# SAHMing as default huring society's work/life balance?



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

One of my friends was recently asserting the following --

That SAHM-ing is still the default expectation for the wives of professionals (doctor, lawyer, etc.) and the "executive" worker.

That SAHM-ing is contributing to and reinforcing the total work/life in-balance of many of those workers (as the hours requirements for those jobs are extremely high and just getting higher) -- since the expectation is that those workers have someone at home managing all other aspects of their lives (grocery shopping, bill paying, appointment making, childcare, etc., etc.) so that they can focus 100% on their career.

She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is. She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.

I thought this was an interesting idea, though perhaps overstated. Thoughts?


----------



## BetsyS (Nov 8, 2004)

My dh is an outside salesman. He travels 2-3 nights a week. In similar positions, almost all of his colleagues have wives that SAH. It is expected and somewhat rewarded. (When I had the baby and word got out that I SAH, he somehow was rewarded with a raise shortly thereafter)

Part of the decision for me to SAH was sheer logistics. I had a job where I worked 1-2 twenty-four hour shifts during the week. WIth his travel, that was hard enough to balance with just a puppy. Our dog spent a few nights a month at the kennel because of it. With a baby, we knew that it would mean lots more juggling.

All that juggling, we felt, would cause my dh to not be able to be as devoted to his career (he'd have to leave for work in the morning after daycare opened, instead of early; he'd have to make sure he was home certain afternoons, etc) One of our jobs had to go. Because his job has much greater salary potential, it was a no brainer for us to focus on that job.

But, yes, I think that companies expect a certain level of devotion to really succeed in certain jobs. And, having a partner at home makes that devotion lots easier. My dh has never had to leave work early or go in late for childcare, his clothes are magically washed weekly, he doesn't do the household errands, he never leaves work for a sick baby, and on and on. That job gets 100% of him while he is there.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 

She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is. She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.

I'm a very cynical person but my belief is that if the wives worked they would be expected to work part-time or "only" 40 hours a week so that they could still support their husband's careers.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

There was actually a very good article recently in The Economist about aging populations and birthrates. Italy and Japan are actually having a lot problems with birthrates. While France was able to turn theirs around by giving women more options in the work place and having more family friendly policies. Italy sort of has family friendly policies but your career as a woman can't really go anywhere if you decide to have kids same with Japan where it's even worse women don't get high powered jobs to begin with. Basically it boiled down to the more options women have and the more support they get for those options, the more kids they have which I find interesting. You sort of go from an agrarian society where you have to have a lot of kids, to a more industrialized society where job opportunities make you need less kids to an enlightened industrial society that sees the importance in work/life balance and birth rates go up.

I don't think sahm'ing per se actually hurts women, everyone should have the choice. But when the patriarchy that sets the agenda feels it should be the default for women who have kids, that's where it hurts women. When I just become a lactating uterus, then I have problems with society.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Well my issue is with the expectations of the long hours for everyone, regardless of marital/SAH-partner status.

But yes, I do think the expectations are over the top for certain jobs - not just the high level or traditional lawyer/doctor ones either; a lot of social workers work long hours, and my husband is in IT and the expectations there are ludicrous - still the "nerd who lives here" kind of view. In order to find a family balance there may be pressure on the lower-earner to stay home, usually the woman (I am a classic example, me and my liberal arts)

Even in my field (publishing) there is a new expectation that one is available more around the clock - most of the higher-level people answer email one last time after dinner.


----------



## pumpkin (Apr 8, 2003)

I think your friend is right. There is a certain level of career where there is an expectation that you are available 24-7. I know because I've done it. People who are single are expected to not have pets or houseplants because they must be available to travel for weeks at a time on one hours notice. Children would be completely unacceptable. If you do have home responsibilities then you must either have a spouse who takes care of everything or an ex-spouse who takes care of the kids and then you maintain the pet and houseplant free lifestyle.

I was horrified to be a part of this system. I had zero respect for the men (and 1 woman who reached the upper levels at a huge firm) who could be so detached from their children. I gave up a ton of money to get away from that world.

I left with the belief that the best way to achieve work/life balance is not to focus on making it easier for women to manage the day to day of a career and children, but to fundamentally change the expectation that men can ignore the home sector. If men are expected to be more than breadwinners, then everyone would benefit and the work/life balance would simply fall into place.

Thankfully I now work in an environment where both genders are expected to leave early for the school play, or to have the kids in the office during Spring Break. The type of environment I have found is the exception not the rule, and everyone in it chose this particular path over other options so we have a unique group of people.

And just to be clear, I don't think the solution is that women should not be SAHM. The solution is a change in expectations for people who are in the paid workforce.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

Moving to SAHM forum.


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

i agree -- i would have stayed home no matter whaty Dh did -- as it is a prority for us, and we waited until $ possible to have kids.

but

It is really a necessaity with DH's career. his hours are long adn unpredicatble and subject to change constantly on a moments notice -- the ringing of a phone







He is on call 24 / 7 even on vaction. I don't even leave DS with him to go shopping, for like an all day thing, cuz of it. The most i leave DS wiht him is 2 or 3 hours, then we both have a car seat and i keep my cell phone on my body at all times in case i have to go meet DH and get DS from him.

But that is not to say DH's job or office is anti-family or anti-kid. the work is just unpredicatable at times. Dh takes off for well baby check and OB appt all the time. we wives (and one SAHD) bring in teh kids for family lunches a lot, and we all stop by the office when we run errands and the whole office stops to talk and play with the kids. DH has stayed home with a sick baby, and a sick momma and everyone in the office is totally supportive of each other and their families. BUT there are times, be it court, or a Grand Jury or whatever -- when THAT can't be adjusted. and he is expected to be reaschane and "go-able" 24 hours a day 7 days a week .....

IF I worked at all it would have to be PT, and no responiblity -- no getting off late no odd hours and so on ..... asnd for THAT money it would not cover daycare.

We do know familes in DH's profession with two working parents and the mom has a high profile demanding job and the 2 younger than school aged kids are in daycare and it is a NIGHTMARE, of constant phone calls to see who can go get the kids when the center is closeing, to fight about who is going to go to work "late" that day and take them to the center as soon as it opens, and at least 2x a week a grandparent has to step in and go get teh girls, or take them in the morning cuz neither parent was able to make to the center before it closed. Juggling thier mutal trips and late night dinners and meetings and events and so on ... and with the DH being on call ...







:







:







:







:







: it is amazingly complex, scarey and no one seems happy. and BOTH parents feel the other parent is not pulling their part and both feel stressed and fustrated at work due to the constant juggleing and worry.

Dh and I see our sitaution as divide and conquor -- looking at what is best for the kids. However me being home allows him more success at work, which in turn is good for the family too

That being said DH doesn't get a pass on child care or home care when he is here ... jsut cuz of the job







(ok a little on the night time stuff)..... but there is an acceptance of when he is not here.

So yes i do think some preofession and some career necsate a stay at home partner -- or a full time nanny and house keeper.

Is the IDEAL .. no in the greater picture it is not a perfect thing... but i do think it is REALITY and not going to change even with we are the grandparents talking about how our kids manager careers and kids ..... i think it is tooooo biiiiiig a change to expect over all ......... because any one person or company that tires to make that change, falls risk the the others that don't.


----------



## cmom80 (Oct 18, 2006)

I think that my husband is where he is in his career because I stay home. And our family, as a result, is benefiting from it. It's a win-win situation.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 

I thought this was an interesting idea, though perhaps overstated. Thoughts?

Oh, interesting topic!









I think you said it best in your last line..."interesting idea, though perhaps overstated."

While it's never good to generalize or stereotype people's lives, I think there is a lot of truth in your friend's theory.

Has anyone read the last few articles the New York Times did on the new wave of stay at home mothers? The thrust of the articles was that stay at home mothering had a lot to do with economic class; that stay at home mothering was becoming a luxury and a wife of white collar worker phenomenon. Again, this is dangerous territory to generalize, because I know many many families who sacrifice in order to have a parent stay home.

The articles made the point, however, that women who had advanced degrees themselves from Ivy League schools and who had worked in lucrative careers before having children, were now staying at home with children, and lending a supporting role to their husbands career arch.

Anecdotally, of the few doctors, lawyers, MBAs, etc that I know in real life, one of the parents stays home (male or female) and they lend a supporting role to the long work hours, infrequent vacation time, inflexible schedules.

I know that day care is often not a very good option for these families if they had two jobs because it would always fall on one parent to pick up and drop off and do all household tasks, just due to the work commitment of the other.

So, yes, I think your friend makes a very valid point!


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momma Aimee* 
i agree -- i would have stayed home no matter whaty Dh did -- as it is a prority for us, and we waited until $ possible to have kids.

but

It is really a necessaity with DH's career. his hours are long adn unpredicatble and subject to change constantly on a moments notice...

IF I worked at all it would have to be PT, and no responiblity -- no getting off late no odd hours and so on ..... asnd for THAT money it would not cover daycare.

We do know familes in DH's profession with two working parents and the mom has a high profile demanding job and the 2 younger than school aged kids are in daycare and it is a NIGHTMARE, of constant phone calls to see who can go get the kids when the center is closeing, to fight about who is going to go to work "late" that day and take them to the center as soon as it opens, and at least 2x a week a grandparent has to step in and go get teh girls.

I think you illustrate exactly what I was trying to say in my post! If you have two demanding careers, it makes it nearly impossible to juggle the responsibilities of parenting, even with day care. Many day care hours simply do not align with the extended hours of a demanding career.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

I would agree. When dd1 was born 5 plus years ago, we wanted me to stay home which I have done since then. FF to now. I NEED to be home for my family. MY dh's clinic is owned by himself and 3 other partners. ITs demanding and he works half days a lot- meaning which 12 hours do you want to work??
The upside, he has been able to focus on his career, make more money and this keeps us out of debt etc but also better himself too. If both of us were WOH, it would be like the pp said about the juggling act and neither of us would devote what is needed in our career. I know a few sahmoms who were lawyers in their previous life, one ped who delivered premature twins last year and decided it was time to focus on her babies for now. And many others who also had a demanding career or job like I did and said- not worth it, I can always go back or do something else some day.

Good thread btw.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
One of my friends was recently asserting the following --

That SAHM-ing is still the default expectation for the wives of professionals (doctor, lawyer, etc.) and the "executive" worker.

That SAHM-ing is contributing to and reinforcing the total work/life in-balance of many of those workers (as the hours requirements for those jobs are extremely high and just getting higher) -- since the expectation is that those workers have someone at home managing all other aspects of their lives (grocery shopping, bill paying, appointment making, childcare, etc., etc.) so that they can focus 100% on their career.

She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is. She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.

I thought this was an interesting idea, though perhaps overstated. Thoughts?

I think your friend has come up with a simplistic way to deal with the evils of capitalism and sexism among other things.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

A demanding career doesn't necessarily mean a career that is well paid! My husband has a very demanding career, but we still have the same struggles that many one paycheck households have.

While it would make a lot of financial sense in our household for me to work (as I also had a fairly demanding, fairly well-paying job), the logistics of two demanding careers AND raising children were just too challenging (not impossible and not that we didn't think about it, it was just not very easily managed).

My husband's hours at work, inflexible schedule, and travel make it nearly impossible for me to rely on him to ever pick up or drop off a child at daycare on time and within their scheduled hours, even for many in-home options. The amount and the hours he works make it difficult for me to even have a part time job.

If I had stayed working in my job, my schedule would not have jived very well with day care hours either.

So, it was a tough choice, and one my husband didn't completely agree with or support, but I felt like in order to be the type of parent I wanted to be, I needed to stay home, at least until my children were school aged.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Women who are nurturing and caring for children are not to blame!


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is. She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.

I think it would be more accurate to say that if the general social understanding was that family was an important priority for all workers, THEN the situation would improve. Or that we should expect partners of SAHPs to *still* participate in parenting.

I *am* a stay at home mom. My husband *still* lost his job shortly after our son was born, essentially because he would no longer put work above everything else. Someone else who still works there is desperately seeking a new job because they won't arrange his on-call hours to not include the two weekends a month when he gets his six year old son (who lives out of state); they literally told him that he "had to put the program first, because we need you". It's completely unreasonable


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

First, I'm a little disappointed to see this moved to the SAHM forum because I think it's a reasonable topic that anyone could weigh-in on. These sorts of philospophical discussions with the AMAZING intelligent women on MDC are why I keep coming back.

But that aside, I agree a lot with GuildJenn, Lisalou and especially pumpkin below:



pumpkin;9283871
to fundamentally change the expectation that men can ignore the home sector. If men are expected to be more than breadwinners said:


> I'm totally on with this. As an employed mother, I see many more men taking responsibilities for the children than I think ocurred in generations past. My mother worked, but also kept the house, did all the laundry, all the cooking, all the shopping and all the cleaning. Today, I see men who are totally or partially responsible for grocery shopping, cooking, laundry etc. I was thrilled earlier this year when my roofer cancelled his appointment with me because of his sick child. I was thrilled to see him sharing in that kind of responsibility. I bet his father never cancelled on a client due to sick kid illness. Yes, I'd arranged to take off work and meet the roofer and he couldn't tell me until that morning, but really, it was fine with me. I think those sorts of things will bring about the societal change we desperately need - men being expected to take on more household resposibilities, singles who must care for aging parents or grand-parents. The expectation that our jobs don't own us 24/7.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
First, I'm a little disappointed to see this moved to the SAHM forum because I think it's a reasonable topic that anyone could weigh-in on. These sorts of philospophical discussions with the AMAZING intelligent women on MDC are why I keep coming back.









And we are too busy eating bon bons, painting our toes and wathing soaps to weigh-in.

I know you didn't intend it to come off as such but that just made me







.


----------



## Peony (Nov 27, 2003)

All the people in high demand jobs that I know, do have a SAHM partner.

My DH has a very demanding career and this was one of his issues when we talked about having DC, I had to be a SAHM when we had DC. I completely agreed and had always planned on it anyway so it was a moot point for us. I take care of everything in the house and everything to do with the children, DH does not have the time nor the energy to handle it. I can't imagine would happen if at 5pm when a crisis was occuring, he looked at his watch and said he had to left because the daycare was closing and he had to pick up his children. It is not going to happen in his line of work, not if he wants a jobs, someone else has to handle all of that, million dollar companies do not care about 5-6pm daycare pickups. Sick days don't exist for him, even when DD2 was in the hospital, I had to arrange care for DD1 because I was with DD2, and DH had to be at work. Clients are understanding to a point, once here and there rarely, but when you have an ill child for many months, they lose patience very quickly.

To be fair, I could be making good money if I was still working, my profession isn't as demanding, RN, but DH makes far more then I ever could...


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

I don't think that at least IME, SAHMs are a default. In fact, I have found almost everyone expects the women to work full time from birth and be available at the drop of a hat to take time off for a child, but men are not expected/allowed to.

My being a SAHM tends to get some strange looks like noone even knew you could do that.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peony* 
All the people in high demand jobs that I know, do have a SAHM partner.

My DH has a very demanding career and this was one of his issues when we talked about having DC, I had to be a SAHM when we had DC. I completely agreed and had always planned on it anyway so it was a moot point for us. I take care of everything in the house and everything to do with the children, DH does not have the time nor the energy to handle it. I can't imagine would happen if at 5pm when a crisis was occuring, he looked at his watch and said he had to left because the daycare was closing and he had to pick up his children. It is not going to happen in his line of work, not if he wants a jobs, someone else has to handle all of that, million dollar companies do not care about 5-6pm daycare pickups. Sick days don't exist for him, even when DD2 was in the hospital, I had to arrange care for DD1 because I was with DD2, and DH had to be at work. Clients are understanding to a point, once here and there rarely, but when you have an ill child for many months, they lose patience very quickly.

To be fair, I could be making good money if I was still working, my profession isn't as demanding, RN, but DH makes far more then I ever could...









:

This sounds similar to our situation. I could make good money, but the inflexibility of my husband's career makes it very difficult to juggle TWO careers AND still parent the way we need to. Maybe someday that will change. Ideally, I'd love to job share and child care share with my husband in a more balanced scenario...but opportunities for that seem few and far between in the real world.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
I don't think that at least IME, SAHMs are a default. In fact, I have found almost everyone expects the women to work full time from birth and be available at the drop of a hat to take time off for a child, but men are not expected/allowed to.

My being a SAHM tends to get some strange looks like noone even knew you could do that.

That is true, too! It seems so unfair, though! I mean, many people EXPECT me to work and there are all kinds of other expectations on top of that. I've not encountered any attitudes where staying at home was the default or expected. Not at all. Quite the contrary. But, the reality is that juggling two careers while raising young kids would be hard on the parents, hard on the careers, and most importantly hard on the kids.

And, yes, I do feel that working moms are expected to pick up the bulk of the child care and household tasks, even while working. I know I would have been and that played very much into my decision to stay at home. Division of household tasks are generally more fair than they were in say the 1950s and it is getting better with modern husbands/hands-on dads, but it's far from ideal and far from equal!!!


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
First, I'm a little disappointed to see this moved to the SAHM forum because I think it's a reasonable topic that anyone could weigh-in on. These sorts of philospophical discussions with the AMAZING intelligent women on MDC are why I keep coming back.

Me too, but more because it seems kind of incendiary over here, like it is questioning the SAHM choice rather than being just a general discussion on expectations around work and family. Maybe it's 'cause it had SAHM in the title.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Me too, but more because it seems kind of incendiary over here, like it is questioning the SAHM choice rather than being just a general discussion on expectations around work and family. Maybe it's 'cause it had SAHM in the title.









Now we are incendiary?!

I'd love for this to me moved out into the calm, intelligent realms out there.










But if it MUST be here....then my thoughts remain the same. Its a simplistic view, it ignores and overlooks capitalism, sexism, economics and that failure of the women's movement if you will.


----------



## Iris' Mom (Aug 3, 2007)

I used to work as a lawyer in a big firm and my ex-h stayed home. My female friends had stay-at-home husbands/partners or teachers, etc., and we used to joke that "everyone needs a wife." Virtually the only exceptions were two high powered super high income couples who had the nanny, the night-shift nanny and the weekend nanny. Women whose husbands couldn't/wouldn't stay home or cut their hours way back almost invariably left after having kids.

I think it's a bit of a chicken/egg conundrum, bu I wouldn't really say SAHM-ing "causes" the imbalance. I think it's like a pressure valve, that let's some of the steam escape so the whole thing doesn't explode. In other words, if both partners worked, pressure would build up more quickly for things to change, bu the fault is with the system, not the SAHMers.


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

I think it's a bit of a chicken/egg conundrum, bu I wouldn't really say SAHM-ing "causes" the imbalance. I think it's like a pressure valve, that let's some of the steam escape so the whole thing doesn't explode. In other words, if both partners worked, pressure would build up more quickly for things to change, bu the fault is with the system, not the SAHMers.
for us .. beyond our conmitment to me being home no matter what DH did ... it is a way to cope.









I do not have the emotional ablity to hanlde the stress that woud come from both of us working demanding careers and juggling the house and the kids and the child care and the errands and the flux i see some couple living in where it is a constant ? "who is going to be able to pick the kids up at 6 or even 7 pm" "who can wait till 6:30 whent he center opens to head to work" "who can make dinner" "who can go to the store for the milk we are out of" ........ Hats offs the moms who i know who DO do it all day every day -- but you know, honestly, none of them SEEM happy


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is.

And *how* would it become the "general social understanding" that women married to men in high-power jobs were going to keep working after kids, other than by more women actually deciding to do it?" It sounds like your friend is saying that more wives should forfeit staying home, in order to improve things for those wives who don't want to stay home.

Quote:

She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.
That's probably true -- but she seems to be assuming that no woman would choose to stay home if her husband's "work/life balance was more reasonable." My husband generally works 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. He's usually home every night and all weekend. We _still_ choose for me to be home.

I could just as easily say that if it became the "general social understanding" that all women quit work after marriage, it would be possible for more men to secure jobs that paid well enough to support a family on one income -- but I don't think it would be fair for me to say *all* women should stay home, just because *I* love staying home, have no desire to return to the workforce, and think it'd be cool if my hubby had less competition for wages.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

I don't think it's that there *isn't* the "general social understanding" that wives continue to work. Most women *do* work and society expects them to. The problem is, society's attitude toward family/work balance is "So what?"

A lot of the professional jobs women have moved into over the last 30+ years were originally done by upper-class men who had the luxury of being able to support a sahw who could take care of everything else while he was at the office.

The problem is that the work set-up has not changed since that situation ceased to become the norm. Thus we have a situation in which both professional men *and* women would have it a lot easier with a "wife" at home.

And of course, there's the fact that, at home or not, women still do a disproportionate amount of housework and childcare. No one really wins (except financially).

The whole workplace system needs to be radically overhauled so that everyone can lead a more decent life.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
I don't think it's that there *isn't* the "general social understanding" that wives continue to work. Most women *do* work and society expects them to. The problem is, society's attitude toward family/work balance is "So what?"

A lot of the professional jobs women have moved into over the last 30+ years were originally done by upper-class men who had the luxury of being able to support a sahw who could take care of everything else while he was at the office.

The problem is that the work set-up has not changed since that situation ceased to become the norm. Thus we have a situation in which both professional men *and* women would have it a lot easier with a "wife" at home.

And of course, there's the fact that, at home or not, women still do a disproportionate amount of housework and childcare. No one really wins (except financially).

The whole workplace system needs to be radically overhauled so that everyone can lead a more decent life.











Well said.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 

I could just as easily say that if it became the "general social understanding" that all women quit work after marriage, it would be possible for more men to secure jobs that paid well enough to support a family on one income -- but I don't think it would be fair for me to say *all* women should stay home, just because *I* love staying home, have no desire to return to the workforce, and think it'd be cool if my hubby had less competition for wages.











I see what you are saying, and I see the reasoning behind it. And I think you are saying this for the sake of argument, no?

I did have a person once tell me, and in a serious way, that if I (and other women) didn't hold or compete for professional jobs, then men would have less competition and would be able to find good paying jobs more easily and provide for themselves and their families.

I don't know about that. I was shocked when the person told me this. I went to college and trained for a specific field, and it is because I trained for that field that I got a job in that field. Any man or woman who also trained for that field could just as easily get the very same job.

I think better jobs are able to be found (generally) through education and training, not less competition.

Still, I do see your point. But as a stay at home mom who might one day have to support my family, a stay at home dad, or even myself and my children as a widow, divorcee, or single mom (life happens and you just never know...) well, I am glad I can go into the workforce and earn as much as any man and provide for my family. That would not have been the case had I been born 50 or 100 years ago.


----------



## Iris' Mom (Aug 3, 2007)

There's definitely a supply-and-demand aspect of it, true. More workers means more competition which suppresses wages. But, it's not a zero-sum game. More workers means more demand for goods which means more need for workers (albeit many of whom live in China, but that's another debate . . .)


----------



## wednesday (Apr 26, 2004)

I don't see it as necessarily being a SAHM thing. I've lived in a couple different major metropoiltan areas where part of being "successful" was that both spouses had high-status, high-paying executive jobs. And they managed the childcare issue typically by having an au pair (live-in nanny). Often combining some schedule of pre-school or center care with the au pair, and the au pair doing all the transportation. And then a housecleaner, yard service, etc. It sounds expensive, sure, but if the mom makes over six figures they still come out way ahead financially.

So I would say I think there's an expectation that your family life not interfere with your availaibility to your employer--ever--but I think the employer doesn't really care how you arrange that, if that means you're single, or have a SAH spouse, or a nanny.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hotmamacita* 







Now we are incendiary?!

I'd love for this to me moved out into the calm, intelligent realms out there.











No no no, not what I meant at all. Just that I think if you address this question ONLY to SAHMs, it sort of seems nastier to me, as if one's individual choice to SAHM is the question. Which I don't think it was.


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

No no no, not what I meant at all. Just that I think if you address this question ONLY to SAHMs, it sort of seems nastier to me, as if one's individual choice to SAHM is the question. Which I don't think it was.
I agree -- i think this has a lot of relvance for the working moms -- and the few dads here too -- this doesn't seem to me to be a SAH issues .... as it is the idea of SAH in the greater picutre of society ...

Aimee


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

I agree that this shouldn't have been moved to the SAHM forum. It's a general topic. . .

I think that if ALL wives/moms worked, then, yes, a work/life balance would be forced upon the business world because the husbands would not have the at-home support to be available 24/7, and (hopefully) both the women and the men would stand up and say NO! to the crazy demands that are being put on them.

That said, in practice, it's ridiculous. This is America, and we will not take people's choice to SAH if they can manage it away from them.

On the WOHM forum, we often discuss what it would take to make our lives more manageable (better daycare, more flexible schedules, pro-rated benefits for PT workers, over-haul of the US healthcare system, etc, etc.).

But I think it comes down to each individual person. If people keep saying "yes" to insane demands, the demands will continue to be made.

While I can see plainly that the women in my office (mostly admin's and accounting "girls") are paid freakishly less than the men we work for (engineers), this whole place would collapse if we all walked out. They wouldn't be able to tie their shoes without us (much less make copies, submit expense reports and engineering proposals, or work the accounting software). But do we leave? No! They could replace us in a few months with other women who would be happy to take their s**t for the same pay we make.

All I think we can really do is try and change one supervisor at a time. Each supervisor who becomes more flexible and more accepting of family-friendly policies (flex hours, WAH, workplace pumping, PT work, etc.) is one more person who will be on our "side" when official policy decision/changes are made.

I'd be surprised if I get to benefit on a wide-scale from any of the work I have done to change 2 different workplaces. But I think my daughters will be experience a very different workplace in 20-30 years. Perhaps they will SAH after experiencing me WOH, or perhaps they will have more options and be able to balance it better than we are.

That was way longer than I meant it to be. Thanks for listening!
--LEE


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hotmamacita* 







And we are too busy eating bon bons, painting our toes and wathing soaps to weigh-in.

I know you didn't intend it to come off as such but that just made me







.

gosh - I'm sorry. I didn't mean it that way at all - like SAHM aren't "able" to comment on the issue. I just felt that seeing this in the SAHM forum that other moms needn't comment on the issue or ought not to.

Please accept my apologies. I really didn't mean to insult anyone.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 









I see what you are saying, and I see the reasoning behind it. And I think you are saying this for the sake of argument, no?

I did have a person once tell me, and in a serious way, that if I (and other women) didn't hold or compete for professional jobs, then men would have less competition and would be able to find good paying jobs more easily and provide for themselves and their families.

Oh, I certainly don't fault working women for any of our economic problems. And no, I'm not advocating a return to the discriminatory practices of 50 or 100 years ago.









I also see the point of Iris' Mom, that it's a lot more complex than saying, "If women didn't work outside the home, men could earn more money" --

because more people working certainly fuels our consumer economy. Some of the things about SAHMing that benefit individual families -- such as the ability to cook from scratch, shop for bargains and/or make more of our goods at home, and generally spend less money, not needing to pay anyone else to watch our kids, etcetera --

have the opposite effect on the economy. That's why from an economic standpoint, it makes more sense for the government to subsidize childcare than it does to help single mothers stay home. Even though it usually costs more, it also "grows the economy" by providing jobs for childcare workers.

And even low-income parents tend to spend more on fast-food and other conveniences, than they would if one parent stayed home. More stress generally means more spending, which generates more (debt-related) stress, which generates more spending ...

But no, my point wasn't that all married women should stay home. I was responding to what seemed to be the suggestion of the OP's friend, that women should keep working after children, in order to improve things for the women who'd rather not be SAHM's. To me, her statement seems just as ridiculous as me saying that women who love working should quit their jobs after marriage, to free up more jobs for men.

I'm starting to realize that we women are really good at blaming women for society's problems. It's so silly.


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

I agree that this shouldn't have been moved to the SAHM forum. It's a general topic. . .

I think that if ALL wives/moms worked, then, yes, a work/life balance would be forced upon the business world because the husbands would not have the at-home support to be available 24/7, and (hopefully) both the women and the men would stand up and say NO! to the crazy demands that are being put on them.

That said, in practice, it's ridiculous. This is America, and we will not take people's choice to SAH if they can manage it away from them.

*On the WOHM forum, we often discuss what it would take to make our lives more manageable (better daycare, more flexible schedules, pro-rated benefits for PT workers, over-haul of the US healthcare system, etc, etc.).*

But I think it comes down to each individual person. If people keep saying "yes" to insane demands, the demands will continue to be made.

While I can see plainly that the women in my office (mostly admin's and accounting "girls") are paid freakishly less than the men we work for (engineers), this whole place would collapse if we all walked out. They wouldn't be able to tie their shoes without us (much less make copies, submit expense reports and engineering proposals, or work the accounting software). But do we leave? No! They could replace us in a few months with other women who would be happy to take their s**t for the same pay we make.

All I think we can really do is try and change one supervisor at a time. Each supervisor who becomes more flexible and more accepting of family-friendly policies (flex hours, WAH, workplace pumping, PT work, etc.) is one more person who will be on our "side" when official policy decision/changes are made.

I'd be surprised if I get to benefit on a wide-scale from any of the work I have done to change 2 different workplaces. But I think my daughters will be experience a very different workplace in 20-30 years. Perhaps they will SAH after experiencing me WOH, or perhaps they will have more options and be able to balance it better than we are.

That was way longer than I meant it to be. Thanks for listening!
--LEE
well put

the paragraph i bolded is my point -- on why this is not a SAH issue it is a how families mananger issue


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 

But no, my point wasn't that all married women should stay home. I was responding to what seemed to be the suggestion of the OP's friend, that women should keep working after children, in order to improve things for the women who'd rather not be SAHM's. To me, her statement seems just as ridiculous as me saying that women who love working should quit their jobs after marriage, to free up more jobs for men.









That is what I thought you were saying! Women have to do what is right for themselves and their families...and that may change from year to year as kids get older and other circumstances change.

I love the fluidity I have to move in and out of the workforce (at least I hope it's there and I can move in and out of the workforce).


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 







That is what I thought you were saying! Women have to do what is right for themselves and their families...and that may change from year to year as kids get older and other circumstances change.

I love the fluidity I have to move in and out of the workforce (at least I hope it's there and I can move in and out of the workforce).

Yes, it's good to have things more fluid!

I'm wary of anyone who tries to lock women into any one course of action. From my understanding, the 1970's feminists pushed women to work whether they wanted to or not, in order to pave the way for the next generation of women. That was just as constrictive as the previous expectation that only poor women should work, and only in a limited range of jobs.


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

Momma Aimee - Thank you.







:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 







I love the fluidity I have to move in and out of the workforce (at least I hope it's there and I can move in and out of the workforce).

Unfortunately, for most women, this "fluidity" is NOT there. Having a gap on your resume due to SAH can be detrimental to finding any sort of employment up to and including what you are qualified to do.

I think this is an unfortunate oversight of many SAHM. I so often hear/read, "If something happens to DH, I can always go back to work. I have a degree in ___" Can you _really_ go back to work? Are you _sure_ someone will hire you after x years out of the workforce? Maybe they will, but maybe they won't. This is one of my major motivations for staying in. Even if I go back to PT work, at least I'll still have my foot in the door.

Change of topic -
This morning as I drove to work, I was thinking about my post from yesterday when I said:

Quote:

I think that if ALL wives/moms worked, then, yes, a work/life balance would be forced upon the business world . . .
and I imagined all the nursing mom's of of 3-12 month olds showing up at work with breastpump in hand and asking "so where's the lactation room?"
That would be awesome!!!!


----------



## Emmeline II (Feb 16, 2006)

I think I'm the only SAHP in dh's office crowd, but I'm also the only spouse that isn't mad at him for traveling for work every other week or a few together this summer "your wife isn't mad at you!?"







. Though the fact that I was in the military helps me understand the demands of his job.

His job can also be very flexible. Dh can go to work early to be home early sometimes and stay late when necessary. Then he can also travel when asked without complaint, take classes to get his degree, all because I'm here to cook dinner, launder his clothes, pay the bills, and care for the dcn; and his raises reflect this. Dh sees for himself the chaos of the two career families with young children (child home sick, teacher conference days, who's picking up from aftercare...), and is relieved that we're not going through that.

I wanted to be home (long before our current circumstances), and though I did sacrifice a career, it was my sacrifice. Dh even offered to be the SAHP if I wanted to stay in the military.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leewd* 

Can you _really_ go back to work? Are you _sure_ someone will hire you after x years out of the workforce? Maybe they will, but maybe they won't.

But the only way this will happen is if people DO it! Someone's got to be the pioneer and blaze the way. Just like showing up with Breast Pump in hand and asking about the lactation room (which I did) someone has to show up with a job gap and expect to be hired. The more people that do it and expect it, the more other people will be able to do it, too - both men and women. I applaud anyone who is doing that. They're making it better for all of us.

I think back to my own mother, as a social worker in her 40s and pregnant with me. She remembers a judge "peering" over the bench at her astonished and saying "You're the social worker?" as she appeared in court with a client. She had to be one of the first women to stay in the workforce while pregnant.

Fifty years ago, women weren't PERMITTED to work after they started to show. Lucille Ball on "I Love Lucy" had to HIDE the prengnat belly behind a newspaper to keep working on TV. I think they acknowledged the pregnany but you couldn't see it at first. And she could proabably only do that because her DH was the producer and she was the star.

Personally I think the expectations of jobs are just out of control. I think this is more of a US thing with our meager 2 weeks vacation and willingness to call-in, be there, blackberry, respond, respond, respond. I work with a few Europeans and when they go on vacation or have (yet another) holiday, they're out - unavailable, deal with it. Whereas we North American's are like - SURE - I can call-in for that meeting, from my beach house. I'll have to find a place where the cell phone works - I'll go to the Internet cafe so I can login a couple of times a day.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I think most of us who choose to stay home, are aware that there's a risk of not being to reenter the workforce at the same rate of pay, or necessarily in the same career, as when we left. I'm assuming that's what leewd means when she wonders if women really CAN go back to work after a long gap.

Because the literal question, "Can you _really_ go back to work" is, "Yes, I can find a job somewhere, doing something." I know I can because I see other moms who've stayed home for years, deciding they want a job and finding one.

I don't know anyone who wants and needs to work, who literally can't find _anyone_ who will hire her.

I think most SAHMs aren't staying home because they've made an "unfortunate oversight," but because they want to be home with their kids. Period. I know that's the case for me.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
But the only way this will happen is if people DO it! Someone's got to be the pioneer and blaze the way. Just like showing up with Breast Pump in hand and asking about the lactation room (which I did) someone has to show up with a job gap and expect to be hired. The more people that do it and expect it, the more other people will be able to do it, too - both men and women. I applaud anyone who is doing that. They're making it better for all of us.

I think back to my own mother, as a social worker in her 40s and pregnant with me. She remembers a judge "peering" over the bench at her astonished and saying "You're the social worker?" as she appeared in court with a client. She had to be one of the first women to stay in the workforce while pregnant.

Fifty years ago, women weren't PERMITTED to work after they started to show. Lucille Ball on "I Love Lucy" had to HIDE the prengnat belly behind a newspaper to keep working on TV. I think they acknowledged the pregnany but you couldn't see it at first. And she could proabably only do that because her DH was the producer and she was the star.

Personally I think the expectations of jobs are just out of control. I think this is more of a US thing with our meager 2 weeks vacation and willingness to call-in, be there, blackberry, respond, respond, respond. I work with a few Europeans and when they go on vacation or have (yet another) holiday, they're out - unavailable, deal with it. Whereas we North American's are like - SURE - I can call-in for that meeting, from my beach house. I'll have to find a place where the cell phone works - I'll go to the Internet cafe so I can login a couple of times a day.

Good post!


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leewd* 
Unfortunately, for most women, this "fluidity" is NOT there. Having a gap on your resume due to SAH can be detrimental to finding any sort of employment up to and including what you are qualified to do.

True. Like anything else in life, there is no general rule of thumb. There are so many variables determining if you can re-enter the workforce easily after being a stay at home mom/dad. A lot of it depends on what kind of career you had before kids, how marketable your degree or expertise is, how persistent and ambitious you are, how long you've been staying at home, and, of course, what the economy is like during your job search.

Quote:

Can you _really_ go back to work? Are you _sure_ someone will hire you after x years out of the workforce? Maybe they will, but maybe they won't. This is one of my major motivations for staying in. Even if I go back to PT work, at least I'll still have my foot in the door.
Yes, I really think (hope) so. Again, it all depends on the criteria above and a little luck! Like you, it was one of my motivations for debating so long and so thoughtfully about whether to go back to work or stay at home. And it's the reason I don't think I'll stay home long term.

Quote:

and I imagined all the nursing mom's of of 3-12 month olds showing up at work with breastpump in hand and asking "so where's the lactation room?"
That would be awesome!!!!





























That would be awesome! It'll happen...









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
But the only way this will happen is if people DO it! Someone's got to be the pioneer and blaze the way. Just like showing up with Breast Pump in hand and asking about the lactation room (which I did) someone has to show up with a job gap and expect to be hired. The more people that do it and expect it, the more other people will be able to do it, too - both men and women. I applaud anyone who is doing that. They're making it better for all of us.

Right on!


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Because the literal question, "Can you _really_ go back to work" is, "Yes, I can find a job somewhere, doing something." I know I can because I see other moms who've stayed home for years, deciding they want a job and finding one.









:

Quote:

I don't know anyone who wants and needs to work, who literally can't find _anyone_ who will hire her.
Well, barring illness, abuse, disability, etc. There are sometimes very sad, debilitating reasons why people aren't able to find a job. But that's another topic.

Quote:

I think most SAHMs aren't staying home because they've made an "unfortunate oversight," but because they want to be home with their kids. Period. I know that's the case for me.








:

But, there are also many moms who choose or need to work, who also want to be home with their kids. It's just so complex and multi-layered.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
But the only way this will happen is if people DO it! Someone's got to be the pioneer and blaze the way. Just like showing up with Breast Pump in hand and asking about the lactation room (which I did) *someone has to show up with a job gap and expect to be hired.* The more people that do it and expect it, the more other people will be able to do it, too - both men and women. I applaud anyone who is doing that. They're making it better for all of us.

(bolding mine) Exactly! And that kind of trailblazing -- the kind where you're living your life the way you want, and finding ways to make it work *for you and your family* -- makes a lot more sense than self-sacrificial trailblazing, where you keep working when you really want to stay home, just to forward the feminist cause and force corporate America to realize men have home responsibilities, too.

Why are we always so focused on _women_ having to do what it takes to make the changes? If more men, whether their wives work or stay home, become willing to set boundaries with their employers and carve out situations where they can be active in family life -- well, that seems like a much more reasonable solution.

I think real feminism helps each woman to live the life she wants: it's not feminism if we're giving up we want for "the greater cause": that's martyrdom, the very thing feminism is supposed to be against.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 

Why are we always so focused on _women_ having to do what it takes to make the changes? If more men, whether their wives work or stay home, become willing to set boundaries with their employers and carve out situations where they can be active in family life -- well, that seems like a much more reasonable solution.

I think real feminism helps each woman to live the life she wants: it's not feminism if we're giving up we want for "the greater cause": that's martyrdom, the very thing feminism is supposed to be against.

Oh yeah sister! It's a mutual love fest. My DH took 8 weeks paternity leave (unpaid). First one in his company to do it (under FMLA in the US.) He was a little nervous but had both men and women backing him. FMLAs there - for men and women. Someone's got to be the first man to pony up and say I'm taking 12 weeks off for the birth of my child. He took his FMLAs after mine was up. It was nice that I was working because it gave him some real uninterrupted bonding time with the baby. And it was a lot easier for me to go back to work knowing she was staying with her Daddy.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
Oh yeah sister! It's a mutual love fest. My DH took 8 weeks paternity leave (unpaid). First one in his company to do it (under FMLA in the US.) He was a little nervous but had both men and women backing him. FMLAs there - for men and women. Someone's got to be the first man to pony up and say I'm taking 12 weeks off for the birth of my child. He took his FMLAs after mine was up. It was nice that I was working because it gave him some real uninterrupted bonding time with the baby. And it was a lot easier for me to go back to work knowing she was staying with her Daddy.

Right on! That is awesome your husband did that. I feel the same as you, someone has to be the first man to pony up and say I'm taking 12 weeks off! ...or 6 months off...or 1 year off!

That is great your husband did that. I bet now others feel more comfortable to do the same thing.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
(bolding mine) Exactly! And that kind of trailblazing -- the kind where you're living your life the way you want, and finding ways to make it work *for you and your family* -- makes a lot more sense than self-sacrificial trailblazing, where you keep working when you really want to stay home, just to forward the feminist cause and force corporate America to realize men have home responsibilities, too.

Why are we always so focused on _women_ having to do what it takes to make the changes? If more men, whether their wives work or stay home, become willing to set boundaries with their employers and carve out situations where they can be active in family life -- well, that seems like a much more reasonable solution.

I think real feminism helps each woman to live the life she wants: it's not feminism if we're giving up we want for "the greater cause": that's martyrdom, the very thing feminism is supposed to be against.

Good points.

Personally, I see this as less a feminist issue and more a labor issue. The historical changes the American work week has undergone in the last 50 years in terms of expectations and hours are ridiculous, especially compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

I think several of you mentioned how the 40 plus hour work week was originally set up in a work/life society where typically a man worked and a woman was at home, supporting him in that role (taking care of all other business).

That just doesn't happen anymore (SAHMing now has a focus on the kids, less housework, you know) and in two income families, it really doesn't work.

Men and women both need to start chipping away at changing the labor expectations in this country so they are not so imbalanced...hard to do in this current climate of outsourcing, down sizing, and soft economy.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
My DH took 8 weeks paternity leave (unpaid). First one in his company to do it (under FMLA in the US.) He was a little nervous but had both men and women backing him. FMLAs there - for men and women. Someone's got to be the first man to pony up and say I'm taking 12 weeks off for the birth of my child.

Good for your dh!


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
Personally, I see this as less a feminist issue and more a labor issue.

Yes. And the more people can see it as a _human_ issue, and not just a _women's_ issue (men are parents, too, and children need _both_ mothers and fathers) -- the better things will get for women, men, and children.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Yes. And the more people can see it as a _human_ issue, and not just a _women's_ issue (men are parents, too, and children need _both_ mothers and fathers) -- the better things will get for women, men, and children.

Absolutely!


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

First of all, I have thoroughly enojoyed this discussion. Posters have done an amazing job of staying possitive and resisting the ever-present urge to be snarky when posting in online discussions. So, let's all give ourselves a pat on the back.

Secondly, y'all have made some very good points against my argument for staying in the workforce because one may not be able to re-enter. You are right that people (both men and women) who have gaps on their resumes need to show up and expect to be hired.

The intention of my post wasn't to say the SAHP couldn't get *any* job, but that they will have major obstacles to finding the kind of job they could have gotten before. After 10 years of SAH, it's not just a matter of dusting off your college degree and buying a new suit. There are major prejudices as well as having your skills "rot" while you are out of the workforce. Volunteer work is NOT viewed as the same as work for pay.

My perspective on this is shaded by a person situation. My sister was earning more than $50K 5.5 years ago after her first DS was born. She was laid off due to company issues. After a cursery job search, she decided to stay home. After their second DS was born, she was learning about homeschooling and she and her DH decided that she would not re-enter the workforce. The plan was for her to be a long-term SAHM and to HS their 2 DS's.

Fast-Forward to today. She's moved out, and they're filing for divorce. She is highly skilled and highly intelligent and she hasn't managed to find even a PT job. She is talking about turning in applications at grocery stores and Payless Shoes, so she can just get "something." This is sad, but this is the reality of a college graduate with a 5 year gap.

Of course, I think we've gotten a bit off-topic at this point. . . .


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leewd* 
First of all, I have thoroughly enojoyed this discussion. Posters have done an amazing job of staying possitive and resisting the ever-present urge to be snarky when posting in online discussions. So, let's all give ourselves a pat on the back.

Secondly, y'all have made some very good points against my argument for staying in the workforce because one may not be able to re-enter. You are right that people (both men and women) who have gaps on their resumes need to show up and expect to be hired.

The intention of my post wasn't to say the SAHP couldn't get *any* job, but that they will have major obstacles to finding the kind of job they could have gotten before. After 10 years of SAH, it's not just a matter of dusting off your college degree and buying a new suit. There are major prejudices as well as having your skills "rot" while you are out of the workforce. Volunteer work is NOT viewed as the same as work for pay.

My perspective on this is shaded by a person situation. My sister was earning more than $50K 5.5 years ago after her first DS was born. She was laid off due to company issues. After a cursery job search, she decided to stay home. After their second DS was born, she was learning about homeschooling and she and her DH decided that she would not re-enter the workforce. The plan was for her to be a long-term SAHM and to HS their 2 DS's.

Fast-Forward to today. She's moved out, and they're filing for divorce. She is highly skilled and highly intelligent and she hasn't managed to find even a PT job. She is talking about turning in applications at grocery stores and Payless Shoes, so she can just get "something." This is sad, but this is the reality of a college graduate with a 5 year gap.

Of course, I think we've gotten a bit off-topic at this point. . . .

I think you (and others) made good points. Yes, I agree that anyone - man or woman - should be concerned about the impact taking a break (SAH or otherwise) or having a forced gap (lay-off, down size, etc) potentially could have on one's career.

I'm sorry to hear about your sister. I hope things work out for her. I think with time they will given her work experience.

But, I won't lie and say that I don't worry about the same thing happening to me. It could happen to anyone.

Like I posted earlier, there are so many variables determining if you can re-enter the workforce easily after being a stay at home mom/dad. A lot of it depends on what kind of career you had before kids, how marketable your degree or expertise is, how persistent and ambitious you are, how long you've been staying at home, and, of course, what the economy is like during your job search.

We have to find our own levels of comfort when taking on this risk. But I think we'd be naive to say that leaving the workforce has no consquences on the ability to jump back in and earn a good living for ourselves and our children.


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

Like I posted earlier, there are so many variables determining if you can re-enter the workforce easily after being a stay at home mom/dad. A lot of it depends on what kind of career you had before kids, how marketable your degree or expertise is, how persistent and ambitious you are, how long you've been staying at home, and, of course, what the economy is like during your job search.
We also do ourselves a disservice to assume re-entry to the work force is mandatory "if something happnes" -- we should all be planning with life insurecase and so on ....

Howeve, i was a foster mom before, I can re-cert and work again, if i was ever to so choose.

so it all depends.

A


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momma Aimee* 
We also do ourselves a disservice to assume re-entry to the work force is mandatory "if something happnes" -- we should all be planning with life insurecase and so on ....

A

True. I see your point.

I'm thinking less in terms of becoming widowed (i.e. the need for life insurance) and more in terms of

1. my husband losing his job, due to numerous things that happen in this economy (like lay offs, like out sourcing, like down sizing)

2. divorce or separation...I know there is still child support...but hey what if he becomes a deadbeat and doesn't pay...I mean it could happen, it happens to some women...

3. my husband becomes sick or disabled and our financial needs skyrocket beyond what insurance could handle.

I do plan for the rainy days...life insurance, savings, etc, but I also know that at some point even with life insurance and savings, I might need to get a job and I worry about that. I've actually looked at our life insurance as part of financial planning and I would not be able to be a stay at home mom with life insurance. The biggest reason is health insurance and the second biggest reason is income.


----------



## BetsyS (Nov 8, 2004)

Very often when the conversation surrounding SAHMs turns to the what-ifs, it assumes that all SAHMs are not very smart. That perhaps we can't quite get the idea that a gap on our resume is a bad thing. That, surely, if those SAHMs just understood the bad parts of staying at home, they would make a different decision.

I know that the gap is bad. I know that I probably won't work in the same field again. No one would hire me. I would have to take a lesser job if/when I return to the workforce. But, you know what? I weighed out those pros and cons, and TO ME, it is so important that I be home with little kids, I was willing to sacrifice my career.

If I go back to work, I might be working retail (not what I went to school for). And, you know what? It will be worth it. I weighed out the costs, and I made an educated decision to SAH. It wasn't some willy-nilly decision made with no thought of what the long term impact would be. Just like I'm still paying for school loans many years later, I may spend many years paying for the opportunity to stay home with little babies. And, really, really, I'm okay with that.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momma Aimee* 
I do not have the emotional ablity to hanlde the stress that woud come from both of us working demanding careers and juggling the house and the kids and the child care and the errands and the flux i see some couple living in where it is a constant ? "who is going to be able to pick the kids up at 6 or even 7 pm" "who can wait till 6:30 whent he center opens to head to work"

I can definitely relate here and it's definitely part of the reason why I chose to stay home - college degree and all. It became even more real to me when DH took his present job working at a day care center (he's in management). Because he works two jobs he's the one who's there when the center "closes" for the majority of the work week. There are times when he has had to stay late at work for 30 min or more because of disagreements among parents about who has to leave work (when they're expected to be available for their employer for whatever hours the employer deems necessary) to pick up the kids. I especially feel for the single moms who are likely just trying to make ends meet, raise their children, and still arrange to pick up their children when the day care center closes and their employer wants them to work late.

It's a juggling act I'm not willing to do myself.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C*
My DH took 8 weeks paternity leave (unpaid). First one in his company to do it (under FMLA in the US.) He was a little nervous but had both men and women backing him. FMLAs there - for men and women. Someone's got to be the first man to pony up and say I'm taking 12 weeks off for the birth of my child. He took his FMLAs after mine was up. It was nice that I was working because it gave him some real uninterrupted bonding time with the baby. And it was a lot easier for me to go back to work knowing she was staying with her Daddy.

Way to go Daddy! Of course, the whole other issue is why in the US there is no provision for paid family leave. For many families it's nice that FMLA is available, but they just can't afford to really take advantage of it. There was a senator on GMA(?) today who referenced something to the effect that there are only three countries that don't provide for paid family leave - two are economically struggling countries and the other is the US. I guess he was the original sponsor of the FMLA and it took *seven* years to get passed. Of course the bill on paid leave has been promised a veto by the Pres if passed. *sigh*

Dh could take unpaid FMLA leave when our little one is born and he'd really like to, but since he's the one who brings home the money there's just no way we can afford to go without his income.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BetsyS*
Very often when the conversation surrounding SAHMs turns to the what-ifs, it assumes that all SAHMs are not very smart. That perhaps we can't quite get the idea that a gap on our resume is a bad thing. That, surely, if those SAHMs just understood the bad parts of staying at home, they would make a different decision.

I completely agree here...I'm especially thinking of the semi-recent book, whose title has now escaped me, but in my mind made this exact assumption. I too understand the costs associated with my decision to stay home and that I won't likely be very "employable" if I ever decided to WOH, but for me it's worth it.

Of course....the other issue at hand is the attitude that so many employers take that work should come first above all else. Well...that and the fact that in many cases a liveable wage does not accompany it.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Hmmm...I've been thinking about this thread a little and I think that having men who work demanding careers with their SAHM wives taking care of things on the homefront and kidfront might have set the foundation for the modern work world (as in historically from Post WWII)

...but

...with the way the economy is now, I really don't think the current model has much to do with an assumed SAHM or housewife taking care of things behind the scene so hubby can succeed in the 9 to 5 world (Ward and June Cleaver)...

I think many businesses are neutral...not pro-family, not anti-family...they simply have business to conduct and they hire and promote people who can meet the schedules, deadlines, and sell the product or service.

Single men and single women or couples with no kids seem to be the ones who can rise up very quickly, unencumbered or less encumbered by other commitments.

Work days and work weeks are longer, people don't use their alotted vacation, and international/electronic business is more and more common making things way more competitive and at a faster speed than ever before...

It's the global/electronic economy, I think, that has more to with the modern expectations of a career than SAHMs.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Especially when you consider that our economy used to be primarily based on small family farms and small family-operated businesses. People didn't think, "I've put in enough hours this week: tomorrow I'll take a day off. If they were ahead, they still kept working to set something aside for the future. They were never too sure that the profits would continue.

The main difference is, putting in long hours didn't mean you never got to see your family, since you were all working together. And of course for farmers, they knew they had the winter months to sit around the stove and tell stories. Families got a lot of togetherness then; I wonder how our modern families would handle it.


----------



## turkeygw (May 29, 2005)

I'm dealing w/this right now, since both of my children are now in school full day, and I want to go back to work. I've applied for several positions, most of them part time office positions at Penn State. Some have been for housekeeping, others warehouse. I have not got ANY phone calls back for interviews. Absolutely nothing! I even signed up for CNA classes at a nursing home, but as usual no one at the nursing home knows when the classes will actually begin. It sucks now, and I know another sahm of 5+ years who is going through the same thing. I even tried calling back a few places and asking HR if anyone had reviewed my applications, but AGAIN, I get put through to voice mail, and no one answers my phone calls. I'd love to have a work at home position, but am finding that impossible as well. Most places either want me to be a salesperson, or need money(HA! for me to work for them). I can't get a job w/daycare because all of the places around here need 2 years experience in another daycare facility. It's like, how do you even get a job in that field, if no one hires you because you don't have the experience.

It's not like we absolutely need the money. DP has been supporting the family on just his income for almost 6 years, but there's a lot I could do w/the extra income coming in. I'd also like to help contribute to our hf, or *just maybe-get my hair done weekly, and buy a new wardrobe*-haven't done that since hs graduation. Any extra money I get from the ct goes to extra-curricular activities for the girls, their clothes, family outings to different cities, etc. I just wanted the extra money coming in so that I could finally spend some money on myself, and save for other potentially rainy days. It's been almost 2 months, and I know others who have got jobs in just a week. The temp agencies have been no help either, rather just a bunch of liars.

We'll see what happens. For our family, it would be really benefit us for me to start working. I would have worked sooner, but the cost of childcare would have ate away any money I made from working.


----------



## MountainLovinMama (Mar 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lapoema* 
I think that my husband is where he is in his career because I stay home. And our family, as a result, is benefiting from it. It's a win-win situation.

I agree.

We juggled two demanding jobs for a while, and decided once ds was on his way that having me at home was the best option for us. Once I was at home, dh's career really took off - we are in a better place financially now than we were when we were both working and both juggling our careers with the demands of home/children. Dh has more job security now than he did when we were both working. I am less stressed, and we are both more "present" at home than we were when we were both working long hours and bringing work home with us. Now I can create a better, calmer, more balanced home for dh to come home to - and as a result, when he gets home, he is HERE, he is able to relax and enjoy connecting with me and with the kids rather than getting home in a harried state, juggling all the home responsibilities, both of us tired, everyone needy. I have several advanced degrees, and while I do hope to go back to meaningful work outside the home someday, and realize that it will be more difficult due to my career "gap", I take heart in the feeling that we are committed to doing what is right for our family now. Perhaps I am creating a career gap, and certainly I am not being paid to do what I do, but my dh is in a better position to provide for all of us with me at home. If the "what-if's" should strike I will have to be creative and determined, and hopefully I will still be grateful for having been able to be home with my kids when I was.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

I think the person the OP was speaking with has a point. Change in the workplace only happens if there are people fighting to make it change. I think for many stressful jobs (lawyer, doctor, etc.) there is often an assumption that there is a SAHP who takes care of everything, freeing the worker to work at any time, all the time. If WOHMs force those jobs to accommodate family life, it's good for everybody, IMO. (Also, btw, I agree that this is a subject of general interest and does not belong in the SAHM forum.)

However, it's shouldn't just be on women to do that. Men who are interested in family balance have to fight that fight too.

In our family, my husband and I made the decision that we preferring having two working parents at family-friendly jobs over one SAHM (me) and my husband in a very un-family-friendly job. My husband grew up with the hard-career father/SAHM model, and he really does not want that for his own family for many reasons. I grew up with a different model (two mostly WOH parents, depending on circumstances, with caregiving, housework, and financial responsibility equitably shared), and we both think that's the preferable model for us. We tried the traditional model (me at home, him working a very hard job), and found we were both really unhappy and most importantly that it was not great for our DS. Our family is much happier now.

However, in making that decision, we've given up our chances of having truly lucrative and challenging careers. We're definitely fine with that, but it is frustrating at times to know that if we want a happy family, we have to restrict our career interests. However, hopefully when our DS is older we can fire the careers back up. In any case, we do feel that we are both chipping away little by little at the rigid gender roles in the workplace. Hopefully by the time DS has kids he will be able to have a challenging career and at the same time be as involved with his kids as his own father is.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
A demanding career doesn't necessarily mean a career that is well paid!

...or even a career. I grew up in a blue collar home. My dad was a furniture mover. He was expected to take whatever job came along, no matter what day it was. Later on, my ex-husband had the same expectation. At month end, when most people are moving, it wasn't uncommon for them to put in back-to-back 14-15 hour days...sometimes for many days in a row. I can remember my dad working 25 days straight - no day off, and the shortest day he put in was 10 hours.

Nobody cared what the wife was doing. When I was about 10 or 11, my mom went back to school. She was a full-time student, worked a nearly full-time job during tax season and had responsibility for three kids and two invalid parents. During all those years that my ex was working the same job, I was working full-time, as well.

I find the idea in the OP interesting, but I'm not convinced that SAHMs are really a big factor. My immediate boss at my last job was a woman. She had two grown children...and she put in 10-11 hour days Monday-Friday and was expected to be available at _all_ hours in the evenings and on weekends. When I started working there, her husband was retired, but he wasn't when she got the job.

The demands in the workplace keep creeping up, but I've never experienced a situation where an employer paid any attention to whether or not the employee had responsibilities at home, or whether they had a support person. Personally, I think cell phones and laptops have a lot to answer for...


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
There was actually a very good article recently in The Economist about aging populations and birthrates. Italy and Japan are actually having a lot problems with birthrates. While France was able to turn theirs around by giving women more options in the work place and having more family friendly policies. Italy sort of has family friendly policies but your career as a woman can't really go anywhere if you decide to have kids same with Japan where it's even worse women don't get high powered jobs to begin with. Basically it boiled down to the more options women have and the more support they get for those options, the more kids they have which I find interesting. You sort of go from an agrarian society where you have to have a lot of kids, to a more industrialized society where job opportunities make you need less kids to an enlightened industrial society that sees the importance in work/life balance and birth rates go up.

I don't think sahm'ing per se actually hurts women, everyone should have the choice. But when the patriarchy that sets the agenda feels it should be the default for women who have kids, that's where it hurts women. When I just become a lactating uterus, then I have problems with society.









:

I would definitely like to see more 'family orientated' businesses. I'm not sure what the overall situation is like for the U.S, but it's definitely happening in the UK (slowly).

Any suggestion that women should be undertaking a certain role on the basis that she has a uterus makes me uncomfortable and a little defensive. I completely support 'choice', whether that be WOHM, SAHM, WAHM.. the individual family should be able to have the ability to choose whatever approach they wish.

Unfortunately, economics does not always allow for choice. The standard of living now is so high, especially in the US and the UK. I work in the Credit Card department of a Bank, and I'm talking to so many customers who cannot even afford to cover their basic living needs, electricity, gas, food, Council Tax, Rent/Mortgage, so am wondering how this is going to impact upon family life in the long term as more working families have to increase working hours to cover their living costs. I realise I've gone a little off course with this section, but I believe that it does have a serious impact upon the structure of the family.

For me personally, it never occured to me to stop working long term after my son was born. Financially, I am a single Mother, so my son relies upon me for his comfort and wellbeing economically. But even if I was married, I would still work.

I've seen mentioned in some of the previous posts also... the idea that if women didn't work, this would remove the economic competition that men now experience. I feel that this undermines women, and once again, suggests that women's roles should be limited and defined by their biology. If we suggested that men stop working so that the competition would be removed for women in the workplace, I imagine that this idea would be rejected as silly and SO not going to happen because of the traditional idea of men being the main/sole breadwinner.

Plus it ignores the fact that women have always worked throughout history. The fact that women have always worked undermines the ideal of the 'nuclear, man works, woman stay at home' family anyway. I've always interpreted that as an ideal that was formed according to class status anyway.

Peace


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
.

The demands in the workplace keep creeping up, but I've never experienced a situation where an employer paid any attention to whether or not the employee had responsibilities at home, or whether they had a support person. Personally, I think cell phones and laptops have a lot to answer for...

I'm in a situation now where my male boss, who's maybe 39-42 is very sensitive to my needs as an employed mother. I attribute this to the fact that HIS wife is a VP (works out of their home) and herself has a demanding job, she travels sometimes, etc. So HE has to be the one to leave early for school pickup (he blocks it off on his calendar) or to take off work for a sick child. He's very understanding of what I need to do and always says family comes first. I've decided I'd like to work part time now ( 4 days/week - 32 hours instead of 40) and he's all for it. We agree that my job can work 4 days a week including upcoming new responsibilities that we'd both like me to take on.

I attribute his attitude to 2 factors - one his wife works and two - he's more than willing to set boundaries on how much he works and what is expected of him. Now - why is he willing to set those boundaries? Is it because he's not the sole wage earner, and not even the primary wage earner (wife makes more than him)? I'm not really sure.

Our work place is definitely the male-dominated, wife-at-home kind of place. But let me tell you, I work with a lot of these guys. I'm only speaking for what I see at my work place - There's an awful lot of "activity" at the expense of "productivity." My boss who sets boundaries is no less effective that people who insist *they* have to be there 12-15/hours a day and attend the golf outings on the weekend and happy hours after work. Honestly, a lot of the time I see unhappy people who have little respect for their wives and WANT to stay at the office. They manufacture crisis and insist the social functions are a huge part of their promotions. I just don't think they *have* to work the way they choose to. I'm not saying that's the case with anyone on this thread - I'm just telling you what I see at my office.

Like another PP, DH and I have chosen lesser careers (the "mommy-track" for both of us).


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Imogen* 
Any suggestion that women should be undertaking a certain role on the basis that she has a uterus makes me uncomfortable and a little defensive. I completely support 'choice', whether that be WOHM, SAHM, WAHM.. the individual family should be able to have the ability to choose whatever approach they wish.

Unfortunately, economics does not always allow for choice.

Good post!


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 

Our work place is definitely the male-dominated, wife-at-home kind of place. But let me tell you, I work with a lot of these guys. I'm only speaking for what I see at my work place - There's an awful lot of "activity" at the expense of "productivity."









:

I think this is so true! In a typical work week, how many of the 40 plus hours people work are "effective" and how many are just "activity" or maybe even busy work or socializing in the name of "networking"?

I find it ridiculous that there was no option to do my old career on a part time basis or from home, at least some of the time. I KNOW with 100% certainty that I could have been very effective and gotten a lot of work done on a reduced, part time schedule and if allowed to work from home occasionally.

This is what makes the workplace default anti-family...with all the modern technology to communicate in real time electronically, why oh why aren't there more opportunities for part time professional work, telecommuting, job sharing, etc.

It bugs me to no end.







:









I have the same brain, same training, and same level of commitment to my career, my field, and my employer whether I work at their office or from my own home, and whether I am in the office for 40 hours or 20 hours.

In my field, I have heard time and time again, that woman was a great employee and brilliant with projects, but she had a baby and asked for part time work, they said no, and she quit. How stupid of that employer to lose a valuable employee.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Imogen* 
I've seen mentioned in some of the previous posts also... the idea that if women didn't work, this would remove the economic competition that men now experience. I feel that this undermines women, and once again, suggests that women's roles should be limited and defined by their biology.

I'm the one who posted about that idea. I thought I'd made myself pretty clear -- but apparently some are still reading me as saying I _really_ think women who want to work should stay home, to free up more jobs for men.

So, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I'll say *again* that I am *not at all* in favor of women being pressured to stay home if they want to work.

In my opinion, the OP's friend seemed to be saying that ALL women should keep working after having children, whether we wanted to or not, in order to change the social climate into one where employers no longer assume their male employees are free of home responsibilities (because the wives work, too, and aren't home to take care of everything).

I was saying this (women working when they want to stay home, in order to change the social climate) would be ridiculous -- *just as ridiculous* as it would be for me to say that ALL wives should stay home rather than competing with men for jobs. Saying something is ridiculous *is not* the same as saying I think it's a good idea.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that -- so if anyone else still thinks I said what Imogen thinks I said, well, I guess there's no way you're going to understand me. I give up.


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'm the one who posted about that idea. I thought I'd made myself pretty clear -- but apparently some are still reading me as saying I _really_ think women who want to work should stay home, to free up more jobs for men.

So, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I'll say *again* that I am *not at all* in favor of women being pressured to stay home if they want to work.

In my opinion, the OP's friend seemed to be saying that ALL women should keep working after having children, whether we wanted to or not, in order to change the social climate into one where employers no longer assume their male employees are free of home responsibilities (because the wives work, too, and aren't home to take care of everything).

I was saying this (women working when they want to stay home, in order to change the social climate) would be ridiculous -- *just as ridiculous* as it would be for me to say that ALL wives should stay home rather than competing with men for jobs. Saying something is ridiculous *is not* the same as saying I think it's a good idea.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that -- so if anyone else still thinks I said what Imogen thinks I said, well, I guess there's no way you're going to understand me. I give up.

ah mammal.. My mistake, I should have been a lot clearer in my post. My post wasn't suggesting that you thought this, or supported this idea, but I have experienced this way of thinking many times in the real world. Your mentioning of it triggered my memory of experiencing this. And I should have specified this when I responded









And I absolutely agree with you in respect to the idea of it being ridiculous, just as the idea of all women working to change the social climate is etc etc.

Peace


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Imogen* 
ah mammal.. My mistake, I should have been a lot clearer in my post. My post wasn't suggesting that you thought this, or supported this idea,

Oh! I'm sorry I misunderstood you!

Quote:

but I have experienced this way of thinking many times in the real world.
Yes, I have, too! Which is why I thought it would make a good analogy.

Quote:

And I absolutely agree with you in respect to the idea of it being ridiculous, just as the idea of all women working to change the social climate is etc etc.

Peace
It sounds like we're totally on the same page!


----------



## Imogen (Jul 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Oh! I'm sorry I misunderstood you!

Yes, I have, too! Which is why I thought it would make a good analogy.

It sounds like we're totally on the same page!

















:


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

I come very late to the discussion, and I enjoyed reading the pps. I totally agree that the expectation that a person (single/married/with/without kids or plants or pets or interests or hobbies) should have no obligations that could conflict with his job - at least at times - is cruel and not realistic. A person can accomplish much, much more when he/she is personallly fulfilled. And fulfillement can come from yoga classes, from engagement in politics, from pursuing a literary career... not just having kids.

I totally agree there is a lot more activity than productivity - especially when the hours are really too long, for months at a time.

I agree that this can be changed, slowly but surely. Ellien C's example is very telling. Because her supervisor's wife works, her supervisor uses his time more effectively and supervises his staff in a more humane and ultimately more productive way. I know that Kofi Annan - as he worked in the World Health Organization - was for some time a single parent as his wife travelled extensively. And he would ensure meetings would close at 18:00 for everyone to be able to attend to their kids. And that did not hurt his career, apparently.

Granted, this was in the UN, and it was in Europe. But if gradually employees come to resist the viewpoint that they will get the client's call come what may (from the beach, while they are driving, while they're nursing, while they're making love to their partners... ) things will improve for everyone...


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gaialice* 
I come very late to the discussion, and I enjoyed reading the pps. I totally agree that the expectation that a person (single/married/with/without kids or plants or pets or interests or hobbies) should have no obligations that could conflict with his job - at least at times - is cruel and not realistic. A person can accomplish much, much more when he/she is personallly fulfilled. And fulfillement can come from yoga classes, from engagement in politics, from pursuing a literary career... not just having kids.

I totally agree there is a lot more activity than productivity - especially when the hours are really too long, for months at a time.

I agree that this can be changed, slowly but surely. Ellien C's example is very telling. Because her supervisor's wife works, her supervisor uses his time more effectively and supervises his staff in a more humane and ultimately more productive way. I know that Kofi Annan - as he worked in the World Health Organization - was for some time a single parent as his wife travelled extensively. And he would ensure meetings would close at 18:00 for everyone to be able to attend to their kids. And that did not hurt his career, apparently.

Granted, this was in the UN, and it was in Europe. But if gradually employees come to resist the viewpoint that they will get the client's call come what may (from the beach, while they are driving, while they're nursing, while they're making love to their partners... ) things will improve for everyone...


Good post. I agree.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

A couple of points.

1. total jobs in the workforce is not a zero sum game. Women moving en masse into the working world in the 70s and 80s didn't take jobs from men - instead, more and more jobs were created - in new industries, new technologies. Other jobs were made obsolete. But the total number of jobs now available is greater now than in the past, despite more supply of labor. This explanation is actually a gross simplification of a very complex labor/productivity/workforce economic structure.

2. change only happens when forced. In fact, our lives now are in many ways more family friendly in the past, because we do have telecommuting, cell phones, etc.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
A couple of points.

2. change only happens when forced. In fact, our lives now are in many ways more family friendly in the past, because we do have telecommuting, cell phones, etc.

I actually think that the technology has made some of it worse in a lot of ways. Yes, it does support more flexible work which is good. But at the same time it's raised the bar on whether people are expected to be accessible.

This was brought home to me over the weekend. My husband is in IT and works with large multi-national teams (meetings with India at 4 am or whatever). About 7 people were working over the weekend and on a bridge (conference) call and you could hear their kids in the background etc. An 8th person hadn't joined the call and there was a whole discussion about how that person hadn't answered his/her cell phone and should their home number be called.

I realized that calling someone's home phone number is a barrier to bugging them outside of working hours... one cell phones eliminate.

Anyways no answers here for the broader question, but I do think that work expectations are totally out of control in certain industries.


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

Here's a great quote from a powerful woman:

Susan Arnold - President, Global Business Units, Procter & Gamble

In 1999, Arnold became the first woman to head a global business unit at P&G. In an unexpected way, she gives some of the credit for that to her two children, now 11 and 14. "Having children made me set priorities," Arnold says. "Leaders who don't set priorities can burn out their organizations."

This was from the Fortune magazine website (which I stopped reading some time ago when they had some insulting article about women!).

But it proves my point about setting boundaries. When you do that - it puts you in a position of power rather than of weakness.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gaialice* 
I agree that this can be changed, slowly but surely. Ellien C's example is very telling. Because her supervisor's wife works, her supervisor uses his time more effectively and supervises his staff in a more humane and ultimately more productive way. .

That could be true. Maybe it's men that will have to change because I've worked with former working mothers who were *absolutely* unsympathetic to issues of working moms. They were lucky enough to have flexible daycare AND I also think they were very driven, high-energy types who always work 20 hours/day or whatever.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
This was from the Fortune magazine website (which I stopped reading some time ago when they had some insulting article about women!).

But it proves my point about setting boundaries. When you do that - it puts you in a position of power rather than of weakness.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it gets you fired, and sometimes it gets your department outsourced to India, or your client gets a new company that responds 24/7.

I definitely agree that we all need to work on this, but I think it's simplistic to say that every individual can just set limits.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I actually think that the technology has made some of it worse in a lot of ways. Yes, it does support more flexible work which is good. But at the same time it's raised the bar on whether people are expected to be accessible.

I didn't get to finish my post before sending it, which is why it read so disjointedly.

You are right. As dh said earlier tonight, the technology giveth and taketh away too. ; )

For example, he and I work 100% at home. I support a government agency in web development. The technology makes it possible for me to do what I do without leaving my house. Heck, we manage servers in Phoenix, train people in Thailand and Bangladesh, and at one point hosted an application that had people in Pakistan logging into it. How cool is THAT?!

At the same time, I have no excuse to not do work. Sick? well, unless I am in the hospital, delirious, or vomiting, I could be at my desk working, right? Heck, I was back at my desk for a couple of hours a day 2 weeks post partum with my second - nak, of course. Cell phones may mean I am not tied to my desk all day, but it also means taking a client call when I am at the park with my kid. The lines blur so easily.

DH has threatened to leave me if I get a blackberry...

I did hear on the radio that the Census issued a report on free time recently and it showed (contrary to how we all feel day to day!) that;

* while women are in paid employment for more hours a day, men are in paid employment for less.

* both men and women (regardless of employment) spend more time with their children than in the past 30 years

* we all have more free time than in the past.

I can't find the study to cite and dh is nagging me to help him with the rubbish.

ETA: here it is http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/home.htm

But it sure don't feel like this is the case, does it?


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

I take issue with the idea of "leisure" time for women. I know very few women who have actual "leisure" time.


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Siobhang, I opened your link but could not find the link to historical comparisons on that website.I think this may appear so (I mean that we work fewer hours) because just as you say the lines have blurred and I will not report reading my e-mail from home after I have put dds to bed in the evening as "work" to anyone, and the only person who is a witness to this is the stray cat.. Same goes for you, as you answer your client's calls while at the park with your ds...


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I take issue with the idea of "leisure" time for women. I know very few women who have actual "leisure" time.

I do, but I'm lazy









Seriously, I have _very_ low standards for housekeeping and I just plain don't do a lot of stuff.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 

DH has threatened to leave me if I get a blackberry...

I did hear on the radio that the Census issued a report on free time recently and it showed (contrary to how we all feel day to day!) that;

* while women are in paid employment for more hours a day, men are in paid employment for less.

* both men and women (regardless of employment) spend more time with their children than in the past 30 years

* we all have more free time than in the past.

I can't find the study to cite and dh is nagging me to help him with the rubbish.

ETA: here it is http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/home.htm

But it sure don't feel like this is the case, does it?

Both my husband and I have Blackberries so there you go.









I suspect just in my professional cohort/class that the numbers are skewed by people who can't find work or who are underemployed in their field. I'm Canadian, but I would bet this is even more so in the US due to the loss of manufacturing jobs.

The expectations on my time have definitely risen over the last 8 years and on my husband very dramatically since the IT outsourcing trend started - to go back further, in the 70s and 80s I don't think too many people were having meetings with India at literally 4 in the morning, as cool as that is... and that time is very rarely traded off.

I agree that the time is "fuzzier" - I think I mentioned earlier in the thread that pretty much everyone I work with has the habit of answering work email one more time between dinner and bedtime. I wouldn't necessarily say that was work in a census question, but I find the expectation a little jarring sometimes.

However we do spend more time with our son I'm sure - not because of lack of paid work hours but because we internet banking, sometimes have groceries delivered, and have a lot of handy appliances to do housework for us, and have totally lowered our expectations of ourselves around volunteering right now. (Again counting is off here 'cause we could do chores with our son and would that count as chores, or as time with our son?)


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

I take issue with the idea of "leisure" time for women. I know very few women who have actual "leisure" time.
Heck I stay home full time and i doesn't remember leisure time -- my "free" time is spent doing the chorse i can't get done with a 22 month old in tow -- or maybe woking on a baby book that is 20 months behind ....

i think leisure time is concept that is lost in 2007, no matter what you do.

Aimee


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momma Aimee* 
Heck I stay home full time and i doesn't remember leisure time -- my "free" time is spent doing the chorse i can't get done with a 22 month old in tow -- or maybe woking on a baby book that is 20 months behind ....

i think leisure time is concept that is lost in 2007, no matter what you do.

Aimee

But ya know -- I think a pioneer mom might see it as "leisure time" to be able to work on a baby book!









It's true that there's literally always some chore I could be doing -- but I generally put off whatever I can, and that's how I get my leisure time.









By the way, what's a blackberry -- I'm not asking about the fruit, but about the item Siobhang's dh threatened to leave her over?


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

But ya know -- I think a pioneer mom might see it as "leisure time" to be able to work on a baby book!
true enough


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
By the way, what's a blackberry -- I'm not asking about the fruit, but about the item Siobhang's dh threatened to leave her over?

It's a cellphone-type thing that also gets your email, works like a pager, and you can surf the web from it, among other things. For me it means I get my work email wherever I go.


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
By the way, what's a blackberry -- I'm not asking about the fruit, but about the item Siobhang's dh threatened to leave her over?

You don't know what a Blackberry is?????

It's like a mini-computer/phone thing. They are wireless so you can check and send email, text, etc. all from the palm of your hand.

We know a few people who have them. When they are at our house, the blackberry is always sitting on the table where they can see them, so everytime it it vibrates or beebs they can look at them. They are freakishly addictive electronic devices. I don't want one in my home either!


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
By the way, what's a blackberry -- I'm not asking about the fruit, but about the item Siobhang's dh threatened to leave her over?

heh, it is clear you don't live in the DC metro area. ; )

Others have described blackberries already.

Blackberries, aka crackberries, are THE top addictive trend in US Gov't employee circles. DOD senior staff all have them, and the rest of the agencies are also now getting them, too. It lets you get your email ANYWHERE in the world that has wireless connection. Like the metro or your bathtub or the school play.

The most annoying thing about blackberries are how people cannot seem to leave them alone during meetings, dinner, other conversations, etc.

Of course, a friend of mine established a pretty hot relationship entirely through blackberry flirting during a big conference - hours of droning generals was made much more fun by pinging dirty messages back and forth.

I do like it when my clients have blackberries - I can get instant responses when they are away from their desks - and I know why it is tempting to get one myself. I do have the capacity to surf the web on my cellphone (a pocket PC) and can check email between meetings if I am out and about (at least 1-2 times a week).

But I have a real hard time turning work off. I don't need one more thing to keep me uber-connected.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Okay, I think I found the study that looked over time at work/leisure.

http://bosfed.org/economic/wp/wp2006/wp0602.pdf

Quarterly Journal of Economics: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...qjec.122.3.969

Quote:

In this paper, we use five decades of time‐use surveys to document trends in the allocation of
time. We document that a dramatic increase in leisure time lies behind the relatively stable
number of market hours worked (per working‐age adult) between 1965 and 2003. Specifically,
we document that leisure for men increased by 6‒8 hours per week (driven by a decline in
market work hours) and for women by 4‒8 hours per week (driven by a decline in home production work hours). This increase in leisure corresponds to roughly an additional 5 to 10 weeks of vacation per year, assuming a 40‐hour work week. We also find that leisure increased during the last 40 years for a number of sub‐samples of the population, with less‐educated adults experiencing the largest increases. Lastly, we document a growing "inequality" in leisure
that is the mirror image of the growing inequality of wages and expenditures, making welfare calculation based solely on the latter series incomplete.
I think the key to intepreting these types of studies is to not look at it as saying "we have it great now", but rather "back in the day, things REALLY sucked".


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Reading the paper, I found this point particularly salient.

Quote:

This increased leisure for women was made possible by a decline in the time women
allocated to home production of roughly 11 hours per week between 1965 and 2003. This more
than offset women's 5‐hours‐per‐week increase in market labor.3
(page 3)

Quote:

Despite a
relatively constant amount of time allocated to child care between 1965 and 1993, there was a 2.6‐
hours‐per‐week increase in reported time spent on child care by working women between 1993
and 2003. This recent increase in time spent in child care occurred in all categories: Time spent on
primary child care increased by 1.7 hours per week, time spent on educational child care
increased by 0.5 hours per week, and time spent on recreational child care increased by 0.4 hours
per week. A similar pattern is observed for non‐working women (panel B) and all men (panel C).
Furthermore, similar patterns exist for men and women of differing levels of education (not
shown).
page 17

they do acknowledge a change in the way childcare was classified in the 2003 survey, and their analysis is that childcare hours did not actually increase that greatly, but rather previous to 2003, other activities were not classified as childcare even if a child was present and being cared for at the same time.

I think this tells us more about the way we view childcare these days as a distinct activity vs a background activity - akin to "housesitting" vs just living in your house.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
Okay, I think I found the study that looked over time at work/leisure.

http://bosfed.org/economic/wp/wp2006/wp0602.pdf

Quarterly Journal of Economics: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...qjec.122.3.969

I think the key to intepreting these types of studies is to not look at it as saying "we have it great now", but rather "back in the day, things REALLY sucked".

That's funny; I only read your quote but I read it it this way:

"We also find that leisure increased during the last 40 years for a number of sub-samples of the population, with less-educated adults experiencing the largest increases."

I took this as "the less educated you are, the fewer hours you work, which may or may not be by choice."


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 

I took this as "the less educated you are, the fewer hours you work, which may or may not be by choice."

I think this is true. The study does not address the question of why each group spends more or fewer hours, though it postulates some theories. A very quick review of the study does indicate that men worked approx 51 hours a week in 1965 vs 38 in 2003.

It would be very interesting to see how they would handle "off site" labor, such as checking emails after dinner.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

the other element of technology is that we are now on call 24/7 for most jobs. It used to be that to be on call, you had to get paid. And that is true in many professions. But when my dh worked for an IT firm which provided services 24/7, he knew that if there was a major outage, he would get a call to fix it, and this task was considered covered as part of his salary.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

I think the problem is that modern expectations of employment are based on - yes - a time when one parent worked and another parent stayed home full-time and kept things going.

All ya have to do is spend one day as a single mom to realize how true it is.









To put it another way...

if the majority of men in our country actually had to contribute to keeping up the house, making meals, and caring for children, not to mention all of the other things that are frequently done by women, then there would be so many options for non-traditional jobs (i.e. not a 40 hour work week) it would make our heads spin.

I think currently when men do these things (and thank goodness, there are men that do, and please let me know where I can find one) it is seen as exceptional, or above and beyond, or really cool. Not ordinary... KWIM?


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

Quote:

if the majority of men in our country actually had to contribute to keeping up the house, making meals, and caring for children, not to mention all of the other things that are frequently done by women, then there would be so many options for non-traditional jobs (i.e. not a 40 hour work week) it would make our heads spin.

*I think currently when men do these things (and thank goodness, there are men that do, and please let me know where I can find one) it is seen as exceptional, or above and beyond, or really cool. Not ordinary... KWIM?*
(emphasis mine)

Amen, sister! My DH contributes wonderfully. I think it's mainly because I assumed he would and so it never occured to him there was another option.

I don't know how many times DH and I have said that if we could each work 30 hrs/week (i.e. 75% pay for 75% work-week), life/work/etc would be so much better! But alas 40 is the minimum! Anything less and no Health Ins, etc. . . .


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

I'm SO down with the idea of 2-30 hour weeks. Totally my ideal.


----------



## BetsyS (Nov 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolalola* 
I take issue with the idea of "leisure" time for women. I know very few women who have actual "leisure" time.

I have leisure time. That's why I'm a SAHM instead of WOHM. And, because I'm a SAHM and do the grocery shopping, errands, housecleaning during the week, then my dh has leisure time, too.

And, honestly, every time we go to the park, we're not there alone, so I'm not the only one with leisure time out there.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I know there was a lot less leisure time in the old days, and also that parents weren't as child-centered, getting on the floor to play with their children -- but when we talk about the additional labor hours, I think we're missing one point.

When I read Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little House" books, I see detailed accounts of exactly how Ma made cheese and dried apples, how Pa built houses and made a fish-trap, and so on. Work days were drastically longer, but children were often right there watching the work and then helping as soon as they were old enough.

Of course, then there's the ugliness of child-labor, and some children wanting more education but being expected to labor on the farm instead -- so I'm not saying I'd want a complete return to "the good old days."


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
But ya know -- I think a pioneer mom might see it as "leisure time" to be able to work on a baby book!


























:

Our generation's delineation of chores and leisure is very different from previous generations.


----------



## BetsyS (Nov 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spring Flower* 
















:

Our generation's delineation of chores and leisure is very different from previous generations.

Absolutely. To me, I counted it as leisure to be able to can lots of tomatoes this year. It didn't have to be done for my family to eat--we could have bought them at the store. But, I liked it, nad I had time. Back in the day, that would have been a chore of just putting up food for the winte.r


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BetsyS* 
Absolutely. To me, I counted it as leisure to be able to can lots of tomatoes this year. It didn't have to be done for my family to eat--we could have bought them at the store. But, I liked it, nad I had time. Back in the day, that would have been a chore of just putting up food for the winte.r

Wow, interesting! So, in some ways, the change is 180 degrees! Very interesting to think that we've flipped what used to be considered a chore into leisurely activities...the same would be true for baking home made bread, making ice cream, making butter, etc.

Hmmm...interesting the way industrialization has changed us. And yet in some ways we want some of that simplicity back.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

I have plenty of leisure time and we're a two WOHP family.

We deliberately live in a very small house, which really helps as far as leisure time goes.


----------



## Nicole77 (Oct 20, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
I'm SO down with the idea of 2-30 hour weeks. Totally my ideal.

I am home right now (not counting a lot of unpaid volunteer work) and two 30 hour work weeks is my ideal as well. My husband and I frequently discuss how awesome it would be to each have a 30 hour work week, instead of the current with me home and him working 40-50 hours. But his job expectations are not lessening and adding a thirty hour work week of my own onto it (assuming I could even find one) would change our family dynamic and stress level in ways we do not want.

Additionally, almost every single at home mom I know would love a set up like that as well. I think more people are dissatisfied with the current system of all or nothing than we realize.


----------



## gaialice (Jan 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShadowMom* 
I think currently when men do these things (and thank goodness, there are men that do, and please let me know where I can find one) it is seen as exceptional, or above and beyond, or really cool. Not ordinary... KWIM?

Not around here. It is the norm. Husbands/fathers are clearly expected to contribute. I do not know *any* families like the one you describe husband working long hours and wife doing everything. I live in Europe and really, here, no matter how many hours husband works, it will be difficult to get by with just one salary. Many couples, wife works part time.
As for leisure/work, I think it is true what was said earlier in thread, i.e. that it is difficult to compare because:
- the children often worked with their parents, so they were not waiting leisurely at home while their parents worked. This of course had both positive and negative implications;
- the blur between leisure and work, examplified by the use of blackberries and also the home production of food that could be bought ready made but that someone decides to homemake for fun. What is work nowadays and what is leisure? I am often at the park with my dds (so no, Betsys you are not alone there) and I am not sure how you would classify that. Childcare or leisure? As someone was saying, childcare did not use to be an activity and now it is.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gaialice* 
Not around here. It is the norm. Husbands/fathers are clearly expected to contribute. I do not know *any* families like the one you describe husband working long hours and wife doing everything. I live in Europe and really, here, no matter how many hours husband works, it will be difficult to get by with just one salary. Many couples, wife works part time.

Ditto. Almost every family I know has both parents working, either part time or full time. I don't know anyone who regulary works over 40 hours a week. It is actually frowned up. You are supposed to have a life outside of work, and that life revolves around your family. It shows in our 5 week vacations. It shows in our one year maternity leave - which the fathers also qualify for. It shows in the amount of flexibility companys give to employees. And it shows at home, where the fathers are expected to do as much cooking, cleaning, childcare.... as the mothers.

And to say that other countries economys would go to pot if they did the same is incorrect. We have one of the most stable economies in the world. By no means am I saying Denmark, or Europe, is utopia. We have very few poor, but also very few rich. IMO, the lack of responsibilty by employees in some fields, particularly medicine, is appauling. We are NO WHERE near perfect. But we do have a better, more effective, distribution of labor, and happier citizens because of it.

When I worked in the USA, I was on the road 20 days a month, expected to change plans at the drop of a hat, and expected to work 45-55 hours/week. If I had said "I have to pick up my kids from day care at 4:00 every day, I am leaving," I would have been seen as a lazy-a**, and never gotten a promotion. I have the same job here, at the same company. I leave at 3:45 every day. Business trips are now only 2 or 3 per month, less while my babies are small. If both my husband and I are supposed to travel, we explain to the company, and they rearrange schedules for us. In absolutly no way are we considered a pain for doing this. It is just normal. My boss, and my bosses boss.... they all have families too. They "get it."


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

Can I move to Denmark?


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
One of my friends was recently asserting the following --

That SAHM-ing is still the default expectation for the wives of professionals (doctor, lawyer, etc.) and the "executive" worker.


I've been thinking about this topic a lot and I'm having a lot of problems with this statement. Not all "professionals" are equal. I think two-career couples are very common for one thing and I don't think you can compare a doctor in family practice FE to a CEO of a major corporation. Or even a vice-president









All the university presidents I've ever worked for have had working wives for example but I would call them professionals.

I agree that there are certain highly paid professions where SAH wives are common but I don't think it's by any means the default.

I think the question of work/life balance for families is much more complicated that that.


----------



## Nicole77 (Oct 20, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leewd* 
Can I move to Denmark?

Me too! I just spent the last twenty minutes looking at rental flats and relocation tips. I've gotta get out of the US.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nicole77* 
. My husband and I frequently discuss how awesome it would be to each have a 30 hour work week, instead of the current with me home and him working 40-50 hours.

snip
Additionally, almost every single at home mom I know would love a set up like that as well. I think more people are dissatisfied with the current system of all or nothing than we realize.

That would be ideal for us too.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gaialice* 
Not around here. It is the norm. Husbands/fathers are clearly expected to contribute. I do not know *any* families like the one you describe husband working long hours and wife doing everything.

What's interesting is that where I live (urban US) I see a lot of couples deliberately rejecting this traditional model. My husband grew up with that, and he has rejected it, and I see a lot of his peer fathers also rejecting it after they grew up with that model. They don't want to be the absent earner like their fathers were. Instead, both members of the couple take lower-stress, family-friendly jobs. WOH responsibilities and at-home responsibilities are shared. We're very happy with this model for ourselves, and I find it interesting how many people I know who are actively choosing to do this as well.


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

I do not know any families like the one you describe husband working long hours and wife doing everything.
Maybe it is an area thing, or by industry -- but i know a number of families where teh Dh works 60+ hours a week and travles a lot... and the mom does all the child care and house work and shopping and so on .....

My sis and BIL are like that ...

I think it is inherently unfair to talk in balck and white tersm -- most of life is a share of gray -- but i do think that in some areas, some fields it is more or less common and there are families where the division is that real and strict.

AImee


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marybethorama* 
I've been thinking about this topic a lot and I'm having a lot of problems with this statement. Not all "professionals" are equal. I think two-career couples are very common for one thing and I don't think you can compare a doctor in family practice FE to a CEO of a major corporation. Or even a vice-president









All the university presidents I've ever worked for have had working wives for example but I would call them professionals.

I agree that there are certain highly paid professions where SAH wives are common but I don't think it's by any means the default.

I think the question of work/life balance for families is much more complicated that that.

I think in a lot of those situations, those, women are STILL doing all of the housework, looking after the kids when they're home, cooking the meals or whatever running that particular house involves.

I took a sociology class a few years ago and I remember them talking about this - the "second shift". Women work all day at their jobs, then they go home and still have to do all of the things that women were expected to do when they didn't work.

I think the idea is that our American idea of jobs and work and work hours is sort of built around the paradigm of a man who works, loves his job and spends a whole lot of time at it, and a woman who takes care of the home stuff and does little else. And that paradigm obviously no longer works for us any longer but everybody still has the paradigm, KWIM? I don't think the employers and the work force have really recognized how things have changed.

And it is also very mixed up with our cultural values - the American ethic of working hard and how not wanting to work as much = laziness.

And I have to say, in my neck of the woods, the division or housework and stuff is still VERY much in effect, and the way people view their jobs (basically, the company owns them and dictates what they do and when) doesn't seem to have changed much. The only major change that seems to be around is that people are less loyal to companies, having found out that companies are not particularly loyal to them.

I think what the OP's friend said was probably a vast oversimplification of a very complex issue, but there is a LOT of truth to it IMO.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Azuralea* 
Instead, both members of the couple take lower-stress, family-friendly jobs. WOH responsibilities and at-home responsibilities are shared. We're very happy with this model for ourselves, and I find it interesting how many people I know who are actively choosing to do this as well.

I agree that people are seeking that balance.

It's interesting to see how it works or doesn't. I took one of the lower-stress, part-time jobs which on paper was totally perfect for our family... and felt stuck within a year. I have been really, really surprised to learn that about myself - that a job was not really enough and I want a career with all the progressive experience and responsibility that that implies. And to get the career I had to get back on the FT wagon, in my field.

That's ok, but it still was a surprise to me - how quickly the "mommy track" pushed me out of the loop for the higher-level work I enjoy, and where the security and benefits ultimately lie.

What's blown me away is the amount of push-back I've gotten for my choice, which my husband never faced, but that's another thread, I think. 

In both my and DH's jobs we find that defending the boundary between work and home is a lot of work! I get asked to get things turned around on the weekend and his field... is just nuts. But I don't think the assumption is exactly that there's a SAHP - I think it's just that we will "make things work" around the demands of the job. In both jobs there are often artificial emergencies.

And that's the piece that makes me nuts 'cause I don't think that results in really productive workers /or/ healthy families.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShadowMom* 
I think in a lot of those situations, those, women are STILL doing all of the housework, looking after the kids when they're home, cooking the meals or whatever running that particular house involves.

I took a sociology class a few years ago and I remember them talking about this - the "second shift". Women work all day at their jobs, then they go home and still have to do all of the things that women were expected to do when they didn't work.

Oh yes *The Second Shift by Arlie Hochschild* She also wrote *The Tme Bind* which is also an excellent book.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

Any doctor's wife I've ever known was always directly involved in the husband's practice. A leader in my old LLL group was the secretary at her OB husband's office. My chiropractor's wife handles all of the finances for his business too. So I guess I haven't had any experience with wives of professionals being expected to SAH all the time. Of course I'm not denying that the phenomenon exists, and I think that yes it is damaging to society and to women.


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShadowMom*
I think the idea is that our American idea of jobs and work and work hours is sort of built around the paradigm of a man who works, loves his job and spends a whole lot of time at it, and a woman who takes care of the home stuff and does little else. And that paradigm obviously no longer works for us any longer but everybody still has the paradigm, KWIM? I don't think the employers and the work force have really recognized how things have changed.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn*
I think it's just that we will "make things work" around the demands of the job.

Yes! The way I see it, the jobs/careers were set up for the men as ShadowMom describes. But then when women entered the workforce en masse in all the different areas, they (or should I see we) were simply expected to be exactly like the men - work all those same crazy hours etc. And as a PP said (I don't remember who or on what page), the employers didn't care how the work got done (or whether or not there was someone at home caring for the children or whether or not you had children), they just wanted the work done.

This has not changed in 40+ years and this is where the problem lies (IMHO)!

On another note, I find myself very resentful of men with SAHW's (I'm not resentful of the women, just the men) because it seems as thought they are the problem. If their wives WOH, they (the men) would have to demand a realistic work/life balance. But since they don't have to, they don't. And since they don't, the paradigm continues . . .


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

There are a lot of things at play here.

There is the fact that in American culture, the definition of "successful male" doesn't really include child rearing (though it does increasingly include "good relationship with children"). The definition of masculine success does include, however, professional and monetary success. It is very hard for men to forge an identity for themselves that doesn't include some element of economic breadwinning - if they do forego economic success, they experience a tremendous amount of discrimination.

The definition of female success does not always include economic success. Many female students/recent grads don't choose their careers based on what they will likely earn/need to support a family, but rather based on what they are interested in or good at or feel a passion for.

The definition of female success is more linked to having a happy and healthy family, being attractive, being well liked, giving back to the community. Earning money is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself, like it is for the male definition of success.

Similarly to men who prioritize other aspects over economic success, women who do prioritize professional success are often demonized for being cold, selfish, or materialistic.

This has very strong impacts on the career choices men and women make, how they divide their time, decisions about who will "sacrifice" careers (i.e. go part time or stay home, leave early, not travel, not take a stressful position). It also impacts roles at home - if a man is told that his job is to pay the rent, once he has paid the rent, his job is done. Everything else is bonus, and not a core responsibility.

This is changing - slowly. There is still the expectation that the way men care for their families is by prioritizing their careers over other tasks - and that their partners will support them by taking care of the other tasks to allow the men to succeed professionally. But there are changes; there are many examples of such families on MDC and elsewhere.

And this is not to say that the model of male=primary breadwinner female=primary caregiver is inherently wrong or bad. It just cannot be universal.


----------



## That Is Nice (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marybethorama* 

I agree that there are certain highly paid professions where SAH wives are common but I don't think it's by any means the default.

I think the question of work/life balance for families is much more complicated that that.

Yeah, I don't think a SAH wife is the default either for professionals. One of the biggest issues I hear about being a stay at home mother is going from two incomes to one income. That wouldn't be the case if the majority of couples were already living on one income.

Granted, there are some professionals where the work week is very long or the hours are very bad...lawyers, residents, etc. In those cases, I see more SAHPs, but I wouldn't say it's the norm.

Most couples I know have or had two incomes until one of them stayed home to parent, and most of those stay at home parents are doing it on a temporary, year by year basis.


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

On another note, I find myself very resentful of men with SAHW's (I'm not resentful of the women, just the men) because it seems as thought they are the problem. If their wives WOH, they (the men) would have to demand a realistic work/life balance. But since they don't have to, they don't. And since they don't, the paradigm continues . .
I think that may be an incorrct statement -- these men DO understand the problem with balnceing work and a family that is why the family CHOSE to hgave a stay at home parent. not that the SAHP makes the man "not see the problem".

I know DH is very aware of all i do, and how impossible it would be to do everythign with me working 30 to 40 to 60 hours a week out side the home. that is a big part of why i stay home. i have talked about getting a PT job tro help with bills and debt -- DH doesn't want me too due to the added stress to the whole family to put DS in care, to try to rush around durning what is now family time (ie afgter work and weekends) trying to do all the stuff i normally do all day -- and since i would only work PT we don't even have to talk about the pick up and drop off and the appts duenign the day.







:







:







:







:

Me staying home doesn't sheild DH from the very real problmes of balanceing, it simply helps our specific family aciieve that balance. one of his best freinds at the office is married to a high profile career woman -- they have 2 grlsd not in school yet -- dh DAILY sees the stuggles, and the out and out fights, about who can pick the girls up when the dc is closeing, who can wait till it opens to leave for work, what are they gonna do about dinner, is there any clean laundry and so on ....

it is not a question of men with sahw not being realistic, or not knowing ther eis a problem ---- the do know and ARE realistic, that is why there IS a stay at home parent to start with.

Quote:

There is the fact that in American culture, the definition of "successful male" doesn't really include child rearing (though it does increasingly include "good relationship with children"). The definition of masculine success does include, however, professional and monetary success. It is very hard for men to forge an identity for themselves that doesn't include some element of economic breadwinning - if they do forego economic success, they experience a tremendous amount of discrimination.

The definition of female success does not always include economic success. Many female students/recent grads don't choose their careers based on what they will likely earn/need to support a family, but rather based on what they are interested in or good at or feel a passion for.

The definition of female success is more linked to having a happy and healthy family, being attractive, being well liked, giving back to the community. Earning money is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself, like it is for the male definition of success.









:







:







:







: at the risk of being labled a hopless june clever and asked to turn over my drivers liscen -- why is this so wrong -- it allows for the best care of the children, it creats puzzle peices that are able to fit together to form a stable and workable family unit. It allows for the man and wife to be complementry rather than identical or competevie.

Quote:

It is very hard for men to forge an identity for themselves that doesn't include some element of economic breadwinning - if they do forego economic success, they experience a tremendous amount of discrimination.
ALso I think this is really an outdated statement. I know sahd and was raised by one. None have "issues" with the wife making all the money.

JMO

AImee


----------



## meganeilis (Mar 12, 2006)

Excuse me for being the obnoxious poster who comments without reading much beyond the OP.

IMO it can only benefit society's work/life balance for us to return to one income households as the norm. The push for both men and women to live for their jobs rather than their families, and for the focus to be on the success of the workplace rather than the home is the problem, along with astounding debt loads and commercialism/greed. Getting back to a time where people lived within their means and were working to live rather than living to work would be good for everyone.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leewd* 
On another note, I find myself very resentful of men with SAHW's (I'm not resentful of the women, just the men) because it seems as thought they are the problem. If their wives WOH, they (the men) would have to demand a realistic work/life balance. But since they don't have to, they don't. And since they don't, the paradigm continues . . .

And yet, the men with SAHW's may be burning the candle at both ends because they feel a tremendous amount of economic pressure, being the only income-earners in the family. I'm not saying that's the case with us: I'm a SAHM, and my dh rarely works more than 40 hours a week.

At hectic times, when dh's employer is demanding that everyone put in some extra evening hours, he reluctantly does it but isn't willing to go beyond what's absolutely necessary. Of course, we're willing to live a simpler lifestyle because of our desire to have dh home as much as possible.

Some couples start parenting with heavy debts, and don't have our option of living on one very modest income while Mom stays home with the kids. For some couples, Mom being home means Dad has to work extra hours to pay on the student loans. I do know one couple who got their loan deferred for 5 years -- but deferring means they'll owe $5000 more when they eventually do start paying.

So I wouldn't be too mad at the sole-income-earner husbands. I realize some couples choose for both spouses to take lower-pressure jobs. That works for some families. In our case, we prefer for me to be at home full-time, so I can understand that some couples with more expenses would still prefer a full-time SAHM also.

When that happens -- when young couples start families and suddenly realize -- oops! -- Mom really wants to be a SAHM and we wish we hadn't accrued all this debt, if only we'd known 5 years ago that we'd feel this way, we could have avoided the debt ... but here we are -- then they just have to figure out the best way _for them_ to proceed from where they are.

So ... it seems kind of unfair to blame men with SAHW's for the lack of balance in the workplace: in many cases, they're simply victims of the lack of balance in our society which pushed them into debt in the first place.


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

Everytime I try to post, 2 more posts show up before I can, so forgive me if I'm 3 pages behind by the time this hits the boards . . .

I'm not "mad" at these guys, just "resentful." And I can definately see that my "world" and Aimee's and Mammal's are different and these differences skew all of our perspectives.

In my company (an engineering firm), I see mostly single men, men with working wives but no kids, and men with SAHW's. The women here are either single or married w/ children w/ working husbands. Engineering is a VERY demanding field. These guys work 50-60 hours regularly! They stay for meetings that go till 8pm, they get here before 7am, and they work through lunch. Not to mention traveling, visit client sites and working Saturdays.

The men _I see_ who have SAHW's DON'T get it! They live for their jobs because that's how the company/industry works. The men who have to leave are seen as slackers. The women who have to leave are seen as "oh, you poor thing. Go take care of your family."

In my husband's company (or at least in his IT dept), he is the ONLY one with a working wife. It is virtually impossible for him to leave 30 minutes early for a family obligation. I have had to take 3 hour lunches to deal with DR appts because he couldn't take off 30 minutes early to get the kids. Causing me to have to "make up" 2.5 hours instead of him to make up 30 minutes. He usually has to work one Saturday a month. When he was asking around to see if they _really_ needed him last month (because he wanted to be home with me and the kids), he was treated like slacker. The men (with SAHW) that he works with have absolutely no understanding or sympathy for the fact that he WANTS to come home and relieve me of all the duties with the kids, house, etc.

I think it's great that you guys have different situations, but I do not see the world you live it.

(As a side note, we have very little debt and live within our means in a tiny house.)


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

In my company (an engineering firm), I see mostly single men, men with working wives but no kids, and men with SAHW's. The women here are either single or married w/ children w/ working husbands. Engineering is a VERY demanding field. These guys work 50-60 hours regularly! They stay for meetings that go till 8pm, they get here before 7am, and they work through lunch. Not to mention traveling, visit client sites and working Saturdays.
this is my BIL world -- auto industry -- he works 60+ hours a week, up all hours with calls to china and india and japan; travling over sees at least ever 2 or 3 months, and sometimes more .... it is a big part of WHY sis stays home.







it IS stressful for them with the 2 kids, and Sis gets realy fustrated and burt out about it --

but it a trade off ... BIL makes excellent money; BIL could take a less demanding job -- or stopp climbing the ladder -- and be home more, and travle less, but for less $$ .... also -- sis and i think BIL would go bonkers and be bored -- but it is an active choice, a trade off, one that is possible cuz Sis is at home.

My Dh is on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week even when on leave or when we travle.

we all live different lives


----------



## Village Mama (Jul 22, 2004)

Interesting thread... good to see viewpoints from so many different perspectives!
We are struggling with this a little bit right now ourselves.( not for the same reasons as other in many ways) I am a stay at home mom myself. My partner works in the trades. He is paid well for what he does at this point, a bit higher with the company he is at in comparison to other companies at his level. We are still below the poverty line. I homeschool the boys and take care of the household as best as I can without burning out! ( we do the grocery shopping together as we dont have a grocery store in our town, it is a 30 min bus ride and a walk to the store as I do not drive... we also car share once a week to go in an get groceries on a weekend day) My partner is a good worker and is willing to put in 40 hours of very physical labor weekly and is very reliable. With the trades shortage though it is more like 50 hours + a week and could be filled to 15 hour days every day of the week . My partner feels the pressure to be there working overtime ( two of the other guys are bachelors and the boss has a family but chooses to work extra to get the business going right now)and weekend days because everyone else is doing so.... and it is the expectation in the field.( my partner is very willing to work overtime and an extra day a week when it is obvious that it is nessesary... not just things are consitantly overbooked) It doesnt really help us as we are in a different tax bracket and make little more than if he only worked 40 hours a week, and I am stressed because I dont get a break and dont have family around to help. The weekends are usually filled with chores as well as there is still a lot to do around the home.( oh and I didnt mention that he is supposed to be studying for his apprentice level tests on his free time!) In fantasy land he could work 30 hours a week and the rest of the work could be translated into work that directly benefits us! I could do more work that would directly benefit us as well! PLus we could have time for the things that truly feed our soul... alone time, creative time etc. OK... besides seeming like a complainer! I am thatnkful and don't take for granted the job he does have, believe me! But the bigger picture here is what it takes to have healthy families and healthy communities ( where in the world do we have time for proper community involvement here?!)
I guess I just wanted to mention that it is not just doctors and lawyers and other "successful" jobs that are experiencing the stresses and inbalance of work and personal time. Many of the jobs around here only hire people for part time so that they don't have to pay out benefits or overtime... leaving many low income families to have to juggle multiple jobs between the parents.( imagine the stress of that schedule!)
I think this problem has to do with much more than moms choosing to stay at home. There is somthing to the capitalism and greed comment. Again, it appears that the system needs an overhaul!
I would be willing to ( and do as a mom! tee hee) work 80 hour " work weeks" , and so would my partner, if it really translated to things that actually help our family.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

If "mom and dad have a carreer" is the default-then who is raising our children?


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meganeilis* 
Excuse me for being the obnoxious poster who comments without reading much beyond the OP.

IMO it can only benefit society's work/life balance for us to return to one income households as the norm. The push for both men and women to live for their jobs rather than their families, and for the focus to be on the success of the workplace rather than the home is the problem, along with astounding debt loads and commercialism/greed. Getting back to a time where people lived within their means and were working to live rather than living to work would be good for everyone.

I agree that overwork - crazy long weeks - is a problem.

But what if both parents love their work and feel it's important?

That's the case in our house. For some years we both worked for the same non-profit and were very proud of what we helped do in our community - now we've each moved in different directions, but we still both like our jobs. Not all jobs are evil, and some jobs actually can bring 'passion/living' and 'work' together.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
If "mom and dad have a carreer" is the default-then who is raising our children?

This very typical phrase is just a salvo in the mommy wars and not fair or respectful. Parents who work still raise their children. They may well enlist more help doing it (some of paid/expert) but it makes them no less "raising" their kids than having 5 kids is somehow less "raising" your kids than having an only child would be.


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed
If "mom and dad have a carreer" is the default-then who is raising our children?

This very typical phrase is just a salvo in the mommy wars and not fair or respectful. Parents who work still raise their children. They may well enlist more help doing it (some of paid/expert) but it makes them no less "raising" their kids than having 5 kids is somehow less "raising" your kids than having an only child would be.
no it is a very fair statemnt

SOMEONE is spedning their days with the kids -- and the kids their time with this adult ...

if they are in a day care center .. then are the people there also putting THEIR kids in care so that can go care for someone else's child?

if it is a nanny -- where is her child all day?

or are child care people expected NOT to have their own kids -- then -- how is that expcetation any better, or more realistic, than ecxpecting that peopel (man or woman) doing certain jobs have an at home mate home with the kids?

it is all a cycle -- the more pople -- mom and dad -- work work while having young kids, well the kids have to be taken care of somehere by someone, so it becoames a growing web ...

not that it is right or wrong -- but it is a fact.

Aimee


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

I mean no disrespect, I mean that what percentage are you actually raising your kids if you are at work? I am not saying you arent a good parent, and I am sure its going to come across badly....but its not what I mean.

I take raising the kids to be more than evenings and weekends. (Unfortunatly for me, its 24-7! LOL) So I guess the answer is to hire an expert?

Quote:

This very typical phrase is just a salvo in the mommy wars and not fair or respectful. Parents who work still raise their children. They may well enlist more help doing it (some of paid/expert) but it makes them no less "raising" their kids than having 5 kids is somehow less "raising" your kids than having an only child would be.
When you are working FT, you are not parenting FT, you are working. KWIM? Thats where the question comes in. The percentage of time you actually spend raising your child, and parenting, is *signifigantly* less than someone who stays home. (And you are probably way more sane than me too.







)

I kind of wish I worked outside the home. SAHM is neverending. But I commited to it and so I am sticking with it through the good and the bad.

It is NOT better. In fact, it is often maddening. I do not judge those who work, but they do spend less time parenting. Its a fact.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momma Aimee* 
no it is a very fair statemnt

SOMEONE is spedning their days with the kids -- and the kids their time with this adult ...

if they are in a day care center .. then are the people there also putting THEIR kids in care so that can go care for someone else's child?

if it is a nanny -- where is her child all day?

or are child care people expected NOT to have their own kids -- then -- how is that expcetation any better, or more realistic, than ecxpecting that peopel (man or woman) doing certain jobs have an at home mate home with the kids?

it is all a cycle -- the more pople -- mom and dad -- work work while having young kids, well the kids have to be taken care of somehere by someone, so it becoames a growing web ...

not that it is right or wrong -- but it is a fact.

Aimee

*No, it's not "a fact" that parents who work are not raising their kids.*

Even just on an hourly basis. My son spends, depending on the day, 5-6 hrs in daycare, even though we both work 40+ hr weeks - because we used flex time to juggle our hours. 2 of those are naptime, so he's sleeping.

That means he spends 3-4 waking hours in daycare - not significantly different hours than going to a morning preschool. If you factor in that currently he's an only child, so he's not spending time waiting while I put a baby down for a nap or whatever, and that we don't watch television, it is _possible_ that we are raising him more than other people, if raising means being plugged into him.

And that's just dealing with the hours, never mind the question of whether "raising" a child means trying to be the _sole significant adults_ in a child's life. Or whether it works for the child.

I am all for choice, and I am all for the idea that *all* choices have positive aspects and negative aspects. But do not tell me that my DH and I are not raising our child. That is extremely rude.


----------



## Momma Aimee (Jul 8, 2003)

Quote:

No, it's not "a fact" that parents who work are not raising their kids.
it IS a fact that someone is careing for the child the hours the parents work


----------



## DariusMom (May 29, 2005)

But why, oh why, are WOH dads never categorized as "not raising their children"? Why is this thrown only at Moms who WOH? I never hear the SAHM talk about how their DHs aren't "raising their kids" -- only that WOHM aren't. For instance, Aimee, would you say that your DH isn't raising your kids?

I think the whole thing is wrong and offensive, but I could deal with it better if it weren't so hypocritical . . .


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
*No, it's not "a fact" that parents who work are not raising their kids.*

Even just on an hourly basis. My son spends, depending on the day, 5-6 hrs in daycare, even though we both work 40+ hr weeks - because we used flex time to juggle our hours. 2 of those are naptime, so he's sleeping.

.

Yeah, and forgive me for being a frazzled SAHM cause I didnt even think of that-It occured tome that when both parents work, the kids go to daycare at 6 AM and get picked up at 6 PM.

Sorry for assuming, I really didnt think about that at all.

(And in the case of daycares I have seen-that IS the case often-6AM to 6PM)


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

I so shouldnt get involved with feminist threads, LOL, I am so far removed from the whole "equality" thing. I think we all have our roles to play.

IMO-and I KNOW that not very many people are going to agree, but I'll state it anyways, Men have a "provider" thing in their DNA. I certainly do not have the whole "hunter gatherer" thing in mine.

Of course I kind of suck at SAHM mom too....so.....I dunno what I am supposed to be doing? LOL

And I dont really belive in evolution so I cant really go that route. That we have "evolved"


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
I mean no disrespect, I mean that what percentage are you actually raising your kids if you are at work? I am not saying you arent a good parent, and I am sure its going to come across badly....but its not what I mean.

I take raising the kids to be more than evenings and weekends. (Unfortunatly for me, its 24-7! LOL) So I guess the answer is to hire an expert?

When you are working FT, you are not parenting FT, you are working. KWIM? Thats where the question comes in. The percentage of time you actually spend raising your child, and parenting, is *signifigantly* less than someone who stays home. (And you are probably way more sane than me too.







)

I kind of wish I worked outside the home. SAHM is neverending. But I commited to it and so I am sticking with it through the good and the bad.

It is NOT better. In fact, it is often maddening. I do not judge those who work, but they do spend less time parenting. Its a fact.


Well I answered the question about timing below. I spend 3-4 hrs less a day raising my kids than you do - of course, I only have one child, and you're about to have three so... does that work out to only 1 hr less a day, if we assume your time is split?

What about if my child sleeps 9 hrs a night and yours sleeps 12 (due to their different needs)? Does that mean I spend more time parenting my child than you do?

Also, suppose my child is an extrovert (he is) and yours is an introvert. Let's say they're both 10 and mine spends more hours a day outside my house playing at his friends' house and yours stays home. Does that mean you spend more time parenting?

Or am I still my child's parent when he's at a friend's house?

You see what I mean here I hope... I am not in the camp that says "oh 20 min a day is fine." That's why my husband and I swung our hours.

But it is NOT about *who* is raising the kids. I am my son's mother 24/7 just like you are whether you're spaced out from sleep deprivation or bored out of your mind or busy making cookies. Yes, we are making different choices in how our children are raised, but we're both doing the job.

That's my problem with these blanket statements. Well one of them anyway.

For a more philosophical look at it -

I know for me I am a more present parent when I am engaged in the work that I love to do. I realize that for my son, it's debatable whether he notices or whether he just wants mummy there to kiss his boo-boo when he falls.

But in my choices around "raising" - which for me doesn't just mean being physically there, but mentally present, and modelling the "change I want to be" in the world, those issues DO count. "Raising" is a bigger word than "providing care on the spot."


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
If "mom and dad have a carreer" is the default-then who is raising our children?

I am.

Thanks for asking.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momma Aimee* 
it IS a fact that someone is careing for the child the hours the parents work

Well as I said there are a lot of ways to do that - swinging shifts, for example. It's not so black and white.

But I also stand by the idea that while yes, hours count, "raising" is much broader than "caring for." No one says that if a child is in a hospital his parents aren't "raising" him.

And in fact, people rarely say this about dads. It's a criticism that's mostly levelled at mothers. Because "raising" is a fuzzy word.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
If "mom and dad have a carreer" is the default-then who is raising our children?

Mom and Dad.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
Yeah, and forgive me for being a frazzled SAHM cause I didnt even think of that-It occured tome that when both parents work, the kids go to daycare at 6 AM and get picked up at 6 PM.

Sorry for assuming, I really didnt think about that at all.

(And in the case of daycares I have seen-that IS the case often-6AM to 6PM)

















My children had contact with many trained professionals with whom they bonded in childcare situations. I consider them very lucky to have this variety of carers, rather than just one full time frazzled carer.


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

You guys realize we're a little off topic, right?

Let's not fuel the mommy wars.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Personally I find the idea that a "balanced" life is having a WOHP working 60 hours a week in a stressful job and a SAHM who does everything else at home bizarre and alien. That seems so out of balance to me. We tried it, and we both hated it because it felt so wrong and so alienating from each other. We're used to sharing our lives and we were so separated when we did that. We argued, we were stressed, our home life suffered, and most importantly our son suffered. Now, with two WOHPs in family-friendly jobs, our lives are happy and full now in ways that they weren't when we were trying the societally-approved official SAHM/WOHD model.

My husband lived that growing up (absent earner) and is deliberately rejecting that model in favor of the two-WOH/family friendly model of my parents. For us, it's much better.

Obviously, people find balance in many different ways. I certainly accept that there are people who find very balanced lives with the traditional SAHM/WOHD model. It just isn't for us, that's all.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
If "mom and dad have a carreer" is the default-then who is raising our children?

Transformed, I was in daycare starting at six weeks, and since you insult my wonderful, amazing parents by implying they didn't raise me, you should know that I am closer and have a better relationship and more respect for my parents than most of my peers, many of whom had SAHMs. I think you need to open your mind to the idea that families can work very well in different ways.

You know, I was in daycare throughout childhood, and I loved it. I felt sorry for the kids who didn't get to go. We did fun things and then my parents showed up and I showed them everything we did. They knew all my friends, they knew all my teachers, and they were more involved in my life than many of my friends' parents.

I really take exception to the idea that my parents didn't raise me, not because I think it's true (the idea is absurd) but because there is an implied insult to my parents there. I love my parents, and I don't like insults to them.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

I would really hate to see such a fascinating thread break down into Mommy War bashing, SAHMs vs. WOHMs.

It doesn't really surprise me, though, because I think it's very hard to have this discussion without it turning into an argument about whether individual women are making "the wrong choices." I think our culture encourages mothers to feel pitted against each other (or sometimes against working women without children), rather than encouraging us to ask larger questions about why our social and economic system is arranged the way that it is.

Many people have spoken about the demanding requirements of their job, or their husband's job, and how that affects family choices about SAHM/WOHM. But very, very few jobs _in and of themselves_ require long hours, etc. - it's a matter of how the industry or the employer has chosen to structure the work. If someone "has" to work 50-60 hours a week or "has" to be on call 24/7, that's almost always because their employer has chosen not to hire enough people to allow for a more reasonable schedule.

Whether or not individual families choose to have one or two working parents, the fact remains that it no longer makes sense - if it ever did - for the workplace to be structured on the premise that workers have no family commitments or outside priorities. Across the board - across all industries and professions - there needs to be a recognition that workers of both genders are likely to have pressing commitments outside the workplace. There needs to be greater space for each individual to create the work-life balance that works best for them, whether that might involve flex time, job sharing, part-time work, telecommuting, etc. There needs to be a way to secure health care for your family without being tied to a full-time job.

The answer is not to say that WOHMs should quit their jobs and stay home, and it's not to say that SAHMs are hurting other women if they don't go back to work. The answer is to restructure the American workplace.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
Whether or not individual families choose to have one or two working parents, the fact remains that it no longer makes sense - if it ever did - for the workplace to be structured on the premise that workers have no family commitments or outside priorities. Across the board - across all industries and professions - there needs to be a recognition that workers of both genders are likely to have pressing commitments outside the workplace. There needs to be greater space for each individual to create the work-life balance that works best for them, whether that might involve flex time, job sharing, part-time work, telecommuting, etc. There needs to be a way to secure health care for your family without being tied to a full-time job.

The answer is not to say that WOHMs should quit their jobs and stay home, and it's not to say that SAHMs are hurting other women if they don't go back to work. The answer is to restructure the American workplace.

Amen!


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leewd* 
You guys realize we're a little off topic, right?

Let's not fuel the mommy wars.

But the entire topic of the thread stirs the common mommy wars, as its called.

How about WAHMing/WOHMing as default hurting society's work/life balance?

Or how about WAHMing/WOHMing as default hurting society's family life balance?

I still think the whole thesis is kinda a waste of time. Really. I think we need to love our families and neighbors as best we can and with all our heart, mind and strength. That, to me, would be a good start to benefit society. And there are women who work and women who do not work. They know, whether they are working or not, if they are caring for their family. I think we need to respect that of each other and if we truly believe someone else is not loving their family well? Be a loving example and encourage your neighbor...but that takes friendship, dialogue and time.

SAHM's/WAHM's/MEN/Minorities/Married couples/Homosexuals/Free Thinkers/The Religous/WOMEN/the uneducated/the educated/immigrants/residents.... no one group can bare the ails of society and no good solution can come about from that line of thinking.

But that's just MY frazzled opinion.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I'll just say what I said on another thread, when people started debating about what "raising" meant.

Well, I can't remember my exact words from back then, so I'll paraphrase. Raising a child is providing for that child's physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and material needs.

In my family's case, at times we've relied on taxpayer-supported benefits to meet some of our material needs. We currently still rely on Medicaid for our girls, and a taxpayer-supported hospital discount for dh.

I still don't feel the taxpayers are raising my family -- but I acknowledge that these taxpayer-supported programs are helping dh and I to do a better job. In the same way, working parents can get help from others in providing some of their children's direct care, without forfeiting the right to say they're raising them. That should be obvious to everyone.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I'll just say what I said on another thread, when people started debating about what "raising" meant.

Well, I can't remember my exact words from back then, so I'll paraphrase. Raising a child is providing for that child's physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and material needs.

In my family's case, at times we've relied on taxpayer-supported benefits to meet some of our material needs. We currently still rely on Medicaid for our girls, and a taxpayer-supported hospital discount for dh.

I still don't feel the taxpayers are raising my family -- but I acknowledge that these taxpayer-supported programs are helping dh and I to do a better job. In the same way, working parents can get help from others in providing some of their children's direct care, without forfeiting the right to say they're raising them. That should be obvious to everyone.

Thank you.


----------



## transformed (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 

In my family's case, at times we've relied on taxpayer-supported benefits to meet some of our material needs. We currently still rely on Medicaid for our girls, and a taxpayer-supported hospital discount for dh.

I still don't feel the taxpayers are raising my family -- but I acknowledge that these taxpayer-supported programs are helping dh and I to do a better job. In the same way, working parents can get help from others in providing some of their children's direct care, without forfeiting the right to say they're raising them. That should be obvious to everyone.

I belive in gov't sponsered healthcare. I'll use medicaid whenever I possibly can because I belive that everyone deserves healthcare!


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
I belive in gov't sponsered healthcare. I'll use medicaid whenever I possibly can because I belive that everyone deserves healthcare!










Yes, and I'm just saying that getting some help in meeting our children's needs, doesn't mean we're not raising them.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

This is such a good topic and I hate to see it go up in flames.









I am a sah parent and I have been for 5 years. DH has been the provider for all that time. When he is at work he is still an employee, partner, boss etc, but he is also a husband and father. If something is going on, he also will want to know- is someone sick, how did dd1's school day go, how am I doing? DD1 is at school from 8:40 until 3:15. We are still her parents.

I hate when we start making statements that can turn into nightmares. There are a lot of both parents working so they can raise their children and provide for them. And no amount of cut cable, eating out twice a month, and go to garage sales can change that. And some of them have demanding jobs etc but they may also have debt from schooling, or something that happend in their life to make them have to do this.

Yes we all know that sahm who is sooo busy at the health club, playing tennis, gets her nails done etc. At least that is what I have heard! She hasnt moved into my neighborhood yet or maybe she is too good to talk to me!
And I know all the sah moms who know that one or two moms who she went to college w/, is your SIL, neighbor etc who says they cant afford to stay home but drives a fancy car, eats out all the time....is buying a 7000 sq ft house, has 2 nannies, and has to travel 20 days a month.
These are extreme stereo types that most of us dont really know and neither does most of anyone you know IRL, but the media wants you to think. So it shouldnt factor into discussions such as this one.


----------



## meganeilis (Mar 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
My children had contact with many trained professionals with whom they bonded in childcare situations. I consider them very lucky to have this variety of carers, rather than just one full time frazzled carer.

This struck me as a very rude comment.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momma Aimee* 
I







:







:







:







: at the risk of being labled a hopless june clever and asked to turn over my drivers liscen -- why is this so wrong -- it allows for the best care of the children, it creats puzzle peices that are able to fit together to form a stable and workable family unit. It allows for the man and wife to be complementry rather than identical or competevie.

I have no issue with you or anyone else organizing your family in that way. But unfortunately, these gender stereotypes can cause a great deal of needless anxiety when we don't fit them. I disagree with your statement that this set up *allows for the best care of children* because the way the statement is phased, it is a universal. And there is NO ONE BEST WAY. Period. End of statement.

Look at it this way. One of the hallmarks of humanity is our adaptability to new environments and contexts. We are able to fine tune our responses to exactly fit the ever changing needs we face.

So of course moms and dad are going to have a myriad of responses to childcare and earning money - this is evidence of our ability to adapt. We don't want to see others doing exactly what we are doing, because it means that someone (us or them) is NOT responding to the specific circumstance that we uniquely face.

Quote:

ALso I think this is really an outdated statement. I know sahd and was raised by one. None have "issues" with the wife making all the money.
I wish this were true. The pressure that men I know personally have faced, from friends, family, potential employers, when they have made decisions which made making money lesser to family commitments is astonishing for this day and age. There is a reason why the standard excuse for a top executive being fired is "decided to spend more time with his family." It is so patently a lie, it assumes that the only reason why a high flyer would spend more time with his family is because he has no other choice.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
It doesn't really surprise me, though, because I think it's very hard to have this discussion without it turning into an argument about whether individual women are making "the wrong choices." I think our culture encourages mothers to feel pitted against each other (or sometimes against working women without children), rather than encouraging us to ask larger questions about why our social and economic system is arranged the way that it is.

Yup. Because if we can present the problem as one of individual choice, then society bears no responsibility.

I had a conversation with a friend about the "opt out revolution" recently - the fact is that the decision about working or not working with children is directly constrained by:

* inadequate and costly childcare
* insufficient part time jobs and a workaholic culture
* rising cost of living and lack of equal salary increases
* clear and patent discrimination against mothers in the workforce
* high divorce rates
* lack of health insurance, and increasing premiums in employer based insurance
* increased recognition that social security won't see anyone through their 80s
etc etc etc

There is no one right choice, because many of us are going to get it in the neck, regardless of what we decide to do.

But if we frame all this stuff as a choice - then suddenly, the responsibility is ours to deal with the rest of the system. Free will and all that.

Yeah, right.


----------



## Amy in the morning (Aug 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DariusMom* 
But why, oh why, are WOH dads never categorized as "not raising their children"? Why is this thrown only at Moms who WOH? I never hear the SAHM talk about how their DHs aren't "raising their kids" -- only that WOHM aren't.
I think the whole thing is wrong and offensive, but I could deal with it better if it weren't so hypocritical . . .

I agree.


----------



## jessma (Sep 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
Yup. Because if we can present the problem as one of individual choice, then society bears no responsibility.

I had a conversation with a friend about the "opt out revolution" recently - the fact is that the decision about working or not working with children is directly constrained by:

* inadequate and costly childcare
* insufficient part time jobs and a workaholic culture
* rising cost of living and lack of equal salary increases
* clear and patent discrimination against mothers in the workforce
* high divorce rates
* lack of health insurance, and increasing premiums in employer based insurance
* increased recognition that social security won't see anyone through their 80s
etc etc etc

There is no one right choice, because many of us are going to get it in the neck, regardless of what we decide to do.

But if we frame all this stuff as a choice - then suddenly, the responsibility is ours to deal with the rest of the system. Free will and all that.

Yeah, right.









: As always Siobang, you put it perfectly.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transformed* 
Yeah, and forgive me for being a frazzled SAHM cause I didnt even think of that-It occured tome that when both parents work, the kids go to daycare at 6 AM and get picked up at 6 PM.

Sorry for assuming, I really didnt think about that at all.

(And in the case of daycares I have seen-that IS the case often-6AM to 6PM)

















Well here you couldn't even find a daycare that opened at 6am and closed at 6pm. DD's current one opens at 7:30 and closes at 5:30. Her former one opened at 7 and closed at 5:30. Most kids are not there the whole time. In fact we moved from the NYC area b/c we realized if we had kids they would have to be there for 12 hours a day.

A big ditto to this

Quote:

Whether or not individual families choose to have one or two working parents, the fact remains that it no longer makes sense - if it ever did - for the workplace to be structured on the premise that workers have no family commitments or outside priorities. Across the board - across all industries and professions - there needs to be a recognition that workers of both genders are likely to have pressing commitments outside the workplace. There needs to be greater space for each individual to create the work-life balance that works best for them, whether that might involve flex time, job sharing, part-time work, telecommuting, etc. There needs to be a way to secure health care for your family without being tied to a full-time job.

The answer is not to say that WOHMs should quit their jobs and stay home, and it's not to say that SAHMs are hurting other women if they don't go back to work. The answer is to restructure the American workplace.
thank you Rivka. I really thought after 9/11 there would be a bigger switch to more family friendly workplaces at least a little b/c so many people saw what was important. But then the next day when my boss still went into the office (I worked just below 14th St and Broadway in NYC) and left her family of 3 in NJ, I knew it probably wouldn't change.

Now you read about "good workplaces" like Google where they offer a hair salon and dry cleaning and wonderful catering "on campus" and I fail to see how that's a good workplace. Frankly I'd rather be encouraged to take my full hour lunch and get out of the office to have lunch and work such hours that allow me to drop off my dry cleaning (if I had any) to or from work. How is it good to really do your best to make work the only thing in your life?


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meganeilis* 
This struck me as a very rude comment.

Yes, I thought it was rude, too -- but I think that poster was responding to some who said that WOHM's weren't raising their children. I hate when this happens, because when one person makes a below-the-belt statement -- it just encourages the attacked parties to hit below-the-belt, too.

I'm going to reiterate my belief that as long as our primary focus is on parenting our children and meeting their needs during the years when they need us -- we're ALL raising our children.

Yes, occasionally I've met some parents who always seem to be looking for a place to drop off their kids so they can have "child-free time." I've perceived those parents as not very attached to their children -- but I've met some like this who SAH, and others who WOH. And no, I'm not talking about sometimes needing a break just to do something for yourself and recharge.

I'm talking about moms and dads who'd like a block of several hours every weekend -- or about one of my friend's husbands who was always nagging at her to find someone to keep their children overnight, so she could come help him finish his work and they could have a child-free night. I think those poor children were spending at least 2-3 nights a week away from their parents.

That is really sad.







: But, as Amys1st said about the "extremes" -- these people are very few and far between, compared with the majority of parents who, whether WOH or SAH, are doing what they do out of love for their growing children.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Oh, and I heard about one couple who dropped their child off at Grandma's on Monday morning and picked him up Friday night: this was their routine EVERY WEEK. I guess because of all the odd hours they worked, and the distance, it "wasn't practical" to have him live at home during the week. When you do that with a small child, I think it creates a real confusion as to who his parents really are.

Well, at least it was less traumatic for him when Mommy and Daddy divorced. He kept living with Grandma, and Dad moved in there, too. And then he got to be with Mommy, like every weekend or every other weekend (similar to before, only without Daddy). Not such a big change for him, I guess. So maybe this arrangement really was better for this particular child and family.

Edited to add: didn't mean to go OT -- just, if we have to talk about who is/isn't raising their kids, I thought I'd throw in an example. It's clearly an unusual case: most parents -- whether WOH or SAH -- wouldn't dream of being separated from their child for 5 days a week, every single week.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
It's clearly an unusual case: most parents -- whether WOH or SAH -- wouldn't dream of being separated from their child for 5 days a week, every single week.

Well, just to throw out another data point. My dad was sent to boarding school at age 7. This was very common in his country (Ireland) for his class/religion (middle class Protestant Anglo-Irish). He went to a school that was less than 5 miles from his house and he spent every weekend at home with his family.

He was extremely well loved (spoiled, really) and very attached to his mother.

At age 13, he was sent to boarding school in another country (England) and he came home maybe four times a year.

My aunt (his younger sister) was sent to boarding school at age 8, to a school over 20 miles away. She also came home every weekend.

Even today, while the school my father went to is now combined day/boarding, there is still a strong tradition in particular class/groups in the UK/Ireland of children sent to boarding school by age 7-12.

Few places/cultures that I know about normally encourage support separation under the age of 5, however.


----------



## Rio Mama (Apr 9, 2006)

This is an interesting thread, Siobhan.

A friend from college who typically makes $400K/yr (but made $1M the last two years) stopped by yesterday and casually wondered why I (or my dh) didn't leave our jobs in public service to go into the private sector and rake it in. His wife does not work; they're contemplating having their first child (& probably only) next year; she'll definitely be the primary caregiver for their child.

The answer I gave him was that I (& my dh) want to be home at 6 to have dinner with the family every night.

But why is the default for high-powered jobs a greater than 40 hour week? I've seen headlines recently about what hard workers Americans are. What does this mean, and what does this get us as a society? I don't mean to be flip - I'd really like someone's considered response.

In my profession, the default work week in the private sector was 40 hours a week 50 years ago. Now the default work week is 8 to 8, 6 days a week; more if you're gearing up for a trial.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rio Mama* 
But why is the default for high-powered jobs a greater than 40 hour week? I've seen headlines recently about what hard workers Americans are. What does this mean, and what does this get us as a society? I don't mean to be flip - I'd really like someone's considered response.

In my profession, the default work week in the private sector was 40 hours a week 50 years ago. Now the default work week is 8 to 8, 6 days a week; more if you're gearing up for a trial.

Well, I think that for high-powered American jobs, employees are compensated extremely well. You mentioned your friend who has taken home $1m over the past two years, for instance.

And then for those who aren't taking in that much, but who want to do it, they have to work those hours to get to that point (e.g., beginner corporate attorneys, beginner investment bankers). They sure aren't suffering as far as salary goes either even though it's not in the 7 figures.

Not to be too flip, but that's a heck of a lot of money, and I'm not surprised it requires more than 40 hours. In other countries elite jobs either require tons of hours or aren't nearly well as compensated, speaking very generally.

Getting back to the original question, I can't see how you'd do one of those jobs without a SAHP at home taking care of everything to do with the family. It would be very hard otherwise.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rio Mama* 
But why is the default for high-powered jobs a greater than 40 hour week?.

Because that's why it's called a high powered job? Seriously, do you think someone in a high powered job is doing 20 hours a week and getting paid a million a year?


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

A small and meaningless caveat to the scope of the intellectual prowess of this thread:

some women do not want to be with their children all day
some do not want to stay home
some find staying home hard and beneath them
some do not want to trust their husbands for providing for the family
some do not want to live in a lower economic bracket
some do not want to move or go without things to be able to stay home
some do not want public assistance, thrift store clothes or old cars

And in kind, some women do want to do some or all of those things.

The women's movemet was to dislodge us from shoulds and inequality and into doing what we desire and with equality. It literally gave us a voice to vote, to be educated, to be seen and respected. To put down mothering at home as lesser, ignorant, frazzled, whatnot or as taking away from society's work'life balance is to negate what many of our foremothers fought for us.

I had to look up the term "opt out revolution" and found an interesting article on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/ma...ZqXu9vpl4RzMyA


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Thanks for the link, Hotmamacita! That's a good article.

It helped me think more about why I don't have to worry that there won't be a job for me, if I ever do want to reenter the workforce.

Even when I was single, my focus was always on doing work that fulfilled me -- and I've always been fulfilled by nurturing others. After my children are grown, if for some reason I need to earn an income, I feel I have lots of options to do this in ways that are meaningful and rewarding to me.

I don't forsee any reduction in the need for good foster-care parents in my state. I also don't forsee any reduction in the need for good paraprofessionals to work in our public school system. I have an associates degree in Early Childhood, and a bachelor's in Social Work.

I never ended up getting a degree in special education, though I was interested, but I hear there's somewhat of a demand for paraprofessionals to assist in meeting the needs of the special needs children in public school classrooms. I'm not sure exactly what would be available to me some 15 years from now, but I'm sure I can find someone who will hire me, if and when the time comes that I'm looking.

I guess I've never really been on a "career-track" -- so I never got off one, either -- and I have no interest in getting on at this phase of my life. Which is probably a good thing, since I'll be well into my 50's when my children are grown; it's good I'm at a place where I can be content with a job, and don't feel a need to build a career. My "career" has been a life of nurturing, both with and without pay.

I can't see myself regretting, when I'm 80, that I didn't build a different sort of life.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rio Mama* 
This is an interesting thread, Siobhan.

A friend from college who typically makes $400K/yr (but made $1M the last two years) stopped by yesterday and casually wondered why I (or my dh) didn't leave our jobs in public service to go into the private sector and rake it in. His wife does not work; they're contemplating having their first child (& probably only) next year; she'll definitely be the primary caregiver for their child.

The answer I gave him was that I (& my dh) want to be home at 6 to have dinner with the family every night.

But why is the default for high-powered jobs a greater than 40 hour week? I've seen headlines recently about what hard workers Americans are. What does this mean, and what does this get us as a society? I don't mean to be flip - I'd really like someone's considered response.

In my profession, the default work week in the private sector was 40 hours a week 50 years ago. Now the default work week is 8 to 8, 6 days a week; more if you're gearing up for a trial.

There has been some research into this, and when men work those hours not as many are working hours as when women do it. It seems that women know that they have to be somewhere else and work when at work. So those "high-powered" more than 40 hours guys are often not working efficiently.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"There has been some research into this, and when men work those hours not as many are working hours as when women do it. It seems that women know that they have to be somewhere else and work when at work. So those "high-powered" more than 40 hours guys are often not working efficiently."

Can we all say "Face Time" together?

Anyway, if you get a lot done, but no one sees it (via your presence at work at 10:30 at night) don't you just get more work?

Of course there are all the fun techiques to make everyone convinced what a hard worker you are -- never turning your office light off, leaving stacks of paper on your desk, drafting emails earlier in the day and then sending them out late at night -- all sorts of "office theater".


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

You both bring up a more intriguing and perhaps more fruitful thread for discussion....the realities of inefficient employees/positions and even entire businesses that actually hurt the workplace and our economic system. Also, there is a huge waste of resources and much employee apathy in our work environments that, imo, have NOTHING to do with staying home to take care of your children/whether you are a man/woman/single/married, etc...


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

All really good points.









I think a lot depends on the field. Mine (publishing) is pretty results oriented but there is a certain amount of - maybe not "face time" but "availability time" that you need, often to look at photo spreads and things which is still somehow a LOT easier to do in person than electronically. As I've said, the new piece since I went back, to me anyway, is the expectation to respond to email from home at night.

Also, like many creative fields, coming up with ideas sometimes takes time outside the 9-5 world - going to industry events or even non-industry events, getting out and talking to people, etc. For me that is something I would want to do anyway... but it is a balancing act with a toddler, for sure.

I had two days a week working from home written into my contract, which helps cut down on commuting time too, and also is less prone to interruption, and I leave at 4 every day. I have found that being firm about it hasn't hurt so far, but we'll see.

My husband's field, however, (IT consulting) is the reverse in many ways. His team actually spans three countries and two continents and face time is often nil. But the amount that they are expected to produce and their availability to deal with problem that come up is to my way of thinking unreal. And people who protest really are let go, and although there are some alternatives for sure, his particular passion/area of expertise is mostly just like that at this point in history.

And the reason companies make those demands is the marketplace - if they won't do it for X dollars and be available 24/7, someone else will. So it's way beyond just a corporate culture.

And frankly, it's even a societal thing - how many of us would be able to cope if, say, the credit card/debit card network was shut down for two days during the day for maintenance so that people don't have to miss weekends or work overnight... not too many. And yet in the past banks closed on weekends and people coped.

So yes, interesting times.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
And the reason companies make those demands is the marketplace - if they won't do it for X dollars and be available 24/7, someone else will. So it's way beyond just a corporate culture.

Good point. If the neighborhood grocery store closed at 5, and I called dh on his way home from work to say, "We're out of milk: it's after 5, you'll have to stop at Walmart" -- that's some $4.00 the neighborhood store just lost that went to Walmart because Walmart decided to make some of their workers do a night-shift.

And some mamas prefer to do all their grocery shopping late at night when dh's are home and little ones are asleep.

You're right: the more we talk about changing society and the workplace, the more complex it all becomes. Rather than saying, "All wives should work," we could just as accurately say, "We should all limit our business transactions to 9 to 5, Monday through Friday." That'd probably improve things more than a few additional women going back to work after giving birth.


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"We should all limit our business transactions to 9 to 5, Monday through Friday."

And then - how do single people, or families with 2 working adults ever get any errands done? Its an ugly cycle...


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
"We should all limit our business transactions to 9 to 5, Monday through Friday."

And then - how do single people, or families with 2 working adults ever get any errands done? Its an ugly cycle...

Exactly! Limiting everyone to 9 to 5 transactions would be just as constricting as pressuring all women to return to work after giving birth, whether they wanted to or not.

It's ugly when we try to shove everyone into the same mold -- regardless of the ideology behind the mold.


----------



## DariusMom (May 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
"We should all limit our business transactions to 9 to 5, Monday through Friday."

And then - how do single people, or families with 2 working adults ever get any errands done? Its an ugly cycle...

When I moved to Holland 7.5 years ago, this was kind of how it was, except that the store hours were 10-6. When my DH was little, the schools sent the kids home for lunch! All these things virtually guaranteed that a parent, almost always the mom, had to pretty much be a FT SAH.

things are slowly changing. most stores still aren't open on Sunday, especially in smaller towns and villages. more stores stay open longer on saturdays and stores are open on thursday evenings till 9:00 PM.

Still, the whole country is still set up for one parent to work full time and the other parent to work, at most, part time. As someone who works PT myself, I see a lot of advantages to it. However, Holland is on par with Pakistan (I kid you not) for the number of women who are in board level positions in the business world and the public sector. one reason is that women have a very hard time working FT OH, even if they want to, because nothing in the society is set up to encourage that. Yes, things are changing, but not very quickly.

so . . . as PPs said, be careful what you wish for, because it's usually the woman who gets shafted! (not to be cynical or anything . . . )


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DariusMom* 
When I moved to Holland 7.5 years ago, this was kind of how it was, except that the store hours were 10-6. When my DH was little, the schools sent the kids home for lunch! All these things virtually guaranteed that a parent, almost always the mom, had to pretty much be a FT SAH.

That's exactly how it was when I visited friends in Macau, South China in 1997 (not the store hours: the school lunch arrangements). Macau was still under Portuguese rule at that time, and my missionary friends sent their children to Portuguese school. The 5yo stayed all day and had lunch with her class, but the 7yo had to go out with a parent for lunch.

I think the teachers just kind of sent the kids out the door, and it was the parents' responsibility to make sure they were there to meet them, not the teachers' to make sure they were met.

These friends knew one single mother who worked full-time, and she had arrangements with her job to get that segment of time off every day. Still, she seemed kind of harried sometimes and was grateful on days when my friends offered to care for her son along with their own.

I think it's probably nicer for the kids to have that spot of contact with a parent in the middle of the school day. Of course, it's kind of complicated if the school's not "right up the street," where the child can easily walk home on his own -- and also in this day and age we don't always feel it's safe for our children to walk even short distances unsupervised.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

I'm late to the thread, but will add.

I think the responsibility for work-life balance rests on the shoulders of the workers and their employers. While your friend makes a valid connection between how a stay at home spouse can help one's career, it's not accurate to blame a non-working individual for the difficult conditions within a workplace.

However, women tend to get blamed for everything, so I understand why the argument was attempted.









Because so many are willing to work gruelling schedules in exchange for big bucks, or even a shot at big bucks, that's why things are the way they are. If people refused those jobs and those hours, then it would change. The long work schedules have much more to do with ambition and competitiveness than anything else.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

I work in publishing too. Specifically magazine publishing. I like the cycles of it. There might be a day or two an issue where I might be needed later than normal but the then impending shortfall in work makes it easier to actually take comp time.

I do think sometimes proving that you're overworked is some kind of ego trip. Not that we aren't. But I sit across from a woman where I swear her job is high pressured to begin with but she makes it 10x worse by not delegating, or delegating and then getting reinvolved for no good reason or just starting out every conversation with how overworked she is. Like the rest of us do nothing or something.

I also had a boss that felt it was more important that you were in the office than doing actual work. Specifically you should stay late. So all of my peers and I would set the timers on our lights and computers to turn off 30 min after we left. I'm in circulation which can be very task oriented. I've never met a circulation person who didn't mind going the extra mile to get the job done. Or if I did they didn't last very long. But we're also very cynical people who don't like busy work and won't go the extra mile for nothing or should I say to appear busy.


----------



## madskye (Feb 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
One of my friends was recently asserting the following --

That SAHM-ing is still the default expectation for the wives of professionals (doctor, lawyer, etc.) and the "executive" worker.

That SAHM-ing is contributing to and reinforcing the total work/life in-balance of many of those workers (as the hours requirements for those jobs are extremely high and just getting higher) -- since the expectation is that those workers have someone at home managing all other aspects of their lives (grocery shopping, bill paying, appointment making, childcare, etc., etc.) so that they can focus 100% on their career.

She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is. She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.

I thought this was an interesting idea, though perhaps overstated. Thoughts?

So many people have posted interesting thoughts on this thread-I thought I'd just go back to OP.

I fall into the camp where I don't think you can categorize it as SAHM--I just think the expectations of corporate America are really pretty outrageous, and as long as people keep meeting those expectations they will continue to increase. Corporate America just does not care about your standard of living. (Blanket statement--there might be people who work for more family friendly companies who disagree, and I'd love to hear from them...)

I was working full-time up until May--it was expected that I start on the blackberry at 7:30am, work all day, and then still be available on the way home, via cell or bberry. I also traveled for work. The standard was no different for a man with a wife at home. I didn't work at night too much, unless I had a big presentation or something.

When DD was born, my husband was consulting and his schedule was so flexible. The next year, we were both working full-time, in NYC, responsible positions, and it was really awful. Life was much better with someone at home for the baby, do the errands, keeping life running smoothly! That person doesn't have to be a SAHM, though--it could be help in any form. I'm always so jealous when I meet people who have a supportive family network locally. That would help too.

Working a shorter schedule, or from home one or two days a week would have made all the difference, but I couldn't make it happen at my company. And honestly, I could do the work and get it done, and be profitable that way. At a certain point in my career, it became more about the skills and connections I had made, and less about hours. So I quit and started consulting, which I love. And I think, until more people, male and female, take their talents out of the corporate world, nothing will change.

I don't think that everyone having a job outside the home would change the demands of Corporate America. I think everyone would just find themselves paying for more help with those things--and errand runner services would really take off...

Also, here's an article about how Generation Y is really going to change the workplace...

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu.../28/100033934/


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *madskye* 
Also, here's an article about how Generation Y is really going to change the workplace...

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu.../28/100033934/

That article's got me excited about how the new generations of attachment-parented kids are going to change the world even more than the Generation Yers. The author says the baby boomer parents gave Generation Yers lots of love but also placed strong emphasis on achievement.

Attachment parents also give lots of love -- and in addition to that, we follow our children's leads, and free them to develop their own ideas about what achievement is and what they care about working for. Our kids may really be able to write their own job descriptions and map out their own careers!


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
That article's got me excited about how the new generations of attachment-parented kids are going to change the world even more than the Generation Yers. The author says the baby boomer parents gave Generation Yers lots of love but also placed strong emphasis on achievement.

Sorry that article just makes Gen Y sound like a bunch of kids who need to grow up a little. I just can't imagine a bunch of people who have no qualms about living at home into their 30's and still rely on the parents to do things like come to their job interviews and make decisions for them will be well prepared to be AP parents. But then I used to work at a college and heard some very distressing horror stories about Gen Yers.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
Sorry that article just makes Gen Y sound like a bunch of kids who need to grow up a little. I just can't imagine a bunch of people who have no qualms about living at home into their 30's and still rely on the parents to do things like come to their job interviews and make decisions for them will be well prepared to be AP parents. But then I used to work at a college and heard some very distressing horror stories about Gen Yers.

They actually may be more prepared than some of us were/are.


----------



## leewd (Aug 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hotmamacita* 
A small and meaningless caveat to the scope of the intellectual prowess of this thread:

some women do not want to be with their children all day
some do not want to stay home
some find staying home hard and beneath them
some do not want to trust their husbands for providing for the family
some do not want to live in a lower economic bracket
some do not want to move or go without things to be able to stay home
some do not want public assistance, thrift store clothes or old cars

And in kind, some women do want to do some or all of those things. . .

I'm a little surprised no one replied to this.

_some women do not want to be with their children all day_
And some are better mothers because of the separation.

_some do not want to stay home_
And some cannot stay home

_some find staying home hard and beneath them_
And some find working "beneath them"

_some do not want to trust their husbands for providing for the family_
And some have extenuating circumstances that make it impossible to do so.

_some do not want to live in a lower economic bracket_
And some will be living in that lower income bracket even with 2 working parents.

_some do not want to move or go without things to be able to stay home_
And some will still be going without.

_some do not want public assistance, thrift store clothes or old cars_
And some will need it anyway

I really don't get this list of statements. . .


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

I second BlueBottle - a 9 to 5 day does NOT mean you have to have a SAHM to do the shopping. In Denmark, shop hours are 9 or 10 to 5:30 most days, meaning impossible to buy shoes, go to the bank.... during the workday.
But we have just as many moms working as dads.

1. Stores are often open late one day - say Thursdays all the way until 6 or 7pm! (yes, I know this still seems early to a lot of you, but remember we work 40 hours a week, not 60).

2. If we really need to do something important, we can go during lunch or tell our boss we will be gone an extra hour and make up the time later.

3. Stores are open on Saturday from 10-2 or 10-4, and a few times a year on sundays. (ie around Christmas. Retailers aren't dumb.)

4. The men go shopping. It isn't "a womans job." Whomever has the time goes. Same with childcare. My DD was sick last Friday, and it was DH that stayed home with her, not me. Next time I will do it. It's fair distribution of labor.


----------



## Azuralea (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leewd* 
I'm a little surprised no one replied to this.

I didn't respond because I didn't think it made any sense and I felt like it was stated only to be inflammatory.


----------



## VanessaS (May 22, 2007)

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I'm going to post something anyway. Forgive me if I'm repeating something.

Quote:

She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is.
I agree that the work/life balance is getting a bit ridiculous, however:

1) I have a problem with the idea that husbands of women (the original statement was not gender-neutral so I won't reply that way) who WOH do more housework than those with SAH wives. That is not true (check out the American Time Use Surveys). What is true is that women who WOH work more hours every day then any other group. Which means that WOH wives are just doing the WOH in addition to the housework.









2) The longer American working hours (longest in the rich world now) do not result from SAHW but rather from the tax system. Working longer means you earn more money. That is not true in most other rich contries. Here in Germany, any hours my husband works over 40/week is basically unpaid due to the progressive tax system! People here work so little because it's just not worth it to work more.

Also, check out this.

And more food for thought: it is often stated that Scandinavian husbands do the most housework and it is assumed that that is because Scandinavian wives often WOH. However, there is no correlation. The husbands do so much housework REGARDLESS of whether the wives WOH or not.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Yes, and the whole idea of something becoming "the general social understanding" seems like such an indirect, passive-aggressive way of saying everyone (or more people) need to start living this way.

I mean, does anyone know of _any other way_ for something to become "the general social understanding," than for more people to start doing it?

After reading this thread, I agree with the posters who say the current workplace demands have little to do with decisions of women to SAH or WOH. They're way more connected to the fact that (as stated by one poster) customers/clients can always find someone who's willing to do business with them 24/7.

As long as a substantial number of people are willing to burn the candle at both ends -- those who aren't are sometimes going to get shafted. But I sure don't believe in legislating people's choices about this.

I really liked the article about the Generation Yers. I'll be interested to see how things unfold from here.


----------

