next »

[navelgazer]

There are always exceptions. I got my job in part because showing up to the interview 7 months pregnant explained the one-year gap in my CV. And because my school and department are awesome.

I am very resistant to the "mommy track" (god I hate the term "mommy"), and I'm afraid if I were to put my career on the back burner to my husbands that I would always resent him/the decision. In the end, though, I don't really know anyone--no matter what they say--who has successfully returned to their career after staying home for X years. You always think you will be the exception.

Finally, there is lots of research coming out that men are rewarded in the workplace for prioritizing family (to a certain degree). This should be evident to anyone who has ever compared the experience of, say, traveling alone with a toddler as a mother or as a father.

[littlefred]

Probably true newbie. I hope it continues for your friend, and I am sure that it does work out for some women, I just don't happen to know any, and I know  a fair number of couples who chose this lifestyle.

I do know a few who are together, although, I don't know if 'happily' can be applied. The men seem to really resent their wives. Blatantly, and in public.

What's funny is that when I first started dating bigfred, I was marginalized by many of these women precisely because I worked, and was upfront about the fact that I had no plans to stop working, for any reason or any financial reason, short of the Powerball. Then we can BOTH quit working, and do whatever we want!

I can't remember the last time we spent any time with those particular couples, but I do know that 10 years later, out of more than a dozen couples, 2 or 3 are still married.

on preview: navelgazer, now that you mention it... out of this group of a dozen couples, the women who have had to return to work either had a tough time getting a job, or have been 'underemployed' since returning. I think one has done fine. (and that's cause daddy is a BIG fish in this SMALL pond)

[octoprof]

There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a parent choosing to stay at home, but that person has to understand how risky that choice is in this day and age of disposable marriage and uncertain economic times.

It's not this "day and age", octoprof...  

Both my husband and I felt very strongly that both of us should always have careers and incomes.  Both his grandmother AND his mother were left without a man to provide for them and the kids.  His grandmother was widowed with a baby and three other young children, and his father divorced his mom.  What happened?  Poverty. His grandma went back to college and became a teacher, and was able to support the kids within a few years.

And in my family, the women didn't do all that much better.  When the men left, by death, divorce, or disability, it's poverty for the kiddos unless the women never quit working.  One of my grandmothers was a teacher already when she met my grandfather, and she never quit her job.  He was disabled in an accident fairly young, and she subsequently kept the family afloat financially.  

Yes, I agree. Both of my grandmothers were single parents (one due to untimely death of my grandfather when Dad was one - she had 6 living children, and the other due to my grandfather abandoning them when my mother was 10 - there were 3 children in that situation). However, they didn't have careers, really, or the opportunity to have them. Neither were educated (one not past 6th grade or so) or very employable except at the obvious sort of jobs. My maternal grandmother was a maid and then a cook. They did manage to survive, though, but it was harsh.

I think some women think because most have opportunities for careers, that those opportunities will always be there. Not.

On the topic of happy SAHMs, my middle sister quit working when the second child was born or not long after. She didn't work until they were in school and then did mostly part time work now and then and infrequently some full time, none of which was in her previous career. At one point she owned her own small business. But most of the time she was not employed outside the home. However, she has never complained about not working and has spent significant time running her own summer-only business (she runs a very successful swim school for children in her backyard pool - people brave long waiting lists to have their child taught to swim by my sister).  She limits this to about 8 or 10 weeks of summer and these days only in the mornings (she's getting older and all day is too tiring). She hasn't, for many years, otherwise worked outside the home and seems perfectly happy, even with the children grown and moved off and having their own children. She does stay very busy, though, with volunteer things, teaching young women to sew, going on mission trips to build churches and playing in church orchestra and so forth. She also has a wonderful husband, which makes a BIG difference, and they do many things together (church orchestra, mission trips, scuba diving trips, etc.).

However, I don't know many others with similarly positive stories, for sure. I'm pretty sure her story is an exception!

[mended_drum]

My sister also did the closing out the world thing after she had her baby:  no newspaper, no television news, no "negativity" of any kind.  It drove me nuts when I visited.  All she could talk about was decorating her house and kid things.  Luckily, my niece is deeply adorable, and I never minded focusing mostly on her for the times I visited.

She had planned to stay home, but being home all of time did drive her nuts.  Her husband was part of a family plumbing business, and when the economy went bust, the business dropped off steeply which made bringing in another income a necessity.  After two years at home, my sister now has two jobs, one of which is quite lucrative.    Of course, I also think she works for a scam company (interthreadility), so take that for what it's worth.  The good part is that the fact that her return to the workforce happening with the economic crisis means that her in-laws have had to keep quiet about their feelings about working moms.

[navelgazer]

My sister also did the closing out the world thing after she had her baby:  no newspaper, no television news, no "negativity" of any kind.  It drove me nuts when I visited.  All she could talk about was decorating her house and kid things.  Luckily, my niece is deeply adorable, and I never minded focusing mostly on her for the times I visited.

She had planned to stay home, but being home all of time did drive her nuts.  Her husband was part of a family plumbing business, and when the economy went bust, the business dropped off steeply which made bringing in another income a necessity.  After two years at home, my sister now has two jobs, one of which is quite lucrative.    Of course, I also think she works for a scam company (interthreadility), so take that for what it's worth.  The good part is that the fact that her return to the workforce happening with the economic crisis means that her in-laws have had to keep quiet about their feelings about working moms.

Armchair psychologist alert! These stories about mothers dropping out of the real world is often related to anxiety. I know a lot of mothers who get anti-anxiety medication after being diagnosed with PPD, and it has helped a lot with these kinds of symptoms. Dropping out of the world because you can't handle the danger to your children is not okay. It happens to some working moms, and I think people notice less because they seem more typically busy. (Oh, you don't know about XYZ because you work all day in addition to parenting.)

[macaroon]

There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a parent choosing to stay at home, but that person has to understand how risky that choice is in this day and age of disposable marriage and uncertain economic times.

It's not this "day and age", octoprof...  

Both my husband and I felt very strongly that both of us should always have careers and incomes.  Both his grandmother AND his mother were left without a man to provide for them and the kids.  His grandmother was widowed with a baby and three other young children, and his father divorced his mom.  What happened?  Poverty. His grandma went back to college and became a teacher, and was able to support the kids within a few years.

And in my family, the women didn't do all that much better.  When the men left, by death, divorce, or disability, it's poverty for the kiddos unless the women never quit working.  One of my grandmothers was a teacher already when she met my grandfather, and she never quit her job.  He was disabled in an accident fairly young, and she subsequently kept the family afloat financially.  

Yes, I agree. Both of my grandmothers were single parents (one due to untimely death of my grandfather when Dad was one - she had 6 living children, and the other due to my grandfather abandoning them when my mother was 10 - there were 3 children in that situation). However, they didn't have careers, really, or the opportunity to have them. Neither were educated (one not past 6th grade or so) or very employable except at the obvious sort of jobs. My maternal grandmother was a maid and then a cook. They did manage to survive, though, but it was harsh.

But isn't that what the author of this article is complaining about?  Her husband left her and now life has gotten harsh.  Is the difference that now the expectation is that life would not be harsh without the man around? 

[navelgazer]

But isn't that what the author of this article is complaining about?  Her husband left her and now life has gotten harsh.  Is the difference that now the expectation is that life would not be harsh without the man around? 

Replace man with "the person who had not dropped out of the workforce years ago, and who is more often than not the mother in a heterosexual relationship."

[redhound]

Thanks for posting this. It's something that is always on my mind when I am trying to juggle childcare, my work, my finances, and my sanity. This article is exactly why I haven't opted out.

[jungle_jane]

I had a stay-at-home mum. I will never let anyone say that it's "good for the kids".
As a little girl, growing up next to a bitter, unfullfilled person (although she would never admit to that, of course) always gave me the akward feeling that it was "my fault" if my mother wasn't out there doing fascinating things. Not having a job and being at home all the time made her ridiculously focused on the house, which became all her world. She was completely out of touch with reality. I remember the ways in which she tried to justify herself when the kids at school made fun of me because I had to answer "she takes cares of me" when asked about my mother's job - basically telling me that working mothers were not taking good care of their children. As a grown-up woman, it took me years, therapy, and two wonderful female mentors to get out of my mother's shadow and over the idea that it would somehow be wrong to eventually have a child since I wanted to commit to a career.
That's definitely not the example I would like to give a child, boy or girl.

klaradeb, you must be my sister. You explained it perfectly (I mentioned my mother's cleaning obsession in another thread).

[octoprof]

They did manage to survive, though, but it was harsh.

But isn't that what the author of this article is complaining about?  Her husband left her and now life has gotten harsh.  Is the difference that now the expectation is that life would not be harsh without the man around?  

I think most women these days can't imagine the harsh of my parents' fatherless childhoods of the 1930s and 1940s. I won't describe. Use your imagination.

I do think that educated young women who have held some sort of professional position/had a career, who then give it up to be SAHMs, often do not comprehend that the future may be very different from the present and their education and experience might count for very little. That, I believe, is the author's point.

[bioteacher]

Good article. For me, quitting my career was never a choice. I was the main breadwinner for a long string of hubby's postdocs. I had the the stable job.

My other big reason for working? I need to... for me. I'm a better person, a better wife, and a MUCH better mother when I have my own gig to do. I am not fulfilled when I am home full time. I need something more.

Not to mention that people in my family live a long time. Eighties and nineties are common. Gram passed last year at age 100. Barring an accident or terminal illness, I am most likely going to outlive my husband. I need a career to fund a retirement. I don't have a lot in my 401k, but I contribute with every paycheck. If I stop working, the contributions also stop. I need that retirement to keep growing.

I admire and sometimes envy those who can find fulfillment at home full time. But I do wonder how they sleep at night, knowing their future financial status depends on someone else.

[littlefred]

I think that's a great point Octo! I think that for many women that is exactly the issue. They can't imagine that it will be different (or their education/experience will be irrelevant).

We urged my cousin for years to get therapy for anxiety (which runs in the family) or to do something.... back to school, part-time work etc. She was raised to be career driven, and I know it was a source of conflict for her internally, as well as with her husband for years. Inertia maybe? kept her from any course of action.... still is. (her reason now is she doesn't want to commit to anything).

Bio: I am with you! Not necessarily on the longevity thing, but certainly on the need to have something of my own. Unless bigfred and I were both retired, and going on adventures together..... I's have tough time sending him to work, while I stayed home with no income.

[compdoc]

I stepped out of the workforce seventeen years ago. I did not adjunct or go to conferences or write until nine years ago. It was the right thing for my family, though it was often hard. One income is difficult. Staying home with children (even ones you adore) is difficult. I am still glad I did it.

When I left academia, people could walk into the chair's office and be offered a position. In fact, the one I left, I just called up the chair and said, "Hey, I'd like to work for you full-time. What do you think?" I had a contract within a week. Several of my colleagues now also mention that kind of hiring at around the same time involving them.

Because I left under those circumstances, and because it is incredibly easy to get adjunct positions always, I did not expect such a big transition from not-ft to ft. When I decided three years ago last month that it was about time to go back to work, I was shocked by the experience. I didn't find the CHE forums till a year and a half later and I was unaware of how much things had changed.

While the search for a job was painful/stressful/traumatic, it was not immediately financially destructive. I recognize that I am one of the lucky ones, to have a ft position in this economy. I am very grateful.

My career was (eventually) resumed. My family thrived. I still think I made the right decision, but it could have been a lot more difficult than it was.