<p>
</p>
<p>Both parents are supposed to help each other in bringing up the kid. I can’t quite figure out the point of exclusion. Say more please?</p>
<p>
Sometimes they’re dead.</p>
<p>My parents had me when they were older as did my husband’s, which was less common then, and there’s no guarantee of years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tradition, mostly, I think. Child-related responsibilities used to be considered a mother’s work, not a father’s. Things are changing, but slowly.</p>
<p>In the department where I work, there is a man with two school-age children who takes advantage of the schedule flexibility that the company offers as frequently as his female colleagues with children do. For most of the summer, he has been changing his arrival time almost every week to drop his kids off at different day camps and summer programs (his wife does the pickups). And just like the moms in the office, he will take time off in the middle of the day to take a child to the doctor or dentist and make up the time by staying late or coming in early on another day. </p>
<p>Nobody thinks twice about this. But then, both his boss and his boss’s boss are women with school-age children whose families face the same challenges. The situation might be different in a different workplace or with different supervisors.</p>
<p>
I had a 60 hour workweek from the time the kids were 10 weeks old, with a commute that didn’t allow me to come home in the middle of the day or come to work outside of rush hour. My husband has a job that is so flexible he is often out of the house less than 20 hours a week. So he went to all practices, appointments, did volunteer duty in school, and I couldn’t do any of those things. None. Ever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that true in general?</p>
<p>
Is this a serious question? In many places, and definitely here in the US, our society has become extremely mobile. One generation lives in one city/state/region, the others in another. Many of us have no immediate family living anywhere near us, and for others, even if they did, the siblings, parents (ie grandparents of the little ones needing watching) may themselves still be in the workforce. Or, for a variety of reasons, perhaps the elderly grandparents are unable to care for young children. This is not news.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But who excluded you?</p>
<p>
Well, since everyone does actually die, I think it is true in general that “sometimes they’re dead.”</p>
<p>
As my posts made clear, my husband and I did that when we chose logistics over considering whether I would be happy with what made sense.</p>
<p>There are many, many jobs that don’t allow for a cellphone to ring at an inconvenient time. Many people turn their phones off when they are working. Is this truly so hard to understand???</p>
<p>My father worked in a detention center. He could’ve gotten fired if he had his cellphone on his person.</p>
<p>What are you trying to say, IndianParent? Your questions all seem to imply that this is a non-issue: why aren’t there grandparents around? why can’t you answer your phone? why can’t fathers chip in? The whole point is that these are complicated issues that cannot be answered by a general solution; not everyone sees the problem, not everyone has a problem, not everyone wants a solution, not everyone thinks there is a solution, not everyone agrees as to what the solution might be. The original post had to do with an article that assumed that people were unaware of their own motivations and pressures, and many responses were to the effect that, hell, yes, I knew why I chose what I chose. There may be people who choose freely; there may be people whose choice represents some sacrifice, or considerable sacrifice; there may even be people who, with hindsight, might have made a different choice. You seem to imply that every choice was free, and that’s just not so. Choices have costs. Sometimes those costs are higher than they would need to be, if the workplace were more flexible; as a society, we must determine how much we value the contribution of working parents. It costs us both to lose working parents from the work force at the height of their development and productivity, and to create situations for children in which their development suffers. How much does that cost, to society, matter to society at large? Those are the costs of having to choose, for all of us; implying that each individual could simply have made a “better” choice is irrelevant.</p>
<p>IndianParent, I think one thing you fail to realize is that there are more lifestyles, parenting styles, occupations, family units, etc than what you have experienced. Just because someone’s experiences doesn’t fit with your train of thought or culture, or just because you would have dealt with the situation differently, doesn’t make everyone else’s way of doing things wrong. There’s no need to question everything a person says. It’s obvious that the extended family won’t be dead in every situation, but that doesn’t mean they will be accessible. Your incessant questioning isn’t going to make anyone have an epiphany that you’re right, and that these mothers have been doing it wrong all these years. The beautiful thing about Internet forums is that you can find so many people from so many different walks of life and cultures that you might not encounter in your everyday life. It’s time to embrace that not everyone will fit in your perfect box and move on.</p>
<p>Well said, marysidney and grammargirl. There are other sociocultural factors at play as well. For those of us who have spent the past 5 decades (give or take) growing up in the US and have lived through changing trends in the 60’s, 70’s 80’s etc, have perhaps in this century reflected back on decisions they made in the 70’s -90’s that affected their personal, family or financial growth. IMO there are ALWAYS tradeoffs to all decisions made when it comes to family systems, work, children, finances, extended family issues, etc. Then there are divorces, remarriages, and it gets even more complex. To try to boil it down to some reductionistic/simplistic “that was your choice” statement is concrete, if not robotic in the thought process.</p>
<p>Is this a serious question? In many places, and definitely here in the US, our society has become extremely mobile. One generation lives in one city/state/region, the others in another. Many of us have no immediate family living anywhere near us, and for others, even if they did, the siblings, parents (ie grandparents of the little ones needing watching) may themselves still be in the workforce. Or, for a variety of reasons, perhaps the elderly grandparents are unable to care for young children. This is not news.
My inlaws live in the same city, although they retired early in order to care for their other grandchild, they were not interested in regularly caring for either of ours- which is totally their choice. ( they did take care of one or the other of them- generally not both, about 1x a year)
My father was deceased, my mother was working, and when she retired she moved to live with my brother to the midwest to care for his child.
My own grandparents did take care of my oldest occasionally, but they were not able to do that on a regular basis.</p>
<p>I also was on forced bed rest during my pregnancies which made staying in touch with my career quite difficult.</p>
<p>I think there are many creative solutions here that is almost purposefully being ignored. This is also seen as a burden for only mothers to bear. Strange.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally get what Zoosermom is saying. She would have liked to have been the parent who was more involved in her kids day-to-day activities. She was fortunate that she had a husband who was able to step in but as a mom, I can appreciate that she feels like she missed out on all those things. At one point, my husband (tongue in cheek I suspect because he makes 3 times what I do) kept making comments that he wanted to be a stay-at-home dad and my response was something like ‘it’s not just about having a parent available to do those things, it’s also about me as my son’s mother doing those things and I’m not willing to give those experiences up.’ I stayed at home for most of my son’s life and have zero regrets. I was fortunate that when I went back to work, my skills (although slightly rusty) were in high demand and I was able to start in a senior position. I realize a lot of women aren’t that lucky. Even if I wasn’t able to start in a higher position, I would still have no regrets. As someone said upstream, I know my limitations and I am definitely not a woman who could do it all at once. Everything would have suffered - my job, my child, my family if I had tried. I have an undying respect for working mothers because I know how difficult it is pull a second shift everyday.</p>
<p>I think there are many creative solutions here that is almost purposefully being ignored. This is also seen as a burden for only mothers to bear. Strange.</p>
<p>Love to hear the creative solution for bed rest.</p>
<p>What creative solutions do you suggest, IP?</p>
<p>Well, getting a nanny seems like the simplest option. Having fathers chip in seems like the fairest option. The combination would solve most of the issues. That’s what my wife and I did. We also got copious amounts of household help and made sure to stay close by work and school, even though it meant smaller house in the city.</p>