<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there are some very intelligent, accomplished young women who realize how deeply rewarding raising children can be and don’t want to miss out.</p>
<p>Maybe, just maybe, we can move towards a society where women, like men, don’t choose between work and family but can instead have them co-exist. You NEVER hear about men making sacrifices for their families in terms of their careers - or if you do, it’s usually about taking a higher-paying job to “provide,” not about taking a job that allows them more flexibility. (Note: my dad is a notable exception to this - he took a job that allowed him to attend almost every single one of my athletic events and coach teams and all that.) Maybe the feminist movement could get that for women as well and we can end this nonsense about “choosing between work and family” that seems to only apply to women. Hello! Equality!</p>
<p>I wonder how this will play out, given that women are now more educated than men. Often, women stayed home because, well, someone had to stay home and his job was better. What’s going to happen when the Ph.D. scientist wife wants to work at her lucrative pharmaceutical company career and her security guard husband stays at home? Will both employers say, “Oh, she just gave birth, so she’ll be so overcome with mommy hormones that she won’t want to do her job, and instead, they’ll live on his salary of $15/hour, made from the hours of 8 pm and 6 am, with no health insurance or retirement?” Hum… maybe employers will wake up and realize that families will make choices based on factors other than gender… Apparently, these people never heard that stay-at-home dads are on the rise; that both moms and dads are looking for flex time because DADS are suddenly realizing that this whole child-rearing thing might be a little more rewarding than schmoozing with suits, or that, female employees, when treated well, are more likely to want to stay at their jobs, do part-time, or otherwise be an amazing asset to the company. Ugh!</p>
<p>As a woman who does not want children, ever - never has, never will - I find such attitudes to be deeply offensive and actually scary. I’m investing $150k into my legal education - after the grueling hell of engineering - does anyone with a half of a brain think that I’m only doing this so I can spend 20 years at home? Hello! Maybe high-achieving women want careers. Maybe. Employers have a responsibility to assess each candidate invididually. Imagine if we found that black college students were more likely to embezzle from their work places (let’s be all stereotypical here, while we’re saying that women are still all about staying at home) - would we justify employers not hiring black students under the “realism” theory that, heck, no one wants to hire someone who is going to embezzle? </p>
<p>You get hard workers, crappy workers, workers with no common sense, workers who are going to get bored and leave in six months, workers who will be die-hard loyal to the company, and people who are going to move to Arizona in a year to switch jobs, regardless of race, gender, parental income, or shoe size. There are enough variables without having to guess what women are going to do ten years down the road - because chances are, any employee that you hire on out of college won’t be there ten years later! It’s life! Heck, even the ones that want marriage and kids might not stay at home… because they can’t find a suitable spouse or can’t conceive or realize that they can’t survive on his income alone or he dumps her for his secretary halfway through the pregnancy. Do we really need to make it all about some pathetic 1950s stereotype? As if that is the one, overriding factor in deciding if a candidate is going to be a good employee?</p>
<p>Just upsets me when people (esp. newspapers) trot out these cliches and pretend that this is “newsworthy.” Last time I checked, attempts to sabotage ambitious women is nothing new. Between Katrina, Philippe, Rita, Iraq, and the German vote, you would think that journalists would have enough to write about…</p>
<p>~Aries, who is looking at a pile of homework and a pile of debt, and would love to smack anyone who suggests that her gender makes her a bad job candidate.</p>
<p>Fascinating. How often do we hear about men whod like to stay home more with the kids, but do not because their earning power is needed to support the family lifestyle?</p>
<p>Okay, what is “many” 10 of 50, 20 of 100, 20 or 500</p>
<p>Many is so ambiguous a phrase, it is meaningless</p>
<p>In my Ds class, for instance, if 7 wanted cookies, and 27 wanted cake, do I say many?</p>
<p>If a report is so vague, I wonder.</p>
<p>Happened 30 years ago but still relevant…I was not hired for a public relations job in a traditionally male field…job was given to a male who was older, more experienced and, I was told that the company had concerns about my being married to a man who was “subject to transfer” and, since this was a new position, they wanted to hire someone they were sure would “stick around”)…fast forward one year - company called me back…person they hired (highly experienced and recommended) turned out to have a drinking problem, among other things…I was in the process of getting a divorce so no husband…they hired me - I worked there happily for four years and moved on to a better position.</p>
<p>So indeed you never can tell…</p>
<p>I know my husband would have LOVED to stay home more when our boys were young, but he worked long hours so that I could be home with them, homeschool them, etc. (not for a better lifestyle, just so I could be there) I think it would be wonderful if either parent could stay home, although I know that is really difficult today. We look at the price of houses now–our own if worth 4-6 times the mortgage we took out 25 years ago–and know we could never afford to live one one salary today.</p>
<p>As the boys have grown, I have been able to get paying work, but work that is done at home, much of it on the computer. I think the computer now makes it more possible for women to be home with their children without completely abandoning the working world, and companies should take more advantage of the possibilities it offers.</p>
<p>Equality is something I am all for. However, the quote doesn’t say these women are being pressured to stay home, or that the businesses are discriminating against them. (Disclaimer: I haven’t read the whole article yet…) It says many of them WANT to stay home with their children. It would be nice to have a society where they could afford to do that, if they so chose. Or where the fathers could do so. Or where they could both work part-time and have more time at home. Flexibility is what is needed, for both genders.</p>
<p>cgs,
From the article: "While the changing attitudes are difficult to quantify, the shift emerges repeatedly in interviews with Ivy League students, including 138 freshman and senior females at Yale who replied to e-mail questions sent to members of two residential colleges over the last school year. </p>
<p>The interviews found that 85 of the students, or roughly 60 percent, said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years."</p>
<p>So there is the definition of “many.”</p>
<p>What bothered me was the implication in the article that women wanting to be home with their children is a symptom of lack of progress, that it should have changed by now. Why is it wrong for mothers to want to raise their children? I know my sons are happy that I was home for them. My younger son has told me he notices that the kids he knows who are happiest and not in trouble are usually those with a parent at home. Granted, this is his opinion, and I know many fine kids with two working parents or one parent. But I see no reason why family should be considered a lesser choice than career.</p>
<p>Again, as I said earlier, I think flexibility is the key. If businesses can allow more choices, and people can feel free to follow the path that best suits them, then things will be better all around.</p>
<p>IMO, SustanTM, “equality” means that the burden of child-rearing does not fall disproprotionately on women. Most very successful people are either single, divorced, or have a “wife” at home - someone who picks up the slack. Maybe no one ever told these dahlins that their HUSBANDS can help out at home - that you can be wonderfully attentive to children and give them all you need when both parents chip in.</p>
<p>My H is the epitome of the egalitarian partner. He took heaps of time to raise his boys and enjoyed every precious minute. In fact, he was a far better parent when the boys were under twelve. I have the reins now that there is a bit more conflict; ie no, you can’t have that beer, yes, you do have to work on the calculus, hand over that phone if you speak to adults in that manner, etc. Yet, we have been able to qualify, statistically, as ‘highly succe$$ful’ professionals. 
Go figure!</p>
<p>Both of my brothers stayed hom ewith their kids. One took a night job and one closed down his business to do it. They aren’t in the New York Times but they are out there, believe me.</p>
<p>aries, you WOULD ‘hear’ about many different child rearing variations if you had children. Primary and secondary schools are full of such stories. Human beings are in the process of finding a zillion methods to approach this problem.</p>
<p>God bless each and every one of them. So says me. I hate the ‘mine is better’ debate. The debate alone cripples so many women.</p>
<p>ariesathena,
As I said, I believe in flexibility, so that each family can follow the path that best suits them. If the woman CHOOSES to be home with the children, who is to say that is wrong? And it doesn’t mean her husband isn’t helping. Many dads DO help, even though they also work. </p>
<p>As for being “successful,” it all depends upon your definition of success. Mine does not involve money, power, or fame. Having raised two wonderful, intelligent, caring young men who have never been in trouble, have great goals in life, and believe in themselves, I feel very successful. And now that they are grown, I can use my extra time to pursue my own personal goals and be part of the working world, as well as continuing volunteer work that I have done while raising children.</p>
<p>
hmm … I’d agree that, in general, women my age (40s) have made bigger comprimises to balance work and family … however, lots of men also have made professional sacrifices for their families also. My group at work has 5 men, all who used to work in consulting, all who quit consulting and moved a “regular” company when they were either getting married or having kids … they all choose to step off the fast track and move to a job where they can still have a solid career while balancing a reasonable home life (for example, the two with young children both do the day care pick-up/drop-off for their families). I think there has been a dramatic change (for the better) over the last 30 years or so towards more even handling of family obligations.</p>
<p>If the burden of family-rearing falls disproportionately on women, so that they need to choose between work and family, then they lack the same opportunities as men, e.g. to have both work and career. That’s inequality.</p>
<p>CGM: Agreed - but you don’t hear about it in the news.</p>
<p>Perhaps it is that men often lack the choice women have–to choose family over work. Men working fulltime jobs do not have both family and career in equal amounts. (I assume you meant family and career, not work and career) They also have to make a choice, just as women do. My father has told me he regrets having to work so much when we were little just to pay the bills. He wanted to have more time with us, but he wasn’t able to. My husband would also have liked to have spent more time with our kids, but he was willing to give up some family time so that I could be home fulltime. We both made choices; we both are happy with our choices. Other families may make other choices and be equally happy with them.</p>
<p>It is not automatically inequality if more women make the choice of family over work, while more men make the opposite choice. Society should allow the same opportunities to both men and women, but it should not force them to all make the same choices. Women CAN choose to have a family and still work fulltime. Many do. If they freely choose to give up paid work for a time, because they find rearing children to be more rewarding, what is the problem with that?</p>
<p>Never said there was a problem with that - you are just dodging the issue.</p>
<p>Fact is that many women hit the glass ceiling. Many women have jobs that don’t give them much satisfaction or where they are not promoted the same way that men are. Many of them have partners that don’t pick up enough of the kid/housework duties. Studies show that even when both partners work the same hours, women do more housework than men. So then when the kids come along, is anyone really suprised that women end up at home? Lack of male choice or the presence of some women who do have the choice does not negate the fact that, for many women, they do not have a choice. clear?</p>
<p>My H does more housework than I do. He’s neater than I am. I hire a housekeeper and a laundry to do my share. I con’t mind cooking though ;).</p>
<p>One of my brothers does more housework than his wife and he cleans the house.</p>
<p>There is much more going on than you are able to see, aries…especially if you are trying to gather the info in the newspaper. Try your local playground!</p>
<p>
That’s not inequality, its called having your cake and eating it too. Since recorded history began, women have stayed home to rear the children, and the man went out and worked. Women wanted to enter the workforce in the late '60s, and have done so. But if they want equality with their male counterparts, they must sacrifice family life, period. You can have equality with men or a good family life, but not both. For the record, most men would kill to be able to be a house husband and financially well off.</p>
<p>(This isn’t really an attack on women, more an attack on society in general. Households now need two incomes so people can afford all their luxuries, as before noone needed camera phones and satellite TV as a necessity)</p>
<p>joev, you have an extremely narrow view of history. “Since recorded history began, women have stayed home to rear the children, and the man went out and worked” is just silly. I was raised in an old-style farm family. There was little or no difference between home and work. Was the cornfield home or work, when it was 30 feet from the kitchen door? I never remember feeling a difference - both parents planted, both parents worked around the house. When my father was doing carpentry in one room, and my mother was sewing in the same room, which one “went out and worked” ? And when my brothers and I tagged along with my parents to take care of the cattle, was my dad not contributing to rearing us? He would certainly be surprised if you told him he didn’t have a big hand in rearing us. </p>
<p>This is the type of shared workload you are more apt to find “since recorded history began”. You actually may discover, if you check closely, that there were very few briefcases and commuting workers back in the middle ages. I’m not saying there was not a difference between the sexes, but I think the difference stemmed more from war than from work.</p>
<p>“You can have equality with men or a good family life, but not both. For the record, most men would kill to be able to be a house husband and financially well off.”</p>
<p>Couldn’t have said it better myself!</p>
<p>Aries, I’ve been where you are. I understand what you are saying, and I am NOT dodging the issue. Perhaps I just see it a little differently than you do. </p>
<p>I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s, when women’s choices were MUCH more limited. I was about 13 when my mother went back to work to help pay for our college educations. (My older brother was a hs senior then.) As the only girl in the family, I came home from school to house cleaning and cooking, so dinner could be ready when my mom got home from work. (Dad worked swing shift, so he wasn’t home then.) My brothers didn’t have half the work I did. I once wrote in my diary, “I never want to be a housewife!!” in letters so hard they went through the next two pages.</p>
<p>When I got married and we had kids, I could have continued to work. (I actually did do some tutoring and writing part-time.) I could have sent the boys to a babysitter, and no one would have cared. Attitudes had changed by then. No one would have looked down on me. I would have had the same opportunities at work as my husband. I CHOSE to stay home. My husband helped with housework and cooking. It wasn’t that I felt I would be too overwhelmed with all the housework after working a job. It was that I WANTED to raise my own kids. Since you say you have no desire to have kids, perhaps you can’t understand the attachment a mother has for her children and the pain she often feels leaving them. You may not realize the deep satisfaction that a mother can gain rearing her family. (I didn’t understand that when I was a teenager picking up after my brothers.) I have seen surveys of working women that show at least half would quit their jobs in a moment and stay home if they were financially able to do so.</p>
<p>Yes, many women still do more housework than men, although it has improved over the years. And there are still, no doubt, companies that promote men over women. However, things are MUCH better than when I was a kid. Women DO have choices now. Those Yale women certainly have choices. As lawyers or whatever, they could hire housekeepers, nannies, maids, etc. and continue to work. They do not HAVE to stay home. They WANT to. And that is a wonderful choice to have.</p>
<p>Just another word on history and work. The nuclear family - consisting of only two generations - is something of a historical anomoly. My folks helped with my son when my husband worked and I was in grad school and later working. If you look back just a bit, you see the inclusion of grandparents, maiden aunties, and other assorted relative as part of the family that shared in the tremendous work and great joy of raising children. In some ethnic groups this pattern is not entirely gone. </p>
<p>Some of the research that I have seen on life-spans indicates that, in some species at least, the mother lives long enough (barring accident) to participate in the upbringing of the grandchildren.</p>