mothers should work
Posted: June 23, 2010 Filed under: Uncategorized 33 Comments »OK. I have to start this by acknowledging that
A) humungo numbers of people want jobs and can't find them right now so I am not talking about you and
B) humungo numbers of people are stuck making a decision between working a job they despise and having their pay go directly to child care (ie, no net gain, only net misery at working a job they despise) or staying home with their kid. I do realize this. I can imagine how hard that decision would be. So I sympathize. The number one wish in this post is that we had affordable, subsidized childcare available so that the decision about whether to go back to work was not a financial one. The number two wish is that people had jobs they liked more.
C) I am purposely being provocative by not adding "OUTSIDE THE HOME" to the title of this post. I have had enough of that title. I have grown actively opposed to it unless we are going to start using it for fathers, too. The work of home should just be considered LIFE and it should belong to whomever lives in that home.
D) Much of this centers around hetero marriages where both are college educated, though there are points that apply to all women.
E) Excuse my poor scholarly formatting – graduate school was more than a decade ago.
F) This is really long.
Now, all that said, mothers should work.
I researched the hell out of this post. OK, I spent two hours in a cafe reading articles on my iPad. It was not that hard. Still. I have an actual bibliography for you and more ideas than can be addressed in one post. I felt the need to arm myself in this way because this post is slightly awkward. I have friends who love staying home and feel fulfilled. And I have a job wherein I serve large numbers of children of Stay At Home Moms. I feel the need to tread carefully. But still I feel the need to say something, because I am sick of the guilt and judgment carried around by working moms. It's hard to believe this stuff is still going on – it is only because I both live it and work in it that I can testify to the lingering weirdness around this issue, long after it should have been laid to rest by the work of feminism.
When I spout off about this, and when I think of it on an almost daily basis while dealing with my students, I always go psychological in my reasoning – women (and men!) need a life outside their children and children need a life apart from their parents. The amount of time and energy and brain power focused on child-rearing is, in my community, astounding to me. I am all for quality time, but what we are often seeing here is people spending all their time focusing on, worrying about and advocating (both with reason and without) for their child's every quirk and action.
A 2007 study, discussed here, shows that “the labor force participation of married mothers, especially those with young children, has stopped its advance.” The opinion piece goes on to say:
"What has changed in the last decade is that the job of motherhood has ramped up. Mothers today spend more time on child care than women did
in 1965, a time when mothers were much less likely to have paying jobs,
family scholars report."The pressure to increase mothering is
enormous. For years, women have been on the receiving end of negative
messages about parenting and working. One conservative commentator said
the lives of working women added up to “just a pile of pay stubs.” When
the National Institute of Child Health reported recently that long hours
in day care added but a single percentage point to the still-normal
range of rambunctious behavior in children, newspaper headlines read, 'Day Care, Behavior Problems Linked in Study.'"
That last bit is absolutely fascinating, no? A single percentage point difference in a rambunctiousness study but yet the media jumped on it and linked day care and behavior problems. This is one of those insidious ways it creeps in.
But once I started reading, I realized how much deeper it is. Work isn't just something that benefits individual women by giving them a life outside their kids. It isn't just something that would make my job easier by producing children who do not think they are the center of the universe. Women should work because this "choice" is affecting everyone.
Many of the articles I read referenced this 2005 article: Homeward Bound by Linda Hirshman from The American Prospect. This is an important one to read – I will outline all the key points but I can't explain it as well as she does.
- Half of the wealthiest, most privileged, most highly educated women choose to drop out of their careers when they marry and have children. In many cases, they quit before they even had one child, making this issue not about daycare (and we are talking here about women and families who could almost always afford a nanny or daycare if they chose to).
"The census numbers for all working mothers leveled off around 1990 and
have fallen modestly since 1998. In interviews, women with enough money
to quit work say they are “choosing” to opt out. Their words conceal a
crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing
and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism.
Add to this the good evidence that the upper-class workplace has become
more demanding and then mix in the successful conservative cultural
campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles and you've got a perfect
recipe for feminism's stall."
- Feminism failed when it did not take on home life, embracing a "choice" message instead:
"… [F]eminism wasn't radical enough: It changed the workplace but it
didn't change men, and, more importantly, it didn't fundamentally change
how women related to men."The movement did start out radical. Betty Friedan's original call
to arms compared housework to animal life. In The Feminine Mystique
she wrote, '[V]acuuming the living room floor — with or without makeup
– is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any
woman's full capacity. … Down through the ages man has known that he
was set apart from other animals by his mind's power to have an idea, a
vision, and shape the future to it … when he discovers and creates and
shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being.'"Thereafter, however, liberal feminists abandoned the judgmental
starting point of the movement in favor of offering women “choices.” The
choice talk spilled over from people trying to avoid saying “abortion,”
and it provided an irresistible solution to feminists trying to duck
the mommy wars. A woman could work, stay home, have 10 children or one,
marry or stay single. It all counted as “feminist” as long as she chose
it…."…As feminist
historian Alice Echols put it, 'Rather than challenging their
subordination in domestic life, the feminists of NOW committed
themselves to fighting for women's integration into public life.'"
No matter how much you love your kids and no matter how much work it is to take care of a home, your brain is bigger than that. This message was too judgmental and threatening. We instead backed down to "choice." I still contend that our brains are capable of tougher stuff than home life. Indeed, without tougher stuff, our brains atrophy and fixate and stew.
"Here's the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: The family –
with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks — is a
necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human
flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This
less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only
of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning
it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said,
“A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot
read.”"
- So what do we do? Here are her rules, harsh as they may seem:
"Prepare yourself to qualify for good work, treat
work seriously, and don't put yourself in a position of unequal
resources when you marry."
She contends that liberal arts degrees do not prepare us for most serious jobs (other than academia) and we should be clearer about what various job paths require as college students advance through their undergraduate years. A woman should know, she says, that her art history degree is well and good but she also needs to do x y and z to actually be an art historian or whatever.
She also puts some of the blame on a sort of idealism on the part of women when it comes to work:
"Every Times groom assumed he had to succeed in business, and was
really trying. By contrast, a common thread among the women I
interviewed was a self-important idealism about the kinds of
intellectual, prestigious, socially meaningful, politics-free jobs worth
their incalculably valuable presence. So the second rule is that women
must treat the first few years after college as an opportunity to lose
their capitalism virginity and prepare for good work, which they will
then treat seriously."
And finally, she focuses on whom we marry. She offers up the solution of marrying poorer or younger, of finding someone with less social power than yourself. If this seems calculating, she says, it is merely what men have been doing for ages.
If that seems a bit much to you (as it does to me), her alternate recommendation of marrying a liberal could be a good one. The problem I have seen among some liberal men is a sort of strange disconnect between their pre-babies liberal ideal and their actual behavior post-babies. However feminist he may be, I would suggest it is not a bad idea to hash out LONG before marriage the fact that work is important in both lives and that all home duties are going to be shared equally. I like the end of her article:
"If you have carefully positioned yourself either by marrying down or
finding someone untainted by gender ideology, you will be in a position
to resist bearing an unfair share of the family. Even then you must be
vigilant. Bad deals come in two forms: economics and home economics. The
economic temptation is to assign the cost of child care to the woman's
income. If a woman making $50,000 per year whose husband makes $100,000
decides to have a baby, and the cost of a full-time nanny is $30,000,
the couple reason that, after paying 40 percent in taxes, she makes
$30,000, just enough to pay the nanny. So she might as well stay home.
This totally ignores that both adults are in the enterprise together and
the demonstrable future loss of income, power, and security for the
woman who quits. Instead, calculate that all parents make a total of
$150,000 and take home $90,000. After paying a full-time nanny, they
have $60,000 left to live on.The home-economics trap involves superior female knowledge and
superior female sanitation. The solutions are ignorance and dust. Never
figure out where the butter is. “Where's the butter?” Nora Ephron's
legendary riff on marriage begins. In it, a man asks the question when
looking directly at the butter container in the refrigerator. “Where's
the butter?” actually means butter my toast, buy the butter, remember
when we're out of butter. Next thing you know you're quitting your job
at the law firm because you're so busy managing the butter. If women
never start playing the household-manager role, the house will be dirty,
but the realities of the physical world will trump the pull of gender
ideology. Either the other adult in the family will take a hand or the
children will grow up with robust immune systems."
I argue with her dirt analysis. Women are not, by definition, the cleaner ones. I know many families where the opposite is true (Ahem. And PLEASE do not give me that absolutely heinous line I have been handed before about our reversal of cleanliness stereotype being due to Wes' gender of birth – that is hooey). The key lies in no one person being in charge of all elements of the home – that much is true. It has to be shared. This has to be agreed upon and demonstrated before childbearing.
The economics bit is important. If I were more scholarly (or less interested in spending my nights on Twitter and Facebook), I might have read this important book on the topic: The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much? by Leslie Bennetts. She calls staying home a DANGEROUS choice for women. The average age of widowhood is 55, according to this NPR interview with the author from 2008. There is a definite argument to be made for women finding financial self-sufficiency for that reason alone, not to mention the possibility of divorce.
"If you are 35 and you're home with your children, you might say, "Oh,
it's worked out really well for me." But what about if you're 50 and
your husband leaves your or dies or gets sick or incapacitated or loses
his job and you're suddenly struggling to support your family. What
you're likely to find if you try to go back into the workplace at a
moment of crisis or need is that you can't get back in and get a decent
job with benefits. This is a very unpleasant surprise for women who
suddenly find that they do need to earn a living."
She points out that the ageism and sexism of the world kicks in quickly, and that if you are going to take time out of the workforce, you should be positioning yourself through volunteer work or part-time jobs that keep you on track in your chosen career.
Finally, there is the role model piece. It is not to be taken lightly. I do believe that one of the reasons the world continues to be full of women tending home and children, the way that seems to feel right for so many families, is that the world has just always been that way. One of the reasons it could never feel right for me may be that my mother worked her butt off. She never intended to be home with me and stayed home for just two weeks after her c-section. She did not mourn it. She was proud of her work (even when she was a "secretary" for a ton of years – she stayed with Intel for decades and eventually became something she called a liaison between geeky tech people and non-techish executives). It never occurred to me to stay home until… I found myself at home for a year. And then I began to see how easy it is to get sucked in, how lovely and squishy little babies are and how surely no one could care for him better than I, how nearly all the other women in my mom's group were not planning to return to work any time soon (save the mom who writes screenplays and works at home – she had a nanny lined up almost from birth). It was harder than I expected to go back to work, and there was no choice involved (unless selling our house and changing our entire way of life could be called a choice). It is easy to see how I might have wanted to stay with him longer if there was a choice. And this sort of decision is helping to form our children's ideas about what normal is – if they see a whole bunch of moms with the kids, our daughters will believe that this is one of those woman things and our sons will, however subtly, conclude the same.
My point is that the world has to look different for our kids to believe in the difference being possible and important. And therefore it can't just be simply an individual choice.
I got started with all of this because of the recent Times article about Sweden. They now have 13 months of paid parental leave and two of those MUST be taken by the father. This has led to actual social change. The interesting bit is how they got to this point – they gave the leave to each family to divide as they liked. That didn't change the fact that moms took all the leave. It was only when the government MANDATED that men must take part of the leave that things started to change, that companies started working with flexible work times, that child-rearing no longer felt like a primarily female area of life.
I have a feeling the US is many many many many years away from this sort of social development. I am not even sure we will see such a thing in my lifetime. Which means that women have to keep working toward this sort of change from within our own families. We have to find spouses who are committed to equal parenting. We have to keep our foot in the work force for the sake of our brains and our finances and as a model of what the world should look like. This is from a 2006 Slate article:
"[I]f women really do stay in the work force, even part-time, a few decades
from now it may be easier for parents to opt out according to their
personal preferences, rather than their gender. If one parent didn't
want to assume the bulk of the child-care duties, as may well be the
case, two could split it. The demand for elastic or part-time work by
men and women alike would lead to more flexible jobs."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10659
Why Women Should Work
http://www.slate.com/id/2144505
Off to Work She Should Go
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/opinion/25hirshman.html?_r=1
Why a Woman Should Work
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/29/feminine_mistake/
Work-Life Balance: Why Can't American
Women Have It All
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natalia-lopatniuk-brzezinski/work-life-balance-why-can_b_578897.html
6 Reasons Working Mothers Say Thanks
http://workingmoms.about.com/od/todaysworkingmoms/a/workingmothers.htm
Work/Life Balance is Not a Women's Issue
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=worklife_balance_is_not_a_womans_issue
Now women can be mothers and work too
http://www.smh.com.au/national/now-women-can-be-mothers-and-work-too-20100618-ymu6.html
4 Reasons Working Mothers Should Skip the
Field Trip
http://workingmoms.about.com/od/parenting/a/skipfieldtrips.htm
The Life A Mother 'Should' Have
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/the-life-that-a-mother-should-have/
Lowering the Bar: When bad mothers give
us hope
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/06/lowering-the-bar.html
In Sweden, Men Can Have It All
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden.html
I think the fundamental flaws in the USA are (a) lack of affordable (dare I say it universal) day care/child care and (b) maternity leave policies. 6 weeks I think most places have – I know at 6 weeks I couldn’t have gone back to work just due to the issues I had physically after my first child. My current fear is that I want to go back to work but we are moving and my other half is hurling himself into a demanding job – meaning that I have to deal with everything else (yes the Butter commentary is true). I think I’m still going to hunt for part time work and just somehow manage all the balls in the air but I fear messing up (forgetting to pick a kid up at school or picking up milk). Moms should work but the current working world doesn’t want moms to work – will we be out too much with kid issues? What they fail to realize is that we’re great multi-taskers, organizers and peace keepers. One day when I rule the world policies like those Canada and Sweden have in place will be the first things put into action!
All true – the current working world definitely does not want us to work. We are the pioneer people who are going to overcome the asshole working world. And you and your spouse WILL mess up – the milk will be forgotten (hopefully not the kid) but things will still work out OK. And it will not be your fault, but rather something the family as a whole will learn to manage! Good luck in the search! Keeping the balls in the air is hard as hell but it A)feels good and B) helps the world change.
I don’t really buy the idea that children think they are the centre of the universe *because* their mothers stay home. This doesn’t explain the incredible sense of entitlement that so many children and young adults have. (And I used to teach college, so I witnessed this with my own eyes.) The problem is that there are way too many lurking variables involved to just single one out as the primary cause. I personally (and this is a controversial opinion, too) think a lot of kids feel entitled because they grew up in families with only one or two kids & therefore were lavished with attention rather than being taught how to self-entertain (which I think is one of the most important things we can teach our children; adults who constantly need external stimulation are some of the saddest people around). I also think that a lot of kids feel entitled because their parents had lots of money to spend on them. Are there other reasons? Of course. That’s the intrinsic problem with this type of sociological argument.
And I would humbly disagree with the premise that our brains will rot if we stay at home. The MAJORITY of paying jobs are not very intellectually stimulating. Hell, I went into academics thinking that I’d get to use my brain when most of the time it was bullshit political game playing. And that was one of the MORE “intellectual” careers out there. I think it is awesome that you have a job that challenges you intellectually, but personally for me if I went back to work in the profession of my training, I’d be bored, stressed, and resentful at having to fork out most of my pay for child care. I’m sure I am not the only one who feels this way.
Plus, for most of us, the time we spend home with our kids is so short. They go off to school and we have most of our lives to pursue other interests. That is not to say that you SHOULDN’T work if you actually WANT to — I think that the happiest and best adjusted children have parents who are happy, whether that means mom or dad or neither parent stays home. So, yeah, if you are staying home out of a sense of obligation, and you would really rather go to work, it will be better for you and your children if you go to work. But if you would really prefer to be home while the children are not in school, you also should not be guilted into GOING to work.
So, yeah, I guess I buy into the whole idea of “choice” in this context. I take issue with the idea that feminism should involve emulating men rather than placing a high value on more “feminine” qualities or pursuits. And I don’t think that occupying a more powerful position in the home or the world is necessarily always the best goal.
I hope this didn’t come off too argumentative. I just wanted to express a bit of the “other side” from the perspective of someone who wants to be home, at least while my children are little.
“like” ala facebook! seriously, a great post. thank you for writing it!
Not too argumentative at all, though I do think we will have to agree to disagree on much of it.
Just this for now:
“a lot of kids feel entitled because they grew up in families with only one or two kids & therefore were lavished with attention rather than being taught how to self-entertain”
I argue that it used to be the case that only children were the main ones who learned to “self-entertain” (see: me!) because we had no constant sibling playmates. What I am seeing now is parents who are always with their kids, constantly moderating their play and extremely involved in their every move.
“They go off to school and we have most of our lives to pursue other interests.”
As far as my professional viewpoint on this, I am seeing large numbers of women who are NOT pursuing other interests once their children start school and are instead involving themselves in every aspect of their child’s
school experience. Some of this is that they have become really wrapped up in their kids’ lives and can’t detach. Some of this is that they have stayed out of the workforce for so long that they are finding it impossible to find work (which, yes, economy… see point A of post, but there is more there than the recession).
I personally do buy into the common good theory, that we have to do the work of making employers more flexible for families by staying in the workforce. I don’t think we have the luxury of choice until men have it, too. There are lots of men who hate their jobs but far fewer of them bow out for childcare. Why?
And all that said, I should also say that I have students whose mothers have been home ten years who are delightful and well-adjusted and I have kids of working parents who are disasters. This is absolutely NOT the only determining factor!
Well done Briar! I truly believe that in order to reach gender equality we have to have equality at work and at home. Home needs to be both parents’ responsibility, and flex and part time work needs to be available to men and women alike. I love the piece about calculating childcare based on both salaries – the one salary calculation is a trap I’ve fallen into in the past and it is BS. Also, I am proud when my sons see me go to work and talk about “Mommy’s office” as well as “Daddy’s office”. Although I work p/t and he is f/t, I think it makes an impression. And finally, I would have less of a problem with women staying at home if men were doing it in equal numbers. Absolutely. Love you. Thanks for writing this.
-Melissa (your Melissa, writing from her OFFICE)
There are parts of this I agree with and parts I don’t, but my brain is too fried (mainly from lack of sleep due to insomnia, whooo) to type anything coherent.
But what about those women who don’t *want* to work? I don’t mean those who are pressured not to, whether they realize it or not. But those for whom their main goal IS the caring and raising of children? I know that it’s a very small percentage of those who do stay home, but they are out there, as well as those who would rather stay home, but HAVE to, for whatever reason, work.
Just curious.
I don’t know. What about the men who don’t want to work and whose main goal is the same? Again, a small percentage, but I can tell you Wes would have stayed home with Beck in a heartbeat if that were feasible in the U.S.
I guess I would say that maybe there is a reason that even the most liberal countries don’t give decades of paid parental leave – you get a bit in exchange for your work toward the greater good or toward your society’s wealth or whatever else your job is. And I really do believe it is of vital importance that parents, at some point, focus on something other than their own children. Perhaps a person whose goal is the caring of small children should go into education?
Thank you for doing all the hard reading and summarising so I can just swan along and digest your eloquent summary. What a cracking post! So much of this speaks to me. The idea of raising a kid with a man of our patriarchy, in our patriarchy, makes me sweat and want to run away. With a female partner, this whole thing is, for us at least, an ongoing and equal discussion.
Perhaps a person whose goal is the caring of small children should go into education?
Well, first, there is a big difference in caring for small children and educating them. Second, I don’t understand how it is somehow better to care for other people’s children than your own. If caring for children isn’t stimulating enough for our brains, does it suddenly become more stimulating if you get paid to do it? And then have to go home and care for your own kids after caring for other people’s kids all day?
No one has the right to tell a woman who neither wants or needs to work that she has to because it’s not fulfilling enough “just” to care for her own children. For some women, that is enough, and who are we to judge them for that? I say that as a working woman who would love the opportunity to work part-time and be home part-time, but financially that is not feasible for us. I just have a very hard time with all the should-ing that goes on in parenting these days. Everyone has an opinion on what someone else should and should not do, and I think that is a big part of what causes the over-parenting that is responsible for this generation of “special snowflakes” who think they’re the center of the universe. We’re told over and over that no matter what decision we make, we’re wrong, which leads to a lot of insecurity and over-compensating. Stay-at-home moms want to compensate for not working by being Super Mom and working moms want to make up for all that time spent away from their children by lavishing attention, praise and material gifts on their kids when they are at home. I do believe there is value to working and any mother who wants to maintain her career definitely should, but there is also value in staying home and caring for your children if that is what you truly want to do and you are able to financially make it work.
I think what I really want to emphasize with this post is that this is way beyond parenting. That was my starting point, maybe, but it is not at all my endpoint. I am talking more about a societal issue that went unaddressed by feminism and that I can imagine correcting only through the discomfort of pushing employers to be more family-friendly (probably only possible from within) and families to be more equal. So that in the long run, our children can conceptualize the world differently and expect more from their own employers and spouses. Alternatively, the government could mandate change like Sweden. I am not holding my breath on that.
And yes, educating other people’s children DOES stimulate the brain in a way caring for one’s own does not.
Thanks for such a nice, thoughtful reply. I agree that I had not thought of only children being forced to self-entertain. Good point. My experience with only children (which I am sure is limited, as I am sure most people’s is) is that their parents bend over backwards to make sure that their life is a carnival. But I acknowledge that this is not to be taken as a general rule.
It is unfortunate that women become so immersed in their children’s lives that they don’t see much of a world beyond it. I do wonder, though, that you might be observing a skewed sample. (Didn’t you say you work in a private school? I would imagine that probably attracts more of “that type” of parent.) I know that I pursue LOTS of other interests, and I’d go nuts without them. But I am also one of those women who, as someone mentioned in a comment below, does not *want* to work while my children are little.
I guess that this one of the points that I want to make: One can be shown a good example of “what a woman can be” in other ways than observing their mom go out to work every day. My mom stayed home with me & my two sisters, but she also ran a business from inside the home. Yes, I do stay home now, didn’t for a long time, may go back to work in the future. But one of the things that my mom taught me (by word and by example) was *not to let what I do define who I am*. And that applies both to career AND to momhood. I think that what you are seeing is a lot of women who *define* themselves solely as mothers. And I agree that that is dangerous. Absolutely. I hope this makes sense.
Anyway, thank you for such a thoughtful & interesting post. This is a fascinating discussion.
Sorry, forgot to answer that last question. I suspect that men (in general) derive more of their self-esteem from being the breadwinners and that a lot of them would equate staying home with emasculation. I am NOT saying this is right (it isn’t), but I think it is reality.
In our case, it was a no-brainer for me to be the one at home. (And we have 4 kids — 2 are my husband’s from a previous marriage & live with us, 2 are “ours”, so childcare would have been prohibitively expensive even if I had adored my work.) My husband had tenure, and I didn’t. HUGE difference.
One more thing — absolutely agreed that this society does suck when it comes to being friendly toward mothers working. I am a Canadian immigrant to the US, and while I prefer here to there (for many reasons), Canada is far far far better when it comes to encouraging mothers to work. In academics at least, I have seen women punished in terms of advancement for having a baby. That would never, ever happen in Canada.
Great article, Briar. I have two little kids and I have always known that I wanted to continue to work full-time. It’s more satisfying for me to earn the income to support paid childcare and housecleaning than to do those things myself full-time. My husband took paternity leave (unpaid FMLA time) with both kids and it definitely helps shatter that idea that women are better at housekeeping/childcare to leave the guy in charge of it for a while. He treasured his leave, as I did mine, learned how to be the full-time caregiver, and has (I think) a closer relationship with our sons because of it.
As a stay at home mother, it’s hard not to feel a little provoked by this post, but as a feminist of course I agree with a lot here: if my daughter has kids, I don’t want her to feel that she has to stop working and stay home with them just because that’s what women are *supposed* to do. And now that we’re in the suburbs, working moms are a rarity so I feel all the more compelled to provide a different example for my kids.
But: I’m home with my kids now because my salary would have only just covered the cost of childcare. I did work (part-time and freelance) for the year after my oldest was born, and I was happy with that arrangement, but it’s not something I’ve been able to replicate since my daughter was born–not that I’ve had the opportunity to really look.
I plan to go back to work when my kids are older–right now the plan is to go back when my daughter starts kindergarten in two years and childcare becomes less complicated.
I do think it’s funny that your post and many of the comments equate stay at home parenting with stay at home housekeeping. In my world, these two are not remotely the same. I’m home to parent, not to clean. The house is a mess…until my husband picks up the vacuum.
I understand the desire for increased equality, and believe me I am all for more family-friendly policies and workplaces. I would kill for a more flexible work schedule or more maternity leave after my son was born. I just don’t think we get there by making stay at home moms feel like they are part of the problem because of the choice they have made for their family.
And just to clarify one of my previous points – I’m not talking about teachers. I’m talking about the babysitters, nannies and daycare workers who are changing the diapers, wiping the noses, taking to the potty, and doing all the other dirty work of caring for children while their mother is working. A lot of those people are also parents and must then replicate that work all over again when they get home.
Wow, I’m impressed! I can’t read through all of the comments yet, because I am here with a sick kid who wants my computer. Forgive me if I repeat something someone else said. I did read the few comments. I wanted to address the notion of “self-entertaining.” That is a tricky one (speaking from the perspective of someone who teaches learning disabled kids, many of whom lack a strong executive function). My mom put me in front of a TV a lot when I was little so that she could do the housework (and because she had no interest in playing with me) – she certainly was not the image of today’s SAH mom – and TV is not something that bolsters executive function! Today’s moms are much more anti-TV, and yet we have increasing attention deficit (including milder forms that don’t necessarily impair learning). I don’t think that we can answer to the issue of kids today being needy for entertainment without looking at a lot of things, not all of the related to parenting. Just wanted to put that out there.
One thought that came to mind, when reading your post, is that I actually don’t know many people who love their jobs. That seems to be a general state among most working adults (not all), these work blahs. And since women on average are paid less than men, and since it is more accepted my society for women to not work than it is for men, I think opting out of work is often a response to the blahs. This root reason is masked by the virtues of staying at home with your kids. Men would probably do it too if they could and be accepted.
I really do enjoy being with my kids once I get into it. I like summers and school vacations and all that. I don’t generally get sick of it. But I think that’s because I know that I will be returning to work when school starts up. There are times I consider not working because life is really complicated with 3 kids, 2 of whom have special needs, and it would in many ways be easier to just manage the household, for my family and for me too.
For me, I work because I like it to some degree, and I do think I should be on a career path so that if something happened to my husband we would be okay. Also, if he wants to change careers or something, I’d be able to provide (well, not in nyc, but you know). I was one who went back to work p/t when my twins were almost 2 b/c I wanted to use my skills, and when I did I made the same as my childcare provider at first – for real! I may have made 50 dollars per paycheck. Now I work f/t.
In the end, it’s all about balance for me. We should ALL have more balance. I’m not just talking about going away for a spa weekend- that’s nice but it’s not a permanent solution. When I say balance, I’m talking about using different parts of our brains, meeting an array of responsibilities, answering our psychological and spiritual needs – all of that takes time and effort, and that means we can’t be doing and focusing on just one job all of the time (mothering or pursuing a career). Men especially need more balance, if you ask me. There is a lot of male depression out there because they lack balance. So this is not all about what is best for women. One thing we also need in terms of balance is to have a good, living relationship with our partners – going on dates, getting alone time- and modeling that for our kids. THAT will help show them that they are not the center of the universe! I really believe that’s important even when we don’t feel like it.
thanks for writing this and giving everyone something to chew on. xoxo
You should check out the cover article of this month’s Atlantic, which is entitled, “The End of Men,” and is about if and how power and gender are shifting in this country.
Many thoughts, but starting with this: I think that many families, like mine, are exploring solutions where both parents work, but not full time. Or one works full time and one works part time. For me, working full-time has been made much easier by having a husband who is freelance and has very different hours than me. Interestingly, his identity is still very much tied up with his career, and he does not see himself as a stay-at-home-dad, although he does the vast bulk of the daytime parenting. I’m not sure I would be able to manage my career in the same way I do if I had a professional caregiver at home with the kids instead of him. And I’m not sure he would be able to manage his career the way he does without the stability of my income, insurance, etc. Our kids know that everyone works, and that what work looks like is different for different people. I think there might be a “third way”, as there seems to be for many of the families of artsists/writers/freelancers we know.
One additional thought. My husband does the vast majority of housework. He is definitely neater by nature than me. (And he was born biologically male so there’s another one for your stats.) But he is also home more, and has more time to do these things. It isn’t equal, but it works for us. Is that somehow ok because he is male but wouldn’t be if I worked flexible hours and took on more housework? Not sure….
I have to say that your post made me feel slightly ashamed of being a stay at home mom, which I’m sure was not your intent. But there are so many stereotypes out there that make it seem like stay at home moms are not contributors, are often not educated to make enough money to cover daycare, are spoiling their children. I have a university degree, and always planned to be a career women, until I had kids. I found a whole other way of life, and I enjoy it – I have other interests, have hobbies etc. so I don’t feel like I am ‘just a mom’. Our current life situation does not allow me to work (there are actually no jobs where we live) and there is no daycare available at all even if I did want to work. I plan to eventually return to work, but I don’t think my life or my kids lives are being affected negatively by me staying home. Just my two cents.
Aside from that, I am a long time reader and have to say I enjoy ever blog you write – whether I agree with it or not!
Really excellent comments, meanmama, my friend.
It is really interesting that he does not see himself as a SAHD (did he when they were smaller?). I am sure Wes would not call our housework equal either, though that is more about his (slightly insane) timeline for how quickly things need to happen. And thanks for the reading rec.
No, it’s my intent to make anyone ashamed, and it sounds like your situation is obviously complicated by location. There are a zillion complicated situations that can’t all fit my dream world, obviously. I guess my main point was trying to be that even though it might work for individual families, it is not working for society as a whole and, in my opinion, one thing that might start making employers act more flexibly is if moms stopped dropping out of the workforce and instead kept on pushing for what we need. And subsidized childcare, obviously. Or just moving to Sweden. Sigh.
Ugh. Thst should say it is NOT my intent to shame! Can’t correct on iPad (Typepad, will you please make a mf’ing app with some actual functionality!??).
See you soon!!!
Yes, some of this may be easier in some ways. Though most of our straight friends have partnerships that are similarly equal to ours, and some of our lesbian friends struggle with unequal shares of home responsibilities, so in that way it can be a problem for anyone.
That is awesome that your husband was able to do that!
That’s a good point about the cleaning and it’s definitely true that I did not clean the year I was home!
I have mixed feelings about the matter and generally I don’t like using the word “should” … as if there is one answer. I guess my general issue is dealing with workplace issues. When thinking about spending the days home with my child or being at work and dealing with dysfunction, egos, attitudes and incompetence, guess which wins out? Sure I am using my degree in my work and being a productive member of society but to what end? So my kid sits at daycare across the parking lot (he attends a daycare at my job) to be hit and bitten by the others in his toddler class and half of my monthly take-home pay goes to pay for that? But I can’t even consider seriously quitting (though I do all of the time) because I would be out of health insurance and retirement. My partner does not have the option of putting me on her health insurance. Risk bankruptcy and lack of health care if an serious illness came along? Leave my child to take care of me when I am older because I don’t have any retirement savings? See the dilemma? I guess when there really are no other options but to work, the grass will always be greener.
LOL, I figured that! I definitely can agree that things will not change if people don’t push for it, so you do have a very good point there. You have started a great discussion here, and it is something that almost all moms are faced with, so that’s great!
I love that you’ve started this conversation. Check out http://themamabee.com/ – I find her posts fantastic, even though I am not in the corporate world (I get to work part-time in a “creative” field, while also doing some free-lance work and assistant work that is not so remunerative in terms of money. Meanwhile, my husband earns the salary that supports us, and I manage all affairs domestic and manage the children — to his credit, my husband helps me immensely). Also, check out: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/weekinreview/20parkerpope.html
I am able to work part time, freelance, and I love it … I agree that I am happier, a better wife/parent because of it. In one sense my working is a “luxury” … I don’t think I even cover the cost of childcare, frankly, as my hours average out to about 15/week …I’m sure many women don’t have the option to do that. On the other hand, though, it is keeping my working connections/skill set/resume intact, so that when the kids are bigger (right now they are 6, 3, and 6 months) it will be easier for me to just ramp up work, not start from scratch.
I can also scale my work to accommodate kids’ activities, cooking family meals (which I LOVE to do and would not give up but which is somewhat time consuming), and managing/paying someone to clean (because I hate that part of being the stay at home spouse).
I am the primary “domestic” organizer/working/child tender in the house, but so long as I am not doing it all day, every day, I enjoy that much more than I would working full time — even at a job I like. I feel like that is a legitimate preference and I’m happy my life works out that way.
I feel very, very fortunate to have the set up I do and to see a clear path to working throughout adulthood. I did spent almost 10 years as a corporate attorney at a big firm, building my skills/connections, before I tried this pared back/freelance type gig I have now. I would absolutely HATE that type of job if I still had it but it did serve a purpose.
Hi Briar,
I haven’t read your blog in forever, but I happened to see this today and just had to say thank you for writing something so smart and right on. I know, I’m late to the party. But thanks.