Redirect

Steve made pancakes this morning. Normal blueberry pancakes for him, lower case letter pancakes for Patrick (blueberries on the side). Over the course of several months Steve has given Patrick all the letters, then the numbers 1 through 100 and now they are towards the end of the lower case alphabet. I might object to all this pancake-ification of the child but I would have to be awake to do so. Besides, pancakes have an egg in them and do you know how much iron there is in maple syrup? At least that is what I tell myself as I pull the pillow over my head and sleep some more.

This morning I staggered into the pancakewerks and found Patrick standing on a chair, supervising Steve at the griddle.

"Damn it!" Patrick tsk'd. "The x broke."

Steve agreed and fixed it with more batter.

"Your child seems to be swearing at you," I said to Steve, not wanting to jump in with the discipline but not wanting to let the casual preschool profanities slide, either.

"Not AT me," Steve replied, "WITH me."

Patrick nodded, "That is absolutely correct."

Then they went back to ignoring me.

One of the many things that occurred to me at random as I read your comments on the last post is that Steve and I divide parental tasks more than I think we do. I had literally never considered Steve as a work at-home father but I suppose he is. What with the fact that he works at home and yet, as I type this at 12:09 on a Wednesday afternoon, he and Patrick are outside building The Playset To End All Playsets. Granted, middle of the day breaks are not the norm but they do occur often enough that I would put our respective primary care ratios around 65-35. Although if you ask me what productive things I do with that 35% I have as free time I will never speak to you again.

Not that this has anything do with the discussion we are having other than the frequency with which people mentioned their own shared arrangements led me to believe that perhaps Ms. Hirshman is underestimating the role fathers/partners are already playing in child care when she asks where the men are.      

But

Not in the context that she is addressing. The more I read your thoughts on the topic the more my own ideas on the subject evolved. Whether it is "better" for children to be taken care of during the week full-time by a parent or by someone else was not the question here (well it was the question HERE, sort of- but it is not what she is talking about.) Ms. Hirshman doesn't give a unicorn's dick whether it is "better" for your child or all children or you or me to be at home or daycare or Mars. She is talking about Women and their Role in Society and the notion that the last generation worked their asses off to have the chance to be CEO and this generation is squandering that by not particularly caring if they become CEO or not. 

Once we define the argument that way it gets much tidier. I can ignore my knee-jerk "Bite me" response to someone implying that Patrick is not worthy of my undivided, 365-day-a-year hovering, and focus on whether my personal choices are doing a disservice to women who would like to make different decisions but may be pigeon-holed anyway because of the re-emerging notion that "women just quit to have babies."

Right? Right.

As much as we have all sat here and said, round-eyed, "Oh I TOTALLY respect your decision to (stay home/ work outside) despite the fact that (working outside/staying home) was right for our family" I think that is, forgive me, completely disingenuous. A load of crap, if you will. OK, sure, you probably do not think less of me for staying home with Patrick right now because it has absolutely nothing to do with you. But what if I decided to return to the workforce next year (not bloody likely) and my dazzling pedigree and connections allowed me to get hired as your boss? (imagine me with shockingly elite degrees and an uncle who used to be Chairman, ok? does that help with the visualization?) Here you have been working hard, juggling career and kids and life while I have been doing nothing but drinking gin at the playground and suddenly I make more money than you do? The very idea! It is UNFAIR. It is UNAMERICAN, damn it. Hard work is rewarded and slackness should not be.

So I return to the question of whether my tending my child full-time has any greater value. Not for me (I love it). Not for Patrick (he would probably thrive regardless). But for society as a whole. And I think that most people, men and women, would say no. They consider this time to be as self-indulgent as five or six years spent mastering the pan-flute. 

That, I decided yesterday, is the real center of the conflict.

The reason that it is difficult for women to return to the workforce after taking time off (thus creating an Either/Or conundrum which I am not sure I believe in but Ms. Hirshman apparently does) is because the men and women who never left the trenches think the returnees have been on an extended umbrella-drink vacation and resent the hell out of them. Ms. Hirshman (who has daughters and presumably raised them while working full-time) alludes to her own feelings when she describes "aggressive domesticity [coming from] a bunch of women who can't manage all the demands on their time." And there you have it. She did it, why can't you? And if you answer that you simply do not WANT to, the response is ah, but the woman standing next to you does and you might be hurting her chances. So it is sort of about feminism and sort of about gender equality, but largely about work ethics and definitions of what is Important and what is Fair. 

Not quite sure what to do about it, frankly, but I think I am right.

Comments

[S]

Now I'm curious - were you to work "outside the home" (god I hate that I have to add that - according to the physics definition, walking to the bathroom is work), what particular field would you be in?

[Cat, Galloping]

Boy did you just hit the nail on the head. My sister is returning to work after 7 years with the kiddos and I am *pissed* that she's earning basically the same as me in a field not too far away from mine (and, incidentally, 35% more than when she left 7 years ago). Me, who's been working steadily along! Me, with my prestigious graduate degree!

Is it because I think she's been lounging around the past 7 years or don't value her time there? Definitely not. I guess it's just jealousy. Or perhaps not jealousy so much as insecurity. Like, why the fuck am I still earning so little?

I made myself feel better only be recognizing my advantage of being able to work strictly 9-5 from my home office, whereas her hours will longer and in a real office and will include frequent travel.

But do you see? It's not about her. I made it all about ME. Selfish, selfish, selfish.

Good post.

[Lisame]

Who cares whose right! I agree with you!

[Amber]

Steve can make pancakes into any letter of the alphabet...even lower case?

Now that is impressive. I just started trying to make snowmen pancakes. I have to say...it isn't going that good. What's his secret?

[Mrs X]

But does that mean that I have to sacrifice what I want for life to be fair to other women? Because Being at home is what I want. And when I return to the workforce, I don't expect to become someone's boss. I expect to pay my dues.

[KellyH]

Unicorns have dicks?

[Sally]

Yes, but they're really beautiful. And magic.

[Susan]

Pancake-vice...I spray the cookie cutters with cooking spray and then put the cutter on the griddle and then pour in the batter.

[lynn]

All of this is just so difficult to come to a fair conclusion that everyone would agree on. I understand the essence of what she is saying is a societal perspective, which you so terrifically summed up, but let's face it, who the hell makes personal decisions for the greater good of society? If that were true there would be a glut of inner city teachers and rural physicians, and a shortage of high-end plastic surgeons.

As a working mom who skitters out of the office as early as possible while my childfree co-workers stay and slog, I can see the perspective of the hard workers and true believers (both male and female) who are grinding towards the CEO spot: Why should I get paid as much or advance as fast as someone who is willing to work more than me? Why should I even have a job if someone more dedicated is dying for my seat?

But then I think harder about it, and my true feelings are: We as a country have a really f--ked perspective towards work. I think it would be nice for my child-free workers to skitter out on time too and pursue their hobbies -- and the companies that complain about lost productivity ought to think about how thin workers are being spread, so that it's considered to be a bad thing to have a life outside the office, whether that life includes children or not. We have a cultural problem in the US that extols a workaholic attitude, and it's not good for anyone, working mom or child-free.

This is probably totally off track so sorry. Thanks for making us all think.

[victoria]

You know, I think any member of a minority or disadvantaged group faces this kind of pressure. We can't engage in behavior that is perceived to reinforce or facilitate negative stereotypes about the group without being made to feel that we have failed our responsibilities to the group.

So, for example, Alice Walker was criticized for doing too little to address white mistreatment of blacks in The Color Purple (even though Meridian tackles this subject head-on). Philip Roth was criticized for reinforcing stereotypes about Jews In Portnoy's Complaint.

The result is, you can't just live your life, or write your novel, or be who you want to be, particularly if you're a relatively privileged member of the minority/disadvantaged group who has some choices.

You're also saddled with responsibility for lifting up your race/gender/ethnic/religious group.

I think this is one of the problems with identity politics. Ultimpately, identity politics -- taken too far -- become restrictive. Obviously, it is politically NECESSARY for members of stigmatized or disadvantaged groups to band together and identify as members of that group and seek greater rights and freedoms. But eventually identity politics will always become personally and culturally stifling.

For me, this isn't where feminism is supposed to lead. Feminism is supposed to be about having choices, not about having one group (the politically progressive) instead of another (the politically conservative) tell me how to live my life. Feminism is supposed to make me more free, not just confined in a different way.

[mercybuttercup]

Someone should interview my subgroup sometime: unemployed moms. I've been a stay-at-home mom for almost two years, because in the silly little town in which we dwell, I cannot find a job that would pay even 2/3 as much as I'd have to pay for daycare, and no jobs in my field exist at all.

That's not the "and when you figure in a grande latte twice a day, and drycleaning, I'd go broke if I had a job!" math - I mean I would earn nine dollars an hour, max, and have to pay 15. (The $9 was for a job as a city parking lot attendant. I'm not sure how that would help my resume sparkle, anyway.)

Even though my preference at this point would be to be working, I don't fool myself that moms who stay home have it easy. Well, maybe some of them do; I have a very high-maintenance toddler and regularly find myself thinking, "I wish I had a job so I'd have time to get things done," so I'll just assume everyone's day is as hard as they claim it is.

And, you know, I fully expect that if we ever manage to move somewhere that I can find a job in my field, I won't take a pay cut. I still kick ass at my work. I still am likely to have more years of experience than most applicants. And I haven't gotten any stupider. So it wouldn't even occur to me to be bothered by someone being hired as my boss who'd taken some time off, for whatever reason.

Anyway - I really, honestly do respect everyone's decisions, unless they're irresponsible for their particular family situation (husband has 5 jobs so wife can stay home, that sort of thing).

And damn, I just talked a lot. Maybe I should go update my own blog for a change.

[Catizhere]

letter pancakes? Maggie is lucky if she get's an E'ggo waffle in the morning.....

It's people like you & Steve that make people like me look bad!! LOL!

I understand your p.o.v. and I agree with you.

[Marsha]

Someone very wise once told me, waaaaay back in kindergarten, that life isn't always fair. Sometimes your brother doesn't get into law school, sometimes someone gets a job after not working for a spell and makes more than you, and sometimes your dad can make pancakes in the shapes of letters. And sometimes not.

I am not at all sure how hundreds of thousands of woman all putting on stockings at the same time and marching their well-manicured and rested selves into workplaces is going to solve any particular fairness problem. Unless we're also going to mandate that raises and promotions can only happen on certain schedules and no one who's been in the office less time than anyone else can have either until the longer timers have both. That might be fair, but it's also UnAmerican, as they say.

A veterinarian once explained to me about dogs thus: Some dogs are motivated by work, some dogs are motivated by treats, some dogs are motivated by the chance to lie around in the shade. Figure out what motivates your dog and give it to her and you won't have any behaviour problems."

This may be true about people. I have worked - quite a bit, actually - and am extremely motivated to do as little of it as possible for as long as I can possibly get away with it, kids or no. Luckily, I am married to a man who thinks that work is FUN (if you can believe it) and wants to do as much of it as he can cram into a day and still enjoy a bit of the sight of his cherubs' loving faces. Perhaps it's unfair that I blundered into a personal relationship that meets all parties' needs vis-a-vis employment arrangements. The suggestion that I need to even it up by sacrificing myself on the altar of equity by hauling somewhere to do my part to make everything even somewhere along the line brings me right back to "bite me".

Or am I missing your point?

[Andrea]

I think you are right, and so are Lynn and Victoria. I admit, sitting here happily unemployed but with a professional degree (after trying to happy both working a day job and having small kids and a spouse who's gone a lot), that I feel a certain guilt for not "living up to my potential." But sympathetic as I am to the feminist cause the need to make sure everyone has a full range of employment opportunities, I'm just not willing to change my decisions because of it.

[Denise]

You know the more I think about it, the more I realize I'm not a good feminist. I like men holding the door for me. I want a guy to run around and open my car door. Admiring glances and occasional whistles from the opposite sex make me blush and smile and feel good about myself. And if it wasn't for finances, damn straight I'd be home with my child.

What this women doesn't take into consideration is that stay at home moms contribute just as much to society as working women. Women with degrees who take breaks to raise their children are lucky they can do that. Many women can't afford that luxury. Perhaps this women is bitter with the fact she did not have that luxury, while she makes loads of money maybe her spending habits are out of control. Maybe she's taking one for the team (really who does that these days). Or maybe she did it to prove her point.

Who knows really what her motives were. But honestly, I don't see where society would be better off if more mothers worked or if mothers with high degrees worked. I mean does she think if women with high degrees didn't take breaks we would have a women president? Well I hear Hilary is running next term, so where's the foul? I don't see it and if a women can come off a 5 year break and be my boss, more power to her.

As far as the universe being fair, when does that ever happen? Unfortunately we have all been taught from an early age that life itself is unfair.

[Libby]

This has been a fascinating discussion. I've read all the comments but at this point all I really want to know is the secret to the letter pancakes. My 4 year old feminist-in-training would love them.

Please?

[Stephanie]

A pet peeve I have is when people say, "feminism is about having choices," and expect that to serve as the end of the discussion. That word "choice" has to be the most overused word in the English language, I sometimes think. And it is valued so much in American culture as to have lost almost all meaning, I think.

When someone says, "It's my choice to stay home (or work, or whatever)" my sense is that they're overlooking all the many many many other "choices" that society made, that the person speaking had little to no say in. And these choices made by society are much more complicated and slow to evolve, such as how the community values and rewards various childcare options, equal pay for equal work, gender equity vis-a-vis who makes the better "nurturer" etc. etc. etc.

I say this only because every time I see this subject come up I see beautiful and impassioned defenses of individual decisions, and those decisions are themselves arrived at with beauty and grace, but they're largely irrelevant. We'll all make our decisions based on the boxes we find ourselves -- some of those boxes may be roomier and more comfortable than others due to privileges like wealth and education -- but I do think it's important to consider the larger choices made by the society in which we live, which influence our individual decision-making. And then tell our kids to hurry up and finish those pancakes, there are big problems to be solved!

[JuliaKB]

I like Stephanie's point. Not too long ago, I decided to permanently switch fields. Why? Because I was unwilling to put in 80-100 hour weeks that are required in the field in which I actually have my PhD. Some of my male friends from grad school do it, but most have stay at home wives.
I made the decision with a lot of bitterness-- it was my choice, the right choice for me, and yet it was not exactly my choice. A lot of women are making the same choice, and the reason we are is that the system is rigged. I think it's stupid. I think it deprives the field of creative, imaginative, kick-ass minds. But it is the way it is. And given the way it is, I made my choice.
I hope my daughter isn't forced to make the same choice in 20 years. But frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if she was (partly because the setup is rigged by the amount of money available-- small and shrinking, so higher productivity is selected for system-wide. Individual institutions can't do very much about this, so round and round it goes.).

[Sarah]

What a great analysis. It must be profound, as it seems logical and (without sarcasm) obvious now that you're laid it out that way.

And we do chocolate chip pancakes (no syrup) but no letters. Does Steve freehand it?

I realized I said 'damnit' perhaps too often when my 4 year old, unable to find her shoe, said 'damnit' very loudly while looking. Hmmm.

[Sally]

I went on before to reply seriously, but what's-her-face up there got me all distracted by unicorn dicks. I was GOING to say that I sat here and shut my eyes really tight and tried to imagine getting really pissed off at you coming back to work after a time off with your kids - as my boss. I cannot. It just sounds to me like typical office stuff. You are related to the former Chairman, and you were qualified, so you got in. You're still a woman, and so am I, so do I resent you? Not really - I'd be upset at my boss for being a big suck up to the former Chairman. I juggled my kids, and my career and my life, but you took risks too - you let a couple of your bowling pins fall to the ground while you kept the cleaver in the air. That could have backfired for you too, but you found a way around it - good on ya.
I think that today for the most part, if you're good at what you do and you put in more than others do - period - you'll go farther than the others. Things happen - unfair things, sometimes, and you can't whine your way out of unfair - just ask my 5-year-old.
Lynn made some terrific points in her comment about this society and how we view work versus personal time. I agree with her completely.

[Kay]

Am I the only person in a management job in corporate america that doesn't get grief for leaving to take care of my kids - AND I've gotten 3 raises in 2 years - the 2nd of which included my 3 month maternity leave? Boy - I LOVE my company. Or maybe it's because ALL the finance management here has young children, and the dads leave early as much as the moms. My boss even went to China to adopt his 2nd child last year. He's also let 2 moms come back to work part time to suit a schedule they are comfortable with.

I am really, really lucky.

[Kay]

And by Corporate America - I do mean a Fortune 500 company. The Fortune 100 company I worked for was even better, though I was not a manager then. I'm in Audit and Finance. Maybe it's the field?

[Lucy]

I wrote a big long diatribe on the virtues of staying at home with the baby ... then deleted it. Perhaps I'll blog it on my own site - and maybe not. Let me just stand on my tabletop in Austin, Texas, stamp my feet, whistle and applaud you. I am preparing to join the ranks of the stay-at-home-moms come December, and I can't fathom living with any other decision.

Stephanie, I agree with you completely. I don't think the point of feminism was to provide individual choices (although that is certainly a result), but to create societal choices. As I mentioned in my posts on this subject yesterday, the SAHM v. WOHM debate is one that largely affects privileged, educated and married women. The reality is that the vast majority of working mothers in this country don't have the "choice" to stay at home, whether its because they are a sole-breadwinner, their family circumstances are such that two incomes are necessary, or whatever. So I too cringe when I hear other women making the choice point inasmuch as it only relates to their individual decisions.

The larger (and for my money, more interesting) issue that I think the Hirshman articles obliquely touch on is not that everytime one hot-shot MBA quits to raise her children, the chances of another to reach the executive suite are compromised. (Indeed, I have no doubt that for the legions of talented women out there who stick it out the vast majority of them will succeed at their goals.)

Rather, I think the issue is more subtle, namely, why is it that we still have a society where so many women (and men, for that matter) don't have the choice to structure their work and family lives in a way that make sense? For instance, why are we lacking in providing affordable day care? Health insurance for kids? Flex-time for working parents? Company support for nursing moms? Realistic and humane maternity and paternity leave policies?

Now, as I said yesterday, I don't think women have to stay in the workforce to make these types of changes, although certainly the more women there are in positions of power demanding that an employer provide flex-time or telecommuting or whatever, the more likely that we'll see those benefits come to be. But I do wonder why, even amongst those women who have opted-out isn't there more of an out-cry about these issues. Why do so many women who proclaim that "staying home and raising a child is the most important job one could have" seem unconcerned about the fact that for many parents that choice is simply not available? Why are they not pushing for a balance between family and work?

To me, I don't read Hirshman as saying "I did it all, so you should too," but rather, "I did it all, and I hoped you wouldn't have to either, but we're not there yet, so why aren't you willing to try and help fix it?"

[sweetcoalminer]

You know, Susan Estrich (a well-known attorney - Harvard's first female Law Review editor, popular commenter on Court TV, and generally well-known hard-ass L.A. lawyer. She also wrote a book on dieting.) wrote an article about this in Mademoiselle maybe 5 or 6 years ago directed to lawyers.

She was divorced with a small child and working her ass off at a big firm tons of hours a day and berating women who chose to quit going for the brass ring to raise their kids. She said that the kids would have a better lifestyle and that the women would be more satisfied (she didn't have to worry about money in the divorce because she was totally self-sufficient) with themselves and in life if they kept going for it. Not settling for government jobs that accomodate daycare drop-off and pick up times and not settling for non-profit jobs. She said there were plenty of men out there vying for law school positions to go for that brass ring and women were throwing it away.

And that in throwing it away, they were making it harder and harder for other women to break through that glass ceiling that keeps women from being senior partners at big law firms.

Before I was a wife and a mom, I had DRIVE. I wanted to have a successful career, even if I had to work myself into the ground.

I see where she's coming from, but I don't care. Screw the men who aren't as smart as I am who didn't get into law school, and the women, too. Too bad. You should have TRIED HARDER.

I agree I could work really hard and pay someone to take care of my daughter, and maybe society would benefit from my legal genius (kidding), but life is short and I enjoy spending time with her. Whether it's good for her or not, it makes ME happy. I make these choices for me, not her. I struggled to have her, and I will be damned if society is going to rob me of that happiness to help some donkeys get divorced.

I do know an attorney that raised three kids as a single mom from the time they were small, made loads of money and is extremely successful. She did it all. All by herself. And her kids are great members of society, so it is possible. I admire her. I guess she maximized her potential as a human being. She is revered in her field and is very kind and dedicated.

I wish I wanted to be like her, but deep down inside, I want to cuddle and read my daughter "Make Way for Ducklings".

[Donnie]

Screw "society as a whole."

Ahem. Sorry. That would be a knee-jerk reaction, wouldn't it?

Okay. Society. Value. Got it.
Here's what I think:

It would be infinitely more valueable to society if more children were raised well. More valueable than having more women as CEO's and law firm partners.

And I don't think that most women are choosing to stay at home and throw away all the precious equal rights progress that our mothers forged in the 70's. As you saw in the comments to this prior post, most women WANT to stay at home, but fiscally cannot.

Now I know you don't want to hear the lip-service mommies give each other about choice, BUT... isn't that what those 70's bra-burners were fighting for? Certainly, they weren't trying to *force* women into the workforce. Wasn't the idea to give women who CHOSE to work an equal footing w/ their male counterparts?

If you come back to work and get hired as my boss, I would shout hallelujah. It might be nice to work with another mom who knew how hard it was to do both.

[Amy]

Ack, I don't know why my comment up there showed up anon. Wasn't intentional!

[Kel]

I got nuthin' to add, except to say that this is the smartest, most articulate group of people (women) and I enjoy the heck out of reading this blog and the comments. Thank you all for the thought-feast.

I think you are right (as are lynn, victoria, mercy, denise, stephanie, juliakb, scm, amy, etc., etc.). I think I would dig you as my boss, esp. if you are as funny in conversations/e-mail as you are here.

I too make thing out of pancakes (only on Sundays), but my letters never worked out (lower case!!! get out). Dinosaurs are my speciality.

[VanillaDreams]

Well, I can only comment at the stay at home, working outside home thing from an outside perspective, as I haven't yet managed to get pregnant and stay pregnant!

BUT, my husband and I have talked about all of this, and when the baby finally does arrive, I plan to stay home with him/her. Our vague plans include me staying home for at least the first year (in Canada maternity leave is one full year, which can also be split into portions between the mother and father).

If somehow we ended up miraculously with twins, then I would stay home even longer. Childcare x 2 babies would be quite expensive. And even though I know my own mother would be happy to look after grandchild/ren, I wouldn't want her to be responsible 5 days a week! (I think she should be retired and relaxing these days)

So, my reasons would be mostly selfish -- I would WANT to stay home with my baby/ies, as I personally think my child would benefit from being with a parent most of the time. Also, with my husband's job, he works four days on, and three days off. So, we imagine that he would take over some of the parenting, etc., full time, on his three days off. Either giving me a break to pursue something else, or we can use those three days for family time together.

Anyway, God knows what will actually happen when the baby finally gets here. I know that things can change, so I can only speak from where I am now, and what I have hopefully planned for the future. I am lucky in the respect that my husband is very supportive and would fully support any decision I made.

I also think that raising a child properly is an admirable and difficult job, and one that should be just as respected as any so-called "high powered executive" position. (After all, I've done the corporate thing, and I'm not really sure what all we were contributing to the world in our department/company -- sometimes it seemed like glorifed paper-pushing, IMO.)

Just my 2 cents, for whatever they are worth!

-- and gah, what a long comment, guess I should made this a blog post instead!

[Sheridan]

Julia, I'm really glad you clarified this a bit further, because I felt that so many commenters missed your point. It was never meant to be a mummy drive-by.

I think that deep down, most of us are insecure about our choice to stay at home or our choice to work and we all become riled at the slightest insinuation that we might be doing the 'wrong' thing.

Great post. I can only dream of expressing myself as eloquently as yourself.

Or as well as Patrick, for that matter. I adore that child.

[Toni]

Everyone says I have the best of both worlds - 3 days in the office and 4 days at home. Problem is that I feel like I'm not doing a good enough job at either.

I too wanted to be CIO when I came out of college. I work in a field that is mostly men - but more women are starting to enter. People that I started with are already higher than me. But they have no children. I have two. And I'm pretty much stuck at my career until/if I go back full time.

My mother worked full time. I went to daycares - and was a latch key kid - in 2nd grade...in the city...walked to school by myself. Do I think I'm not a good person b/c of it? No. Did I wish my mother would have spent more time with me than spending time working - hell yeah.

So...like someone said in the comments - life is super short. Do what makes you happy. :)

[lporter]

I am that mythical creature, a mom and a partner at a major DC law firm. I have a 2 year old son, and made partner just a few months after returning from my maternity leave.

I would like to gently take issue with the commenter above who asserted, based on the comments to these posts, that most women want to stay at home. The readers of this blog - which is infinitely delightful, especially on literary questions - are a self-selecting group that surely skews pretty heavily in the direction of the sahm-inclined.

I would also like to note a point of Hirshman's that hasn't gotten a lot of attention (at least here) but that resonated tremendously with me, child of divorce that I am - it can be a real mistake to structure your life so as to sacrifice your earning potential. No one thinks divorce - or severe illness or disability of their husband - will happen to them, but it happens all of the time. If you are related to the chairman, perhaps you can step back into the workforce no problem - but most can't. That's not fair, and we should work to change it, but it's reality. It is extremely important to me - joint bank account, sappy love for my husband, and all - to remain entirely self-sufficient.

I want to work for lots of other reasons too, of course - but that one is up there.

[Kate]

First let me say thank you thank you thank you to Julia for instigating and coordinating this debate -- and to everyone who has contributed. This has made my days lately!

I have not been in the situation, but I think I would be upset if someone who took a few years "off" to raise her kids jumped back into the workforce and over my head. I am sure I would think this unfair, though I'm also sure I wouldn't think it unfair if I were the one who took time to raise my child.

I also find myself saying "unfair" when I see women leave a career to raise their children and the impact it has on women around them and after them. When women leave careers to stay at home, that individual choice does have an impact on others around them besides the larger loss to society. Though it is illegal, unethical, inappropriate to make a hiring/promoting decision because "she'll just get pregnant and leave," it does happen. I think hiring/promoting types of both genders view women of child-bearing years as possible risks. Have women not broken through some glass ceilings because the glass is still too thick or because few women stay on the track long enough to swing the sledge hammer?

I do find myself thinking that this generation of women is squandering the work of previous generations as Julia has outlined it for us. However, this pales in comparison to how I feel when I learn of women who are not registered to vote or choose not to exercise that right so soon after our grandmothers or great-grandmothers fought, got arrested, served time in jail, and went on hunger strikes so that we could have that right.

I am NOT saying that this means that women should stay at work and hire someone to raise their children. We need strong, bright women in the workplace in leadership positions and positions of influence just as much as we need them in the home raising the next generation. I am saying that society does miss out on the gifts of talented women who make the choice -- and it is their choice -- to stay at home. Yep, I think Juia's pan-flute statement about sums it up.

[lorrie]

hmm, I just realized something. Most of my friends live well-nice cars, big houses, great vacations, etc. Everybody works. Maybe it's part time. But everybody works.

We drove around the most expensive nabe in town (Ascot Estates) the other day during the day. It was a ghost town.

There just are not that many jobs in SC that pay well enough. My city, Columbia, is a government/college town. Governments/colleges don't pay crap!!

[Cat, Galloping]

I've been thinking about this some more and I want to clarify my position: It's not that I resent my sister being able to easily get a new job right where she left off. And I wouldn't mind if you came back as my boss, *if* you'd left from a position of a similar level.

But are you supposed to be able to come back much higher than where you left off? Should my sister be able to come back 7 years later with a 50% raise, when over the same time period I've had 10%? Okay so we've both been working, but I've been gaining experience in my field!

So I don't resent anyone coming back. I would support that fully, but I guess it does seem unfair for them to come back ahead of where they left. But still, really that's my problem to deal with. Life isn't fair. Duh.

[kathleen999]

I HAVE to work. I don't really want to work and never have. I am a musician, and if I were able to quit the day job, I would. And I would work on my music. That would be a nice complement to raising my babies, but unfortunately doesn't pay too well. So I go off to the salt mines most days. I don't do it to live in luxury, I do it because I have to.

I'm grateful that there were women who fought before me so that I earn the same amount as the men in my field. I also feel like there were losses along the way. Women used to be able to stay home if they wanted to. Now most of us can't. Granted, some women want to work. But unless you have a really great career that you love, most likely you are only doing it for the paycheck. Same rule applies to men. And a lot of people DO NOT love their jobs. They just do them because they have to.

I don't care about Ms. Hirschfeld's ideas. I think to live your life so that other people can someday be CEO is completely nuts. There are already plenty of women CEOs.

Brave to all the fine women here who are able to discuss this subject so sanely and politely! You all can come be my boss any day.

[Shelley]

Not sure I agree that most people in the workforce resent woment who've taken time off to raise kids. I sure as hell don't -- I work (an 80% schedule rather than full-time, but still), and I think it's HARDER to stay home. Would be for me personally, anyway. Women who want to stay home and who can -- more power to them. I truly admire them. Anyway, anyone who's a mother knows time spent out of the workforce with kids hasn't been a unbrella-drink vacation.

I might resent you if you were hired as my boss and your resume wasn't as good as mine (and as we all know, resumes are about much more than just how many years you've worked -- the type of positions you've had, your education/training, etc. etc.) But beyond that -- absolutely not.

Finally, some careers it's much harder to step out for a few years, like the previous poster who left the field she has a Ph.D. in ... my lawyer friends tell me that it's the same for them. My field isn't like this, which is one of the reasons I chose it.

[FishyGirl]

I personally would think it was great if you went back to work making more and as my boss. Some people seem to resent that, but at least here in the DC area, I find that it is the rare circumstance that you advance a huge amount by staying at the same company - you have to jump ship to do it. I quit work a year ago when my youngest was a year old, because I have 3 kids under the age of 7 and day care was more than I made, and my increases were not keeping pace with the increases in daycare. I am now expecting #4, and would actually love to work, but really know that it isn't feasible, even part time, until that one will be about 3. That said, when I do go back, and I will, I will likely jump in higher paid than I was, because that is how you have to get the big jumps, at least in my liberal arts field, traditionally poorly paid. To say that I am doing a disservice to all those working their asses off to be CEOs because I dropped out seems silly; if they are CEO material, they know what they need to do to make that jump. That said, I do think it makes a huge difference depending on what field you are in and where you live. I'm probably not making much sense - I'm tired.

Patrick is awesome. My kids have been using "shit" properly since they were about 2. Patrick is smart enough to understand that isn't a word he can use in "public," just like my kids. At least he used damnit correctly.

[Bluestocking]

Denise: Feminism has nothing to do with liking men to open car doors for you or admire you. Check out this: http://www.tomatonation.com/youare.shtml, or, you know, a dictionary.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Julia, about fairness. It is a value for us as Americans to be earning as much money as possible at all possible times. If you are not maximizing your earning potential you're a slug. But frankly, the audience Hirshman is presumably talking to doesn't include me. Not because I'm not ambitous, or don't know the right people, or didn't go to a fancy college (though all of that is true) but because my field (publishing) pays crap. My husband and I are liberal arts snobs, which makes us good at Trivial Pursuit and well read and charming, but lousy earners. So now I only manage to work 15 hours a week, and we save nothing, but we're happy and so is our son. So being a very part time worker and nearly full time SAHM leaves unable to be offended or smug on either side of the barricades.

[Brandee]

Wow, I wish I could respond in some intelligent way. But all I can come up with through my mouth-foaming anger is -- she makes me want to vomit. And? I read her response to that. I'll just go back to the mopping, and the sweeping, and the mending now.

[MamaChristy]

"But what if I decided to return to the workforce next year... and my dazzling pedigree and connections allowed me to get hired as your boss? ... The very idea! It is UNFAIR. It is UNAMERICAN, damn it. Hard work is rewarded and slackness should not be. "

I disagree. Whole-heartedly. (And I certainly hope that "slackness" was used tongue-in-cheek.)

This HAPPENED at my last job and the reason that the woman - who was not my boss, but was A boss - wasn't liked was because she was an idiot and not good at her job. It was NOT because she had used the last 18 years of her life raising children first and working with her husband in their business second. For me, if someone came in as a boss and did a stellar job and was a good leader, I don't care if they just came from being on a submarine for the past ten years. A qualified person is a qualified person if they are veterans of the field, new to the field, or back from a "break." Would I be less qualified for a job in my field if I had been forced to move to a place that didn't have any positions in my field and I worked in another field for a time? In many cases, no. Staying home with a child is no different and I think that when our culture comes to understand this, that is when the REAL breakthrough in feminism will happen.

Good God. I'm SO done talking about this.

[k]

After reading your post, I realized that if I were my own boss, I would probably view the "just married, no kids yet" women in my department as liabilities.

I would assume that they'd get pregnant within 2 years and 75% of them would not return to the full-time workplace.

And I'd probably be right 50% of the time.

It's horrible that I would think that way, isn't it?

But I would. The level-headed, plan-ahead boss part of me would. Hell, some of my decisions might even be unknowingly influenced by those thoughts hanging around in the background.

***

I requested to drop to part-time after our first was born. I feel lucky because my boss agreed. Although maybe I shouldn't feel lucky. Like others said above, maybe it shouldn't be such a big deal or an act of mercy for a boss to grant a change in schedule.

But I do feel lucky. My husband and I agree that even though I'm not "advancing" in my field right now, it's good that I am at least "place holding."

Is my own view that I can't advance in my field while part-time the right view? Should it be the right view? I don't know.

But I accept it.

Thus is the patriarchy, I guess.

It makes me feel sad and kind of low, really.

[S]

I am generally a lurker to begin with, but I can't help but add a couple of my thoughts on this topic (after all--go figure).

First off, I think Julia is absolutely right that "it is sort of about feminism and sort of about gender equality, but largely about work ethics and definitions of what is Important and what is Fair." YES. Hence the question of "wasting degrees," which makes me feel so conflicted myself.

Everything I am about to type is true: I have a very privileged male friend who has lived his whole life getting everything he wants. Everything. Including a BS from the Ivy that begins with a Y (daddy paid, so no student loans) and an MD/Ph.D from the most prestigious program in the country (free, again, but courtesy of US taxpayers through the NIH). But you know what? He never intended to become a medical researcher, he just wanted a free MD. Now he is a new father and (just?) wants to be a photographer and a stay-at-home dad. (He's a very good photographer, if that matters, and it's been a passion for him since high school. And he adores his son, and is the Active, Hands-On, Involved Dad that we all love.)

And yet -- that choice really doesn't sit well with me. At all. I read both of Hirshman's articles before either of Julia's posts or the comments, and I couldn't help but think of him. As someone who considers herself a "capital F" Feminist to her core, I have to wonder if I'd feel the same way if he weren't male. I don't know. It really, really bugs me that he received one of the most prestigious, specialized, and elite trainings possible (for free!) and might not use it in a professional capacity. Would I feel the same way if he were a female friend? Am I betraying my feminist principles by holding genders to different standards (even if unconsciously)? I don't know. I just don't know. It *does* seem wrong to me for him to not "use" his medical training and elite degrees for something "more" than raising his son, especially as a random taxpayer. Even though a huge chunk of me doesn't want to feel that way, especially since he's an old and dear friend.

Anyhow, Julia, all that is to say that I think you're right, and that like you, I still don't know what to do with it. I also agree with the commenters who have observed that there are big differences between personal choices and larger societal pressures/structures/systems that influence them.

The phrase "to whom much is given, much is expected" keeps running through my head. But how can one ever know how/when that debt to society can be considered "paid in full?"

Regardless, thanks for the nourishing food for thought.

[Kate]

S, in Australia we can largely hold off paying for our degrees until we start earning over a certain threshold. It is basically a government loan. So I have the dilemma about some of the women who do their degrees, work maybe a few years and then meet a guy, have children and never pay off their HECs debt because they don't earn enough. Should it become a joint liability of the family? Otherwise, the taxpayer ends up with the burden. I find this a really hard issue to grapple with because we should not be denied an education but I don't see it as fair either when I have paid all mine off because I have not had the luxury of not having to work (until recently).

To comment on the leapfrogging....I have found that it is far easier to negotiate better pay and conditions when applying for a new job, for which they really want you, rather than when you are in the company and moving up the ladder. Which is probably why many people change jobs every few years.

[meg]

Many years ago, as a young pup, I started work at a media outlet as a general assignment reporter. There was a large pool of general assignment reporters. I was told that, on average, one could expect to stay in the general assignment pool for six to nine months.

In less than three months, I was promoted to a full-fledged beat reporting job, ahead of several people who had been there longer, had written more, had paid their dues. Why? For whatever reason, my skills fit the company's needs slightly better than theirs did, at least at the time. Was that "fair"? In a larger sense, hell no. But corporate America is full of such decisions. I think we all know people who are SO brilliant that they can get away with just about anything on the job. (I've always wanted to be one of those people.) Is it fair that they do? In the strictest sense, no, just as it's not fair that my ability to manipulate words to run along smoothly and grammatically commands a mere fraction of the average salary that Shaquille O'Neal's ability to put a ball into a hole (or not, har har har) does on the open market.

Would it be "fair" if you came back to work as my boss after several years away? Probably not. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be the right thing for our employer. And, while I think employers should endeavor to enforce the rules equally with employees, we're not all cut from the same cloth. In everything from volunteer projects to Fortune 500 executive teams, there is a lot of "unfairness" built into the system, in the sense that the people who work the hardest are not necessarily the ones that climb the highest.

As for earning higher degrees and not going into the associated professions, while I can understand the unhappiness there, I feel that I must point out that more and more people, both female and male, are using their advanced degrees in ways that grad school deans could never have foreseen. We live in a culture in which jobs are no longer for lives and people are almost expected to have multiple careers. That MBA may let someone go off and do the Peace Corps for several years without losing his footing entirely in corporate America, or may allow a divorcee to find a good job after several years out of the workforce. That high-powered legal degree may end up being used to create liability protection policies for halfway houses, or may allow someone who's spent years as a struggling musician to transition into a stable career. That Ph.D in science may be used to build bombs. That MFA may be used to start up a blogging community read by millions worldwide. Etc. I know someone with an MD that used to practice medicine and is now counseling addicts for free. I'll stack up the value of what he's doing against that of anything Linda Hirshman has done, any time.

I guess my issue with Hirshman boils down to this: She is, in essence, suggesting that the well-being of children is a less important factor than the rise and success of women. I can't go along with that - I think a society is ultimately judged on how well it raises the next generation. What I can go along with is that one does not have to be a stay-at-home mother to raise children well, and that being a stay-at-home mother does not automatically make you superior to someone else in a different position. Hell, the fact that we raise children in delineated nuclear families where, at times, one sole primary caretaker stays home with said children is a relatively recent phenomenon that, in the context of human history, really hasn't been all that exhaustively tested out yet. We're all in the midst of a huge experiment that, I'd argue, is part of an evolving society. Where it evolves, I don't know. (But I hope it will include alphabet-shaped pancakes, regardless...)

[Crystal]

I disagree, on a whole lot of levels.

First, I think we're long past the Angry Housewives Eating Bon Bons perception. Perhaps remnants of it exist, but family life is much closer to being equally divided than at any prior point in the history of our culture that I'm aware of, so most Men have A Clue. Not the whole answer, but A Clue.

Ms. Hirshman BTW, has one daughter, and two stepdaughters, and advocates having only one child, so as not to be economically dependent on a MAN.

I don't agree that my staying home worsens the chances of someone else. Let's face it, not all women want to work, and not all women want to stay home. A shortage of qualified women in the workplace is not going to lessen some other woman's chances, if anything, it improves it.

The scenario you present, resentment would not be based on some idea that you've been on a protracted vacation, rather, just as when a big wig is hired from outside the company, the resentment comes from someone who has not been in the trenches at this particular company, learning the corporate culture and building relationships and doesn't have the in depth understanding of the way the company works is suddenly running the show, and usually doing a pretty crappy job at it at first, while the people who probably could have done as well or better are the very ones expected to show the fool the ropes.

I also think we as a culture understand that the best way to create a better future is to raise healthy, wise empowered children. While we fall short of that goal on a number of measures, we as a culture at least pay lip service to the idea of children as the ones who will change things, who will have to carry the torch when we are no longer able.

More importantly, while I agree there is still shocking gender inequality, it's equally disingenous to believe that gender equality has remained stagnant or even backslid since the days of Ms. Hirshman's awakening. As your marriage, and my marriage, and the increasing numbers of Mr. Mom can attest to, we no longer make concrete gender based assumptions about roles. Yes, we have more work to do, but let's not ignore the victories already won, just because the war isn't over.

And let's face it, the Pan Flute isn't going to be running the country, sitting on the Supreme Court, or curing cancer.

That said, you made some distinctions I think need to be heard and understood, but a lot about Ms. Hirshman's basic premises bothers me. She seems to have many one-dimensional beliefs about life, gender, equality, and success.

[carrie]

Had to delurk...
As a married working woman, I decided not to have children because I didn't want to stay home. I’m not expecting a cheer from SAHMs or a groan from working Moms. I don't think this makes me more insightful, more selfish, more anything. It was a personal decision that took a lot of time, tears and discussion with my husband. Is it a decision I regret? No. It is and I assume always will be, a decision I question. Unfortunately, you can’t be both a Mom and not a Mom.
I'm not sure I understand how staying at home with your child undermines feminism any more than going to back to work when you have children undermines feminism. Is one more valuable than the other? Arguments can be made on both sides, but then all of you know that.
In the end, it is about doing what is best for our families and ourselves. I don’t mean to negate the role we play in relation to our communities or society as a whole. However, both choices – SAHM or working Mom-lead to good things and bad things.
When I read about Patrick and letters and swearing and all his other proclivities, I think maybe my decision was the wrong one. But it was my decision. Just as staying at home or working outside the home is each of yours.
Julia, you can be my boss anytime. I’m pretty sure you are much smarter than I am and deserve the job!

[Crystal]

Marsha,

Should have read before I posted, but I think you're spot on.

We homeschoolers are accused of being hypocrites because we espouse the importance of education, and then choose to educate our kids at home. This irks me to no end, because private schoolers rarely recieve the same vitriol for their family's educational choices.

I do make public education a priority, personally, politically, financially. It's not just some mealy mouthed talk. But I won't sacrifice my child on the altar of those beliefs, nor do I believe it's in any way beneficial to do so. Again, it comes down to basic math for me, we have overcrowded schools, limited resources, if I give to the school my time and money, then the school is better off if they are getting what I have to offer without my child draining their resources.

In short, there are not only many ways to skin at cat, but there is a greater benefit in learning, and using, a multitude of ways.

When my husband gets a resume from someone whose last listed job ended more than a year ago he throws it into the trash. Male or female. Harvard grad or not.

Someone might be celebrating the stay-at-homes and exulting in the tangential work experience but it is certainly not the people who are making the hiring decisions.

[Kylie]

Julia I really can't agree with your proposition that:

'The reason that it is difficult for women to return to the workforce after taking time off... is because the men and women who never left the trenches think the returnees have been on an extended umbrella-drink vacation and resent the hell out of them.'

I think the reason that it is difficult is that once you've been out of a profession/industry for an extended number of years (for whatever reason - not just raising kids), you're generally not going to be as attractive a candidate as someone with recent experience. I ceased working as a lawyer 7 years ago to change career direction. It would be very difficult for me to get work as a lawyer now because I'd be judged as being out of touch with changes to the law and the way law is practised. My male counterparts would also find this difficult.

Further, as a working mother, why would I resent someone rejoining the workforce after years of child-raising? I've been paid to be here (she hasn't been); she has unenviable task of making the huge transition back into, inevitably, a very different workforce (business as usual for me). I also don't think that people are really as clueless about the hard work required of parenting as your comment suggests.