporate jargon, but I also am fairly certain that you possess no actual skills or particular knowledge that is good for anything other than transferring wealth from one hand to another. For example, you seem to think the only time sensitive jobs are those that directly involve saving lives. Clearly you have never worked with scientists, or the military, or sanitation or utilities, etc.

And I 100% believe that people would get demoted to work on your “team” since it sounds like you’re essentially running an adult playhouse where nothing of actual value gets done.

Or maybe your business is an MLM. You kind of sound like the type.

But as interesting as this side topic has been, I’m out! Good luck with your #girlbossing.

Is this thread still going? Live and let live people. Why do people care so much about the choices others make for themselves? The only reason I can think of is they aren’t content with their own choice and look for ways to bring others down. Who cares if someone stays home or works full time with a full time nanny or with daycare? How is it affecting your life?!