Atlantic article-- Women can't have it all

[justamouse]

He said that men don't see work as sacrificing family time. They see work as the sacrifice FOR family. I know very few women who think this way about their careers in an absolutist way.

 

 

 

:iagree: and so does my Dh.

 

I saw her on MSNBC and I wanted to smack her. She had to downgrade to a Princeton Professor. Awwww, poor baby. What about the mom working at the local Hallmark who needs that job to pay her rent, food, whatever, whose kid is shuffled between day care and school, and this gerbil wheel is the next 20 years of her life? I feel sorry for THAT mom, because her choices are in no way, "can I telecommute?" (which she talked about on the show).

 

You can't have it all. You never could. You have to prioritize your sacrifices.

Edited June 25, 2012 by justamouse

[beaners]

I just wonder why these pressures seem to be much more shoved onto women than men. I don't think at any point my husband worried or was upset that he didn't spend more time with our son in the beginning. He also didn't seem to care or worry about the house being in order.

 

 

My husband wasn't too worried about the house (unless his parents started complaining about how dirty it was), but he absolutely was worried about how much time he spent away from my oldest when she was first born. And we were even living near my family at that point.

 

Then, when my oldest was only a few months old, my husband had to be on the road for several months. He was only home a few days every other week. He was very worried about missing out on that time with our daughter. He was concerned about working 70+ hour weeks, every single week, and barely seeing her. As we've added more children to our family, that worry hasn't gone away.

 

If people ask, this is actually one of our main reasons for homeschooling. My husband's days off are almost never on the weekends. He is almost never home on time for dinner. If we were bound to a traditional school schedule, our children would never see their father. My husband's parents don't quite get it. They are of a generation where that kind of sacrifice is expected. It's just what you do. Neither of us want that.

 

I don't know how many other fathers feel that way. I doubt my husband would ever suggest at work that he would love to have the option of working less and spending more time with his family. People seem to look on that statement from a man with incredulity, when it isn't so shocking for a mother to say. We've looked into a lot of options for me to work more and my husband to work less. Unfortunately, we seem to move for my husband's job before we can get any of those off the ground. (Yet another common career obstacle for mothers, right?)

[Parrothead]

:iagree: and so does my Dh.

 

I saw her on MSNBC and I wanted to smack her. She had to downgrade to a Princeton Professor. Awwww, poor baby. What about the mom working at the local Hallmark who needs that job to pay her rent, food, whatever, whose kid is shuffled between day care and school, and this gerbil wheel is the next 20 years of her life? I feel sorry for THAT mom, because her choices are in no way, "can I telecommute?" (which she talked about on the show).

 

You can't have it all. You never could. You have to prioritize your sacrifices.

:iagree:

[ktgrok]

:iagree: and so does my Dh.

 

I saw her on MSNBC and I wanted to smack her. She had to downgrade to a Princeton Professor. Awwww, poor baby. What about the mom working at the local Hallmark who needs that job to pay her rent, food, whatever, whose kid is shuffled between day care and school, and this gerbil wheel is the next 20 years of her life? I feel sorry for THAT mom, because her choices are in no way, "can I telecommute?" (which she talked about on the show).

 

You can't have it all. You never could. You have to prioritize your sacrifices.

 

I've read the whole article, and heard her in 3 different in depth interviews. At no point did I think she wanted us to feel sorry for her, or was looking for sympathy. She says she is VERY happy doing what she is doing, and knows she is lucky. Her whole point was that SHE is lucky, but working a different job, outside of academia opened her eyes to how hard things are for people outside of academia. Some of her solutions had nothing to do with telecommuting, they had to do with syncing work hours and school hours, offereng more part time or flexible work, etc.

 

Am I the ONLY one that gets her point? She always, since she was in college, has wanted that job in the state department. It is like a kid wanting to grow up to be president or something. She dreamed of it for DECADES, only to realize it wasn't really feasible for a woman with a family. And just wants to open up that discussion, because she grew up being told yes, you can have any job you want if you work hard, plan well, etc. Well, she did all the right things, and yet it still doesn't work. And she isn't whining about it, she's just talking about it, because in many circles that is NOT an ok thing to say, and it is NOT talked about.

[ktgrok]

I heard her interviewed on NPR on Friday. I couldn't really put my finger on why the interviewed annoyed me so much, as I completely agreed with everything she was saying. I think I have it figured out, though.

 

I think what annoyed me is that she is acting like an authority, and somewhat a prophetess, on something that millions of us figured out a long time ago. Millions of us made that choice, with a bigger sacrifice than she, long before she brought it to the public forum. She isn't espousing anything new, even though she is treating it like some revolutionary enlightenment of her own making.

 

 

I know that many of us already know this, but it is NOT acceptable to SAY it in many circles. It is considered anti feminist, or putting limits on women, etc etc. She isn't the first to figure it out. She is the first in a certain demographic to be willing to talk about it publicly.

[elegantlion]

nm

Edited June 25, 2012 by elegantlion
changed my mind

[kokotg]

 

 

 

I mean yeah, getting into academia is great. But it takes years. And within some disciplines they want people who have spent some time working outside of academia. So it can take years to get to that point. This isn't something most people are going to obtain at 25 or even in their 30s. And those are the years many people are having kids. I didn't want kids too young, but I also didn't want them in my 40s. My mother died at 49 so 40 seems ancient to me (and being that I'm close to 40 I do realize at this point it certainly is not, but I still didn't want to wait that long).

 

:iagree:

 

Had I enjoyed grad school a bit more, my life could have looked a lot more like the author's (although I'm pretty sure neither Princeton nor Hillary Clinton would ever have come calling) ;). I remember hearing these kinds of discussions back then. It was an open secret that one (middle aged, childless) female professor in our department had been very against hiring another female professor precisely because she was young and in the middle of having kids. I read an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about how common it is for women in academia to try to time their pregnancies to give birth over the summer, so that they wouldn't need to take maternity leave. Some women interviewed in the article actually gave up on having children if the timing didn't work out by the time they were in their late 30's. Having a baby in the fall or winter simply wasn't an option. A friend, who also had a baby while still in school, told me that it was generally accepted that women could either have babies before finishing their dissertations (and then dealing with the repercussions of being a woman with a young family while job hunting) or they'd need to wait until they got tenure somewhere. In short, academia is a fairly good environment to work in while raising a family....IF you manage to get tenure and manage to actually HAVE kids.

 

These kind of discussions always feel so foreign to me. Especially the parts about men. But I guess DH and I know we're kinda weird.

[ktgrok]

So, it is sorta like she's the last one at the party to figure out that the hostess is (fill in the blank), but we are all supposed to herald her discovery even though everyone else knew for a long time that the hostess was (fill in the blank).

 

No..not really. It is more like she is the only one willing to talk about something that was hidden, not like something no one was willing to be rude about.

 

Women are STILL being told that if they plan right they can have any job they want, and a great family life. She is saying hey, maybe we need to be more realistic and tell these young graduates that no, that really isn't true. Maybe we need to change things so it IS true. Either way, we need to stop saying that there isn't a problem with having it all, because there is.

 

She has gotten a lot of flak from high level women workers for saying what she is saying. They still don't want to acknowledge it.

[cathmom]

No..not really. It is more like she is the only one willing to talk about something that was hidden, not like something no one was willing to be rude about.

 

Women are STILL being told that if they plan right they can have any job they want, and a great family life. She is saying hey, maybe we need to be more realistic and tell these young graduates that no, that really isn't true. Maybe we need to change things so it IS true. Either way, we need to stop saying that there isn't a problem with having it all, because there is.

 

She has gotten a lot of flak from high level women workers for saying what she is saying. They still don't want to acknowledge it.

 

I guess we don't run in those rarefied circles... :D

[SKL]

I actually don't believe that, overall, men are further along the "have it all" continuum than women.

 

Women have so many options open that are not judged they way they would be for men. In addition (call me sexist if you want), women have a broader range of useful natural talents than men. These statements apply to both our professional and personal lives.

 

If you're talking in terms of dollars, then yes, men are ahead. But money isn't everything.

[justamouse]

I've read the whole article, and heard her in 3 different in depth interviews. At no point did I think she wanted us to feel sorry for her, or was looking for sympathy. She says she is VERY happy doing what she is doing, and knows she is lucky. Her whole point was that SHE is lucky, but working a different job, outside of academia opened her eyes to how hard things are for people outside of academia. Some of her solutions had nothing to do with telecommuting, they had to do with syncing work hours and school hours, offereng more part time or flexible work, etc.

 

Am I the ONLY one that gets her point? She always, since she was in college, has wanted that job in the state department. It is like a kid wanting to grow up to be president or something. She dreamed of it for DECADES, only to realize it wasn't really feasible for a woman with a family. And just wants to open up that discussion, because she grew up being told yes, you can have any job you want if you work hard, plan well, etc. Well, she did all the right things, and yet it still doesn't work. And she isn't whining about it, she's just talking about it, because in many circles that is NOT an ok thing to say, and it is NOT talked about.

 

But guess what? When you HAVE KIDS, you make the decision to bring another human being into this wold that you are responsible for. I don't think that was lost on her. She wanted her cake and wanted to eat it too. She wants it all? Don't have kids. Can't make it to the moon because you had kids? I don't feel sorry for you. Get your priorities straight.

 

 

I heard her interviewed on NPR on Friday. I couldn't really put my finger on why the interviewed annoyed me so much, as I completely agreed with everything she was saying. I think I have it figured out, though.

 

I think what annoyed me is that she is acting like an authority, and somewhat a prophetess, on something that millions of us figured out a long time ago. Millions of us made that choice, with a bigger sacrifice than she, long before she brought it to the public forum. She isn't espousing anything new, even though she is treating it like some revolutionary enlightenment of her own making.

 

Personally, I strived hard to become an officer in the military. After trying to juggle military service with motherhood of infant twins, something had to give. Since I couldn't give back the twins, I sacrificed my career. It was a very difficult decision, because active miliary service is NOT something you can return to once you leave. Once you're out, you're out. It killed me to do it, but I did it for my kids.

 

Nothing she said is anything millions of us haven't already experienced in some fashion.

 

There you go. Exactly.

 

I guess we don't run in those rarefied circles... :D

 

:D

 

Yup!

[JessReplanted]

We needed our parents much, much more than they thought. That is probably why I am a SAHM and hser. I don't think I would ever work more than part-time while raising my kids unless it was a survival situation.

 

You can't have it all. One parent or both working together have to make sure the kids have their needs met. It does usually fall to the mom - whether it is sexist or biologically based and not fair that is just the way it is. Kids' needs have to be considered not just treated as cats who don't need a lot of interaction.

 

:iagree:

 

I agree, and my childhood experience was the same way. We really weren't 'raised', we just grew up.

[ChristyB in TN]

I own a business with my husband so my experience is different than most. We work all the time, it seems, and it really isn't fun. However, I have flexibility and a fantastic relationship with my husband. I am sitting here at my kitchen table eating a veggie burger and talking to you all because my youngest son had basketball camp and I needed to bring him home. I am going back to work, though. I have the ability to leave when I need to, homeschool my son in my office, and set my schedule around my kids. My life is privileged and I know it.

In response to the article, no I don't think we on can "have it all" comfortably, without doubt and regret. I'm not completely sure what "having it all" means, but I certainly don't and I have it better than anyone I know. I don't sleep well most of the time and right this second my chest is hurting and I keep grinding my teeth. I have employees, taxes to pay, my stupid phone rings all the time and I really want to go get in the pool. I have two kids in college who need me to listen, nurture, and provide for them. My little guy is such a joy and needs me to listen to lots of his stories about his daily adventures. My husband is the most incredible man I have ever met and even though we work together, I don't feel like I get to see him enough. I am responsible for my home. I am a daughter and I honestly am not a very good one. I stay sane by running and practicing yoga. I run marathons. Society has placed the extra burden of manicures and pedicures (I've never had either) and the fashion police. Nice. When did the crazy manicure expectation happen? I volunteer with the CASA organization, have a bunch of homeless people I love and give money to when I run by them, and we support a few others when they need it. We are not wealthy, when we need money, we work harder and longer and are grateful to be able to do so.

I can't do it all. I can't have it all. As a woman, and as much as I dislike labels, I am a feminist, I resent that we all have to lumped together with the expectations of others. Having it all may mean being able to provide for my family monitarily, emotionally, physically and mentally without dropping any balls. Nope, I drop them all the time but so do men. We are not better or smarter than men, they can't do it and neither can we.

I am headed back to work and am grateful for my sweet neighbor who has taken my son to the pool with her kids. She works nights and home schools. We make a good team. She doesn't have it all either. ;) I enjoyed the article because she is right and society has to give us a break, just like we need to give ourselves one. I won't have it all but I will have a good marriage, well educated, articulate, and resourceful kids, a fit body, healthy emotions, and a way to make a living. I won't have a mani/pedi.:D

[ChristyB in TN]

She was also on Fresh Air with Terry Gross this week ... I heard parts of this (in the car ... with my children) ... I really want to listen to it undistracted, but haven't yet.

 

I got to listen today, it was good. Terry Gross is awesome.

[butterflymommy]

:iagree:

 

I agree, and my childhood experience was the same way. We really weren't 'raised', we just grew up.

 

This was my experience too. My mother considered herself a feminist, which to her meant work and school always came first. I remember at a very young age being confused as to why she was ignoring me while she was at the typewriter writing essays, why she was rarely home, why she was so much happier when I saw her at work, and why she generally seemed to regard us as nuisances.

 

But... she wasn't all that nice, kind or caring in general and I sometimes think it was a good thing she was out of the house as much as she was. So I can't pick apart what was the "feminist" and what was a woman who just didn't like kids (including her own :001_huh:). This and many other experiences (attending a feminist college) left so many bad tastes in my mouth that I do not consider myself a feminist. But to each his own, which is why I'm not being soap boxy with my daughters. I have warned them, vaguely, that having children-- at least a lot of children like I have-- and a demanding career are not things easily meshed. And their education is paramount to me even if they "do nothing" with it. I was friends growing up with a very conservative Christian family that openly encouraged their daughters not to use birth control once married and to be houswives. Yet they made sure that all of their daughters were highly educated. I think on this board, the concept of education for its own sake is a notion that can be appreciated.

[justamouse]

:iagree:

 

I agree, and my childhood experience was the same way. We really weren't 'raised', we just grew up.

 

 

That's what happened with me too. I had NO idea how to raise a child. I only knew how not to do it.

[TammyS]

I haven't read all the comments here, but I just have to say that I have always found the notion of "having it all" to be stupid beyond human toleration. It's not a feminism issue, a family/work issues, a career vs. child raising issue, it's an ADULT issue. You can't have it all. No one can. And the idea that an entire group of people bought into it makes my head explode for the gullibility of some people. All of us make choices. This *reality* way predates feminism.

 

Eve could bite the apple or obey, but she couldn't do both.

My husband can have the lights on or play trombone all day, but he can't do both.

I can have $400 or a drum carder, but I can't have both.

 

Way beyond the issue of whether, how, and how much mothers should work, "having it all" is poster child of stupidity and the sooner we get rid of it the better off humanity, not just women, will be.

[Firefly]

NPR had another segment on this this morning, and they addressed many of the points raised here--especially the part about it really being a *family* issue, not just a women's issue. I couldn't agree more.

[TranquilMind]

Have you guys seen this article? It's written by a former director of policy planning for the State Department. She left her job because her teenage son was having problems and she wanted to spend more time with her family.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-can-t-have-it-all/9020/?single_page=true

 

And here is an article about the article on the nytimes (the reader comments on this one are interesting):

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/elite-women-put-a-new-spin-on-work-life-debate.html

 

I find it disturbing that even the upper echelons of working mothers struggle so heavily with meeting their families' needs. I'm a SAHM so I'm divorced from the dilemma, but I have six daughters coming down the education/ employment pipeline. While I try not to impress upon them too heavily my opinions on the matter-- I would prefer they make their own choices about career and motherhood-- none of the current or perceivable future options fill me with much confidence for them (though I do my best to hide my pessimism).

 

What are your thoughts? :bigear:

You CAN have it all. You just can't have it all at the same time.

[Rosy]

Add me to the group that wonders what the "it all" is. Unlimited wealth? Few families have that even with both partners working. Unlimited career potential? Motherhood is hardly the only factor that limits career growth. Happiness/satisfaction in life? I pity anyone for whom a career is the deciding factor in this.

 

People who live near supportive family members have career advantages. People whose kids do not have developmental/behavioral/health challenges have career advantages. People who have a full-time spouse at home have career advantages. People who didn't have to go into debt for their educations have career advantages. People who are naturally talented/intelligent/attractive have career advantages. People who were raised in families that value education and hard work have career advantages.

 

As I write this post, I am looking at an envelope from a charitable organization with the caption, "Worms or dehydration," illustrating the reality that clean drinking water is not available for billions of people in this world. I value my options as a woman, but I just don't have it in me to get too worked up over someone who had to give up a career for another good career because it was incompatible with family life.

 

Her whole point was that SHE is lucky, but working a different job, outside of academia opened her eyes to how hard things are for people outside of academia. Some of her solutions had nothing to do with telecommuting, they had to do with syncing work hours and school hours, offereng more part time or flexible work, etc.

And this is the problem I have with academia. People who are that out of touch with reality have no right to educate students about career options.

 

Do societal changes need to be made so that most or all careers are compatible with family life? I don't know. There are problems with forcing all employers to give certain benefits--some simply don't have the ability to give paid time off, benefits to part-time workers, etc.

[ktgrok]

You CAN have it all. You just can't have it all at the same time.

 

No, sometimes you can't. That was one of her main points. That if you put off kids to get your career on track you may find yourself unable to have children, due to simple biology. If you put off your career to have kids first, depending on your career, may NEVER be able to attain the level of the profession that you wanted. (she mentions academia and law in particular).

 

The idea that you can have it all, but not at once, is the whole idea she was trying to debunk.

[Caroline]

No, sometimes you can't. That was one of her main points. That if you put off kids to get your career on track you may find yourself unable to have children, due to simple biology. If you put off your career to have kids first, depending on your career, may NEVER be able to attain the level of the profession that you wanted. (she mentions academia and law in particular).

 

The idea that you can have it all, but not at once, is the whole idea she was trying to debunk.

 

And the State Department job was a once in a lifetime thing. She will never get a shot at that job again. It is over.

[melissel]

I haven't read all the comments here, but I just have to say that I have always found the notion of "having it all" to be stupid beyond human toleration. It's not a feminism issue, a family/work issues, a career vs. child raising issue, it's an ADULT issue. You can't have it all. No one can. And the idea that an entire group of people bought into it makes my head explode for the gullibility of some people. All of us make choices. This *reality* way predates feminism.

 

Eve could bite the apple or obey, but she couldn't do both.

My husband can have the lights on or play trombone all day, but he can't do both.

I can have $400 or a drum carder, but I can't have both.

 

Way beyond the issue of whether, how, and how much mothers should work, "having it all" is poster child of stupidity and the sooner we get rid of it the better off humanity, not just women, will be.

 

Tammy, tell us how you really feel, ok? :lol:

[Alice]

Yes, but it has been my experience that you first have to have proved yourself as a doctor and been successful before cutting back to part time, or one day a week, or whatever. It would be hard (impossible?)to come out of med school and expect to be hired somewhere just one day a week. Which means delaying family until after college, med school, and years of establishing yourself, at which point you may not biologically be able to have children anymore, and at best are increasing the risk of having genetic issues with your children.

 

Men just don't have that issue.

 

Depends entirely on specialty and on whether you are trying to be solo or work in a large group. In some specialities you can't work part-time at all, it's just not acceptable as part of that culture or it's not worth it to them to hire you. (Malpractice insurance costs the same whether you are part-time or full-time so a part-time doc ends up costing the group more. For a field like OB this has become more and more of an issue and I know many OBs are just not able to hire part-time people anymore.) In some fields, it's very easy to find a part-time position.

 

In my group of 13 docs we have 5 full time and 8 part time. We just hired someone last year right out of residency who only works one day a week. She is young and actually expecting her second child in a few months. So it's absolutely possible to be hired part-time out of training as a young woman and to have children then.

 

I also know some women specialists who are in highly sought-after specialities and that are able to pretty much name their schedule. One is a pediatric rheumatologist who works only 2-3 days a week. There aren't very many in her field, even in the medically over-populated major metropolitan area I am in. Patients and referring docs have to work with her schedule.

 

There are also more and more jobs available as hospitalists and many of those allow for freedom in scheduling and part-time work.

[Bluegoat]

I think if people just realized that raising children was a career itself, they would take a more realistic approach To do it well means that there has to be someone spending the time and attention, or several someones. If you want to have a very demanding career, someone else will need to be spending the time and energy.

 

It sometimes seems to me that feminism has not appreciated or even figured out that child rearing is a career, unless you are someone being paid to raise other people's children.. That is, it has accepted the idea that what is valuble is what is being directly monetarily rewarded. I think this is probably because feminism identified oppression of women directly with economic vulnerability. Therefore they concluded that the answer was to have women enter the same economic marketplace that men were already working in.

 

The question is though, is that marketplace of value really a good thing in the first place? Almost anyone will say if pressed that of course all kinds of things that are not part of it are valued, but the proof is in the pudding and I don't see it at all. We have a social/economic structure that not only has a relation between political power, social power, and monetary standing, but amplifies it to the max.

 

It also drives a huge wedge between the family and economic life, which hasn't always been the case. In most times and places for most people the life of the family as a group has involved working together in some way to make a living as a family. THis is no longer the case for most.

 

Reading that article, these are the things she is really groping towards, but she hasn't figured it out yet. She thinks the changes we need are things like coordinating school and work schedules.

 

Along these lines - one aspect of the article that seemed to bother a lot of people was her "elite" position. I think that was actually kind of important. It probably doesn't really matter in life if the majority of hairdressers are women and mechanics are men. On the other hand, if jobs like policy advisors, senior political positions, judhges, and such are much less appealing to women, that might be something we want to think about as a society. No one can have it all, but maybe there are some demanding jobs where we really need to have representation by both sexes. What might we have to do, or what might we be overlooking or misunderstanding about those kinds of careers, that might help that happen?

[Matryoshka]

On the other hand, if jobs like policy advisors, senior political positions, judhges, and such are much less appealing to women, that might be something we want to think about as a society. No one can have it all, but maybe there are some demanding jobs where we really need to have representation by both sexes. What might we have to do, or what might we be overlooking or misunderstanding about those kinds of careers, that might help that happen?

 

I really like the way the Iroquois handled this. Only men could hold office, but only women could vote.

[ktgrok]

Depends entirely on specialty and on whether you are trying to be solo or work in a large group. In some specialities you can't work part-time at all, it's just not acceptable as part of that culture or it's not worth it to them to hire you. (Malpractice insurance costs the same whether you are part-time or full-time so a part-time doc ends up costing the group more. For a field like OB this has become more and more of an issue and I know many OBs are just not able to hire part-time people anymore.) In some fields, it's very easy to find a part-time position.

 

In my group of 13 docs we have 5 full time and 8 part time. We just hired someone last year right out of residency who only works one day a week. She is young and actually expecting her second child in a few months. So it's absolutely possible to be hired part-time out of training as a young woman and to have children then.

 

I also know some women specialists who are in highly sought-after specialities and that are able to pretty much name their schedule. One is a pediatric rheumatologist who works only 2-3 days a week. There aren't very many in her field, even in the medically over-populated major metropolitan area I am in. Patients and referring docs have to work with her schedule.

 

There are also more and more jobs available as hospitalists and many of those allow for freedom in scheduling and part-time work.

 

I think your point agrees with mine though, that in some fields this works, but there are fields where it just doesn't. And that means if you grew up wanting to be in that field then you have to make a sacrifice one way or the other, you can't have it all.

[cathmom]

I think if people just realized that raising children was a career itself, they would take a more realistic approach To do it well means that there has to be someone spending the time and attention, or several someones. If you want to have a very demanding career, someone else will need to be spending the time and energy.

 

It sometimes seems to me that feminism has not appreciated or even figured out that child rearing is a career,

 

 

But it's not a career. It's something that takes time but I don't think we should call it a career.

[TammyS]

But it's not a career. It's something that takes time but I don't think we should call it a career.

 

I agree. Calling it a career is degrading to the vocation of childrearing...and inappropriately upgrading of mere careerism.

[BigMamaBird]

I agree. Calling it a career is degrading to the vocation of childrearing...and inappropriately upgrading of mere careerism.

 

:thumbup1:

[Dealea86]

I agree. Calling it a career is degrading to the vocation of childrearing...and inappropriately upgrading of mere careerism.

 

No, it's not a career. But it is work, and it has to be done. If mom and dad don't raise the kids and take care of the house, someone else will have to. What does it matter if that person is being paid or doing it for free? The same work must be done either way.

 

I find it so ironic that women who are trying to avoid being oppressed go out and get a high paying job, only to pay other people minimum wage (or close to it) to clean their house, watch their children, cook their food, etc.

 

(To be clear, I'm not talking about women who work because they love their job or desperately need the money. I'm talking about those feminists who believe staying at home is degrading and oppressive.)

[Joanne]

No, it's not a career. But it is work, and it has to be done. If mom and dad don't raise the kids and take care of the house, someone else will have to. What does it matter if that person is being paid or doing it for free? The same work must be done either way.

 

I find it so ironic that women who are trying to avoid being oppressed go out and get a high paying job, only to pay other people minimum wage (or close to it) to clean their house, watch their children, cook their food, etc.

 

(To be clear, I'm not talking about women who work because they love their job or desperately need the money. I'm talking about those feminists who believe staying at home is degrading and oppressive.)

 

I find this mindset and thought to be dismissive of working moms. We rarely (if ever) ask a man why they work - or qualify the validity of their choice by desparate need or "loving" their work.

 

A subset of SAHMs deciding what is "valid" in terms of moms who WOH is an interesting dynamic.

 

Staying at home CAN BE degrading and oppressive. I don't know one single contemporary feminist who does not support families in making the *choice*, and not based on gender centered expectation.

[kokotg]

Staying at home CAN BE degrading and oppressive. I don't know one single contemporary feminist who does not support families in making the *choice*, and not based on gender centered expectation.

 

Linda Hirshman....us educated women who stay home are doing it wrong. We owe it to the marketplace to get our butts out there. Caring for children is for women who are too stupid or poor to do anything else.

 

ETA: uhh, just so it's clear, I'm paraphrasing Linda Hirshman there, not speaking for myself!

[Cassy]

Linda Hirshman....us educated women who stay home are doing it wrong. We owe it to the marketplace to get our butts out there. Caring for children is for women who are too stupid or poor to do anything else.

 

ETA: uhh, just so it's clear, I'm paraphrasing Linda Hirshman there, not speaking for myself!

 

Mmm. That assumes that the 'marketplace' is more important than society. Nah.

[TammyS]

Linda Hirshman....us educated women who stay home are doing it wrong. We owe it to the marketplace to get our butts out there. Caring for children is for women who are too stupid or poor to do anything else.

 

ETA: uhh, just so it's clear, I'm paraphrasing Linda Hirshman there, not speaking for myself!

 

Wow. What a utilitarian view of humanity she has. If our purpose is to serve the marketplace, then we are mere things. And if we are mere things, then really, who cares what we do?

[TammyS]

No, it's not a career. But it is work, and it has to be done. If mom and dad don't raise the kids and take care of the house, someone else will have to. What does it matter if that person is being paid or doing it for free? The same work must be done either way.

 

I find it so ironic that women who are trying to avoid being oppressed go out and get a high paying job, only to pay other people minimum wage (or close to it) to clean their house, watch their children, cook their food, etc.

 

(To be clear, I'm not talking about women who work because they love their job or desperately need the money. I'm talking about those feminists who believe staying at home is degrading and oppressive.)

 

I don't think you understood my statement. My point was that I view childrearing as a vocation, a sacred calling, not mere work.

 

I don't believe there is anything wrong with a person (man or woman) having a career, but I don't think it is even in the same league as something like the raising of children. No job or career, absolutely none, matter at all in the way that it matters whether we do a good job with our children. I believe it to be an apples to oranges discussion. Almost useless, really.

 

If I WERE going to talk about careerism and motherhood on the same playing field, I would use the words of GK Chesterton:

 

“To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors, and holidays; to be Whitely within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes, and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? …a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute.â€

~G.K. Chesterton

[TranquilMind]

No, sometimes you can't. That was one of her main points. That if you put off kids to get your career on track you may find yourself unable to have children, due to simple biology. If you put off your career to have kids first, depending on your career, may NEVER be able to attain the level of the profession that you wanted. (she mentions academia and law in particular).

 

The idea that you can have it all, but not at once, is the whole idea she was trying to debunk.

 

I disagree. You just have to be wise about it. No, you can't be a high-powered professional working 80 hours a week until 50 and still be there for your babies.

 

You can have a career first and then kids, but you just can't wait too late. I did (first kid born when I was 37). And I can go back when they are out of here and attain anything I want. The key is wanting what I can attain given my talents and energy level at that time.

 

No, I can't be a fashion model now, but then...I don't want to be. Or maybe I even could, but I'd be in the Older Mom or Grandma type category.

 

You can practice law, or be a professor anytime. We had one here in my city who was over 100. Many, many women start careers or start new careers in midlife after the kids are grown.

[TranquilMind]

Mmm. That assumes that the 'marketplace' is more important than society. Nah.

 

Right. That woman really, REALLY does not get the point of raising your own children.

[speedmom4]

But, men cannot have it all either. Nobody can. My dh has avoided certain assignments because we don't want to be separated as a family more than necessary. Other guys take those assignments because they don't have families or are divorced or maybe they haven't been deployed before and need the experience. We chose to stay on the military and move around. We don't live close to our families.

 

Of course you have to make choices. Everybody does.

 

:iagree:

 

I listened to the author of the article on NPR and she didn't come across as an elite whiner. She thoughtfully made a difficult decision. I think many women in the work force are faced with those tough situations.

 

I don't know of many families who "have it all". In my world I see either a family with a SAHM and a father who is home a lot but they are struggling financially, a dual income family where everyone is so busy and exhausted but financially stable, or a family with a SAHM and a father who works a lot and misses many things with his family but they are more financially stable.

 

We made the choice years ago that I would stay at home and my husband would bust his rear providing for us. We don't have it all. But we are happy with our choice. I am able to be there for our family 100%. I don't have to balance that with outside work. My husband on the other hand is able to give his job a large portion of his time and energy. Thankfully we are compensated for that. He has missed many recitals, sports events, etc. because of this choice. But for us it has made sense. I know there are many people who criticize families for making the choice we have. We just believe that we can't be financially stable and have a dad home every day at 5:00.

 

God Bless,

Elise in NC

[ktgrok]

I disagree. You just have to be wise about it. No, you can't be a high-powered professional working 80 hours a week until 50 and still be there for your babies.

 

You can have a career first and then kids, but you just can't wait too late. I did (first kid born when I was 37). And I can go back when they are out of here and attain anything I want. The key is wanting what I can attain given my talents and energy level at that time.

 

No, I can't be a fashion model now, but then...I don't want to be. Or maybe I even could, but I'd be in the Older Mom or Grandma type category.

 

You can practice law, or be a professor anytime. We had one here in my city who was over 100. Many, many women start careers or start new careers in midlife after the kids are grown.

 

You were lucky...women's fertility drastically drops in the late thirties. Many women won't be able to have children if they wait that long. And yes, you can practice law, but not at the level a woman may have dreamed of, same with academia. You show up at 45 fresh out of grad school and you are competing with other women the same age who have years of experience, and maybe more importantly, connections.

[mom2scouts]

Interesting articles. I have a professional degree and worked for several years before having children. I LOVED my job. I liked dressing up, getting respected for my knowledge, spending my days with adults, learning new things, and having extra money. When my first child was born, I quit my job and I've been home since then (23 years). Some days are drudgery and I crave mental stimulation. I think that's why I'm enjoying homeschooling so much. I've been told I'm "wasting my education". I've had people turn and walk away because I'm "just a SAHM". Honestly though, I can't even imagine trying to fit my family around a full time work schedule. Homeschooling is almost a full time job because I take it very seriously, but I don't have to be out the door everyday and worry about upsetting the boss. OTOH, I'm not "lucky to be able to stay home". I made many sacrifices when I chose this option for our family.

[Bluegoat]

I agree. Calling it a career is degrading to the vocation of childrearing...and inappropriately upgrading of mere careerism.

 

I agree with you really - I think of it as a vocation myself and I am not enamored of careerism as an end in itself. But I don't think most people really have an idea of what vocation means - a career is the closest equivalent.

 

What I was getting at is that people think they should be able to expect to have a demanding career and a good family life because they do not give family life the same weight or status as a career. They have not even got child-rearing on the same level as career, much less above it.

 

For those kinds of people, I think they would have a far more accurate picture of what childrearing and family life means if they considered it as demanding career in its own right. To say they plan to have a high-powered political career and be the primary child-rearing parent is a bit like saying they want to be in a high powered political career while also being a practicing doctor. Maybe not impossible but no one would think that is something we should expect will work well, or that someone is a failure for not doing both well.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Bluegoat

[stripe]

You were lucky...women's fertility drastically drops in the late thirties. Many women won't be able to have children if they wait that long. And yes, you can practice law, but not at the level a woman may have dreamed of, same with academia. You show up at 45 fresh out of grad school and you are competing with other women the same age who have years of experience, and maybe more importantly, connections.

 

Many people in their fifties are not being hired. It's ageism, and it's illegal, but it's rampant.

[Bluegoat]

Linda Hirshman....us educated women who stay home are doing it wrong. We owe it to the marketplace to get our butts out there. Caring for children is for women who are too stupid or poor to do anything else.

 

ETA: uhh, just so it's clear, I'm paraphrasing Linda Hirshman there, not speaking for myself!

 

There was a speech given I think fairly recently by Cherie Blair on this same theme. Pretty much blasting educated women who decide to stay out of the work-force to take care of their family. She pretty much said they were lazy, they were never going to be satisfied (the implication being that it is not in fact worthwhile work) and that they were cheating other women and all the feminists that worked so hard to make it possible for them to do better things.

 

I am not sure if she stopped to think what this meant about the women who would be paid to take care of their children if they did go back to work. They have disposable minds I suppose.

 

In any case, I have heard this from a number of other people as well - there seems to be a particular sort of feminist - I suspect the ones of my mothers generation - who take this view. I sometimes get the impression they would actually find it more comfortable if they could remove the whole biological birth/breastfeeding thing from women's biology in some way.

[justamouse]

You were lucky...women's fertility drastically drops in the late thirties. Many women won't be able to have children if they wait that long. And yes, you can practice law, but not at the level a woman may have dreamed of, same with academia. You show up at 45 fresh out of grad school and you are competing with other women the same age who have years of experience, and maybe more importantly, connections.

 

Not only does your fertility drastically drop, but after forty, your chances of having a child with Downs in 1 in 8.

[nono]

Well, then there are those of us who have/had a career, and aren't worried about our biological clock. We're called adoptive Moms. Some people really aren't wound up about biology and consider adoption an equal choice to the pursuit of biological children.

 

But if biological children are important to someone, I agree, that needs to be factored into the ;);) "Have it all" plan.