<p>Choice is good. I have seen mothers who do not share my craving do a really good job. I have seen mothers who do share my craving falter. We should all agree that society and the revenue producing sector of society should support child-rearing choices for men and women.</p>
<p>But how all of us reconcile the tradeoffs that come with choice is another, more personal issue. And how some of us reconcile the tradeoffs that come with constrained choices, well, that is a subject perhaps best left alone:).</p>
<p>I tell my D, who shows all the signs I did of baby-craving, figure out now how she will fund it.</p>
<p>Muddling through okay: that’s my motto. It’s what you do to get to “good enough.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Precisely. </p>
<p>What struck me, reading the article, and the reason why I chose this particular title for the thread, is the contrast between young men and young women. Young men may be castigated or worried over for their apparent aimlessness and dilatoriness in adolescence; and yet, there is no doubt in adults’ minds that eventually, they will need to buckle down and be breadwinners, whether or not their spouse also works. The worry is not whether they will be; it is about how successful they will be as breadwinners if they do not get into top colleges as a result of not working hard enough, not being focused enough, in high school. And, with Social Security under assault and the disappearance of the mandatory age or retirement, one can expect many (most?) men to work until 70. The idea that they might work only until they are 40 or 50 is just not on, unless they hit the jackpot.
Then, I read about the young women who compete with these clueless young men for places at top schools. They are the opposite. They’re super prepared, and they know exactly where they are going. And where is that? Law school, B-school, maybe Med school, work for a few years, then have children and retire from the world of work. If they delay child-bearing until their late 30s, this means they’ll retire at 40.<br>
There is a huge lack of symmetry here. </p>
<p>Cheers: I wish we could put aside money for grandkids’ college and deposit for their first house. Right now, we are considering how to pay for grandma’s assisted living should that become necessary, plus paying off two loads of tuition.</p>
<p>Cheers, I spent the first 8 years of my career at IBM, before the company developed it’s now very generous parental leave policies. The final straw was when a manager asked if I could take work home at night – he understood that I had a new baby, but the rest of the team was working longer hours than me. I pointedly explained that I did not go home at the end of the (very long) day, put my feet up, and eat bon-bons. At that moment, I realized that I couldn’t do justice to either job. I, like SBMom, fell madly in love with this colicky (sp?) baby who didn’t sleep through the night until 18 months. I can only imagine how I would have been with a good baby! For me, it was more important to sequence my life. My husband worked in a volatile industry, so I was always prepared with the idea that I might have to return to work suddenly, and for many years kept my contacts alive. I also tried to reassure him that he wasn’t some work horse that I planned to work into an early grave. But our partnership involved a true division of labor – and I think I got the better end of the deal. </p>
<p>klmcpa – I think you have the right idea. I wonder how many men and women just slip into a pattern, without considering consequences of choices? I don’t think I fully recognized how difficult it would be to re-enter the business world, but I was willing to take the chance. With careful planning, both men and women can have it all. But maybe not at the same time, and probably not all the material goods we might like. We DID manage the whole private school, music lessons, orchestra experiences that Cheers mentioned, including private college. But we don’t drive luxury cars or have a vacation home. They just don’t matter to us. It has sometimes been a leap of faith that everything would come together.</p>
<p>Marite, it almost sounds like you are questioning whether or not these young women belong in an elite college, but I’m sure I have that wrong. No one knows the future – the young men could decide to drop out of productive life, or have a health problem which precludes productive work. The girls could find they have fertility issues, and end up spending their lives at work. I think we can only live for the moment,while planning ahead as much as possible. As older mothers know, feelings about a baby are unexpected. For all those who just love being with babies and cleaning house (yuck!), there are some who find they are better mothers if they get out of the house on a regular basis. The girl in the article may find that being home with kids is not all it’s cracked up to be.</p>
<p>No, I don’t question their right to be in an elite colleges. They clearly have earned it. I don’t think stay-at-home moms leave their intellect at the door, or cannot make use of their education, whether they actually stay at home or volunteer in their community. As you say, we cannot know the future, and we need to be prepared to compromise.
I had it easy. For all her very traditional views, my mother believed in pushing all her children to aim as high as possible in their chosen fields of study, whether boy or girl. And, I had before me, her experience having to raise her children on her own while my father was not able to do so. As some have commented elsewhere, the choice of staying at home is one that is open to few women; the choice of having a fulfilling career is also open to very few men. My mother did not have the choice of staying at home nor did she have a career, fulfilling or not. She had work, and plenty of worries. </p>
<p>I suggest we try substituting “young men” in the article and see the reaction we would have.</p>
<p>I didn’t have time this AM to read ALL the posts, but I don’t know if anyone has raised the choices of NOT having it <em>all</em> so that you CAN have <em>most</em> of it.</p>
<p>Right now, I have (at last count) four different part-time jobs, two of which are (mostly) portable (I can do them most parts of them anywhere–thanks to the internet), and two of which can be avoided. It’s not as much money as I’d like–but I’m enjoying the heck out of it. It’s so nice not to be ambitious. </p>
<p>All my life I got the message–you’re smart, make something of yourself, you’re going to MIT…–and I felt guilty that I wasn’t being brilliant. Now, I’m the same age (almost exactly) as John Roberts, and I’m NOT John Roberts. I’m a substitute teacher/dog trainer/copy writer/finance manager—and the Responsible Person for our household management (travel agent, financial planner, general contractor, cook, laundress, gardener) (not cleaner). It seems like enough, and mostly, I have a very nice life.</p>
<p>dmd, what you present is an approach where life is not a linear race, and the winner is not the one who ends up with the most titles and toys. You might note that John Roberts is 50, with 5 and 4 year old kids, I believe. Clearly, even a man has to focus a great deal of energy to reach that level of achievement and there must have been many sacrifices along the way. I would say I have more of a ‘matrix’ life,with a variety of interests and activities. Not as much income as I might like, but great experiences and memories along the way. At the end of my life, I don’t think I’ll have many regrets, at least about my family.</p>
<p>Roberts is an interesting case to bring up here. I believe his wife is an accomplished lawyer as well…which may have something to do with their adoption of children when they reached their mid forties.</p>
Thats right. Never in a thousand years did I expect to be anything but a career woman. Childbearing or rearing were the farthest things from my mind in college and law school. However, once I had my first child, my priorities started to change. I changed. I found that I minded very much missing the first words, the first stepstoo many firsts. I found that my career wasnt as important to me as taking my child to the park on a sunny morning. After a couple of years of soul-searching, I decided to take a 1-year sabbatical which has lasted fifteen. Looking back now, I realize that it was more difficult to come to terms with the fact that I didnt want to be a career woman anymore than it has been to not be one.</p>
<p>I have enjoyed my children. I didnt waste my education and my mind didnt atrophy either. I have enjoyed the personal time and have discovered other interests as well. Really, I am better equipped now to decide what to be and do for the next 20 years than I was a decade ago. While it might be the wrong decision for many women, staying home with my children has been a liberating one for me. I tell my daughters that there is no right or wrong decision on this one. The important lesson to learn is to be flexible. </p>
<p>
Im happy that my decision has served the common good. :)</p>
<p>Marite–I am surprised that you think substituting “men” in the headline would change anything. I do think my S should feel free to make the same choices. We know lots of medical families where the mom is the doc, and the dad is scaling back work to be the primary caregiver.</p>
<p>Especially after sending a son to Wes, you should have had some contact with guys who might be the primary caregivers; I’m sure I’ve met some!:)</p>
<p>justanothermom – I agree with you that flexibility is the key. I worked with #1 till he was 3 years old. I am in my late 50’s and back in 1979 I was ONLY mom in my Boston childbirth class returning to work. My work was very important to me and I never envisioned myself as a stay at home mom. My company at the time of son #1’s birth was very kid-friendly but then I switched to a job in the private sector. This company was male dominated with male partners coming in late and staying late – I could not because my child was in day care and husband was in medical training and worked unbelieveably long hours. I reassessed the work situation which had become very stressful and decided to leave the job so I could spend more time my my child. Luckily working is not a necessity for me. I have enjoyed most of my time being at home with the kids, volunteering, developing new interests but I do miss the camaradie inherent in a job. I also met many of my current gal friends through the kids. My friends run the gamut – most stay at home till middle school, then part-time jobs or working in spouse’s business so there is flexibility to be home after school and for carpooling to religious school, sports, etc. Of all my female friends, I have the most years of education and at a more elite level. Interesting how things turned out – I never would have imagined this 30 years ago while in grad school.</p>
<p>Have tried to read most of the posts in the last few days- I am an engineer who married right out of college, had my oldest right away, and will send my youngest off to college (hopefully) at 47. I always said that if I had thought about it harder, I never would have had the first one. Just kind of happened. The second was easier. My H is also an engineer and we have both always worked fulltime. In my field, I never could have stopped and gone back, and never could of worked part-time. Am surrounded by men, some of whose wives work and some who don’t. The only professional woman I know of who stopped thier career and went back to be successful (she is a VP), went back part-time to her father’s firm and then left to a full-time position at another company when her kids got older. I know a lot of women with elite, expensive educations that are SAHM’s. They married men that can support them. Some of them thought they would go back to the work force someday, but it didn’t happen. Others worked part-time until their husbands made enough money to support them. That was never really an option. I like my job, but I make more than my husband. Without both incomes, we wouldn’t be able to pay for college tuition. We have an modest (paid for) house, two Hondas, nothing too fancy, no private schools.</p>
<p>Does anyone besides me think this has become a discussion about how we value work? Pretty much everyone works. Some for huge $$, some for prestige, some for small $$ with or without prestige, some for 0 $$ with or without prestige. There seems to, (perhaps?) be a difference in worth of work when we consider a pediatrician, a nurse, an elementary school teacher, a daycare provider or a stay-at-home parent. I know ivy grads teaching elementary school in a variety of settings. Usually people seem to regard this work with approval and feel these young people are altruistic and that their students benefit. Of course, these teachers could do more with their degrees. And they may very well have taken the spot of someone who would have gone on to grad school or professional school. What do these ivy grads owe society? What should their work be? Should it be more worthwhile or valuable work than that of a state university or community college graduate? What makes work valuablefor the individual and for society?</p>
<p>bbl, you have outlined something I’ve been feeling but haven’t named. Yes, we all work. Some of us work outside the home, some inside, some for a lot of money, some for nothing. I just can’t stand the equation that determines worth based on income. I think that idea is a root cause of unhappiness in many marriages. I’ve often thought that I was, in reality, the most expensive nanny we could afford! And there were moments with my very gentle, kind but not perfect husband when I suggested that if I worked as a nanny outside the home, I’d be given more respect. While juggling work outside the home, with 2 toddlers under the age of 3, I felt that what I really wanted to buy was time. So, with my husband’s support and encouragement, I did.</p>
<p>There was a really great investment guy who had a radio show in Philadelphia years ago named Harry Gross. When people called in for advice and gave their particulars, when they got to the part where they said “my wife doesn’t work” he always stopped them in his kind but forceful way and said: "You mean your wife doesn’t work outside the home.</p>
<p>Dare I suggest that it isn’t so much how society judges the relative value of the work of pediatrician and of the stay-at-home-parent but how society values the work of the daycare provider and nanny and elem school teacher that disturbs me?</p>
<p>I hope I’m misinterpreting this, and you’re not saying that Ivy grads choosing to teach elementary school are taking the spots away from those who would pursue more “useful” law degrees or MBAs. Maybe you’re saying the opposite? That Ivy students who got all the benefits owe it to society to do something useful like teach elementary school?</p>
<p>As my daughter embarks on a plan to teach elementary school, I read recently that teaching, which now requires a Masters in many places, is the only field in which an advanced degree does not add to life time earnings. But I am not going to tell her not to go into teaching. I’m proud of her, and she will have to figure out as she goes along whether or not she can afford to stay in it.</p>
<p>I just think that smart people find a way, just as the people on this board have, to figure out what’s important, to adapt, to create opportunities. Beyond that, there’s luck. You can’t plan for everything. I herniated two discs in my late thirties, yet was able to keep working because I had a job that did not require either lifting or sitting all day. I attended many meetings lying on the floor and lectured pacing around the room. What if I had been a nursery school teacher? A single mom? A corporate lawyer? A surgeon?</p>
<p>Marite said: “One of the single greatest factors contributing to women’s downward economic mobility is divorce”</p>
<p>Excellent! In my comment I did not take divorce into account. Isn’t it possible that a negative or byproduct of female liberation was an increase in divorce? If so did this negative cancel out some of the good (positive) results of women’s lib?</p>
<p>As far as women staying home versus men, most of my guy friends have all said (at the age of 40+ however) that if their wife had been capable of supporting the family in a manner that was consistent with their mutual goals , then they would have been happy to be stay at home dads! I do understand that in my example here all of the wives were in careers that did not provide high incomes ,therefore by default the husband was forced to be the bread winner. Just looking around…Women that I see in my suburban/working world ,that are under 35, are already at age 30+ earning far more than our wives had at their age. So if my hunch is correct we will see more men staying at home in the future and their wives will be the breadwinners? Or possibly we will we see a period where both will work and day care will rule the day - much like the 1970’s,80’s and 90’s ?</p>
<p>Sac, really sorry I wasn’t clear! I am not the first (LOL) to notice society still doesn’t value work that has traditionally been womens work. Low prestige and low $$. When we value that work I don’t think there will be so much discussion about men doing the same work, or of ivy grads of either gender doing that work.</p>