Wednesday
Oct142009
Dr. Phil Stay-at-home mom vs. working mom show
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 
I just finished watching the Dr. Phil show on stay-at-home moms vs. working moms that featured bloggers like Jessica Gottlieb (@jessicagottlieb) and Heather Armstrong (@dooce). Although the show touched on some important issues, I found it rather polarizing and one-dimensional. There were a few short mentions of women who work part-time or who do shift-work and share raising of their children with their spouses, but for the most part it seemed to focus on women who are at home all the time or women who are at work all the time.Some points that need to be made
There are a few points that were made on the show and need to be emphasized. There are others that were severely lacking from the discussion.
- Dads are parents too: With the exception of one woman who mentioned that she worked in law enforcement and shared child care activities with her husband, there was no mention of these women's spouses at all. Shouldn't there have been just as many men in the audience defending their decision to go back to work or their decision to stay home? I think it is ridiculous that it is still a novelty for men to stay home and that our society still assumes that a working mom = kids in day care. Read more: Feminism, fathers and valuing parenthood.
- Employers need to be supportive: Dr. Phil briefly touched on being a supportive employer and ensuring that his employees (or at least the female ones) are able to put their kids first. He said that he tells them not to miss any important events with their kids for work and encourages them to leave to be with their kids for important activities. More employers need to do this. A lot of employers act like it would be a hardship. It does take a bit of creativity sometimes, but if you want the best employees and want to get the best out of your employees, you need to take into consideration the fact that they have a life outside of work and that life doesn't always happen only in the evening and on weekends (that goes for both child-free employees and parents).
- Maternity leave is still lacking: I don't think parents should have to choose between staying at home and going back to work when their children are small. I think that the government should have laws and support systems in place to allow a parent to choose to stay at home with their kids. Read more: SAH or WOH? How can we stop restricting mothers' choices?
- Affordable quality child care increases women's economic opportunities: Whether a woman chooses to use it or not, ensuring affordable quality day care is available does increase women's economic opportunities and by virtue of doing that it also improves outcomes for children (less poverty, better educational results) and creates greater equality (more women are primary breadwinner, more men choose to take leave). Read more: Pauline Marois: Profile of a feminist, mother and leader of social change.
- Build the right village: Whether you are a stay at home mom who is suffering from isolation or a work out of home mom who needs to be able to trust the people that care for her children, creating a village is so important. It isn't always easy to build that village because the natural villages that used to exist have disappeared. In my opinion, if you don't work at building that village, you will suffer over time. You need people you can turn to for adult conversation or to give yourself a break. Read more: It takes a village to raise a child.
This issue is far more complex than can be dealt with in a one hour Dr. Phil show. It is far more complex than saying that staying at home is right or going to work is right. It is also more complex than saying that every choice is equal.
Our choices
People make assumptions all the time. I am a working mom and most of my clients and friends that do not know my husband just assume that my kids must be in day care. That is not the case. Here is what we have chosen to do:
- I quit my job: I was always a model employee (okay, except maybe when I worked for my dad). I always put in 110% at the office. I feel the need to impress my superiors. I knew that if I kept my job, I would constantly feel conflicted between my parental responsibilities and my work responsibilities. I knew that I put enough pressure on myself to do well and I didn't need a boss putting pressure on me too. So I quit my job and started my own business. That way I only take on as many clients as I feel I can handle. I can take 2 months of vacation each year. I can take days off to do things with my kids. It isn't a free-for-all and I do have responsibilities to my clients, but a lot more is in my control than it was when I was someone else's employee. Read more: A working mom seeks balance.
- I stayed at home during the early days with both kids: I stayed at home for 3 months with my son and for 6 months with my daughter. Being at home during the early days helped with bonding and made breastfeeding easier. I am the primary breadwinner in our family and that was the longest amount of time that I could afford to take off without the bank taking our home away from us. Sure, there are people out there that say "you could have sold your home and moved into an apartment", but losing my home just so that I could stay at home instead of my husband seemed a bit ridiculous. He is a capable parent too.
- I worked at home a lot: When I first went back to work, I worked at home a lot. That allowed me to be there to breastfeed and to have lunch with my kids. I could take breaks to spend some time with them. I didn't lose time with them due to a commute.
- My husband is a stay at home dad and my mom helps out: My husband is a stay-at-home dad while doing his Masters degree (done!) and now his PhD. My mom comes over 2 days per week and helps out. So, over the course of the week, there are generally 2 days where my mom takes care of the kids, 3 days where my husband takes care of the kids, 1 day where I take care of the kids, and 1 day where my husband and I have them together.
- Our kids start school at three years old: We have found a wonderful, small elementary school that we love. It has small class sizes, a family feel, and has full-day preschool starting at 3 years old. We decided that we would enroll our kids there starting at 3 years. Our son is in his third year there now (he is in Kindergarten this year) and our daughter will start next year. That allowed us to have our kids at home during their first few years, but also allows us to pursue our careers and have them in a trusted and nurturing environment.
I won't pretend that the choices we have made are the best choices or the ideal choices in absolute terms. They were the right choices for us. They were choices that didn't involve catering to society's assumptions about which parent should stay home, about needing a job to be productive member of society, about traditional day care being the only alternative to staying at home.
We need to start thinking outside of the box. Parenting shouldn't be about stay-at-home moms versus working moms. That is so one-dimensional and boring. Let's look instead at the societal conditions that are preventing more creative solutions and that keep boiling it down to a shallow mommy war.
Reader Comments (100)
[...] you’re looking for a thoughtful and interesting parenting blog, visit US-based PhD in Parenting. She’s just written up her views on a Dr Phil show which put working moms up against stay at [...]
Who is teaching your children values? You or the daycare or school? The answer is probably wherever they spend the most time at. What is your value? What is important to instill in your children? Are you instilling it or is someone else? Are you satisfied with the character traits you see in your children? Little people become big people one day. Are they going to grow up having your values or someone else values? This is our future America.
I don't think it is the employers responsibility to support what is a personal choice. Since we have birth control, adoption and abortions, no one needs to have children. I chose not to have children and I see how employers bend over backwards to accommodate parents. On the other hand my personal choices and those of people like me are not being accommodated. I want to take a year off to do charity work in Africa, but where is my paid leave and guaranteed job when I get back. I have seen women have numerous children each with a year mat leave, they get to leave work whenever they want for a child's play or sickness while the rest of us pick up the slack.
Also to the Stay-At-Home moms. My mother always told to me to never date a guy who was raised by a stay-at-home mother and boy was she right about that. They tend to have more sexist views towards women. I also feel bad for daughters raised by stay at home mothers - they tend to be less ambitious and feel less capable then boys. Children raised by stay-at-home moms have a sense of entitlement and lack of worldliness that we are all subjected to when they leave the nest. Women are more than just a set of udders and a uterus we have brains and we can really make the world a better place if more of us are in positions of power.
Wait: You have just detailed the ways that you believe stay-at-home shape the outcomes of their children's lives and personalities, and then imply that motherhood is not a "position of power"? I sense some irony here.
There are some, in fact, who might argue that the domestic position of power is the most influential in a society. Think about how American life changed throughout the 20th century; nearly all of that change can be traced directly back to the shift in women's rights of self-determination. And if the last 12 months have shown us anything sociologically, it is that being employed confers neither security nor power on anyone, male or female, parent or not.
Andi, I see the irony; however, regardless of the mothering technique employed by the stay at home parent the situation and family dynamic that is created by stay-at-home mothers causes a gender imbalance due to our capitalist society that associates money and working with power. Therefore, if the man is working he is in a position of power and the mom is relegated to a subordinate role. This is societal because we have adopted the capitalist economic system where power, success and in turn respect are directed at those that make money. So my point is that the father by being the breadwinner is in an elevated position in the household. Right or wrong nurturing is not respected like hard work in our society and it never will be as long as we are capitalist, the golden rule. It is not until a power balance is achieved in the basic economic unit, the family, that it will be achieved in society. How can a women be respected when her children see her serve a man and ask for an allowance instead of two people working as a team and equally contributing to chores, money, and parenting? The economic crises has raised some economic questions and it will be interesting to see if we adopt a more socialist system.
Look at how much our society elevates hard work and contributing to society. The "American Dream" is all about reaching your potential. Being a hard worker and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is noble and something to be admired. This is why working mothers get more respect from society and their children. This is why their children are better to deal with in the real world as adults than stay at home children. Stay-at-home moms must realize this at some level and this is why they tend to get upset and bent out of shape by working mothers.
Also how are we to have women senators, presidents, ceos, directors if mothers stayed at home? I respect a women's right to self-determination but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their choice.
I was going to explain to you all the ways that I run our household finances and whatnot.
But my husband told me if I did, he'd cut off my allowance.
If you'll excuse me I've got finish this chai latte before I go to yoga. Have fun at work.
Your point is well-taken; however, I don't accept the assumption that equality must come in the form of women meeting the capitalist/"male" standard. We're seeing signs that domestic duties are receiving more respect in our society, in that more men are opting to stay home, and more women are earning higher pay at their jobs. Many couples do see the balance of home and work as "two people working as a team," insofar as it is no longer assumed that the women must, by default, take the domestic role or sacrifice her career aspirations. And men who don't participate actively in child-rearing are scorned by society that now expects fathers to tote the babies and change the diapers. The shift is in progress; it will be interesting to see how far it progresses and what the outcomes are for all of us.
And what about the harsh economic times we are currently in? Do you really think that a job confers a sense of power in a time when absolutely no job is safe? The idea of power in employment is an illusion, except in that having money gives a person more choices of things to do, places to live, etc. Jobs comes, jobs go, and many men literally hate working and would love the freedom to stay home and "beg" money from their working wives. I don't think our society's views of employment are quite as simplistic as the "American Dream," particularly not nowadays. Working means having food and paying bills--that is not power; that is survival. It is the need for the nurturance of the home and family (for parents as well as children) that does not change, even when economic tides do. Does it require a mother (or father) to stay at home in order to create that nurturance? No. But we should not scorn those who would see their role as the nexus of stability in the home as more important (or more personally fulfilling) than making policy or planning budgets. To compare the stay-at-home mother of today, who is most likely a highly independent individual in her own right, to the dependent mothers of the 1950's and 60's, is inaccurate. This is a new generation of SAHM's and I daresay their daughters will grow up without the societal bridling that the older mother grew up knowing.
Caroline, As a feminist AND a SAHM I take exception to the notion that I am raising my male children to be sexist. There are many who reject society's capitalist economic system in favor of personal values or practical household economics (e.g., why should I do paid work for "the man" only in turn to hand over my paycheck for someone else to raise my young children?). Every mother is a working mother, regardless if she is getting paid for it. Additionally, who says all who chose to stay at home with their children are condemned to a life of eternal servitude? Prior to going into politics, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was a SAHM. I would argue that her domestic experience informs her current role in politics. We don't have to agree with each other's choices, be it having children, staying home, going back to work, or choosing to be child-free, but we can choose to withhold judgement.
Caroline,
First off, my husband was raised by a stay at home mother. He did not expect me to stay at home with my children when I got pregnant with my firstborn. In fact, he ended up being a stay at home dad when he was laid off from his job and couldn't find work for 12 months. I supported our family while he did the dishes, took care of my infant and did the clothes.
When he went back to work, we had an egalitarian family - almost equal earning power and equal housekeeping duties. We were a team. We still are, even though I decided our family was more fractured by my 11 hour a day absence (8 hour work day, 1.5 hour commute each way) than was worth it, so I quit when my second born was 9 months old. I still contribute to the family, because of some wise investments and because we bought a modest home we could afford if we only had one primary income.
I once swore off having a family. Hell, I swore off marriage, so sure I was going to have a string of affairs. But God, what I would have missed had I did that. And I no longer have to wonder who will take care of me when I'm sick and dying and if my husband is gone. My daughters will.
I had a friend/co-worker who died early, of breast cancer, when she was 51. She had no children either. She was estranged from her mother, had no siblings, and long divorced from her husband (who divorced her after she got her Ph.D.) Who handled her end of life affairs? My other friend and co-worker. She signed off on her DNS, she had power of attorney. She helped select a funeral casket.
Who's going to be there for your end of life needs?
Sure, no one NEEDS to have children...unless we don't want our species to die out. Then SOMEONE needs to have children. And I for one, thoroughly enjoy sex, hate condoms, don't want to risk blood clots and cancers from hormone pregnancy preventers, and even the IUD doesn't prevent pregnancies, but it is an ABORTIFACIENT. It aborts the fertilized egg.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CCLIUD.TXT
So, yeah, unless you want to get yourself sterilized (which would throw you into premature menopause), your birth control options are not really risk free.
And non-pregnant women CAN get time off from work to pursue other things. But usually they are sabbaticals given to tenured professors. Or family leave to care for a ailing parent (which is why it's called the FAMILY medical leave act).
When you get time off to pursue charity work, you can bet that even though you don't have a job when you come back, you can put all that experience on your resume...and someone will be impressed. I highly doubt anyone is going to be impressed with my 5 years at home, even though I was a special needs advocate and I researched everything I could about selective mutism, and I set up a peer-to-peer support system through my blog for other parents of selective mutism. I won't get recognition because I was an advocate for my own daughter and can't use that as "credible" volunteer work.
As for the comment, "Women are more than just a set of udders and a uterus we have brains and we can really make the world a better places if more of us are in positions of power". Whew, that smacks heavily of that misguided, saccharine sweet, naivete that only comes from really uninformed, immature women.
Stay at home mothers have INCREDIBLE amounts of power and influence. We make the world a better place ONE CHILD AT A TIME, by having children feel secure and confident in their abilities to make their own choices.
Do what you want, but don't feel sorry for anyone. We all are capable of making appropriate decisions for our family. Your views aren't going to change my convictions that I made the right choice to stay at home, and if I decide to re-enter the workforce, to make that choice too.
Melissa, I'm the one making more money and benefits and yet I'm the one who has to leave work and hurry home if my todler gets sick. I don't know how fair that is, but it seems like one of those unspoken rules implied by who knws who and that I have to follow...
Pardon the typos, I was typing too fast.
@Caroline:
On your first point, I am a big believer in http://www.phdinparenting.com/2008/08/30/choice/" rel="nofollow">choice. I am also a big believer in giving back to the world. I think raising the next generation is a choice that gives back to the world. I also think that taking a year off to do charity work in Africa is a choice that gives back to the world. I think employers should support BOTH of those choices.
On your second point: [sarcasm] You make a good argument. Damn. I guess that means that my son will be a sissy and my daughter will be an nut cracking bitch, since they are both being raised by a stay at home dad. [/sarcasm] That stay at home dad, by the way, was raised by a stay at home mom. I am a successful, work out of home, entrepreneur and I was also raised by a stay-at-home mom. Guess we just both got REALLY lucky. [sarcasm] I guess we should all put our kids in day care from Day 1 and ship them off to boarding school starting in kindergarten to be 100% sure that we don't have any negative influence on them. [/sarcasm]
i believe two things: 1. we all have choices 2. be careful where you point that finger.
i'm not judging any mom for her choice to work or stay home with her kids. as far as i'm concerned, anyone who's home raising their child/children all day doesn't need a desk & a stapler to prove that what they're doing is full time work.
however-- there are opportunities for families to get creative and the dialogue needs to start going well beyond "mom stays home" or "mom climbs corporate ladder" "period, the end." we're no longer defined by roles that took root in 1950s or 1980s. it's 2010. we have new choices, new opportunities, (relatively) new technology that enable us as families to look at our situation & figure out what works best for our home.
i share this not because i think i've cornered the market on creative parenting by any means, but because it's possible for parents to raise their children successfully, together, in ways that sometimes break the molds. i own my own business that takes very good care of my family. i built it so it would work with me working virtually. i manage my team, have client conference calls, get work done...at home. it allows me the flexibility to support my family financially and be there for my son throughout the day. moms are talented creatures, and just like all the SAHMoms that can take time from their days to blog, twitter, post on this web site, i can feed, bathe, change, play with & read to my son and still find time to get work done throughout my day. maybe i live in that "gray area," but i have a feeling there are a lot of moms in there with me.
SAHDads
there are times i need a quiet office, to take a meeting off-site, or hop on a conference call that needs my full attention. that's where my husband comes in. fortunately, my work affords us the opportunity for my husband to be a full time SAHDad. he's an amazing father. i'm certain he was born to do this. and while i have rough days 'at work,' because i'm here i see first hand that my husband's work deserve a medal. frankly, i'm over dads being left out of the dialogue (whether it's acknowledging how hard they work so moms can have the option to stay home or realizing that -- esp in this economy -- many dads are now staying home to help raise their children).
i'm just saying, it's 2010, let's not let roles defined by our parents, grandparents and generations before them dictate what our options are. shows like this one, media in general, need to dig a little deeper if they want to truly address the options that are out there for families today. it's possible to get creative beyond 'mom does or doesn't work', it's possible for dads to have more engaged, nurturing and hands-on roles in raising their children - including being the stay at home parent- & it's possible for all of us to raise our children in ways that work for us without judging everyone else for making different choices.
Ph.D in parenting...just curious...does your husband blog his adventures as a SAHD? Would love to add him to my blog. I don't have many SAHD bloggers on my blogroll but it would be cool to have a few.
Andi, Great response! I completely agree with your points about how husbands and wives view the domestic environment as a team one; however, I worry about children who view the world more simplistically than we do. They see their Dad working and their mom statying at home and because of societal influences they see Dad as the top of the hierarchy. But I have not doubt that parents go into a traditional model with the best intentions.
Now on to the point "I am not paying someone else to raise my child". This is something you hear a lot. I am a firm believer that it takes a village to raise a child not just two (or one parent) and that children benefit and are more well adjusted when they have the influence of many adults. Children should be free to think for themselves and develop their own ideas and views on the world not just be carbon copies of their parents. How self-important are you to mold little mini versions of yourself? These children, who get so much attention from just their parents, develop a scewed self esteem and find it harder to relate to adults outside the famiy unit. We all have to deal with your "special" children when they become adults and trust me it is not a picnic working with these entitled, self-important individuals who lack key social skills.
Lastly, I did not want to get into a big discussion about my decision to not have children but since it was brought up. I live a very fufilled life and your implication that just because someone does not have or want children means they must suffer problems with their other relationships is presumptive. I have a very close family, I work at a job that makes a difference in the world, I vounteer, donate money to worthy causes, I have a partner that is the love of my life and many close friends. I am not worried about the end of my life especialy because I have strong fufilling relationships. I have seen too many children abuse, disregard, resent and mistreat their older parents. Children are no garantee for happy twighlight years. Just like I can't understand what it is like to raise children you can't understand what it is like to chose to live without them and I couldn't be more happy. Also the IVF thing doesn't bother me because abortion doesn't bother me.
You are right I have judged stay-at-home moms. I have read some points here that make me question some of my views which has been enlightening; however, I still believe that they are setting the women's movement back. You have also judged me for not wanting children so we all have our prejudices and biases. Also the trends towards sexist sons and less ambituous daughters are trends noticed for many instances (empirically supported) everyone can name an exception, like a smoker that lived to 100 but that does not discount the many smokers who died earlier of lung and cariovascular diseases.
People will always have children society will go on, even though the world would be better off with less children in it. Western children are bad for the environment due to their consumerism, intense lifestyles. Also I do not believe in pass the buck living. The old "I am having children and making the world a better place", what about you? How are your children making the world a better place? What are you doing besides raising more spoiled western children with an over inflated view of themselves? What if your children don't make the world a better place?
Anyways I just wanted to inject other views that I thought were missing in this blog and I have really been enjoying your comments. I love spirited debate especially about women's issues with other women because it is only with a lively exchange ideas do we either strengthen our own or open our minds to other possibilities. I look forward to your responses. Thank you!
[...] Comment I am so glad that I subscribed to the comments at PhD in Parenting’s article - Dr. Phil Stay-at-home mom vs. working mom show because if I hadn’t I would have missed out an an a really interesting debate. And [...]
Why are you making the assumption that our children are spoiled simply because they have a parent raising them?
What spoils them is material items bestowed upon them, not parental love, time and attention. Toys, video games, iPods, cell phones with texting capabilities.
And it's not "just" Western parts of the world that suffer from this materialism. Singapore, with their 2 child limit, is one of the MOST money conscious, status conscious, materialistic city you will find.
It takes a village to raise a child. Bullcrap. Who says so? I see the village around me - completely self-absorbed, disconnected, shallow people who do not know how to relate to others on deeply intimate levels and have tolerance and acceptance for differences.
I am not making the assumptions that you will end up like my friend. I'm just telling you what happened to her, and even before that happened, I didn't want it to happen to me. And you are right, their are children that mistreat their parents.
But my children won't. I've studied human development as a personal research project to find out what the best outcomes are for raising resilient, thoughtful, respectful children are. Because I have a child with a diagnosed severe social anxiety issue that caused her to shut down in social setting like school, what good would throwing her in with the lions do - ie force her beyond her capabilities. She was developing asynchronously - her cognitive development was light years ahead of her emotional development. So I should push my child beyond her abilities so that she might "integrate" among people like you better? PUUUUHHHHHLLLLLEAAAASSSE. No thank you.
Caroline. My children are not "special" in the sneering way you suggest. My children are gifted children. They have a former molecular genetics scientist for a mother and a mechanical engineer for a father. I can assure you they WILL go on to do something great for the world.
As for me, I "gave back" to the world already. My first job I was in food microbiology. I tested food products that companies produced to make sure they didn't have bacterial contamination so that people like yourself won't get food poisoning. My second job was in forensic DNA analysis. I spent five years analyzing evidence from sexual assault cases and homicides and I put some very bad men in jail. Some of my victims were young girls - there was one that was gang raped by 4 men, and another that was burned alongside her mother. I couldn't save those victims, but I could help prevent further atrocities like that from happening again. My third job was in medical genetics. I supervised a laboratory that diagnosed rare diseases and gave answers to families struggling with some serious health problems and for families who can not figure out why their sons keep dying within the first weeks of life.
I think this "gives back" to the world quite adequately, don't you think?
So you are telling me, that I have to be currently working to be an example to my daughters? Bullcrap. I think my TELLING them my stories of what I did will be enough.
I don't give a monkey's butt what THE TRENDS say, my children are outliers, just like my husband and I are. My daughter's WILL go on to beat THE TRENDS because they are not a common statistic, and they have an extraordinary mother who is deeply compassionate and humanistic and will always have the "greater good" in mind as I raise them.
So, yeah...go ahead and continue to be prophetic if you want, but you are dead wrong on this one sister.
"These children, who get so much attention from just their parents, develop a scewed [sic] self esteem and find it harder to relate to adults outside the family unit. We all have to deal with your “special” children when they become adults and trust me it is not a picnic working with these entitled, self-important individuals who lack key social skills."
This is completely IGNORANT. Just completely.
My kids relate to adults outside the family unit. They have school teachers, and church leaders, and aunts and uncles and grandparents.
Do you think we stick them in a flippin' closet?????
Caroline - it's IUD, not IVF - IUD = intrauterine device. IVF = in vitro fertilzation.
I just want to comment that what's missing in your points is coherent logic.
Okay rant over. I feel sorry that certain members of society are grossly misinformed and immensely close-minded.
@Raising Smart Girls: Sorry - just realized I never replied to this. No - he doesn't blog. I can't even convince him to write a guest post on my blog.
[...] January 10, 2010 by raisingsmartgirls Recently, there’s been some renewed interest in a post from Ph.D. in Parenting’s blog post entitled Dr. Phil Stay-at-home mom vs. working mom show. [...]
I just wanted to say I wrote a post about empirical research-based evidence for attachment theory and NOT putting children into day-care arrangements and referenced links to find more information on peer-reviewed research articles on attachment disorders and anxiety disorders.
here it is:
I mean here:
http://raisingsmartgirls.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/research-on-attachment-theory-and-anxiety-disorders/
[...] That they can be stay at home fathers [...]
I live in Singapore. Singapore does not presently have a 2-child limit. And I hope you are not suggesting that Singapore children are a prime example of children who are spoilt.
Let's not make sweeping statements.
Pinkie:
Who or what are you replying to? I don't understand your comment at all in the context of this post or discussion.
I am not suggesting they are a prime example of children who are spoiled, but I have a friend who lives there who has witnessed the same kind of materialism as in western states,. I would not have made that statement had I not been told that by someone who didn't live there. Perhaps HE was mistaken though. I suppose, like anything else, it's a matter of perspective and what one sees in the neighborhood they live in.
I mean western countries. Everyone likes to say the United States is materialistic, but we are NOT the only ones in the world to be this way.
And not everyone in the United States is materialistic, either. Some of us do not subscribe to the buy more mentality.
raising smart girls: that is a much more reasonable stance, which I can agree with.
I totally agree with what Liz Fenton on this one.
Why is it such a debate?! It's like everything with raising children-it's up to each individual family, no one elses buisness! If you wAnt to home school, bottle feed, work full time, get a nanny, get a manny get a new career...do it! Do what makes you all hsppy, do what works!
I worked full time as a professional nanny (have two nursery nursing diplomas and a degree-not like other so called nannies but they'd another very long debate) and I lobed my job caring for other peoples children.
The stick the poor mums would get for working full time from other mums was awful!
They would say to me-oh those kids I bet thru think you're their mum, how ridiculous! Of course they didn't! Thru thought I was their friend who came to play everyday while mummy and daddy went to work to earn pennies for holidays and clothes and tonpsy bills!
After my ramble I just want to say, I'm now a stay at home full time mum to my 8 month old and have another on the way. I stay at home because my career is looking after Children and I feel I'm the best in my field at doing this, so want the best for my children. However, if my career was something else, I would go back to work.
It's all about choice like I've already said.
Live and let live!
My stay-at-home-husband would concur LOL
I'm sorry, but the IUD is not an abortifactant.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2623730
She is replying to Comment #67
Here is the thing that kills me so much in these arguments: people are always all, "why can't you work from home more?" or talking about workplace flexibility and it is largely ignored that *so many freaking jobs* simply don't offer this! It is like the blame (again) is being placed on the mother (again) for not making the "right" choice (again) about how to balance her home/work life, when in reality we simply DO NOT HAVE the choice-making ability.
I have been mostly a SAHM for 8 years. It was by choice, but not in the sense that we were privileged because my husband could support us. It was more that we had 3 children in the space of 2 years and there was absolutely nothing I could do that would pay me above what I would be paying out in childcare. And this has been the sad truth for all these years. I know you said it in your post, but affordable, accessible childcare needs to be addressed (here in the US) as well.
I love the Motherhood Manifesto - I bought a copy through MomsRising.org. Until I read it, I thought that I was mostly alone in my situation; I know that I wasn't on the "suburban" track of having four kids and driving a minivan, so I felt like my impostor-middle-class life was just me flying under the radar. Most women I know are either working because they can't afford to stay home or are at home because they want and can afford to. But this book helped me see that it's a larger problem, ingrained into our societal framework, and that there's so much to be done to see things change.
Thanks for your post!
I am a working mother and what I take offense to comments made by SAHM's who feel they work harder than I do. I will not judge decisions made because the choices each person makes is right for their family personally. However, what irks me is being told my 45 hours a week I put in at a stressful job and then the duties I have as a mother and homeowner after work is easier. Plain and simple, I don't care what your argument is, it's not.
Also, the notion that if your husband can support you, you should be at home. I would rather split the work load with my husband so we can both have a relationship with our son. Those that imply your children are being raised by someone else, does that mean your husband doesn't have hand in molding your child's personality because he is at work? Personally, I think the key is choosing a daycare that holds the same values as you do as parents. In fact, daycare has been great for him socially and intellectually.
I agree 100% Brittany.
I have two sons, ages 5 and 8, and work full time as a Senior Engineer at a major company. I have structured my hours so that I work 4 long days, all Fridays off, and am home before school gets out during the school year. This means that I get up before 4am M-Th, and my husband takes the kids to daycare/school around 7:30. I am home by 3:30. I am running non-stop from 3:30am until usually after 11pm making sure that all of the house stuff gets done, and that the boys can do all the activites they wish to join. We have dinner as a family 6-7 days a week, and tons of quality time in the hours after school and before bed. Plus, I have every Friday at home.
I don't see why women get so offended when I say they should be the ones to stay home during the early years of a child's life. In my opinion, mothers are more significant than fathers are in their child's life. While the father is typically, "the head of the house" the mother is normally there to comfort the child. The bond between a mother and her child is like no other thing in this world. If you look at most animals such as wolves or bears, normally, and I say NORMALLY the mother is the one to take care of the child. Mothers are the center of the child's life. When I was growing up, my mother was always working, as was my father. It always seemed as if she were trying to push me away when she left me at the babysitter's. By the time she came home she was "too tired" to do anything. My father came home later, but when he came home, he would wake my sister and I up just to see us. We would talk for a half an hour or so while eating McDonald's. My mother and I are still not close at all and I strongly feel her working during my childhood played a huge role in it. I'm not against women working, I'm against women working during the child's early life.
Throwing my hat again into the ring.
I can see your points Andre. There is nothing quite as good as mom, even though some people would have us believe otherwise. Mothers are more biologically invested in children - an infant is a "we" before an "I" and that ONLY happens with mom, because the infant came from mom and of all the hormones involved in pregnancy and in breastfeeding (if that is being done). Mothers ARE the extension of the child, until the child develops a strong sense of self...that can ONLY happen from good mirroring from the primary caregivers.
At least the first three years are critical, but even up to the first 7 years which have some of the most important impacts, because many of the predominant beliefs of the security of the world get laid down in these years of childhood. The child mind is the one to organize all the incoming input. This best happens with someone heavily invested in their welfare - a parent, ideally a mother, or even a nurturing grandmother. My mother-in-law was a wonderful mother substitute and loved my daughters almost as much as I did. This is not to knock fathers at all. Thing about fathers, caring and nurturing that they might be, is that they are missing the natural biochemical symbiotic relationship of carrying a child and nursing it.
The vast problem I see is that this relationship and motherhood in general is so undervalued. Mothers have one of the most important roles in the world, and pretty much the least respect for it. It's no wonder that we find it difficult to be 'just' a mom.
Looking back, sometimes I wish I stayed home from childbirth on, but my husband was laid off and I had kept my laboratory job to keep us afloat.
But I'm still pleased with being home now, now that I have been home for 7.5 years. My oldest (now 9) and my middle daughter (now 8) had me for 7.5 years, and my youngest (6) had had me her entire life. It's been a grand adventure. We've been to so many places together - from historical re-enactments (civil war, living historical farms, wild west towns) to museums - and have traveled a bit too to different places by car and had the time to travel by train to go see my dad in Colorado - someone I hadn't seen in 29 years. I've had energy in the afternoons/evenings to take my daughters out individually for "Mommy and me" dates, and spent time doing science projects and now getting into a lot of art projects as a way to have fun together. I will get an opportunity to give my daughter's class a lecture on Forensic DNA analysis (one of the jobs I had before I had kids). What's more, I've had a lot of energy to pursue my own intellectual interests (not those an employer asks of me).
I grew up with an emotionally absent and verbally (and sometimes physically) abusive mother. I grew up with an alcoholic father and alcoholic step-father. Family life really just sucked. I learned a LOT in the past year (since I posted last) about how to deal with my childhood wounds. I would never have time for that if I had to work on top of be a mother. I realize a lot of people didn't have the upbringing I did and didn't have some really messed up abuse to contend with. But, since I didn't have to work, I had the time to do a LOT of investigation into the origins of some of my own issues I brought with me from childhood. I am now quite knowledgeable human psychology which helps me in all my relationships.
My daughter had selective mutism. Staying at home gave me a chance to be a full time advocate for her, and I have quite a following on my blog of other parents of selectively mute children who look for resources and support.
I may not have a paid job, but I certainly have a very meaningful vocation. And I think of all the things I would not have been able to do had I been working all this time.
That being said, my husband's been laid off for a year and this is the second time he's had a direct hand at influencing my daughters lives. But, he also gets more frustrated at I am at their normal but sometimes frustrating developmental behavior.
It's a race to see which one of us can get back to work first. The thing that irritates me the most is NOT the fact that I took the time off at all, but that I am challenged with finding an on-ramp back into the STEM field. I'm doing my best to network, but companies aren't so keen on the 7.5 year gap in my work history.
Still, despite the career setback, I would NOT have changed it for the world. At all.
For those mothers who work and still find time to be with their children, I'm glad it works for you. I personally hated it. I resented having NO time for me because I was gone 11 hours a day, to come home to take care of kids, and then fall into bed and wake up a zombie the next morning. It didn't matter that my husband shouldered as much as he could when he was home (he had an odd rotating shift work pattern). It was brutal.
I have grown more as an individual AND as an intellectual when I didn't have to spend time at/on the way to work. I hear a LOT of bitching going on from my working mother friends. Too bad, I think, for them, they are all on the verge of collapse, divorce, and are otherwise miserable, stretched so thin they can barely stand up. I look in some of their eyes and see the pain and the sadness and the loneliness of too many demands. Most of the husbands help. It's just not enough.
Busy, busy, busy, only time for work, housework and childcare. Some are accustomed to their frenetic pace, but I look at them and I see the pressure they are under. I hear the bitterness creep in from time to time. Then they crack jokes about it in order to keep from buckling under the pressure they are under.
Sad, so sad. But that's what the world is coming to. The push to do more, have more, be more...
Yeah, you're right. Daycare babies will be just fine....because they will have been indoctrinated to regulation and routine from a very early age to hold in emotions, to obey rules, to eat and poop on command.
Conform, conform, that is the norm.
Ah, who cares. Not I.
I'm glad you all feel confident in your choices. That's the only thing that matters. If anyone feels offended, it may be because you are worried that there might be some truth to their concerns. That's MY guess.
One other thing I am dying to know...of those women who are working mothers...how is your sex life? Are you having regular, fulfilling sexual relations with your partners long after the children come into the picture?
I know of about 6 couples with children whose wives work who has NO energy left over for sex. After 5-10 years, even though the mothers might be taking care of the children quite well, and working quite well, they are neglecting their sexuality and their husbands in order to do so. I talk to my therapist about this phenomenon. She tells me, that by the time women are MY age (41) many of them have turned off their sexuality because they have too much resentments built up trying to do it all. Whereas I enjoy quite an active and varied sex life because I have the energy and desire to keep that very important part of my life alive.
Just curious. I would love to know how that is working out for the working moms who've commented here.
Anyone willing to educate me on the matter?
Personally, I believe that fact that the mother/infant are connected by default is, if anything, an argument for purposely seeking out a strong bond between the other parent (father, non-biological mother) and the baby. It was incredibly important for us that we both have a strong bond with our babies.
If the mother is too tired, but the father isn't, then perhaps she is taking on too much and he is taking on too little. Far too often, the husband goes to work and maybe does a few "manly chores", but the mother ends up working, doing the bulk of the household chores, and the bulk of the child rearing. No wonder the mom is too tired.
Oh, for sure.
My husband still finds it difficult to bond with his girls. He, an engineer, quiet by nature, nurturing by his mother but extremely neglected and criticized by his father finds it really difficult even though he has made a bigger effort than I had ever anticipated.
Our daughters are anything but normal though. High sensitivities coupled with high intellect and at least one of them with ADHD like qualities makes it a challenge for him to bond.
He does so much for them (like has taken over making lunches for them) and with them (playing ball with my oldest, playing games with all of them).
It's been great, though not without challenges simply because our strong female emotions and personalities tend to overwhelm him sometimes. I sometimes wonder how it would have been if he had at least one boy to relate to...though our oldest daughter is tomboyish.
Life sure has been very low-stress around our house though. Being unemployed frees up a lot of mental and physical energy. Wish we didn't have that pesky little thing like bills and insurance to pay for.
You know, I have never met any man that was too tired for sex who actually did work (manly or chores) around the house. I suppose it's possible. But I don't know.
My husband and I went to work and we shared duties of cooking, washing dishes, and laundry. He wasn't fond of washing floors, toilets, or dusting. But he COULD do them if need be. But he mowed the grass, did the car maintenance and fixed the toilet when it broke, etc.
I know of a LOT of women who make their men do a lot more than a "few" 'manly' chores. I live in a working class neighborhood. The husbands aren't computer literate, but they sure know how to do the manly chores. They have a honey-do list a mile long because most of them can't afford to contract it out and since they don't have brand new houses, they have legitimate house repairs or renovations that need doing. Some of them have some fantastic landscaping.
Of course, the manly chores mean nothing to the city dweller who lives in an apartment or condo. So yeah, those men could be pulling their weight with childcare and housework.
The thing is...I think it's a shame that MY man wasn't taught how to make major repairs around the house (cause his father didn't know how). He tries, God love him, he does. But projects don't turn out well for him (yeah, even though he could DESIGN it just fine, building his creations always goes a little wonky). But he does his own brake pad changes and other intensive car stuff.
I'd gladly take back housecleaning if he could replace the broken doors, cabinets, redo all the trimwork (our house if 40 years old). Course these things require MONEY...which we don't have a lot of.
Yet, I still see women whose husbands do a lot of manly work complaining about their husbands because they aren't helping out as much with the kids. Um...well, wait a minute. How many of the women are taking on manly chores to help the husbands so they have more time for the kids? I'd like to know. Why wouldn't the argument go BOTH ways?
So yeah, I don't know. I don't care what task needs doing, whoever has the expertise and the energy and the time, ought to pitch in and do it. Teamwork...it's require in the workforce these days, why not the home front?
Okay. I'm not sure I actually replied well here. A lot of things figure into this.
Bottom line, there are no clear-cut solutions to some of our most frustrating problems to creating a truly egalitarian home arrangement. Lots of variables to think about.
I think I sort of threw things off track by saying 'manly' chores. That isn't the main issue.
What I mean is that in a lot of families where both parents work, the mom ends up "working" (job, childcare, household chores) for several hours more per day than the dad does. I don't have exact stats right now, but I know that they exist and I know that women still do shoulder the bulk of household chores, even when both partners work. No wonder they are tired.
In our house, my partner is more likely to fall asleep while bringing the kids to bed than I am. But each person and each family is different.
I don't think women trained their men right from the get-go. I was pretty adamant about my husband knowing how to do some things around the house, by not automatically do his laundry, wash dishes, etc. I had expectations that he would learn to do these things and I would NOT automatically do them just because I am the girl.
Actually, I think that before a couple marries, they ought to come up with a business plan. In writing. Who is responsible for what duties, with built-in periodic review dates to change the contract if things aren't working.
I actually think, in some ways, women VOLUNTARILY take on the traditional care-taking/house-care duties from day one, as a way of showing love their men (at least during the early years of marriage, before kids). As in saying "see how much I love you, I'll do your laundry for you/cook great meals for you/I'll take care of your domestic needs" and other duties (in other words, be their MOTHER). And so the tacit agreement is made that the woman will continue to take care of her husband as if he were a child when kids come along. And come to think of this, this is preached in many Christian churches. For a woman to show her love to her husband and adherence to God's laws, she'll be the Proverbs 31 woman. Even if over time, she is shredded into a million pieces trying to do it all.
This expectation (either mandated by social/religious customs or by her own way of care-taking) creates a psychological bind that women can't easily change.
I say, it's time for a revolution. Who SAYS it's the woman's job to HAVE to take care of the housework after work? The women do do it, yes, that's true. But who's holding the gun to their head? I mean really? If they don't want to do the chores, don't do it. Eventually, the kids will be old enough to pitch in and it could be a FAMILY endeavor. Make a game of it, even. But I don't see that happening in many households either. The mother should be teaching ALL the kids (both sexes) to do age appropriate chores. By the time the kids are teenagers, they should be taking over routine household tasks - dusting, laundry, washing bathrooms. Is this happening? No. It's not. Too many teenagers have too few household responsibilities. Why? Because teamwork wasn't modeled.
What's nice in our household is that my daughters see their dad doing laundry, cooking and washing dishes. They will see that it's not all the woman's job to do these things. They will most likely look for a mate that will be capable of doing just what their dad was able to do.
But, yeah, this doesn't happen in most marriages. I get that. Out of my four sisters and I, I think I'm the only one whose husband does housework around the house. I feel only slightly bad for my sisters, but the way I figure it, they bought into the conditioning that household tasks were the sole domain of the woman, thanks to my mother and other social conditioning.
My mother can't believe sometimes that I leave the house to go out without making sure my husband and kids have a meal on the table. I'm like, "mom, really? He's not a child, he knows how to cook for himself and the kids and cook quite well. Trust me, he can HANDLE it".
And he can handle it because I made sure he got a lot of practice!
Ah well... I probably should stop while I'm ahead.
This is an area where I tend to get a little feisty about. Sometimes I am really domestic and traditional, but most times I'm not.
I basically do whatever it is I feel like doing, and I kind of like it that way. :)
[...] up in partisan politics. It is a discussion that has played out over, and over, and over again in the past and again this [...]
[...] discussion is tired, old, and has been hashed out so many times in so many different ways in the horrible stay-at-home mom versus work-out-of-home mom clashes. On Salon.com, Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote about The NYT's ridiculous mothering debate. On [...]
If the schools were what they were fifty to sixty years ago, I may have considered having my children attend. However, times have changed and socialistic propaganda is in every public text book. As documented by the socialist movement, "change the child and you change the culture". So, just on what schools are now teaching children ( and it is getting worse) I choose to be teaching my children at home for the sake of our country and their future.