Full-Time Motherhood? How Selfish

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-freshshiller1105.artnov05,0,6618306.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped

Full-Time Motherhood? How Selfish

BY JULIE SHILLER

November 5 2005

Across the nation, privileged young women are seeking to be competitive candidates to gain admittance to prestigious universities. Impressive SAT scores, awards, grades and extracurricular activities are of the utmost importance for college-bound high school students and their families.

The priorities of many of today's elite young women, however, are surprisingly conventional, according to one survey. The most fortunate and educated women say they will conform to traditional gender roles after completing their Ivy League degrees. They are choosing careers as full-time mothers and expect to be supported financially by their successful spouses. Such expectations are utterly selfish and a dishonor to the struggles that the Second Wave feminists (those who came of age in the '60s and '70s) endured for my generation.

Today, many white women who were fortunate enough to be born into wealthy families are taking their limitless opportunities for granted. In a recent article in The New York Times, "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood," Louise Story examines this issue. More than 60 percent of Yale women surveyed concluded that when they become mothers, they plan on working only part time or not at all. Although feminism promotes the right for these elite women to choose, they are unappreciative of their economic privilege. Story claims that they "are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers."

------------------------------

The gist of this moran's argument is that rich people shouldn't do things that poor people can't afford. Hmm, I doubt she going to get much traction with that one. And, as a husband who happily supports a stay-at-home wife who's raising our two-year old (and growing a second, even as we speak!), I'd like to state that Julie Shiller hasn't got a fucking clue.

what else is new

Being a stay at home mom isn't "working hard?"

I've been a full time stay at home mom, worked full time with kids and worked part time with kids. Being a full time stay at home mom, was the hardest.

If someone is going to be a "stay at home" mother, and isn't rich enough to have a nanny, I reckon they're going to work alright.

Did you think stay at home mothers eat bon bons and watch soap operas?

Wealthy women can afford to stay home and raise kids. Some women can't afford the choice.

I worked full time until my kids were 5 and 2, I just got tired of having them asleep when I left and asleep when I got home. I wanted my nanny's job basically!

We scaled down on our lifestyle quite a bit but I know that if my husband didn't have a Union job, there would be no way. He works in TV production and by definition is on and off work with the projects, if we didn't have the Union insurance I would be working full time just for health care.

I'm totally aware that I'm priviledged to even have the choice to not work while my kids are growing up. We live quite a modest lifestyle (four of us in a 2 br house in a working class neighbhorhood) but really it is a priviledge to even have the choice at all, and a lot of it comes down to union benefits. That's why I'm out on doors to get out the vote to defeat Arnie. They would prefer us all to be slaves, I truly believe that.

many of them single parents, who can't make the choice to stay at home. So I do think you should consider yourself privileged.

I also know a man whose wife went off the freaking deep end and ran off with another man and left him as a working single parent -- I tried to help him with pick-ups and stuff whenever I could, his son is in college now and is an awesome kid. My hat's off to working single parents, that is a hell of a lot to handle by yourself.

who decided with her husband to forgo her career since her commute time and work schedule never allowed her to be with her child and the childcare costs were basically wiping out her paycheck. They also cut back considerably. I know her husband would have gladly stayed home too, but she had the nursing equipment.

Loved bringing that huge bright blue milk pump to the office and spending every lunch period and break PUMPING! I FELT LIKE A JERSEY COW, and my coworkers would go out to lunch and bring me take-out. LOL! But it was worth it, both my girls were breast fed for 18 months and steered clear of ear infections or any illnesses, I think it's really important to breastfeed. Highly recommended, and it IS easier in the middle of the night, no bottles to warm, if you keep the baby in your room you hardly even have to wake up.

But you do have a point, not all mothers can afford to not work outside of the home.

I'm so tired of people looking at others' doing what is best for them and labeling it selfish.

Those that choose not to have children? Selfish.

Women that want to utlize birth control, or to have an abortion when realizing they aren't ready to be a parent? Selfish.

Women choosing to stay home with their children? Squandering their limitless choices are of course, selfish.

:wtf:

I'm so sick of that, too. Why do we all judge everyone based on some impossible to meet standard?

I'm a SAHM, and I also teach knitting. Yeah, I must be selfish. Whatever. :eyes:

Men aren't judged and criticized to the extent women are.

If a guy doesn't want to work, he's snubbed by other men. Just look at how little boys play on the playground and the hazing that goes on in schools. Boys do it to each other pretty badly and often violently.

It's just different than how we do it, but some of the most fragile high school students I had were boys. The girls school was actually much, much easier to teach in. I wouldn't teach in a boys school if you paid me as much as Cheney gets from Halliburton.

When my husband abandoned a successful career to stay home to be a full time Dad, he got tons of kudos (including plenty from me) for "having his priorities straight". But when I had a second baby and, out of biological necessity, switched placed with him to stay home, I was told how lucky to be able to "not work" while my husband got tons of kudos for continuing on with his sucessful career after a two year break.

Luckily, my husband never bought into the idea that stay at home moms don't "work". He knows from personal experience how hard it is. We both also know that I am indeed lucky to be able to spend so much time with our kids.

We took a 50% paycut to manage it - we aren't rich by any standard at all - but it's worth it for now.

I think I took the article out of context, or at least misunderstood it's intent. They seem to be referring to the 'priviledged' women that do this, more so than others (like you)...

:hi: Good to see you, knitter4democracy!

Is learning to knit difficult? I can crochet but want to learn to knit. ;)

Crochet has tons of stitches, right? Knitting only has one, the knit stitch. The purl stitch is the backwards version of the knit stitch, so we really only have the one.

It can be hard to get used to two needles rather than one hook, but the left needle does a lot of what your left hand fingers are used to doing with holding things up and helping find the right place to put the hook.

A good place for beginners is the Newbies thread at Knitty.com's messageboards. They have links for learning-to-knit videos online and everything. They're also really nice there (I'm quite the regular in the other threads but go by Bina there).

I can see where they're coming from on the priviledged women making that choice, but I still disagree with it. It's not a bad thing to get an education just for its own sake, and it makes me a better mom that I did and taught for three years first. The reality is, anyone who can stay home with his or her kids is priviledged these days. *sigh* I know it's hard for us some months.

for the link to the knitting boards! I'll definitely check that out!

I miss the time (when I was a wee, little girl) when education was about just becoming an educated human being--and not immediately becoming some sort of launch pad to a job or career. I hate that college has become a 'training center' and not a place to become a better person, a more educated person. In that respect, I agree that it sucks that this article is taking women of any background to task for that.

I know it must be tough some months for you guys having someone at home with the kids--but you are doing a good thing. Keep that in mind, when it gets tough. :hug: I've met so many wonderful moms here at DU! :hi:

Women are always expected to rise to some arbitrary level of perfection and if they don't, selfish whoring Jezebel bitch.

What else is new?

"ugly selfish whoring Jezebel bitch."

;)

no one cares if a woman wants to retire at age 25 and raise kids, but i have to admit considering the very limited slots open in these elite universities it does seem wrong to take those slots, that is a slot that a woman who wants to work -- who NEEDS to work -- could have used to help her break thru the glass ceiling

it sort of seems like another way to make sure that we lower classes don't even have a chance unless we're one of a very few superwomen like martha stewart who can get by on only 4 hrs sleep a night

if it doesn't get yr goat a little that some rich bitch is using a $200K education to be a whizz at organizing the car pool, you're a saint, and i'm sure as hell not a saint

If they want to stay home, that's certainly their choice -- but by using the advantages of their own upbringing (and money does buy choices) to take limited places at elite universities when they have already decided that what they really want is an MRS, not a PhD, they are being selfish.

Selfish -- as in thinking only of themselves, rather than considering the ramifications of their actions on others.

Frankly, as a middle-aged woman teaching college kids, it chaps my hide to hear young women tell me that all they want is a hubby, a home and a litter of babies -- but that is a reflection of my age and my personal philosophy.

Hi! I think I understand from that perspective--when you put it that way.

I totally understand your feeling that way, too.

Having been one that had to work my way through college(no financial support), sometimes three jobs at one time--I understand. I eventually burned out, had a break down of sorts and left school.

As one that worked VERY HARD for the time I did get in school, it is frustrating to hear of those that have the opportunities handed to them and they don't get it... I would have loved to have had the chance to go to school and focus on nothing but school.

training for work?

Do you see no virtue to education for education's sake?

Lastly, are you able to predict with certainty which of those young women will in fact never work - out of choice or neccesity? Or which might, while at college, discover a calling or passion for a subject or career?

I'll see if I can answer them to your satisfaction.

Just training for work/education for education's sake:
I absolutely believe in education for education's sake, however, education can be accomplished at places other than the elite schools, if that is the goal.
In fact, some not-so elite schools might offer more for students interested in that most admirable of goals. A degree from one of the elite schools is as much about the name of the school as it is about the quality of the education -- to have "BA, Harvard U. or BS, Yale U." lends a bit more heft to a resume than "BA, Podunk U." It stinks, but it's a fact.
If a potential employer is reading resumes and sees two equally qualified candidates -- with the exception of where they got their degrees -- the employer is going to lean toward the more prestigious school. If this happens before a face-to-face, the employer will never know that the rejected candidate was the better fit, and that candidate lost out based on nothing more than where he or she went to school. Years ago I worked in the Human Resources department of a Fortune 500 company; it happened. It happens in academia; folks with degrees from the "good" schools go to the top of the pile when hiring time rolls around.
So, (having shamefully digressed!) what I am suggesting is that a degree at a prestigious university is worth, to a large extent, what you DO with it, because of the aura attached to that degree.

I'd love it if everyone came to post-secondary education just because the loved to learn. Most young people don't though, you know? I think that's because we've made education a commodity (another topic, entirely).

As to the last question: no, of course I can't predict any of those things. I am not a seer. I am, however, a teacher -- and I treat all my students equally, whether or not they have made my hair stand on end with statements like "I want at least six babies before I'm thirty!" I encourage all my students to question, to challenge themselves, me, and the world -- to think constantly and critically about everything they see and do, and to try to never let a day pass without learning something.

I would never suggest to a young woman who has decided to marry and procreate straight out of college that she doesn't belong in my class or in school. But that doesn't mean that I think she should try for a slot at a prestigious school just for the cache of the degree. I teach at a community college; my students often don't go on for more than the 2 years of the associate degree; but if they did go on, they wouldn't be one of the privileged vying for the spot, they would be one of the "others."

In the end, and more broadly, it concerns me a great deal that young women are choosing, before they have experienced adult life, to marry, have children, and be wives and mommies. I like wives and mommies; known many, been one -- not an easy job by any means. But also not one that should be number one on a 21st century young woman's list of things to do in life. At least make it number two.

My husband and I worked for four years after college, and when we decided to start a family, we jointly decided that I would stay at home with them until they were in school.

This took much sacrifice on our parts, and it was definitely difficult for me taking care of the three of them all day on limited funds, but it was amazingly worth it all.

I went back to school when our youngest was 18 months old, to get my Masters degree, and then went to work full-time when they were in 2nd, 3rd, and 6th grades respectively.

My staying home from work was a privilege, but one that we both worked hard for, and one that continues to have financial implications (negative) to this day, since we "lost" 11 years of my income. However, my having educated myself and then "NOT WORKING" those years is of no consequence to any other man or woman other than my family.

Since I was qualified to go to school, get two undergrad degrees, and a Masters degree, then my NOT working for those years is nobody's business but my own.

As for "taking slots" that someone else could have taken, I can't believe anyone in this day and age would think that an education needs to be validated by work. Education is the betterment of oneself, the drive to learn more. I daresay that the most important job in my lifetime was the one I didn't get paid for - rearing our three children.

who choose to stay home and take care of their children. There's nothing sadder than hearing about children being in day care from 6 AM to 6 PM every day. Yes, I know, some women have to work. I'm not talking about them.

And, you're not being selfish to get an excellent education! Sounds like sour grapes to me on the part of those who say that. Why not get the best education you can afford? More power to you. That argument about taking somebody else's place reminds of that old canard that working women take jobs from men. Hogwash!

I see new houses selling locally for $600,000 and young couples moving in. Of course, the wife works. Why not buy a less expensive house so that one parent can stay home with kids?

We can't have it all, people.

poverty and a decent life.

Let's not get too caught up in education for education's sake. It's nice when it happens, but for a lot of people in this world, education better be their ticket to something better -- because the alternative can be a lot worse.

decisions when it comes to whether or not they want to work after getting an education.

I'm just pointing out the fact that for a lot of women, education is the best possible ticket out of their situation. That not all are as lucky as, apparently, you are.

I worked very hard, worked long hours, studied my ass off in grad school, scrimped, saved, sacrified, and choose a career that I knew would be in demand for a long, long time.

The older I get, the more I realize that chance and happenstance play a bigger part than most of us like to admit. But I'm glad your choices have worked out so well for you.

However, the poster takes issue with those who get the degrees, yet have no plans to work at all.

People have a right to educate themselves and NOT WORK a day in their lives, just as others have a right to work every day after graduation, and still others, like me, can take a break in between.

I would never, ever criticize someone for his or her choice on the matter. It's just not my business to decide the "right" or "just" way to do things.

I think we were approaching this issue from different perspectives.

:hi:

That Ivy League education isn't wasted on them. For many women, motherhood simply delays the start of their careers. What I'm finding is large numbers of women friends in their 40's and 50's whose kids have grown up and left the household, and the women are just starting to hit their stride in business and other careers. Really, there's something truly empowering about hitting mid-life for women.

Of course, they're probably taking less traditional paths -- the women I know have a hard time getting anyone to take them seriously, after staying home with the kids, degree or no degree.
Of course, a SAHM would probably be the perfect entrepreneur or manager, used to balancing many plates at once.

if you'd dropped out of school in 7th grade. Having all those degrees will just encourage them to believe that education and learning are important.

still wasn't sure what the author's point was.

no, I get it now. I didn't get the implication before, but I do now. Thank you for helping me to see...

I attempted to work my way through college. Wasn't easy at all. Would have loved to have a seat at an elite university with a promise of the kind of future these women would have...

I think it was the latest Atlantic that showed that Harvard's dirty little secret is that it admits only "Harvard" men and women - not the best and the brightest but those judged most likely to continue the status quo of those with status. In other words, if you ain't in the club honey, you ain't going to be in the club. I think just enough newbies get admitted to prevent the lower classes from realizing the class war is going on and we're losing.

that says a lot. What a bunch of crap. Think of all the parents that try to get their kids into such schools, or push their kids mercilessly to get in--thinking their lives will be made if they get in. The truth being they don't have a shot to begin with...

Damn.

WTF are you talking about? Education is not just about careers outside the home, it's about education. If a young woman applies and is accepted to an elite college or university, she is not "taking" someone else's slot, she is taking the slot that has been made available to her that she earned.

"Retire at age 25 and raise kids?" Obviously, you've never raised kids -- it's as far from retirement as could be. Women or men who have the luxury (yes, luxury) and choose to stay home with kids are not wasting their education or retiring. They are working very hard and you are being insulting and degrading.

I have had a career and am now running a successful business from my home - primarily so I could be here for my kids. During that time, I used that education I stole from some more worthy person to homeschool my son for 1/2 a year because he was not in a good situation in his classroom. Now, he's back in school, his brother is away in college and I can concentrate more on my home based career.

I've used my education for far more than a paycheck and I'm grateful for it in every way. I've talked literature with my college son and am in the process of teaching my 8-year-old to think.

In short, I am raising productive members of society. To do so, my husband and I have gone into debt but we felt it was worth it.

I know that many people don't have the same choices I do, but this is not an either/or proposition. As progressives, we should be working to make more opportunities available for all Americans, not denying opportunities based on what a person's goals and ambitions are.

This is ridiculous -- women who aspire to be at-home mothers shouldn't be allowed an advanced education? What is this 1905?

Sundays are bizarre sometimes on DU. :eyes:

Why anyone should have to take a lesser education than the one they merit is beyond me.

I got my privileged college education (although I went to a Christian college that takes anyone in human form, so I didn't steal anyone's slot), I taught high school English for three years, and then I chose to stay home with my children (part of that was an economic decision: I made so little as a teacher that we would still have had to take out med school loans for me to work, and the difference in the amount wasn't worth it).

Education is never wasted. Children do better if their moms have college educations of any kind. We have tons of books around, and I'm always reading to my kids because I'm here to do it. I tried to start my own shop this fall with the kids a bit older and all, but my health sucks, and that put a stop to that.

I refuse to feel guilty about getting a college education and then choosing to stay home. I am our household manager and help my husband work the insane doctor's hours that he has to. I am helping my high-needs kids deal with school and all the attendant issues with that, and I am trying to keep my needs met by teaching knitting and volunteering.

The idea that a BA from an elite college is worth more than one from a "lesser" school is crap. My husband went to a prestigious med school from our podunk Christian college with students from all sorts of backgrounds. The idea that there are only so many resources and that we're keeping others from realizing their goals is crap. There are many colleges and many resources out there for anyone who wants them. They just have to want them enough to work for them--my husband sure did.

you must have missed this quote from the article, so i'll underline it for you--

many white women who were fortunate enough to be born into wealthy families...

these young women have earned nothing, they were born to the silver spoon, that is the point of the anger here

accident of birth. But I'm not prepared to write off the entire Ivy League population as undeserving in terms of real merit.

Someone who is willing to invest $250,000 into an ivy league education should expect some economic return. Heck, if nothing else, society should reasonably expect that those indiviuals who are so blessed should return something.

Education *is* primarily a financial investment.

Lifelong learning and learning for learning's sake does not require a Harvard or Yale diploma. Every town has a library. Only an equally fancy career is justified by it.

Take it from someone who would have loved the opportunity for higher education, and who would have had a more rewarding career because of it. I take offense to the fact that the education I was denied was given to someone seeking only an MRS degree, and I'm disinclined to rationalize that away.

I am puzzled at the desire to defend people who use elite educations not to obtain a rewarding meaningful career, but to obtain an elite marriage.

Colleges pick and choose who is given the privilege of a higher education. I don't think it's unreasonable to pick and choose on the basis of who is going to acutally use it.

no matter what they plan on doing with their education. Same as it ever was. Look at the Bush daughters. Didn't one of them go to Yale? And what gainful employment does she have now?

But I have always felt that the overprivileged don't really deserve their privileges, no matter their gender. How many rich pukes waste their daddy's money getting numerous chances at private schools? Lots of them. I suppose some are actually worth the oxygen they breathe but damn few.

a woman merits one of those slots it's her choice. Maybe she'll someday change her mind, or will be surprised.

There is, after all, not a damn thing wrong with education for the sake of education.

Plus, with divorce rates at 50%, many of these women may find themselves out of the house and in the job market due to financial concerns.

That's exactly it. Jesus, you'd think 4 years at Miss Porter's would do the trick, but no, they have to get that Ivy League degree to cover up for the fact that they are otherwise useless.

I know some of these women and they don't even take care of their own kids - nannies do all the work.

Why not demand that elite schools use some of those billions that they have saved up to expand and enroll more students?

Why shouldn't everyone who is qualified have access to a good education, regardless of their future goals?

It seems to me that once again we are blaming the victims of the system, and not the establishment that has foisted this system upon us. I. like these women, chose to "waste" my education and stay home to raise my child. Work was too demanding and personally unfulfilling.

Colleges and corporations could solve this problem by enrolling more students and by allowing more job flexibility. Or we could sit around and demand that women be given fewer options in life.

I completely agree.

Granted, its nice to have a degree because it keeps your options open.

But if these women plan to stay at home, marry rich, and live off their husbands while raising the kids, then why bother taking up a spot at one of these schools. They are preventing someone else from attending, all for a degree that they will never use.

While I have no problem with a woman deciding that she wants to live this way, I have to take issue with situations like this.

marry money and stay home forever.

I'll bet many who do still find the degree handy after the divorce.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051020/ts_usatoday/collegegendergapwidens57arewomen

Okay. Flame away, but those who are only seeking a mate should go to the bar, not pretend to be preparing for the bar exam.

According to the article, the majority of the majority (60% of 57%) of college students are only looking for a sugar daddy.

There are lots of people who want desperately to obtain a college degree, while people who have no greater purpose and who's only moral claim to the opportunity is by virtue of their parents' economic status occupy the schools.

I propose a rebate of 75% of college costs if you stay in the career for which you trained for a minimum of 15 years.

Heather's daddy-financed search for Mr. Right will then subsidize the education of those who deserve it.

As a stay-at-home dad, I am very supportive of the idea of stay-at-home parenting. I am not supportive of the idea of college as a high-end exclusive dating service.

I'm SO freaking sick of everyone being judgemental about other people's choices. I know that some women are luckier and more priviledged than others. But, it's not a "step back" if people decide that they actually want to stay at home with their kids. It's their choice, for Christ's sake. Just as it is a choice for mothers to continue working if they believe it's the best way to provide for the needs of the children. (And, I am speaking in the instance of those who actually do have the choice.)

Of course there are women who have absolutely no choice about working. It is tough for them, and my heart goes out for their daily struggle. But, for this columnist to call stay at home moms selfish is beyond the pale. It's outright insulting and demeaning towards the many families who choose to live this way.

I am constantly amazed at how judgemental people are. My friends who breast feed until their kids are in kindegarden judge my friends who breast feed until their kids are one. Those friends just our friends who choose not to breast feed because of the difficulty. My friends who use day care just those who don't. Those who have a nanny judge those who stay at home. I'm so sick of all this judgementalism. Those who spank and those who don't judge each other.

People need to recognize that there are many parenting styles out there, and each has their benefits and drawbacks. Somebody isn't negligent if they go to work. Someone is not a bad parent if they have trouble breast feeding and choose formula.

(Sorry for the mini-rant, but I've been dealing with my Sister-in-law and her new bout of motherhood. It's amazing how she talks about other mothers and what they are doing wrong!)

I recall being criticized for pursuing my career and keeping my kids in day care so I could afford the "expensive yuppie lifestyle".

Typical in America - women are criticized whatever they choose to do.

Bottom line, women and girls - get a good education and some career skills so you can use them when you need them. Always have options and an ability to take care of yourself no matter what happens.

The flip side of that equation is women in their 40's and 50's today who didn't get a degree, stayed home and raised the kids, got dumped by hubby and are barely getting by, living just above poverty while working at a couple of low paying jobs with no health care and no pension or retirement fund.

I work from my home, so I guess I am still technically an at home, working mom, but for 10 years, my full time job was taking care of my children while my husband worked to support the family.

I have a pretty good education, including a PhD from a reasonably well known university, and I don't think I take my education for granted.

I thought feminists were all about making sure that everyone had a 'choice' in the lives they wished to lead.

I enjoy what I do, and I enjoy helping with the stability of the family finances, but at this point in my children's lives, I feel I need to be here.

Good article and this is not directed to the original poster.

Once again this is not directed to the original poster.

AGAIN this is not directed to the original poster.


Right now at least around me I see women willing to not only lay down but fight and scream to be second class citizens. A little less than half the people who voted for * were women.

So ultimately I offer no sympathy or remorse for women who allow this sort of sentiment to fall though with hardly so much as a protest.

I could get up right now and knock on at least 5 doors in my own neighborhood where the woman of the house will claim to be a good Christian and that she stays home and does everything her husband tells her to do like a good little indentured servant and I live in a middle-upper class neighborhood.

I want to see more self made women out there like my boss who is a kick ass and take names type who busted her way to a top position and she did it with brains and guts.

So far as I'm concerned the more WOMEN start to step up and reject this bullshit mythological and archaic way of thinking that they are second class citizens-better they stop FIGHTING to maintain this status the more we'll see articles like this one not having to be written to awaken the masses as to puritan like yahoo mentality that we live in.

:D

I think we should nominate Melvin Udall for Supreme Court Justice



"My opinion on women? Well Senator women are not all that different from men. When I think of a woman I simply think of a man-then I take away reason and accountability"

:D

I wish I could have your stuff enlarged and framed.

"Prozac Pickles" - going where no Stepford Wife has gone before! :D

:)

"Prozac Pickles" LoL can't wait to see that one on display at the Metro Musuem of Art in NYC.

The wife LOVED it... so it stays 'till otherwise noted.



Thanks!

Great post! :applause:

I actually was signed off from the boards to take a call. Spoke to a friend (of another generation),she and I spoke of this very thing.

At the time of speaking with her, I didn't even relate it to this thread, the original post or the article in it. Funny how our conversation related back to this without my even intending it to.

After our talk, I came back to this thread and now see it a bit differently--I enjoyed reading what you said here.

I was so PISSED election time to find so many, upper middle class, married women that didn't even plan to vote--they didn't feel that anything affected them enough to vote. Again, :wtf:

It broke my heart, pissed me off and a number of other things that I just can't put into words...

instead some freak by the name of swamp rat or something starts giving me these drugs and now I see these strange pictures with all sorts of green..

:)

But no seriously I know there are women out there who do bust themselves either by protesting or being activists or even just by simply doing what my boss did; hate the system? then change the game get out there and defy the rules and the status quo.

It just burns me though to see such a large percentage of women that are perfectly content with being second class citizens and servants and when I say servants I mean like they take orders from their men, they allow themselves to be pushed around sometimes even beaten and what's more...they want to keep it that way.

It's THAT kind of crap that gets me angry even sometimes moreso than hearing sexist talk from other men.

I'm an activist, I'm self employed and constantly working on trying to create other opportunities for myself if, when and where I encounter needs. I believe this is how a person can make a life for themselves, without waiting for someone to hire you, etc. ... or at least that's the hand I'm playing at the moment. LOL!

Maybe one day, I can be like the woman you work for and with.

I know I wouldn't have this opportunity if it weren't for the amazing women that came before me that worked their asses off so those behind them could try.

It pisses me off to see other women take those opportunities for granted(women that insist they don't need to vote, that abortion rights don't affect them because they are married, etc., etc.):grr::mad:

At the same time, I don't believe that every woman that chooses to stay home with their kids is taking opportunities for granted. No more than I believe that every person that chooses to work is damaging their kids or their family somehow by going out to work.

I don't see just stay at home Moms who have this attitude, but I see it with women who are gainfully employed and still feel the need to be a doormat or some such shit. I've done both, and first became an at home Mom when my first son was born 7 weeks preterm. The childcare for him was gonna be between 350.00 to 400.00 a week (and this was 15 yrs. ago), and when looking at being employed and seeing nothing much to gain after expenses, the decision became much easier to be with my son and I don't know that I could've left him in the care of someone else to be perfectly honest.

I've never ceased to be a feminist, and now that I have 3 boys they have learned that women can be and are tough. I talk to them about a broader range of differing perspectives on given issues than their Dad does, and my challenge to them has always been that you can learn something new everyday, and I intend for you to do so. Whether it's in school, or something that isn't related to school, whether it's something complex or rather simple, something new each day. And, I think that are developing very healthy attitudes about themselves as young men, but they also seem to be developing very healthy attitudes about women as well.

Someday my girl will give birth to our child (after we're married ect) and I will encourage her to take it easy and just look out for the baby being that I personally would prefer that my kid gets raised by his/her mother while I am away and not some nanny I don't see any wrong in that line of thinking.

Then at some agreed time when we feel the kid is old enough and capable of dealing with two working parents I would fully encourage the girl to rejoin whatever career or job she had should she want to.

But this notion that it is the women's duty to thrive for this kind of lifestyle i.e. "women are created solely to be mothers and their sole purpose in life is to give birth to babies and obey the husbands" THAT kind of thinking is bullshit to me.

I see women out there who have no desire to become wives or mothers they just wanna work and live it up and quite frankly that's cool and I say more power to em.

YAHOO!

:evilgrin::evilgrin:

I kind of thought I was doing something important when I stayed home to take the responsibility of raising my child. I didn't realize I was a mere second-class citizen who took orders from my spouse.

Go figure. :shrug:

and pay back society, like many of my friends, by volunteering for schools, charities, political and social causes, besides the hectic life of motherhood. Although we are not by any stretch of the imagination wealthy, we are comfortable. We sacrifice a little economically so that our children will grow to be responsible, caring adults.

I would not have time to be a Girl Scout leader, room mom, or for that matter knock on doors to get out the Dem vote against Arnie's special election, if I was still working full time. Look at any hospital, public school, animal shelter, or food bank any day of the week and you will find us there.

It's unfortunate that a lot of people don't see the value in raising children and volunteering in your community, anything that doesn't get you a paycheck at the end of the week has no value.

We survived it. But I will never regret staying home and raising my first two sons. It cut my heart out to leave my youngest so we could eat. He doesn't read as well as the older two. I never had time and was too tired, working 2-3 jobs at a time so we had a roof over our heads.

I'm sorry this happened to you. :hug: I was raised by a single parent. I know it is a very tough gig--I'm sure that you did the very best that you could.

If a woman is financially able to stay home and chooses to do so, what's wrong with that?

It's not about being treated like a second-class citizen. It's about a woman's CHOICE to either stay home and raise her kids or work outside the home.

There is no bad decision either way.

The only problem I see is that poor women don't have the choice. They have to work in order to provide for their families.

It's all about choice.

I wonder why people need to land on women, no matter what we do?

And why is it always women who are the worst offenders?

I don't see anyone analyzing the choices or decsions of men.

Why is it always assumed or given that men work? There's got to be some men out there that choose to stay home with the children because they are good with them, and don't want them with sitters--and their wives LIKE to have careers and work.

Why aren't there any articles addressing that?

I've known other couples who weighed the cost and decided who would take off from work when a child was sick, etc., and sometimes it turned out that Dad was the one who should be making the trips to the pediatrician's office, and be home. I remember reading in Working Woman's magazine approx 16 yrs. ago that the south was one of the worst areas in the country for a woman to work and to have a child, and I can't see that much has changed since then.

If I had my way, the debate would be focused on quality, affordable childcare, but instead that's being cut, along with school lunch programs, etc. Will we ever get back to a place where the debate will focus on taking care of working parents and the children? The working poor and middle class families are being left behind at at alarming rate, IMHO, and no one seems to be talking about it very much anymore.

no one is talking about it and it disturbs me, too. What about the working poor and middle class families?

Why does the person that wrote this article care so much about wealthy women? Who does this issue affect and why does it matter?

Why aren't they looking at trends that affect more of the population, as opposed to those that affect a select few? It irritates me that so many in the country seem so focused on what 2% of the population does--the uber rich, celebrities (film and tv actors, rock and roll musicians and bands)...

What happened to the concern for those that really affect the rest of us?

The Far Right, she says, wants women with multiple degrees to stay home and raise kids -- and single moms with high school educations to work.

My sister, honest woman that she is, realized she'd go crazy at home. So BIL, who is a creative type anyway, active in local theater and on the board of directors for a theater group, agreed to stay home. Funny thing is, their little guy is as crazy about his mom as he is his dad.

work but read books, or paint flowers or play basketball or what EVER they want, that's cool too.

I don't see why so many people think pro-choice is only about the uterus.

(The only problem I see is that poor women don't have the choice. They have to work in order to provide for their families.)

Some women have no choice and that is where the tragedy is.

I also wish someone would say what do the children choose.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

not saying it's true in all cases, but the author seems to be talking about the same old same old, an actual rejection of liberation. i am seeing that with some of the younger women i know (20-30's age range).

Does she really think that all female Ivy League undergrads are there to work toward high-powered careers? That's a little naive, IMO. Just because a lot of things changed doesn't mean everything has.

I think she's a little overwrought in this piece. Her thinking will probably get a little more nuanced after a few years.

that is for sure. i didnt want to be married, i wanted one girl and i wanted to always work, NEVER wanted to be a housewife. i mean, what pretty picture is the housewife. nothing, ewwww.

now two kids later adn stay at home, i couldnt have made a better choice, for me or my kids or my husband

we are happy. we are in peace. we live in joy

tell me, where could that be wrong

yup, lets check back with this woman? girl, in a couple decades

Trying to coerce or guilt-trip women into working is no more acceptable than keeping them bare-foot and pregnant in the kitchen.

I chose to work, and I also chose not to remain childless. That's MY choice, and I don't for one moment expect any other womean to make the same decisions or have the same attitudes. I DO expect them to make the choice that is best suited to their interests, their character and the welfare of their own family.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with choosing to stay at home, but these priviledged women can choose to stay at home whereas most women can't as most families need 2 income. Even poorer women must stay at home and on welfare as there is no childcare for them, and low-wage work will not pay them enough to make the bills and pay for child care.

I think the articles use of the term "selfish" to describe these women is interesting. "Selfish" in this article implies that a fully-functioning citizen contributing to society is working waged labor outside of the home. But, as we all know, working in the home raising children is a necessary part of the functioning of soceity that is overlooked and undervalued by people who consider someone a contributing citizen only if they work outside the home.

And what makes these women's choice "conventional"? Only that they are women choosing to do this? Certainly people (men and women) having a free choice to stay at home with their kids would be PROGRESSIVE in my mind. And newsflash- NOT ALL "2nd wave" feminists thought that women staying home was regressive/conventional- there were feminists who defined "equality of opportunity" as exactly that and did not devalue domestice work- instead they argued for the value of domestic work/childcare and wanted men involved in it as well (paternity and maternity leave etc...).

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see MEN also making the decisions to stay at home to raise children. BOTH men and women should have the option to stay at home to take care of their children, or work outside the home and have decent childcare if that is what they want. Currently only priviledged men and women have these options- whereas middle class and lower class parents are forced into either working or staying home.

adopt policies which economically empower families to make the choices regarding the division of domestic labor they deem best.

In addition to a general progressive economic policy, a Quebec style universal $5 a day child care is would be a good policy to implement. Furthermore extended maternity and parental leave is would be beneficial. (Parental leave can be taken by either parent of course.) A lot of other countries have such programs, so it's time for the U.S. to get its act together.

How about going to a non-Ivy-League school and leaving a space for us women that don't want to go on the "Mommy Track"?

attend an Ivy League school make way for someone else who didn't get in?

Sounds too much like sour grapes.

An education isn't wasted just because someone chooses a different lifestyle and goals.

Just because that's what you want to happen doesn't mean that you won't end up single and being a career woman, nobody KNOWS what's ahead of them marriage & kids wise. Sheesh!! Or maybe they will end up with a guy who is better at staying home.

I know a woman who is a high-powered lawyer who went to USC, she dated law students but ended up married to a musician who is mostly a stay at home dad, she's the breadwinner. Nobody has a crystal ball. If you want a good education, by all means, get it, it's one thing noone can take away from you.

Perfect question.

who could use that ivy league degree for more important things, like moving to Texas, adopting a fake accent, and becoming the tycoon for a bunch of failed energy companies.

predict their entire futures.

Female adulthood is a long continuum. Some years you go to school, some years you stay home with the kids and other years you work on a career.

I'm sure these women have every intention of pursuing careers in addition to the mommy track. What's wrong with that?

... and in choosing to bring up their children themselves instead of leaving the task to paid strangers, these women are being selfish?

Huh?

You know, they used to say that working overtime amounts to scabbing on the unemployed. I think it's perfectly reasonable -- and even kind of praiseworthy -- for a person of affluence to decline to take a paid position away from someone else who actually needs the work. I fail to see why upperclass women who make this choice are guilty of "selfishness".

I also fail to see why women should be bashed for choosing to focus their time and energy on their children. It's socially responsible to bring up ones children as well as one can, and if this is what these women want to do, then shouldn't we all respect that?




So other people should organize their households according to her ideological taste? What for? Why is this any of her business?




Shocker.

:eyes:

Although, come to think of it, isn't 20 a bit old to still be appending these little age-related disclaimers to ones essays? You know -- "written by Julie, age eight-and-a-half" really means "please make allowances for the fact that Julie is just an eight-year-old". I guess we're to take 'written by Julie, age 20' in the same spirit?

:hi:

As a Third Wave feminist, I am embarrassed that Story could make such an assertion. Do these women feel a sense of entitlement to be entirely supported by their husbands? Although all women should be permitted to be full-time mothers, most do not have the freedom to stop working outside the home. It is not an equal choice when less wealthy and marginalized women are not granted the option. Women who were born into an unearned advantaged position are relinquishing their power and independence to patriarchy.

Females in the Victorian era were silenced and forced into restrictive feminine roles. Hartford's Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote "The Yellow Wallpaper" in 1892 during a time when even well-off women were forced into domestic roles that did not challenge their intellectual abilities. The protagonist, a privileged white woman, was labeled a "hysteric" by a male-dominated scientific community that desperately sought a way to repress her for questioning her forced submission. In reality, she was merely responding to being suppressed by her husband and the controlling patriarchy. Now young women are choosing to return to the silence.

Today's liberated, Ivy-League-educated women are willing to sacrifice their privilege and their opportunities to become independent leaders of the 21st century. They are eschewing the opportunities that Gilman's protagonist and other oppressed women of the time yearned for. Ivy League women are not taking advantage of the ability they have to make incredible strides in the fight for gender equality that would benefit women from all backgrounds. Instead, they are choosing to use their power for their own selfish desires.

This article is the opposite of the profession that the RW makes when they say, Mothers belong at home. Both assertions remove the aspect of CHOICE!

I can't take this seriously at all, as it's littered with ridiculousness.

After 20 years, my husband got to go back to work. He was a stay at home Dad and he got a lot of flack for it. But I love him and our kids turned out great so it was well worth it. Now I get to stay home and look after the teenagers. I think he got the hard part.

Well....looking after teenagers isn't easy ALL the time! I know a lot of people like you guys. It's true that stay at home dads take a lot of shit. While "conservatives" give a lot of lip service to "family values" etc. raising children is just not a very respected job in our culture.

I know that since I've been home, at parties or whatever when people say what do you do? They are always so condescending, like oh good for YOU! I think that's GREAT! I just say it back to them like, oh you're a lawyer? Oh I think that's really, great, I REALLY do, good for YOU! LOL...they speak to you like you're a child when you're a full time parent!

I think our society puts too much emphasis on a few things--

1)What do you do? Many are NOT defined by their work, jobs, roles, etc. I think it is demeaning and rather insulting that people always try to do this. It's like if they don't have some convenient, little box to put you in, they just don't know WHAT to do with you.

2)How old are you? Again, another way for people to categorize and box people. Pisses me off. I don't look my age, or probably even act my age--so what if I don't? Age is only relevant if you are wine or cheese...

3)Ways to rate women. Really pisses me off. If a woman is home with her kids--some say great, some say wrong. If a woman chooses not to have kids--some say how horrible, how selfish--

If a woman wants an education and a career,with no thought of a husband or kids some say great, some say when are you going to get married?

:banghead:

Personally, I wish the world would stop creating ways to judge me and ways to divide me from my sisters. We are all unique and everyone is going to want different things out of life. Period.

tell me how to parent. :grr:

I am an at-home mother because years ago I was a child in day care. When this issue comes up, not enough discussion goes on about what's best for the kids involved.

For that matter, I don't think the suggestion that my role as a mother can be adequately replaced by a series of underpaid women caring for the maximum number of children allowable by law is especially feminist or even minimally respectful.

She was arguing an abstraction, and lots of people here are taking it personally. She said, quite clearly, that every woman should have the choice to stay home and parent, and she affirmed that choice. She is (a) criticizing is societal inequalities which allow that decision only to a select few and (b) lamenting the fact that the women of her generation with the most power to change that social structure (the ones afforded the opportunities of an ivy-league education) are planning instead to reinforce it.

other set of choices the more wealthy have that the less wealthy don't.

And she might just consider that the women of her generation are doing what they want to do rather than sacrificing their lives to an agenda.

She's a college junior, so it's maybe natural that she looks at the education aspect.



She probably has considered that as a possibility, but sees instead a large share of the nation's most privileged women who are going to college to find themselves a man. :shrug: Of course the wealthy and privileged have more opportunity in ever social sense. Some of them use those opportunities primarily to secure their own wealth/happiness, and some use them instead to try to better society.

somewhere in order to better society.

And as if they can't better society WHILE securing their own happiness.

"Some of them use those opportunities primarily to secure their own wealth/happiness, and some use them instead to try to better society. "

Note the "instead".

that doesn't make them the only two. Also note the "primarily" instead of exclusively.

at the moment, and which will continue to affect her in the near future if she chooses to work. She will be the one to face the doubting looks at interviews. She will be the one to face the albeit illegal question of whether and even when she plans on having children. She will be the one to face the gender pay inequity justified in part because of childcare issues.

I don't hate women who decide to stay at home, and the above-listed issues are certainly not the fault of women, but rather our bottom line, no family time for any reason workplaces in the US. Should that be changed? Of course, and once this author has more years and experience, hopefully she will change her focus. And again, her focus in this article is on a very narrow segment of the population, not stay at home moms in general.

Until you men have to face those types of job interviews and workplace issues like glass ceilings, I really have to say that you don't have a clue. Very nicely said, of course. :)

You summed things up nicely :)

"again, her focus in this article is on a very narrow segment of the population, not stay at home moms in general."

I've not been able to put my finger on it exactly, but something about this thread has bothered me, the way a young woman speaks her mind in a way that challenges the social order and gets pounced on and even called horrible names. It's a little unnerving.

Especially if they happen to be stay at home moms (or husbands to one). But I also doubt very seriously that anyone on this board is in the socioeconomic group that the author was focused on, and thus should understand that the article is not aimed at them.

And I'm sure that some people, even liberals, feel threatened by her challenge of the social order. Even some liberals believe that the woman should stay home once a couple has had children if they can afford it. I've even seen posters admit that they would have a hard time if their wife/girlfriend earned more money than they do, though of course that isn't a very progressive thought.

Unfortunately, gender equality and social order issues are unnerving even for some liberals.

Even for women. Even for men. And even for students at elite schools.

She didn't argue that those choices should be taken away from anyone, even pampered, privilged "Charlottes" if you will.

or she should inspect their personal choices and criticize them as selfish.

Reminds me of how some people call women who abort selfish, or seek to intrude in that personal choice.

For me, being pro choice isn't limited to what women do with their uterus.

to make job interviews better for other women.

point of the feminists movement.. which was the right to choose our own life path.

Now, I agree in a sense that it is frustrating that a lot of poor mothers don't have the option to stay home and the fact that rich women can afford to do so rubs salt in the wound. But I think we are better off working towards a society that lets all women have the option to stay home or not. In other words, don't chastise the rich here just help the poor become less poor.

No woman should have to feel bad because of her choices.

My own family was working-class, and my mom stayed home until her kids got big...and then got pregnant again and had to stay home some more. We could have used the money, actually, but she needed to be home with her kids. That's not a reflection on those who do go to work, though. My mom did a lot of volunteer and other work from home, too.

choice, and laments the inequalities of society that allow that right to only a select few.

a few women.

The rich always have more choices than the less well off.

up their family lives? If a couple decides on this sort of division labor I don't see why anyone feels entitled to judge it.

How many mothers work because they have to. I also wonder what would a child choose. Do children have any say on how they are raised? My mother had to work and I to this day wish I had a stay at home mom. I couldn't stay at home with my children so I took jobs that allowed them to be with me or my husband. Its a real heart breaker when you want to be a stay at home mom but have no choice but to work. That pisses me off more than anyone choosing to work when they could stay home. To me that is where the choice is lacking.

But I don't see why wanting to be a stay at home mom but having tro work is worse than wanting to be a painter or actor but having to wait tables.

We all have choices to make, and we all sometimes have no choice.

and paintbrushes won't miss you while you're gone.

have no choice at all. I don't hold more sacred someone who wants to be a stay at home mom than someone who wants to be an artist or actor or whatever.

I work from home and I'm very lucky to be able to do so. I have no idea how LeftyKid and I would manage otherwise.

As a society we can do without full-time artists and actors for the most part (those dedicated to those tasks can balance them with better paying work,) but if we're to raise another healthy generation we need mothers (and fathers too, once the kid's weaned either parent can stay home) to nurture and educate them.

parents - not that I have ANY bias against them at all.

But my point is that every individual has things they'd like to do - some want to be stay at home parents, some want to be artists, some want to do other things but can't.

I'm not about judging one calling as more legitimate than another.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

nt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I also think that although poor women may need a little extra assistance with their children they are not being irresponsible to have them. I don't think people should have litters of children ( rich or poor) but i don't think it should be only the wealthy who have families.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Unless you count the tax cuts that benefit their well-off families. Although some may be very surprised if their husbands have better divorce lawyers than they do.

Clue: While some mothers (or fathers) prefer to stay at home & can afford to do so, two working parents can also raise fine children. Or--one working parent can raise fine children.

There's more than one kind of "family structure." And why the hell did you pick this thread to whine about welfare mothers?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Divorces never happen. Husbands never die.

And not ALL single pregnant women choose abortion. (Contraceptives don't always work. Guys don't always stay around. Child support is not enough, even when it's paid.)

Life is simple for the smug.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Note: I'm not a single mother, so don't lecture me about my taste in men.

My mother was widowed when I was 4--with 2 younger sibs. She went to work as soon as we were all in school & NEVER whined about anything.

I really want kids but I will have to work so I won't have them? I always find it infuriating that woman who can afford to stay home with their kids but choose not to are selfish and poor moms who DO stay home with their kids are lazy and should get out there to work. Women can't win with some people. I think families have to struggle to find balance and that is becoming harder every day.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Poor COUPLES have to struggle too. And yes, dads need to always be supportive whether they are still with the mom or not. Too many aren't.

should not take advantage. If we strengthen the middle class, perhaps we can bring about more choice in this regard?

My choice has been to be at home, I've done this at the expense of a retirement account and I've incurred some debt along the way. ;)

can afford it. It's a lot easier to isolate yourself at home from the day to day struggles of the working class. I know I would have preferred to do so if I could have. I think our society needs to recognize the needs of the stay-at-home mother at least through her last child's toddler years. Some countries have family allowances so that mothers can stay home if they need to be with very small children.

However, in the case of these women of privilege, they won't be mopping loos, changing diapers or baking cookies. They will have staff who does that. Instead they will be lunching at the country club with other bored wives of their station, perhaps imbibing too many martinis. How do you think Babs Bush gave * fetal alcohol syndrome.

I do think our society needs to help mothers be with their kids more even if they have to work. In the past women worked in the home at cottage industries like weaving and horticulture. These "jobs" brought extra money into the family and still enabled them to look after their kids.

Criminy. I'm the mother of a four-year-old boy, and I've held "barely there," jobs. The first, was a weekend-relief position at a group home, where I could bring my child, and the second was teaching poetry writing to undergrads. I've been supported on fellowship, two other years -- for minimum-wage amounts -- $16,500 and $14,000. My boyfriend makes about $18 an hour, and that's only been the last year -- before that, he made about $13 an hour. When my fellowship is up, I'm planning on grading GRE exams, part-time, and working part-time at the local co-op.

So we're, like, pretty not-rich. We have a house payment of $900, and just picked up a car payment of $250, after never having had a payment -- our old car just pooped out), as well as student loan payments and insurance on everything we own, and our after-tax income is about $3,500 per month. We save $500 a month in savings.

Guess why? BECAUSE WE DON'T BUY A LOT OF SHIT.

Now, we were barely making it on the $12 an hour, but then, our rent was only $625, and we didn't have a car payment.

The only reason anyone has to have a full-time, two-person income, unless you have a large family or make less than $10-12 an hour, is to keep up with the Joneses. Both mothers and fathers should consider staying at home with the kids. It's better for the kids, I don't care what Sweden says.

I'm a second-wave feminist, and I'm OK with stay-at-home moms. Feminism is about choice. I'd marry a rich man, if they weren't all assholes. It's marginally harder, I think, to find a man with a good income, when you're into artists, anarchists and anti-establishment types. I'm holding out, though -- I haven't met my Ben or my Jerry, yet, but when I trade up, this time, I'm making sure that I don't ever have to work again. I'm an artist. I need a patron.

Don't millions of people buy lottery tickets dreaming of quitting their jobs?

I also wonder why there seem to be two choices (in people's minds) for women with children: working at a job or working at child-raising like it is a job. This doesn't even come up for men. They can be seen as good parents without staying at home. I think it's insulting to working mothers to assume that women who don't work are better mothers. I know lots of fantastic mothers who have fulltime jobs. And, yes, I know women who are devoting their time to childrearing and home care ARE working, too. But not every last woman without a job but with children is defined by her motherhood or home responsibilities.

Are they somehow thereby defined as lazy slobs? I don't think anyone here would mean to imply that, but it occurred to me that we all ought to be careful not to accidentally get drawn into society's little check off boxes.

women w/o children or jobs and men w/o children or jobs?

doing great. she just bought a house to gut it and fix it. and it having a blast. yup yup yup

we can all stop worrying about others and deciding what they ought to be doing with their lives from the perspective of how we have chosen to live.

Off-topic, I'm sure, but how does she manage to live without working, let alone buy a house?
Tell us her secret.

bought, fixed up and sold a couple duplexes and has a condo in breckenridge. gets a little money from there.

just money finds its way to her. she has faith. i know you think that is odd, but something we are working on. taking off attachment to money, faith and not feel lack, it seems to come one way or another.

her father had some money he wanted her to invest so she invested it in this current house to redo

I'm the worst salesperson in the world. I understand about faith -- I'm a churchgoer myself -- and I also understand about the lack of attention to money.

I got by without a permanent job for nearly a year in my early 30s. The Bush I economy did me in, then Clinton came along and rescued me. The sky didn't fall in, the world didn't end, and somehow I got by. Changes your perspective, about what you need in life.

I am quitting my job in mid-December to take care of Hubby and write my Master's thesis. This job became a dead end for me; the board of directors had cut my hours back to 24/wk and I was only able to work for 16 hours within that schedule. Hubby is now on dialysis 3 days/week and requires more of my time and energy than any job would allow. He brings in more money on disability than I was earning, so I am leaving to return to teaching private music lessons.

and make some time for yourself. You are probably working harder than a lot of people taking home a paycheck and spending their time "at work" blogging.

A stay at home dad is at least equally stigmatized as a mom who works.

A little background: For a number of reasons, I was unable to get a college education. I worked 20 years in the engineering (and related) fields but always suffered from my lack of a degree. After being laid-off and learning that my youngest child was autistic, it was a logical choice for me to stay home, build a new house and care for the kids, while my wife (who has some college, and locally salable skills) returned to work.

Recently, my wife's 48-year-old best friend (a great person, who holds a masters in teaching, but has always stayed at home and never held a teaching job) asked me when I was going to resume doing something "useful" with my life.

This was an innocent comment from a close friend. The stereotype is worse among strangers.

I don't really understand why people need to judge what others are doing with their lives, at any rate. If someone works, great. If they don't, great. I don't try to claim that someone who works is a better/smarter/more valuable person than one who doesn't, nor do I claim that people who stay home with their kids are better parents than those who don't. I also don't assume that all working people are doing something "useful," or that all nonworking people aren't.

I used to let it bother me more, but now I try not to feel I have to justify my life choices to anyone. They are up to me, in the end. But people can be assholes about them, anyway.

and was at school for 7 hours everyone started asking what are you gonna do now. gotta get a job yada yada. with all the school days off, pick up from school at 3 and then 3:30 at another school, sick days. ya right. but as school was starting up again this year and youngest in 2nd grade my brother said, you gotta do something, well no i dont.

so

just everybody gotta jsut knock it off, i will make my choice you make yours and i will trust you to do yours. no interference.

My mother worked two crappy jobs because my father didn't earn enough - and he has a business.

Not only that, she managed to raise three children at the same time.

I didn't noticed a difference growing up. In fact, I feel I have a better family than most. My parents have been married for over 35 years.

I was raised by my mom AND dad - plus, two older sisters. My mom left me with a babysitter ONCE - and she still regrets it to this day.

I have no problem with stay-at-home moms, but I don't have any attitude toward women who want to work too.

You'll noticed this attitude never comes up towards men and the choices they make.

It's nice that you want to marry a rich man so you can spend your days doodling... Oh wait, that would be the definition of selfishness!

There is something to be said for the fulfillment that comes from a job one actually likes.

But that wasn't the point of the article, anyway. She was lamenting the "choices" being made by some women in her generation, particular women who are going to college to get a degree so that it can be used to balance the books of the Junior League at some later date. And by doing so, that person is depriving some other person- perhaps even a woman!- of the education that she may *need*.

inexperience.

I stayed at home for several years and IT WAS THE HARDEST WORK I HAVE EVER DONE. We did it by planning ahead and trimming the budget of all fat. It was surprising how costly it is to work outside the home. We did well and even managed to put money into savings each year. Looking back, I can't believe we did it.

That's what kills me when I read these things -- or comments from posters on these boards.

Women of color did it for generations, people. Worked, raised other people's kids and raised their own. Immigrants did it. Worked in factories, brought their kids along sometimes and the kids worked. It was called the Rhode Island system.

Farm women stayed home with their kids, but had little time to bond with them. They were out, oh, chopping wood, hauling water, washing clothes by hand, making meals from scratch because nobody had refrigeration back then, hauling vegetables to the root cellar, etc. Not much time to build Junior's self-esteem.

What's even more amazing is that these women of privilege, the ones noted in this article -- a generation or so ago, they'd have been hiring nannies. Anyone who could afford it had live-in help. Then there was boarding school ... no way would they have changed diapers themselves. Or dealt with a sullen teen-ager. (Do you know that the English royal family of Henry VIII's time used to set up the heirs in their own households -- at age five? Talk about daycare. And women of a certain rank didn't nurse their own children -- only the help did that. So much for the good old days.)

I'll come clean and admit I don't have kids. But I don't pass judgement on women who work or those who don't. I've seen career women who've been good moms (my sister's one) and SAHMs who've been lousy ones (my mother was one.) And, vice versa. Every woman is different, every family is different and one size did not fit all.

Oh, and one more thing: these women in the article are getting an education. Presumably, they'll be able to make a life for themselves if they end up single again. My dad saw to it that all of us got educated: that way, if we married some jerk we'd have an option. He was a wise man.

If you haven't, read "A People's History" by Zinn. He pretty much covers everything you have talked about in your post.

"Oh, and one more thing: these women in the article are getting an education. Presumably, they'll be able to make a life for themselves if they end up single again. My dad saw to it that all of us got educated: that way, if we married some jerk we'd have an option. He was a wise man."

Same with my dad. He is wise too. :-)

He wants to make sure that no matter what, my sisters and I can take care of ourselves. He told me not to rely on somebody else for money, even if I do end up getting married.

And my parents are VERY old-fashioned, conservative types!

Except when it came to his girls. HIS daughters were going to be educated, and at good universities. HIS daughters were not going to wait tables in some restaurant, waiting to meet a man. One of the greatest satisfactions of his life was seeing us go on to graduate school.

You're lucky in your parents, and it sounds like you know that. You'll look back on their lessons with fondness. I'll have to pick up the Howard Zinn book: I've seen him on the Daily Show, and he sounds like a cool guy.

and I can offer a couple of real-life examples. My mother, who was a HS grad in a time where women were expected to be married, guessed wrong and married my father. The job sent him to Atlanta where my brothers and I grew up. I asked her why she stayed, she said that had she stayed home (Cleveland), her family was there and she'd have some support and would've left. But moved 800 miles away and no college education and no family, she said that she'd have a better chance staying married rather than risk losing everything in a divorce (she said that he'd be a deadbeat dad, I believe her.) One of her deepest fears is to be homeless. That could have come to pass. :scared:

The next example: my California mom did have a college education. Being a physician's daughter, she went to college--for nursing. She guessed wrong twice, and had 3 kids to look after. Unlike my mother, she had options. She could get a job that paid well enough to support her and the kids and get divorced--and she did. She didn't have to stay in a lousy situation.

Education is about having options.

This one article basically ripped the research plan to shreds. It was a poorly conducted study. Only at Yale. Researcher selected the subjects. Lots of biases and assumptions.

Every now and then, there seems to be a burst of women-choosing-to-stay-home-and-loving-it articles in the media. It's been going on for years.

What these articles never seem to talk about is all the in-betweens that exist: women running businesses out of their homes, women working part-time, women supplementing the family income by doing this or that, etc. There should be more options, IMO. Why should women have two choices: be a SAHM or a career woman? Why isn't flex time more available than it is? And why should a career involve eighty hours in a cubicle, anyway?

Another thing most articles don't seem to mention is that you don't get to pick up where you left off. You can't spend five years raising children and then expect to get back on track -- there are younger people coming up. Men AND women. All willing to work eighty hours a week, and most mothers I know aren't. For some women, this doesn't matter. For others it does, and it's a disappointment. Unless society is willing to change -- and I see no sign that it will -- women should be making these choices with their eyes wide open.

Speaking of change, not enough men are willing to change, IMO. You can't be a good mom and work eighty hours a week, serve on three boards and professional organizations, and golf on weekends with the power brokers. I don't care who you are, you can't do it. OTOH, a man can't do it, either. I used to be the only kid whose dad showed up at school plays and functions: all the other men were too busy. And you can't make that time up.

My stepdaughter and her husband have the traditional arrangement -- he works, she's at home (she's a terrific mom.) However, his life outside work centers around the family. He comes straight home after work, watches TV with his boys; when they were younger he'd give them their baths and put them to bed. He's home all weekend, hanging out with the wife and kids. Even today, too many guys seem to take it for granted that if they have a stay-at-home wife, they're free to live their own lives. It's sad.

He needs to golf to deal with the stress of his job and to stay normal, and I need every Thursday night off and a few other hours during the week to knit and stay normal. Even though I'm the SAHM, he's found that if I don't get some breaks occasionally, I get weird and not fun to be around.

You're very right about going back into the work force. I taught high school English for three years, and I won't be able to just jump right back into it. Certification issues have changed, I'm in a new state with different requirements, and I would have to take many credits to get caught up.

So, I'm teaching knitting, my other passion. I tried to get a yarn shop going, but my poor health changed that plan and put that on hold. So much for working full time outside of the house. *sigh* So, now I'm working on developing a class base in other venues. That's mostly for me and to pay for my yarn habit, but some money will be paying for gas and other necessities.

As a self-employed person myself, I could go on all day about the joys of going it alone. Hence, I'm all for non-traditional roles, and working "outside the box." (BTW, I didn't mean to bash golf; all my BILs are golfers, and are good fathers.)
Knitting seems to have hit a hot spot in recent years -- the 'thing' to do. You might be at the right place, at the right time.

It really relaxes him and makes him more present when he's home. I didn't think you were bashing it, though--I just wanted to explain how it can be good for people.

I wish I could do more outside the box. We really need to rethink how we raise kids in this society--how they are the resource of the whole community and not just the immediate family. That would make a lot of these issues moot.

We need to rethink how we evaluate success in this society. IMO ...

They speak to wealthy girls entering prestigious colleges--who say they'll give up work when they have kids.

For one thing, even these lucky girls don't know what their future may bring. Like a hubby with a better divorce lawyer than their's.

Or they might be inspired to take up a career that does not allow for long sabbaticals. At least they will probably be able to afford good childcare.

Just an opinion piece. No real data.

Thanks for pointing it out. In fact, most of these silly studies tend to be poorly researched. It makes one wonder just what kinds of biases the researchers have.

It was probably funded with taxpayer dollars, maybe we should demand better quality research on these issues.

afford to do what poor mothers used to HAVE to do.

Meanwhile, the poor mothers are each holding down at least two fulltime jobs: their outside-the-home job, and the job of being a parent.

To an extent, I can agree with the basic premise of the article. I am a highly educated woman who works in a conservative profession dominated by men. *I* and the other women like me who actually WANT to work are the ones who suffer the consequences of the decisions made by **those women of whom the author speaks**. I am the one who faces the constant doubt of my superiors as to my longevity in my profession. I am the one who faces the (yes, illegal) questions from potential employers as to whether I am planning on having children. I am the one who faces the glass ceiling because employers still do not want to invest too much time/energy/money/training in a female employee for fear that she will make this same decision to stay at home. I am the one who faces the consequences of these rather selfish, highly educated women who get a degree just because someone in her family's income bracket must of course get a degree, only to then marry Chip the III and stay home "raising" children (with the help of a nanny of course).

While in college and graduate school, my friends and I could have bet good money on which women were the type discussed in this article- they're not hard to spot. And they really are just getting that degree to have a degree. They are not there for the education, as some idealistic people mentioned upthread. They are there because it's what women of their station and status do- go to college, work a couple of years, then get married and stay at home to organize some socially acceptable charity like the Junior League and maybe have children.

Should they have the choice to do this? Yes. But they shouldn't be too surprised that someone like me who is actually impacted by their choices calls them on it.


And I think the article focuses pretty narrowly on a certain group of women who become "stay at home moms" and is not directed at women in general. But maybe I read that because it's what I've lived. :shrug:


Ok, flame away.

I can see why you think you'll be flamed, but there's no fire coming from me. :D :D

I think people are reading this article as a personal attack, rather than a critique of an abstraction/general trend.

I also think (as I mentioned in response to another of your posts) that there is an element in some of these posts that delights in attacking a young woman for voicing a controversial opinion. As you said, outspoken women still make even some liberals uncomfortable ...

Yes, this is such an emotional issue for people, women especially. It is one for me even, as I've been told I'm a bad mother for choosing to work when I don't have to. It cuts both ways.

But yes, any political discussion is going to appear to be a personal attack if one lets it, rather than focusing on the big picture. And I read her article as a criticism of what was happening and how it might impact women in general in the future. She didn't name any names, didn't say that Biffy shouldn't have been allowed to go to Yale only to stay home- just that it was happening, wondered why and how it would impact other women. But again, since it's such an emotional issue for so many of us, we internalized it and took it personally.

it is the story of my life.

As a woman engineer I have always wondered at the women who elect to not work in their professions after spending all that money to get a degree.

The wealthy young women have privilege, therefore they will not have any problems finding employment should they choose to do so at any given time. For the rest of us, well, tough. Our career aspirations are always in doubt.

As far as I'm concerned I'd like to see more Ivy League educations "going to waste." More real human beings from state schools in important positions. Less scions and scion-ettes "taking up space" in the vast governmental and corporate bureaucracy.

Boo hoo, the rich people stayed at home, and now I don't have to work with them. Boo hoo. NOT!

Wow... I guess you can always count on some things staying the same.

FWIW, I'm a stay-at-home-mom... or, more aptly, a work-from-home-mom. I run a business out of my home and have done so since 1998. I suppose the author would have me return my degree and pay back my scholarships?

The article didn't focus on stay at home moms in general, and instead focused on a very narrow socioeconomic group. I really wish that we could have had a discussion of the issues raised in the article rather than a mob like response to the posted portion of the article.

every American family is a priviledged family.

If we are sticking to the States as a rule of thumb, then I fall firmly in the middle class: we are paying for our home, mostly living paycheck to paycheck, and wondering how we are going to pay for college.

With my oldest daughter, I did work in corporate America. I was able to work my way up the ladder to one of the highest positions in the company I served. I think, instead of attacking women for their choices, we should instead target the companies who do not promote/invest in their women employees.

is much more complex. Much of what she will face in the workplace has more to do with our uber capitalistic system than anything else. Krugman had a very good article a few months ago concerning the economics of France and the US and detailing how the French actually enacted workplace policies to promote family values rather than mouthing platitudes as the republicans do here.

And it would have been nice if we could have had that discussion rather than most people (myself included) reacting emotionally. You see, I have been told by more than one employer that I was not offered a position because they wanted someone who would be with them a long time, and well, I was in my late 20s and married and they were sure I'd have children soon. So they hired a man instead. Highly illegal, but in my profession there is very little you can do since if you sue you would be blacklisted forever. I have felt the ripple effects of the choices that some other women have made without them giving a second's thought to the battles that were waged in order to even give them that choice. And I blame the employers, not the other women. Had the article focused on the economic issues, the workplace inequities and the evils of the system rather than focusing on the young women making this choice, we all might have reacted better.

I have also been told more than once that I am a bad mother because I *choose* to work rather than stay home. There is even a post just below alleging that children with parents who choose to work are not getting what they need from those parents. I guess we all get the judgment from all sides, eh?


I think the issue was presented poorly, and her article could have been much better written. But shouldn't we as a society ask why some people go to college when they don't need to? I've heard a local professor say that college is to this generation what high school was a few generations ago. Learning for learning's sake is wonderful, and yes we should all strive for that. But whoever said you had to go to college to learn anything? And why is this just one more area in which the privileged are expected to have, er, privilege? Shouldn't we be asking ourselves why people like Bush can gain entre into Yale when a scholarly but poor minority from Harlem was likely denied admittance in his favor?

As I said, the article is poorly written, but the issues are real.

That is a very short version of life as a woman in America. No matter what you do, someone is going to take issue with it.

Each family should be able to do what it decides it needs to do for its own betterment. That is, if my husband and I decide that we really need to pay off our mortgage in the next six months, the decisions we make toward that goal should automatically be thought of by the rest of society to be working in our family's best interest. (Him taking another job, my going back to work outside the home, me taking on my clients for my home business, etc.)

I definitely think all university/college admittance should be based on merit and not family history. I also draw the line at society, as a whole, decided who does and does not need a college education. If I elect to go back to school and then decide to do nothing corporate-minded with that degree, it is my choice.

You have previously stated that you have to deal with the after-shocks of this trend of well-educated women staying home in lieu of working. I dare say I'd hate to see the after-shocks all women would face if universities were allowed to deny admittance because a woman expressed a desire to one day have a family.

Besides, why do corporations believe that men don't want to be a part of their families and take an active role in the household and children? Why do people always assume that a man doesn't want to be at home?

In my own situation, my husband would love to be the person at home and I'd love to back out there working for someone else. At this point in time, that isn't a possible solution for us, but we are hoping that one day it will be.

people narrowing the choices my daughters have through law (abortion) or social pressure ("you're selfish if you do/don't work").

based on speculation concerning a future family or even the existence of a current one. And I don't think that parents should be forced to choose between work and home. After all, other societies are able to balance those desires, so why can't we? (yes, I know the answer- just rhetorical!)

As I said, it would be better if we could focus on the economic issues involved such as the fact that the high cost of healthcare is most often cited at the reason that both partners have to work outside the home. There is often a reason that both parents are working but our political leaders have refused to even consider that living wages would make things easier on families. Again, that Krugman article hit the nail on the head in talking about the number of hours we work, our retirement, our protections, etc. vs. the French.

And I only wish that I could get my husband to stay home! :)

ok, would make my life easier, and teachers and school life easier if there was a parent handy, with a lot of these children. unfortunately a lot of parents that can afford a one income lifestyle chose to have both parents work. a lot of these children are not getting what they need from parents as far as time and care and nurturing. and the schools are doing without a lot of help from a lot of families.

but then who am i to judge. because there are a lot of families that need those two incomes. there are a lot of families working their ass off to get everything in. totally exhausted. some families are doing well with both parents working and the child having to be more responsible and independent than my children have to be

but there are a lot of children sinking too

so,

it is better for me not to decide what is better for another and trust them to live their life, as i will do with mine.

flame away, wink

If we can say a woman's body is hers and the decision to abort is hers, I don't know why we can't say her life is hers and the decision to marry, work, or have 6 kids is hers too.

group makes it okay to attack them on their personal choices.

she's attacking what she sees as a general trend. Just like saying "working class people in middle america tend to vote against their economic interests and should vote for progressive candidates, etc." is not attacking anyone for their personal choice of who to vote for, but rather identifying a broad and detrimental trend.

she says are "selfish".

This is not simply a value neutral noting of a trend. It's judging personal choices.

:shrug:

very personal choices women make.

Apparently women don't have enough attacks on their choices alerady.

But political discourse will always involve abstractions, such as "SUVs use up too much fossil fuels" (which is not meant as a personal attack on those who choose to drive SUVs), "Rural Kansans who vote republican are voting against their economic interests" (which is not meant as a personal attack on those who choose to vote Republican), "The high percentage of young women with the most privilege and opportunity who have no interest in pursuing careers of their own is alarming" (which is not meant as a personal attack on those who choose to raise their kids at home).

And why should this choice be "alarming"?

Unlike the other examples, which negatively impact others, this is a purely personal choice.

The choices we make impact others, whether we realize it or not. Had the wealthy and privileged among the first wave feminists chosen to pursue lives of leisure or restricted their gifts to motherhood, then our country would be greatly impoverished as a result. By which I don't mean that stay-at-home moms shouldn't have the choice to do what they want (of course they should) or that this is always the wrong choice ...

Would calling women who choose to work "selfish" be an abstraction?

At what point is it actually personal?

I'd like the ground rules, please.

But there is clearly a difference between making the argument that "Ms. So-and-so is selfish for aborting her baby" and arguing "when there are so many parents desperate to adopt, the decision to abort is selfish." Now, neither of these statements holds water, and both are open to legitimate attack from any number of angles. But the second isn't attacking anyone personally, though plenty of people would take it (understandably, probably) take it personally. Frankly, I think much better arguments can be made against the second statement when it is greeted dispassionately, instead of as a personal attack, just as the writer's argument can and should be dealt with as an argument, not as a personal attack. Her argument is certainly not impenetrable ...

are usually the "movers and shakers" of the generation (outside of the typical country club set, anyway). Typically, the next HR Clinton will come from a Yale, Harvard or even, um, Wellesley and not from North Texas State. Unfortunately that has been the case for both women and men, as you know I'm sure.

So if the women who would have in the past been able to greatly shape public policy in favor of women instead choose to stay away from the workplace (and therefore the more public arenas?), how will that impact society? For the better or worse? Well, I'd argue for the worse- if you're female anyway.

As a personal decision, should the individual female be able to make the decision to stay home? Of course. As a societal trend with impact on others, is it a topic worth discussing? Of course.

And discussion does not always mean criticizing, though there will of course be that element as well.

I thought elsewhere in this thread it was noted that this was a very narrow socioeconomic set. How many movers and shakers do they produce?

Is the entire female student body of the Ivy League going to stay home with babies?

And while discussion doesn't always mean criticizing, in the author's case it does - these women are "selfish". The same word once used to describe women who chose to work.

Just look at some of the posts in this thread, for heaven's sake.

The "movers and shakers" of society are from a very narrow socioeconomic group for the most part. It isn't contradictory to say that this is a small group of women about whom the author writes, but that it is also the group which is likely to produce most of the "leaders" of the next generation.

And though no one has mentioned it, this stay at home mom trend is also part of a larger trend that has been noted by some political scientists- the increasing conservatism of the next generation. By and large, they tend to be more anti-choice, more religious and more likely to self-identify as republican. Sorry I don't have a source for that, it was just an article I read a few years ago. But if that report is true, it should be alarming to all of us.

whether they choose to work, choose to stay at home with kids, or choose some other life not tidily described by those options.

It is not selfish for anyone to choose to work.
It is sexist to say that it is the woman who is selfish for having a career while the man is justified to pursue anything.

And it is certainly not selfish for any parent to want to stay home with their children.

If my wife wanted a full-time career, I would happily cut my work load down to spend more time with the kids.