Motherhood and Careers

[Guilty Pleasure]

I'm not sure where I stand on maternity leave - I've written several posts without hitting submit. However, I will say that the idea of "I lived through it, so you can too" is utterly ridiculous. Hazing, pregnant women smoking and drinking, children riding in the open bed of pickup trucks, slavery, no voting rights, phosphates in laundry detergent... sure, people survived that stuff, but that is not a good reason for maintaining the status quo.

Also, I'd like to give a possible reason why the year replacement fix might clash with the American way of thinking. If you can leave your job for a year and be replaced by a younger, lower paid person that easily... well why wouldn't the company want to just keep the replacement permanently? The company is there to make money, not to provide jobs. The American work mentality is that you want to be indispensible, not replaceable. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just how it is for a lot of people.

 

[ksinger]

Frankly, I am appalled by some of the attitudes in the US: "I did it with no help and so should you", "Why would I want to pay higher taxes for someone else to have kids?".

Fine, I could swallow the attitude that you don't want to have to pay to help other people be with their children for longer than 6 weeks ( ), but it really bothers me that you don't want to fight for someone's right to, at the VERY LEAST, take a few unpaid months off to be with their child and have the established right to come back to their job. How would that harm anyone? And before you say, "oh we'll have to pick up their slack", just fight for the employer to bring in a replacement; it wouldn't cost anything more since the mother is not getting paid.

I'm developing a theory that you can tell a lot about the agenda held by a society's powerful members by which of its less powerful members they've convinced to argue against their own best interests in favor of said agenda to be complicit in their own oppression.

Off-the-cuff example: Untouchables who defended the caste system. In America, it's the poor who vote against tax increases on the rich, the uninsured who argue against national health care (because they, too, have been convinced that the government is just that incompetent) and the members of just about all "special interest groups" (like, say, women, who compromise a technical majority) who've been convinced that asking for parity that accommodates their circumstances is begging for special favors.

Nice racket, right? Even as I chafe at it, I sort of have to doff my cap.

LMAO! I just do adore more than a few of your pithy posts Circe. A certain continual low-level amazement at the success of that tack, is a perennial theme at our house. I guess 40 years of the continual drumbeat of "government can't do anything right" has wormed its way into the warp and weft of American culture, whether it is true or not.

 

[mayerling]

I'm not sure where I stand on maternity leave - I've written several posts without hitting submit. However, I will say that the idea of "I lived through it, so you can too" is utterly ridiculous. Hazing, pregnant women smoking and drinking, children riding in the open bed of pickup trucks, slavery, no voting rights, phosphates in laundry detergent... sure, people survived that stuff, but that is not a good reason for maintaining the status quo.

Also, I'd like to give a possible reason why the year replacement fix might clash with the American way of thinking. If you can leave your job for a year and be replaced by a younger, lower paid person that easily... well why wouldn't the company want to just keep the replacement permanently? The company is there to make money, not to provide jobs. The American work mentality is that you want to be indispensible, not replaceable. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just how it is for a lot of people.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating being replaced by a lower-paid person. In the UK, whoever replaces you gets paid whatever the original pay scale for the job is. So as an academic, if I got a temporary professorship as somebody's maternity cover I'd be paid according to the pay scale that she was paid.

 

[DivaDiamond007]

Wow. There is so much information in this thread that I don't know where to begin. I guess, as a start, I will say that I'm a mom of two young kids (ages 3 and 10.5 months) and until recently I was employed by a small law firm in the midwest. I was laid off in early October due to lack of work and have been unemployed since, despite sending out over 110 resumes (and counting). I was employed by this firm whilst pregnant with my children and with my first I took 6 months of leave. The first three of those months I filed for unemployment as the birth coincided with a slow time at the office and I would have been laid off anyway. The latter three months were unpaid and caused significant financial disrupt in my family. For the birth of my second child I took off 9 weeks, all of which were unpaid. My second child was born prematurely and spent some time in the hospital following her birth, which gave me only about 7 weeks to spend with her before needing to return to work. Due to the small size of the firm I worked for FMLA did not apply either time and it was either return to work or lose my job.

I think a big part of the issue surrounding government mandated paid maternity leave is that nobody wants to pay more in taxes, especially those squarely in the lower-middle class. We already pay so much of our earnings in taxes that the thought of having to pay even more is daunting. You want ME to pay for someone to have PAID time off!!?? What other way is there though? I think that the U.S. avoiding this issue is doing nothing but creating a bigger divide between the haves and that have-nots in our society.

As I stated in my previous paragraph, I live in the midwest (Ohio) and, while the cost of living around here is not that high - especially compared to NYC or LA- childcare is a huge expense compared to the median incomes, as is the cost of housing. It would cost us more than $1600 per month to send our kids to an accredited childcare center (KinderCare or the like), which is a HUGE chunk of our income. So much so that there is no way we could afford it. Even if we moved. No possible. So is that to say, as a previous poster stated, that DH and I should have avoided having children all together? Must feel good to be better than us lowly poor people Tell me, what is the exact amount of money one would have to earn in order to be deemed fit to have children?

And that leads into another issue: if only the wealthy are "permitted" to have children, then how are the poor (me) supposed to pay for permanent birth control? Many health insurance companies (assuming one has insurance to begin with) will not cover permanent procedures until one has had at least one child and often will not cover something like a hysterectomy unless there is a life-threatening underlying health condition. It seems, then, that instead of the wealthy subsidizing paid maternity leave the wealthy would be subsidizing sterilization to be sure that only the elite procreate. 6 of one, half a dozen of another. Either way the wealthy are paying money to support something they may not agree with, which is what is already happening in this country.

The other facet of this debate that really gets me is that how women (mothers) are told that breastfeeding is the end all be all of having healthy children, but yet, many of us poor mothers (me) can't afford to take an extended amount of (unpaid) time off in order to establish and support breastfeeding. Other medical issues aside, one cannot be reasonably expected to establish a healthy breastfeeding rountine in as little as 6 weeks postpartum. So, in turn, the mother turns to forumla which is often poo-poo'd by non-mothers, pediatricians, hospitals and others. Catch 22 anyone? So I'm a bad mother because I can't afford to take 6 months + (unpaid) off of work to breastfeed and I'm a bad mother because I used formula when I should have been breastfeeding but had to return to work after some asinine amount of time or lose the job that enables me to provide for my child(ren)

In the end I don't have any real suggestions, only gripes about how hard it is to get by in this country. I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. If it's not this then it's something else.

 

[Maria D]

It's all so simple. Just don't have kids that you can't afford to feed. But at the same time, expect society ("the government") to make it as difficult as possible to breastfeed which means you'll have to formula feed, which you can't afford, so you probably shouldn't have had that kid. Just don't have kids until you can afford them then, after your career is already established. Be like the women of Massachusetts, where the the age of mothers of newborns is older than any other state. Of course, there will be the daunting cost to society ("the government") of the special education necessary for the developmental issues associated with premature births (http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2011/10/08/the-test-ahead/89zgadwU7F5ckhFxu7JOdN/story.html) but society is pretty good at getting the government to pay for that, so no worries about affordability there.

Unless we take the view of being completely responsible for yourself to its logical extreme:

Don't have children your can't afford to feed, care for and educate in a private school.
Don't move out of the city, (and even the unaffordable suburbs these days), unless you yourself can afford to build the road to your home. Why should my taxes be increased so that you can get to this shelter of yours for your little teat-sucking luxuries?
While you're at it, either live completely off the grid or build your own infrastructure for electricity, water, sewage, and communication.
If by any chance you are entrepreneurial and have a great job-creating idea, don't bother unless you can afford to educate the masses needed to work for you. Why should I help you make money?

For the record, I am a highly educated staunch feminist and I was a SAHM for more than a decade before I went back to work. While I don't regret my choices, I do believe that my contribution to society was severely curtailed because of the lack of quality opportunities for working mothers wanting work/home balance. I'm lucky that I got to choose to stay home but given a REAL choice, I would have loved to continue the career I gave up because I didn't feel it would give me the balance that was best for my family. I can only hope that my 22 year marriage continues to stay strong because if things don't work out between DH and me, I will be screwed financially.

 

[Pandora II]

Thing, I don't think anyone here is anti maternity leave. I think we differ in opinion about who should be responsible in paying for it.
Responsibility of the parents to raise their children or responsibility of the government.
I have already outlined the reasons behind my thoughts and what I think of socialized government and the drawbacks associated with that form of government. And if you are speaking of ideals I will say is it really ideal to work full time and leave your child in daycare? Is it ideal for the child?

Pandora, so where does it stop? Where do we draw the line?

Well that is for the population of each country to decide for themselves.

Personally I don't think that the UK yet goes far enough.

I want to see:
- a year's paid maternity leave (52 as opposed to the current 39) - was supposed to happen in April 2010 but is on hold till the economy is in better shape.

- free nursery care from age 1, basically extending school by an extra 3 years - this could be paid for by scrapping the current programmes such as SureStart and by redirecting Child Benefit. This would mean that all women could afford to go back to work rather than pretty much having to pay to go to work as childcare costs so much.

- the kind of parental leave that Sweden and other Northern European countries have where men also have the opportunity to take leave as well.


I don't get how you can say that you have a great quality of life in the USA when you make it so hard for mothers to work and have children, expect children to spend most of their time being cared for by strangers - and you get next to no vacation time either?

My SIL is American and wants her husband to move over there - he's a senior partner in a big London firm and could potentially move to the USA. However he's only prepared to go if he has a contract that gives him all the benefits we have - such as 7 weeks paid holiday, plus a week at Christmas, plus all public holidays. Otherwise it's just not worth it to him, what's the point of working all the time if you can't then enjoy spending time with your family.

Oh, and when they got married, his company not only gave him a week off for the wedding, but also 8 weeks holiday so that they could do a round-the-world honeymoon. In Italy in the companies I worked for, you always got an extra 2 weeks paid holiday when you got married to allow you to have a honeymoon - no-one thinks that this is bad because what if you don't want to get married, they would think you were odd for thinking it wasn't great!

Many companies here will do extra things to keep employees happy - my sister's husband is a hydrogeologist and spends a lot of time working abroad. Shortly after they got engaged he was due to go to Chile for 3 months, my sister had just moved back to the UK and wasn't then working, so his company paid for her to go to Chile as well - they paid for her airfare, hotel, Spanish lessons and some spending money.

Many companies also allow sabbaticals, so you can take an upaid year out to do something like travel and your job is for you.

 

[phoenixgirl]

Pan, I think in the U.S. people just don't realize how much vacation other parts of the world get. You don't miss something that you don't realize you could have, ya know? (So stop making us realize what we're missing! Just kidding. )

I was a teacher, and while we had 12 weeks of vacation built into the year, it was difficult to take time off the rest of the year. I had a colleague who only took 7 weeks off after having a baby because the pay stopped after 6. I took 14 weeks off and that was considered a lot.

My husband is a financial advisor, which is all commission-based. Therefore, other than the few holidays when the stock exchange is closed, there are no holidays built into his job, but he also can leave whenever he likes. The catch, of course, is that he doesn't make any money if he doesn't go to work. But it's definitely a perk that we never have to worry about how many vacation days he has left, and he can easily take a morning or afternoon off. I was always having to keep track of my personal and sick leave at my job, and I had to use the sick days I had accumulated over the years just to get paid at all during my maternity leave (the other option is to pay into a short-term disability plan, which I hadn't done). So I only got paid for the first 2/3 of my leave, and when I returned I had no more sick days and had to take unpaid leave if I couldn't go in, which, when you have a child, happens a lot. I guess the "upshot" of such a short maternity leave is that it makes it easier to go unpaid since it's only a few weeks to go without a paycheck.

I just wish that we as a society valued family more. I wish employers offered more parental leave, onsite childcare, pumping support, etc. In these economic times, though, I don't think I can expect employers to increase their benefits packages, nor do I want to add a parental leave pay program to the government's unbalanced budget.

 

[pregcurious]

For those without children, even if you can afford daycare, and have 3 months of maternity leave which is considered decent in the US, having a child will affect your _life_. It's not just about career. You (and your partner if they are there) will be responsible for someone who cannot be left alone unless they are confined (e.g. in a crib) for several years. You cannot even leave a 5 year old for 10 minutes to go to the grocery store unless you have gotten a babysitter. It is a 24/7 job. When the doctor tells you that your child needs to be woken up every 4 hours for medication, that means you or someone you designate. Either way, you are responsible.

That is not to scare anyone off. I have a child I adore, and want more children. You will become a different person as a parent. My mother was a stay at home Mom who put us first. When she became ill, I remembered how she used to always be there for me as a child. I took care of her until she died, and it was easier for me because I remembered how she would wake me up at night to take my medication. At the end of the day, we all reap what we sow. I am not saying all women have to quit their jobs--I work full time and have to because I am the main wage earner. I am just saying that having children will affect your life, but it's helpful not to just focus on what bad effect it will have on your career. For me, there is much more to life than work.

 

[Bliss]

This is all so interesting! I especially love reading your posts, Circle and MissStepCut! Also Maria D and Pandora...so many others... Brava, ladies!!!!

I've read the statement being batted about here that this isn't about the children, it's about the women. Well, I totally agree. Except once a woman becomes a mother, it DOES become all about the children. So you can't just isolate a mother's career in a bubble and not talk about child care. How much she takes off of work, how much of her life she gives up, how dedicated she is to her career and how many hours she is willing to put in... are *all* tied to her home life, her marriage, how much support she has and how her children are cared for.

I think child care is the number one issue why women's careers suffer once they have kids. Otherwise, there would *be* no issue. It is absolutely about the children and how they turn out because that is every mother's number one concern. It is about the kids.

Before I had a baby, it was all about my career. I could come in at anytime and work until the wee hours of the morning. No problem! I loved it! And I blazed my way up the ladder, which is how I built my career up to the point where it is now. This is the only reason why I could negotiate my part time position. If I were a younger mom starting out in my career, I would been forced to let a nanny raise my child while I worked. I would have had no choice - it would be that or quit. If I were a mom who had financial constraints, I would be forced to put my child in a lower quality daycare. At what cost? It harms our kids and causes irreversible damage in many cases going into adulthood. Many many studies have been conducted on this with the same conclusion: quality child care should be a top priority if we care about our future. Unfortunately, only some of us can afford it. As someone who can afford it, I am enraged that others aren't afforded the same options. I don't think it's a luxury or a privilege. I think women have the right to be mothers AND be able to work knowing their kids don't have to suffer.

Personally, we would not have had a child if I would have had to work. We wanted the freedom to be able to decide who raised our baby and we both wanted our baby to have mom. But most women do not have a choice. They have to work! Sadly, many couples live in a manner that requires two paychecks. Or maybe they are forced to work due to where they live. Either way, I think it is harming our future. And it is crippling women's careers in most cases. Some of us are lucky. Most aren't. Don't you think this is a problem?

I think a lot of women are even looked down upon once they have kids. It's also a societal thing. You suddenly aren't as "viable" - you also see this with the attitudes of men. I noticed this before I had a baby. Women who have kids are treated more harshly than men. If a mom is late, they roll their eyes and say, "Oh, it's because she has KIDS." When a man is late, "He was stuck in monster traffic, poor guy." When a man has a spare gut in the office, they laugh and say he got it at the 18th hole. When a woman gains weight after having a baby, there is the insinuation that she has "let herself go" after popping out a kid and is now lazy. And unfortunately, attractiveness does matter in many high powered careers for women. We're expected to remain a size 2 immediately after giving birth and be Superwoman. God forbid we slip up - or it's because we're moms now and our dedication is questioned!

If anything, I feel like I'm more relaxed about so much after having a kid. So yes, I don't freak out over work emergencies as much because I see the bigger picture now. I'm much more mellow, so not as Type A as I used to be. But my brain is still sharp and I'm working because I enjoy it and I'm good at it. I feel like moms might work fewer hours and be less flexible than men are, but we are there because we want to be. And the sense of purpose you have for life and everything you do after having a child is so much greater. I think this is a tremendous asset. I am very dedicated to my career and I approach my work with a new passion I never had before. So many moms are Superwomen.

But I do feel very strongly that ALL women should have this right. My heart breaks for women who have their babies separated from them too soon. I feel bad for their babeis and for the mommas. Somehow after becoming a mom, I feel like all moms are my sisters and we're all in this together. So yes, TAX ME as much as need be...but for God's sake, let other moms stay with their babies so that they can establish a nursing relationship and bond sufficiently. Work is great, but it's just work. Tearing a mother away from her baby so she can make more money and make the company more money...come on, is that who we are as a nation? Seriously? Is it all about the almightly buck?

I could go on yet ANOTHER tangent...but yes, capitalism has caused a sickness I never dreamt possible. Why other countries ban BPA and other toxic chemicals and etc. from our food supply and environment yet our government turns a blind eye... just gross. Same here. Do corporations (and by proxy, lobbyists) really rule our lives to that extent? It is really about the almighty buck??!

 

[DivaDiamond007]

I think a lot of women are even looked down upon once they have kids. It's also a societal thing. You suddenly aren't as "viable" - you also see this with the attitudes of men. I noticed this before I had a baby. Women who have kids are treated more harshly than men. If a mom is late, they roll their eyes and say, "Oh, it's because she has KIDS." When a man is late, "He was stuck in monster traffic, poor guy." When a man has a spare gut in the office, they laugh and say he got it at the 18th hole. When a woman gains weight after having a baby, there is the insinuation that she has "let herself go" after popping out a kid and is now lazy. And unfortunately, attractiveness does matter in many high powered careers for women. We're expected to remain a size 2 immediately after giving birth and be Superwoman. God forbid we slip up - or it's because we're moms now and our dedication is questioned!



I totally agree with this! I really gets to me as well It's like moms can't win no matter what.

 

[Maria D]

Before I had a baby, it was all about my career. I could come in at anytime and work until the wee hours of the morning. No problem! I loved it! And I blazed my way up the ladder, which is how I built my career up to the point where it is now. This is the only reason why I could negotiate my part time position. If I were a younger mom starting out in my career, I would been forced to let a nanny raise my child while I worked. I would have had no choice - it would be that or quit.

Bliss, I had the same experience up to the part of negotiating a part-time position. We were living in Canada when I had our child (and yes I got a year's paid maternity leave) but then we moved back to the U.S. where I did not have the network or leverage to do this. I could not find a company that would take a chance on me and let me work part-time. Really, why would they? It's not part of our culture to allow this. They already had workers, both women and men, doing what you and I did: blazing their way up the ladder.

So look at the society our policies create. Instead of policies that facilitate the human race to procreate at the ideal time (20s for women), and take care of their young in the best way possible (at home with a parent, preferably breastfed), the U.S. actively *discourages* this. You can say that having children is a luxury that parents need to fund on their own without any help from the taxpayer (as if we were talking about adopting puppies), but the reality is that society funds the costs associated with policies that try to subvert what is natural: having kids when you are at the ideal age and being at home with them when they are babies.

We pay for things like the Head Start programs, the cost of medical insurance which is skyrocketing in part because of things like infertility treatments and neonatal care for premature births, the rising costs of special education. And personally, I don't begrudge anyone getting help for any of these things*. I just think it would make a heck of a lot more sense to have policies in place that enabled, say, a 25 year old woman to have a baby, stay home with him for a couple years, and not have to sacrifice her career.

I hope no one takes anything I've said here as a personal attack. There's lots of reasons why a woman might choose to have a baby later in life that have nothing to do with chasing the almighty dollar in their younger years. I'm just saying that on a macro-level, this country encourages this as the norm. It makes no sense.

*(I'd be happy to have it all paid for by ending wars!)

 

[Bliss]

Yes!!!! Maria D, I TOTALLY agree!!!!!!!!! As an older mom (34 when I had M) I *definitely* wish I had done the kid thing in my late twenties. It is the ideal age to do it and then have the career as the child grows up. What in the world do people do if the working spouse loses his/her job and therefore the family has no healthcare??! It's insane!!!!

I feel like corporations can enslave their workers because they know they need the health insurance. That's the sticking point. You can buy health insurance but it sure won't be as awesome as the benefits you get working for an amazing company with major leverage with a special health plan for its employees. DH works at a company where we get anything and everything we want - unlimited dental cleanings, physicals at a spa where you get sushi meals and fresh squeezed juices as you lounge around in your bathrobe waiting for the team of doctors to draw your blood... I mean, it is insane how great it is compared to a plan we'd get stuck with if we had to buy it privately.

I'll bet we'd have copays up the wazoo if we self-insured ourselves. And it would probably be prohibitively expensive to get the kind of coverage we're used to having. Even having a child on the plan meant we paid nothing, except for the $1,700 we paid for the private hospital room after giving birth for two nights. I cannot imagine having a baby without good health insurance. So you're basically a slave to the company because of the great benefits. So how then, after having a baby - can a woman NOT work? It's so risky if you're not in a stable financial position.

Maria D, I don't understand WHY companies wouldn't let more women work part time. They get experienced workers in the deal. They can use the young up and comers to burn out as they make their way to the top. And also, I don't see how people always rail about how much it would cost. Compared to our wars... or how unhealthy we are as a society... there are so many trickle down effects. If moms could stay home, they could nurse. That cuts down on their risk factor for obesity, which actually costs our system hundreds of millions of dollars. They could also cook fresh healthy meals instead of having their kids eat junk takeout and etc. More parental involvement means less risky behavior among teens... just so many benefits for our future here if parents were allowed to parent. We could just be a healthier happier society.

Even the jobs nowadays are all the workworkworktilyoudieearly jobs. Bankers, consultants...they are SO burned out. They're walking dead, essentially. Companies milk every last white blood cell from your body to give you that big paycheck and bonus at the end of the year. It's just not normal. Sure, as a partner you make over a million a year. But is it worth it if you drop dead at 56? Or have tons of diseases from chronic stress coursing through your body? I mean, the stress moms face going RIGHT back into the workforce is really something to think about. A year is really the minimum for a woman to heal & rest, establish her "new normal" within her family and bond with her baby. So many moms go back to work too soon and are like walking zombies. I fear for them while on the road! Some moms say they have actually fallen asleep at traffic lights! This is how overtaxed they are - imagine if you have more than one! Oy vey!!!

Anyway... feminists have fought the good fight. I'm grateful, truly. It just seems that now a small part is kicking us in the butt. Sure, I love outearning my male counterparts. I love having equal power. But I am also expected to have a baby and jettison back to work like nothing happened? I'm expected to work at the same level as before? Not possible, not while I have a young child. Something happens when you have a child. You kind of "wake up" and realize that life is about meaning and while work is awesome, the world is such a bigger place that extends far far beyond my office.

I can't remember if I read it here, but I remember reading one mom's statement that she would clip coupons until her fingers bled to stay at home and raise her own kids. I refuse to let a company dictate the safety and well being of my family. Sometimes you have to make a stand - move to a smaller city, downsize or whatever it takes if you feel strongly about raising your kids when they are very young. I would have quit my job in a heartbeat if I had been forced to return to work full time after a mere 12 weeks. It is outrageous!!!!! I'm angry for all of my fellow mothers. It is truly a grievance against society that we tear babies too small away from their moms. And God forbid they can't afford nannies or high quality child care. To have to put a tiny infant in a crib in a room lined with other cribs filled with other crying infants - all wailing for the comfort and safety of their mom's arms... heartbreaking! All a baby wants and needs is mom. To deny this is a crime.

Pandora's account of how shocked the Italians were to see a new mom back at work is how I feel when I hear about babies being stuck in cribs for hours and hours every day because their moms have to work. They need to be held and loved! It's their one and only need at such a tender age. It is heinous!!! Is this what we have come to as a society when this is the norm?!! What mom wants to come back to work after just 12 weeks?!?!? She's barely recovered from giving birth and is still in the throes of sleep deprivation and exhaustion from a newborn's demands!

Outrageous! We should all march! Start an OCCUPY movement for moms!!!!

 

[Sha]

But you could extend that and say that parents are therefore entirely responsible for educating their children. They should all either home-school or pay fees.

What I think Sha meant (correct me if I am wrong) is that in the same way that governments pay for the education of children - in order to produce an educated and more productive population - the same applies to the early years. In the interests of producing productive future generations they should also help parents in the first years of a child's life by making it easier for them to take the time off work to nuture that child and not make it economically impossible, or extremely hard to do so.

Thanks Pandora! (Just getting a chance to log in). That's exactly what I meant. Of course parents are responsible for parenting, on an individual level - but parenting doesn't occur in isolation. There should also be the societal framework to facilitate parents raising productive citizens, hence Pandora's point about the government investing in education and other programs to nurture the next generation.

 

[Sha]

A slight sideways tack - out of home childcare.

I'm interested to know what the rules are here in other countries - (not just the USA). Does the government set things like maximum caregiver/child ratios and carry out background checks on the owners and staff? Are nurseries and in-home day-cares inspected? What regulations are there regarding the curriculum? Also when do children start proper (ie compulsory) schooling?

Government and private day care centers are inspected and regulated by the Early Child Development Unit. As far as I know, they set teacher/child ratios - I'm not sure about the background checks and curriculum regulations, though.

Children start compulsory school at age 5 (approx.).

 

[missy]

On the topic of being a mother and having a career I just wanted to add a couple of more thoughts.

I think most importantly is for the woman to think of her own happiness and completeness and choose the path that will bring her the most joy into their own lives. Children are astute at sensing unhappiness, disappointment and apathy. I believe If the mother is happy that will make the home a happier place to be. Same thing for marriage. That's why (though I know not everyone believes this) the spouse should put the dh/dw first and then the children because a happy home helps make happy kids.

Many career moms are happy in their jobs and their kids usually grow up well adjusted. Many stay-at-home mothers are happy that they made the choice to put children first and their kids often thrive under the constant attention.

I still stand by my thoughts that it is very difficult to have both a full time successful high powered career and be a full time mom. I think something has to give. If you are fortunate that you can work part time or take a good amount of time off from your career (I think a year is actually not enough btw) then it is easier though not ideal. I think Bliss is a good example of this. She had the luxury to choose to be a full time stay at home mom and she is thrilled with being one. Great that her dh makes so much money that they can afford this and I wish we all had that choice but unfortunately that reality doesn't exist for most of us. Bliss is most definitely in the top 1% (maybe top .1%). Oh, I wish we all could be LOL...life would be so much easier!!

So independent of where any of us stand vs government paid maternity leave I feel that women do have difficult decisions in life because we are the ones who bear children and nothing changes that fact.

 

[Circe]

Oh, good points, PregCurious, Maria D., Bliss, etc.! I think the problem with acknowledging the fact that the issue is about the children on a certain level - she said, feeling her way through her points carefully - is that it triggers a set of automatic beliefs about motherhood. Motherhood, as separate from femininity.

We've made good progress these last fifty years or so in delineating biology from sociology: it's not nearly perfect, but it's good enough that, as KSinger points out, a significant percentage of educated, voting, working, property-owning women would like to throw the movement that got them those qualifiers under the bus. It worked.

For a certain value of work. One of the problems, for example, is motherhood and all things maternity-related. Another is rape. Another is PMS jokes. Another is the fact that whenever a surrogate mother sues to retain custody of a baby, unless she has a genetic component invested in the egg, the courts will take the child ... because we have absolutely no legal way to quantify a woman's contribution that does not have an equal and opposite parallel in the male experience. Basically, we have all the rights men have: the problem is, we have different needs, like Missy points out.

And we provide our own solutions, if you can just flip the switch to trigger hundreds of years of programming. For example, remember the thread on the appallingly named "push presents," where people argued that it was okay to get a fancy stroller or somesuch, because that was for the baby, but heaven help the woman who wanted, like, a Birkin? The general conclusion appeared to be that motherhood was still perceived as being about self-sacrifice.

We have a tendency, in any discussion pertaining to children, to focus exclusively on the children, and that's a problem, because once we get sidetracked into arguing about whether breast is best or whether babies benefit from skin-to-skin bonding with their mothers or whether children exposed to broader circles of contact in infancy are prone to greater rates of infection, we come back to the central fact that, yeah, probably being with their mothers for the first fill in the blank with whatever period of time you like is better for kids, and if it's taken as a de facto assumption that women's needs don't matter and good mothers sacrifice for their children, there's a built-in solution: women stay home with their kids, "sacrifice" - financially, professionally, etc. - and everything's copacetic for the rest of society.

Except, you know, it sucks for the women: it invalidates our accomplishments, it brings our rights into question, it sets us back financially, and it makes us dependent on other people in a fashion that's read as humiliating (few men are accused of being golddiggers using their kids as meal tickets, for example). And I'd argue that it sucks for society: government loses what it invests in our educations and what it would make off our taxes, fathers have minimized contact with their kids and more pressure to succeed at work, and, oh, yeah, American society continues to trundle along twenty or thirty years behind the rest of the world on this issue and all the other ones that would ripple out from it, if we had more women in business and politics.

I continue to fail to see the upside to our current position (unless you are, A) a big business, B) a person who has no kids and never plans to have kids and has some serious issues with perspective, or, c) a woman who is entirely supported by her husband who C1) would not benefit from these policies directly, C2) would lose some disposable income in taxes, and C3) shares the aforementioned lack of perspective; also, doesn't see herself having daughters). Seriously, we're worried about higher taxes? TAKE THE MONEY. I want a voice in my own future, damnit.

Bottom line: some of y'all think women who can't afford the "sacrifice" shouldn't have children? I say companies that can't afford basic privileges for their employees shouldn't have them. Hell, I think countries that can't afford basic privileges for their citizens need some serious eye-brow quirking in their direction. Remember Oscar Wilde on prison? "If this is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners, she doesn't deserve to have any." InDEED ....

 

[Bliss]

Missy, I agree with you in that it is impossible to work full time and raise your child yourself. I wish it could be done, I truly do. It is such a struggle for me at times because I really love working. It is hard for me to imagine walking away from my career for good. But that is the decision many women are faced with once they have a child. For many of us who have worked their adult lives to get where they want to be, walking away now essentially means walking away for good. It's painful in one aspect to think of all the sacrifices I have made (I did manage to have fun on the way, too!) to taste success only to throw it in the garbage can because I need to raise my child.

If I take a good hard look at it, there is no question. Raising my child is most important and I will not regret it. But it isn't easy to give it up! Come on, we women have good educations and great skills. When the kid is in school and doesn't need me around all the time anymore, I would love to have my career. But it isn't going to be there by that time, not unless I continue to have my foot in the door like I do now. But say I wasn't able to negotiate the part time work I have now? I would have had to throw it away to be with my tiny child.

It just seems like a huge waste! And like Maria D says, it leaves women so vulnerable. Say a woman's marriage (God forbid) were to fall apart one day due to tragedy or an affair? We all have strong unions with our best friends, but let's be realists as well. Stuff can happen. Then what does the woman do when she's suddenly faced with raising her child alone? Many women live in poverty because of this. And if they don't, they really really struggle. Some are lucky. But had the woman kept her career, she would have the confidence she would need to know it was all going to be OK. Doesn't solve the child care situation, but at least she won't be out of a job and a future in the workforce.

Ahhhh, oh and I am not the 1%! I think someone like Phoenix would be the 1%! We work hard and save like the 99% but make the choices we do because we decided long ago it is the way we wanted to raise our family. We know a couple who are truly the 1% - the mom has 2 young kids and she works so much that she woke up in her hallway naked on the floor one morning because she fainted from exhaustion. She is my age but looks 20 years older. Her husband also works at Goldman Sachs. They make tons of money. They also wear current season Prada, are well always heeled in Blahniks and Maglis & seem to be shopping and showering their small children with gifts constantly to make up for not being there. The kids love their nanny and cry when she leaves. They prefer her to mom. Mom talks constantly about wanting to quit and be with her kids but they can't. They have too many bills to pay. Most of the bills are to Saks and etc., however. An extreme case here. They could absolutely afford to raise two kids on the dad's salary, but they can't give up the lifestyle. It is sad for the mom and sad for the kids. Mom's not happy and neither are the kids. Dad loves that his wife works, though! They're trapped in their lifestyle.

I look at the top 1% and am not envious at all. You really have to spend so much more to be there and the worries are constant. DH likes to say, "There are the choices that we make." Everyone makes their own choices, and in turn, sacrifices for what they deem most important in life. I like being who we are: being able to spend and live comfortably and be at home with my baby 5 days a week. For now, it works and I am happy with this. I do not want more than I have and feel blessed to be able to make these choices. But top 1%? LOL - like Circe's song L.O.T.T.O to M.O.U.S.E!!!! Top 1% to me would be Phoenix's diamond collection! Still waiting for her to adopt me! Ha! Right now, I'm happy being in the 99%! But I wish every other mom could be as fortunate and we could share in the good life together. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that many women don't have a choice.

Well, maybe the solution for us moms is to evolve in our careers. So we give it up while we raise our children and when they go to school, we can start our own companies and be creative as we take flight in our second careers. Let's make sure the second careers are just as satisfying but more fun than our first! We women have never walked away from a challenge or backed down when people said, "You can't." We've come this far, let's put on our thinking caps and work it out!

 

[Bliss]

Oh, good points, PregCurious, Maria D., Bliss, etc.! I think the problem with acknowledging the fact that the issue is about the children on a certain level - she said, feeling her way through her points carefully - is that it triggers a set of automatic beliefs about motherhood. Motherhood, as separate from femininity.

We've made good progress these last fifty years or so in delineating biology from sociology: it's not nearly perfect, but it's good enough that, as KSinger points out, a significant percentage of educated, voting, working, property-owning women would like to throw the movement that got them those qualifiers under the bus. It worked.

For a certain value of work. One of the problems, for example, is motherhood and all things maternity-related. Another is rape. Another is PMS jokes. Another is the fact that whenever a surrogate mother sues to retain custody of a baby, unless she has a genetic component invested in the egg, the courts will take the child ... because we have absolutely no legal way to quantify a woman's contribution that does not have an equal and opposite parallel in the male experience. Basically, we have all the rights men have: the problem is, we have different needs, like Missy points out.

And we provide our own solutions, if you can just flip the switch to trigger hundreds of years of programming. For example, remember the thread on the appallingly named "push presents," where people argued that it was okay to get a fancy stroller or somesuch, because that was for the baby, but heaven help the woman who wanted, like, a Birkin? The general conclusion appeared to be that motherhood was still perceived as being about self-sacrifice.

We have a tendency, in any discussion pertaining to children, to focus exclusively on the children, and that's a problem, because once we get sidetracked into arguing about whether breast is best or whether babies benefit from skin-to-skin bonding with their mothers or whether children exposed to broader circles of contact in infancy are prone to greater rates of infection, we come back to the central fact that, yeah, probably being with their mothers for the first fill in the blank with whatever period of time you like is better for kids, and if it's taken as a de facto assumption that women's needs don't matter and good mothers sacrifice for their children, there's a built-in solution: women stay home with their kids, "sacrifice" - financially, professionally, etc. - and everything's copacetic for the rest of society.

Except, you know, it sucks for the women: it invalidates our accomplishments, it brings our rights into question, it sets us back financially, and it makes us dependent on other people in a fashion that's read as humiliating (few men are accused of being golddiggers using their kids as meal tickets, for example). And I'd argue that it sucks for society: government loses what it invests in our educations and what it would make off our taxes, fathers have minimized contact with their kids and more pressure to succeed at work, and, oh, yeah, American society continues to trundle along twenty or thirty years behind the rest of the world on this issue and all the other ones that would ripple out from it, if we had more women in business and politics.

I continue to fail to see the upside to our current position (unless you are, A) a big business, B) a person who has no kids and never plans to have kids and has some serious issues with perspective, or, c) a woman who is entirely supported by her husband who C1) would not benefit from these policies directly, C2) would lose some disposable income in taxes, and C3) shares the aforementioned lack of perspective; also, doesn't see herself having daughters). Seriously, we're worried about higher taxes? TAKE THE MONEY. I want a voice in my own future, damnit.

Bottom line: some of y'all think women who can't afford the "sacrifice" shouldn't have children? I say companies that can't afford basic privileges for their employees shouldn't have them. Hell, I think countries that can't afford basic privileges for their citizens need some serious eye-brow quirking in their direction. Remember Oscar Wilde on prison? "If this is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners, she doesn't deserve to have any." InDEED ....

Circle and Bella for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bliss]

Oh and Maria D's post was so profound I'm still thinking about this - I have SO many friends in their mid to late thirties having fertility problems. Unexplained infertility - probably because we wait too long to have kids. I have had a miscarriage and while I know it happens sometimes, I am convinced it's because I waited until I was 34 to TTC. I should have started earlier and it is my greatest regret. I would have had more energy, bounced back easier from birth and I could look forward to being a young grandmom helping my daughter with her kids one day.

So many women say they can't afford to have kids or can't have kids due to the huge crippling effect it would have on her career. You know, the employers let out a collective groan every time a woman shares her exciting news. It's like, "Noooooo!!! Another one bites the dust!" Does it have to be that way? I don't think so. Other countries have figured it out just fine. There is no compassion for women in the workforce these days. You'd think we were hogs in a slaughterhouse - it's all about production and speed. We're just meat cranking out results and once we're not viable anymore, here comes the conveyor belt ready to haul you off to oblivion! It's like life drops off and ends once a woman has a baby...unless she hands the baby off to someone else to raise, she has a big red X on her back.

So we either let others raise our children or we risk becoming the untouchables in the workforce. I mean, the attitude is so pervasive even young women perpetuate this stereotype of moms. I feel like some women are even more critical of women than men are! Sorry, I refuse to participate. I feel like I'm fighting for the younger women coming up behind me one day. Let them see that it CAN be done - you can make your employer bend for you. The cost is, you have to work your buns off in the beginning of your career to build up leverage.

Do that or have kids earlier, even though you will still face discrimination as a mom. I don't know if I could be where I am today had I been a young mom. I got the opportunities I did early because I was unattached and willing to work/travel like a road warrior. I was also probably seen as more attractive as a young single person. People seem to have a built in idea of what a mom looks like and when it doesn't fit, they get very confused. Hahahaha, thinking of that SNL Mom Jeans skit now. LOLOLOL! But yes, I remember once hearing a man say (years ago) that a woman was now "damaged goods" because she had a baby. Shocking. But this is the kind of discrimination we face as moms. Suddenly we aren't as attractive because OH MY GOSH, a baby was squeezed out of our HOOHA! Run and scream, everyone! Noooooooo!!!!!!

Anyway, really really thought provoking points here, ladies!!! Thanks for the food for thought!

 

[ksinger]

Oh and Maria D's post was so profound I'm still thinking about this - I have SO many friends in their mid to late thirties having fertility problems. Unexplained infertility - probably because we wait too long to have kids. I have had a miscarriage and while I know it happens sometimes, I am convinced it's because I waited until I was 34 to TTC. I should have started earlier and it is my greatest regret. I would have had more energy, bounced back easier from birth and I could look forward to being a young grandmom helping my daughter with her kids one day.

So many women say they can't afford to have kids or can't have kids due to the huge crippling effect it would have on her career. You know, the employers let out a collective groan every time a woman shares her exciting news. It's like, "Noooooo!!! Another one bites the dust!" Does it have to be that way? I don't think so. Other countries have figured it out just fine. There is no compassion for women in the workforce these days. You'd think we were hogs in a slaughterhouse - it's all about production and speed. We're just meat cranking out results and once we're not viable anymore, here comes the conveyor belt ready to haul you off to oblivion! It's like life drops off and ends once a woman has a baby...unless she hands the baby off to someone else to raise, she has a big red X on her back.

So we either let others raise our children or we risk becoming the untouchables in the workforce. I mean, the attitude is so pervasive even young women perpetuate this stereotype of moms. I feel like some women are even more critical of women than men are! Sorry, I refuse to participate. I feel like I'm fighting for the younger women coming up behind me one day. Let them see that it CAN be done - you can make your employer bend for you. The cost is, you have to work your buns off in the beginning of your career to build up leverage.

Do that or have kids earlier, even though you will still face discrimination as a mom. I don't know if I could be where I am today had I been a young mom. I got the opportunities I did early because I was unattached and willing to work/travel like a road warrior. I was also probably seen as more attractive as a young single person. People seem to have a built in idea of what a mom looks like and when it doesn't fit, they get very confused. Hahahaha, thinking of that SNL Mom Jeans skit now. LOLOLOL! But yes, I remember once hearing a man say (years ago) that a woman was now "damaged goods" because she had a baby. Shocking. But this is the kind of discrimination we face as moms. Suddenly we aren't as attractive because OH MY GOSH, a baby was squeezed out of our HOOHA! Run and scream, everyone! Noooooooo!!!!!!

Anyway, really really thought provoking points here, ladies!!! Thanks for the food for thought!

Women just get that at its most extreme. As Mayerling pointed out, businesses are about making money, not providing jobs (or basics like compassion), and the best way to make money (in the eyes of business) is to NOT have anyone that is too valuable. Keep unemployment high and everyone hungry, and EVERY employee disposable. They have spent decades making sure that this is not only the norm, and chipping away at employee protections, but that everyone subject to it, accepts that fact as axiomatic. Brilliantly executed if you ask me...

 

[LJL]

Its just how the market works in a lot of cases, unfortunately. The higher paying jobs have hundreds of people applying for one position - if you have a baby and arent able to work the grueling hours, there are many who will step up and take your place without question and who are happy to put in 60-70 hours a week. This may not be true of jobs in all pay structures but people are dying for a chance at biglaw and Goldman etc. Employers will be able to hire men without fearing that they will have to give time for maternity leave (though would be diff if there was paternity leave) - the ratio of men to women in these jobs is already high and it would get higher if there was mandated leave with or without pay. Unless the government had regulations that required these jobs to hire certain percentages of women, women might enjoy an even smaller place in these high-level careers.
I agree that things should change but it would sure be hard given the American business climate, including the down economy, etc.

Sidenote - this week, my economics class has been discussing how women have costs of lost opportunities to have children (risk of not advancing in career etc) and how that makes having children less desirable and how that has affected the populations in Europe. This trickles all the way down to why it is less economically desirable to have a female child because she will not earn as much in her lifetime and ultimately not be able to fund her parents' old age as well as a male child. Also discussed how there should be a free market for selling babies but thats another topic

 

[sapphirering]

I'm so glad that I've stumbled upon this thread. It's been a long time since I've read so many articulate posts and in such a respectful tone, too. So many points have been eloquently stated here that I don't have much to add except offer my own personal experience and perspective. I'm a SAHM to a 3 yo and 10 month old. I haven't been working since my first child was born. I was a corporate analyst dealing with budgets and compliance reporting both to internal and external clients. I 100% understand why for jobs like mine, it just would not work well as a PT position. During budgeting season, new data and info come and go on a daily, almost hourly basis. We in the corporate finance team are expected to constantly update our model and crank out new reports/analysis for upper management review. There is no way that I can work say 3 or 4 days per week and still be given that responsibility. It's just not how American companies are run, and I can't imagine that corporations in other developed countries would be run that differently in terms of corporate analysis and reporting.

So that's the business side. I do think, however, that it is up to the government, nay, the VOTERS, to demand a public policy that helps ease moms back to the business world. I don't think granting a year off work, paid or unpaid, is realistic in our American way of doing business. However, 12 weeks is MEASLY. It's NOTHING. I had two natural births without drugs or complications. I physically bounced back quickly. Even then, the first 4 months postpardum was a complete blurr to me. My first born was a terrible sleeper. There were many days when I refused to drive because I was THAT sleep deprived. Trying to master breastfeeding in 12 weeks? Let's put it this way. Almost all of my friends had hired a lactation consultant with their first child. I had one on speed dial. It took me months to get breastfeeding down. My sister-in-law is a lactation consultant so I know quite a bit about the challenges of breastfeeding. If our government is truly invested in making sure that as many babies stay breastfed for as long as possible, it needs to extend the unpaid leave act to at least 20 weeks. I think 6 months is ideal. By then, breastfeeding is firmly established, there won't be nipple confusion, and the mom (hopefully) will have had some rest.

I honestly think that 6 months leave mandated by the government, for ALL working moms, is a feasible policy that will not adversely affect our current economic output. I know that if I had to go back to work after 12 weeks, I would probably operate at 10-20% of my old productivity level. But after 6 months? I would be much more focused and together, and probably would have loved the chance to socialize and be among adults!

 

[mayerling]

I 100% understand why for jobs like mine, it just would not work well as a PT position. During budgeting season, new data and info come and go on a daily, almost hourly basis. We in the corporate finance team are expected to constantly update our model and crank out new reports/analysis for upper management review. There is no way that I can work say 3 or 4 days per week and still be given that responsibility.

How about a job share? That happens a lot in the UK. You work for 3 days, let's say, and some other mum/dad/non-parent works for the other 2 and each of you are paid pro-rata. Why wouldn't that work?

 

[ladyroadwarrior]

Oh ladies - what a wonderful thread full of thoughtful perspectives and healthy disagreements! I just have to add my two cents.

First, a bit of background since I am a PS newbie.

I'm in my late 20s, single, no kids. I still have an opinion on the question of parenthood and careers - and I think we're not going to solve this problem until its a concern of EVERYONE, not just mothers.

I also happen to be a human capital consultant. I work for one of the large management consultancies and I specialize in human capital - so I spend a lot of my time working with clients on matters like aligning/revising their talent strategies, workforce planning and effectiveness, succession planning, and mostly ensuring that clients actually have the right people in the right roles with the right knowledge and incentives to execute on business strategy.

Let me tell you - there is a war for talent out there - and the companies who succeed in the "new normal" environment will be the ones who can manage to attract and retain the best talent out there. This, naturally, includes women. Now I don't have the stats offhand, but I think that its safe to assume that more than two thirds of women will eventually become mothers. That's a pretty significant talent segment. If we accept the premise that today's firms aren't going to be able to continue to grow with a male-dominated workforce, it stands to reason that companies large and small are going to have to find ways to retain their female employees - and this means tackling the complexities of parental leaves and the demands on working parents.

From the research that my firm has conducts, and the studies and trends that I am seeing, it seems as if the most successful changes are when firms are thinking broadly. Even in this discussion, which is so smart and inclusive, we've really been talking about tactical bits like maternity leave and I've not read much about fatherhood. Sure, extended paid or unpaid maternity leaves would help in the US workforce, but my experience tells me that it's not just the first year of a child's life that women are slowing their careers or choosing to stay at home.

Really valuing women's contributions to the workforce requires a major change in the systems and attitudes of the entire workforce. That includes mothers, women who think they might eventually become mothers, fathers, men who might become fathers, managers and supervisors who have high performing women on their teams, and executives who feel the pressure to identify the best talent for their organization. This also includes governments who will create and revise policies that were created during a time when the typical family meant a working father and a stay at home mom, where this was economically feasible both for the family and for the employer. That's just not true anymore.

To me, this means flexible workforces which allow more than one or two paths - today's model of the hard-core up-or-our vs. the slower "mommy track" just doesn't work. I see companies starting to adopt multi-path models - and it's working. The trick is it has to be more than just mothers who ask for it, because in my opinion it is more than just mothers who take advantage. Fathers, employees who want to go back to school part-time, those caring for relatives, you name it. There also has to be fuidity between paths - an ability to step up or down on the intensity scale depending on other life factors.

The first step is separating the needs of women from the needs of parents. This is really the crux to me. I can't tell you how many times I've left a women's networking session shaking my head. Women's issues are not exclusively about motherhood, and likewise the challenges of being a working parent extend to men. To create an effective workforce, we need to make this critical distinction and work to change those systems and models that are one-size-fits-all.

<steps off soapbox>

 

[sapphirering]

I 100% understand why for jobs like mine, it just would not work well as a PT position. During budgeting season, new data and info come and go on a daily, almost hourly basis. We in the corporate finance team are expected to constantly update our model and crank out new reports/analysis for upper management review. There is no way that I can work say 3 or 4 days per week and still be given that responsibility.

How about a job share? That happens a lot in the UK. You work for 3 days, let's say, and some other mum/dad/non-parent works for the other 2 and each of you are paid pro-rata. Why wouldn't that work?

I've heard of that too, and I think that might work if the lines of communication are well documented. I don't know about other fields of work, but in my previous roles, doing budgeting and forecast analysis requires a lot of back-end info that aren't exactly quantitative and thus hard to document and seamlessly transfer/share with another person. If I have a job share with another person, I'd have to document every convo I had with a sales director and vice versa, and then when I come into work I'll have to read thru all that to try and catch up. It is confusing enough to absorb and incorporate all the shifts/changes during a big analysis, and to add another person into the situation would compound the confusion even more. I think it's doable if there's a clear-cut, well-documented way of doing a budget/forecast. But, in my various roles as corporate analyst in various companies, every budget/forecast is slightly different. We all create and maintain our own models that might be a simple Excel spreadsheet to maybe SQL programming to crunch millions of rows of data. I think in non-busy season, a job share could absolutely work, but not during these hectic months. Things move fast, and management expects us to remember every detail and explain on the spot the reasons why each version of the latest update is different. I honestly can't say that this type of work would go well in a job share setting. Of course, nothing is impossible and if a company is committed to providing job share then it can probably change its business practices to adapt to the new work environment. But, a previous poster said it best. In America the employees strive to be irreplaceable.

 

[NovemberBride]

Missy, I agree with you in that it is impossible to work full time and raise your child yourself. I wish it could be done, I truly do. It is such a struggle for me at times because I really love working. It is hard for me to imagine walking away from my career for good. But that is the decision many women are faced with once they have a child. For many of us who have worked their adult lives to get where they want to be, walking away now essentially means walking away for good. It's painful in one aspect to think of all the sacrifices I have made (I did manage to have fun on the way, too!) to taste success only to throw it in the garbage can because I need to raise my child.

If I take a good hard look at it, there is no question. Raising my child is most important and I will not regret it. But it isn't easy to give it up! Come on, we women have good educations and great skills. When the kid is in school and doesn't need me around all the time anymore, I would love to have my career. But it isn't going to be there by that time, not unless I continue to have my foot in the door like I do now. But say I wasn't able to negotiate the part time work I have now? I would have had to throw it away to be with my tiny child.

It just seems like a huge waste! And like Maria D says, it leaves women so vulnerable. Say a woman's marriage (God forbid) were to fall apart one day due to tragedy or an affair? We all have strong unions with our best friends, but let's be realists as well. Stuff can happen. Then what does the woman do when she's suddenly faced with raising her child alone? Many women live in poverty because of this. And if they don't, they really really struggle. Some are lucky. But had the woman kept her career, she would have the confidence she would need to know it was all going to be OK. Doesn't solve the child care situation, but at least she won't be out of a job and a future in the workforce.

Ahhhh, oh and I am not the 1%! I think someone like Phoenix would be the 1%! We work hard and save like the 99% but make the choices we do because we decided long ago it is the way we wanted to raise our family. We know a couple who are truly the 1% - the mom has 2 young kids and she works so much that she woke up in her hallway naked on the floor one morning because she fainted from exhaustion. She is my age but looks 20 years older. Her husband also works at Goldman Sachs. They make tons of money. They also wear current season Prada, are well always heeled in Blahniks and Maglis & seem to be shopping and showering their small children with gifts constantly to make up for not being there. The kids love their nanny and cry when she leaves. They prefer her to mom. Mom talks constantly about wanting to quit and be with her kids but they can't. They have too many bills to pay. Most of the bills are to Saks and etc., however. An extreme case here. They could absolutely afford to raise two kids on the dad's salary, but they can't give up the lifestyle. It is sad for the mom and sad for the kids. Mom's not happy and neither are the kids. Dad loves that his wife works, though! They're trapped in their lifestyle.

I look at the top 1% and am not envious at all. You really have to spend so much more to be there and the worries are constant. DH likes to say, "There are the choices that we make." Everyone makes their own choices, and in turn, sacrifices for what they deem most important in life. I like being who we are: being able to spend and live comfortably and be at home with my baby 5 days a week. For now, it works and I am happy with this. I do not want more than I have and feel blessed to be able to make these choices. But top 1%? LOL - like Circe's song L.O.T.T.O to M.O.U.S.E!!!! Top 1% to me would be Phoenix's diamond collection! Still waiting for her to adopt me! Ha! Right now, I'm happy being in the 99%! But I wish every other mom could be as fortunate and we could share in the good life together. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that many women don't have a choice.

Well, maybe the solution for us moms is to evolve in our careers. So we give it up while we raise our children and when they go to school, we can start our own companies and be creative as we take flight in our second careers. Let's make sure the second careers are just as satisfying but more fun than our first! We women have never walked away from a challenge or backed down when people said, "You can't." We've come this far, let's put on our thinking caps and work it out!

Bliss,

I bit my tongue the first 2-3 times you said you can't be a full-time working mom and still raise your kids, but I cannot do it any longer. I am a full-time working mom, in fact I am more than a full-time working mom, since I often put in 50-60 hours a week (many of which are after my daughter goes to bed). Make no mistake about it - no one is raising my daughter but her father and me. She does not prefer her daycare teachers to us. We do not shower her with gifts to make up for working because we don't think we have anything we need to make up for. I do not work because I have to or to keep up a certain lifestyle, my husband also works in finance and we could continue without much sacrifice if one of us chose to stay home. I work because I love my career and I know I am setting a great example to my daughter by showing her she can be anything she wants to be. I was fortunate enough to be able to make the right choice for me, just as you were. I too feel badly for women that don't have the option that you and I had. But just because we chose differently does not give you the right to make judgments on my parenting or on the value I place on my role as a parent.

What is the point of working towards a system that allows women to choose whether they are going to return to work and support them if they choose to do so if we are going to judge them for making that choice?

 

[vc10um]

So that's the business side. I do think, however, that it is up to the government, nay, the VOTERS, to demand a public policy that helps ease moms back to the business world. I don't think granting a year off work, paid or unpaid, is realistic in our American way of doing business. However, 12 weeks is MEASLY. It's NOTHING. I had two natural births without drugs or complications. I physically bounced back quickly. Even then, the first 4 months postpardum was a complete blurr to me. My first born was a terrible sleeper. There were many days when I refused to drive because I was THAT sleep deprived. Trying to master breastfeeding in 12 weeks? Let's put it this way. Almost all of my friends had hired a lactation consultant with their first child. I had one on speed dial. It took me months to get breastfeeding down. My sister-in-law is a lactation consultant so I know quite a bit about the challenges of breastfeeding. If our government is truly invested in making sure that as many babies stay breastfed for as long as possible, it needs to extend the unpaid leave act to at least 20 weeks. I think 6 months is ideal. By then, breastfeeding is firmly established, there won't be nipple confusion, and the mom (hopefully) will have had some rest.

I honestly think that 6 months leave mandated by the government, for ALL working moms, is a feasible policy that will not adversely affect our current economic output. I know that if I had to go back to work after 12 weeks, I would probably operate at 10-20% of my old productivity level. But after 6 months? I would be much more focused and together, and probably would have loved the chance to socialize and be among adults!

sapphire, I think you bring up excellent points, especially those in bold! I can only imagine that mothers who head back to work after 6, 8, even 12 weeks, face many of the same issues. It just doesn't seem wise for ANYONE for mothers to be back to work that quickly! Is it really wise for companies to expect women back to work so soon, when they're functioning at less than 100%? Even less than 50%?

ladyroadwarrior, welcome to PS! Thank you for contributing some valuable information to this thread. I've been wondering a lot about the corporate side of things, since we are all the employees and not the employers. I hope that what you've said is truly how things will continue to evolve in the workplace! If the private sector becomes a much more attractive place, I'm hoping the government will have to eventually follow suit in order to preserve ITS talent pool.

 

[sapphirering]

NovmeberBride- thanks for providing the other perspective. I have a lot of friends who have MBAs and PhDs and choose to go back to work. Particularly my friends in academia- once you're tenured, you do have slightly more room to have a decent work/life balance. (However, to be tenured in the first place often means that you don't get to start a family until your 30s.) I have friends who are BETTER moms for having a career. I personally wish that I can work 15-20 hours per week once my little one reaches a year old. I absolutely agree that having successful working moms serve as very positive role models for our young.

I don't know how it works in other countries or actually other states in the US, but here in CA getting government-paid leave after giving birth is grouped under the disability act. Forget for a moment that giving birth is vastly different than being disabled due to injuries sustained through other means, but to think that you're mentally and physically able to bounce back to normal and go to work after 12 weeks? Honestly, it seems almost inhumane. From the company's perspective, giving a woman 6 months break will ensure that she is much more productive once she gets back to work.

 

[iugurl]

Yes!!!! Maria D, I TOTALLY agree!!!!!!!!! As an older mom (34 when I had M) I *definitely* wish I had done the kid thing in my late twenties. It is the ideal age to do it and then have the career as the child grows up. What in the world do people do if the working spouse loses his/her job and therefore the family has no healthcare??! It's insane!!!!

I feel like corporations can enslave their workers because they know they need the health insurance. That's the sticking point. You can buy health insurance but it sure won't be as awesome as the benefits you get working for an amazing company with major leverage with a special health plan for its employees. DH works at a company where we get anything and everything we want - unlimited dental cleanings, physicals at a spa where you get sushi meals and fresh squeezed juices as you lounge around in your bathrobe waiting for the team of doctors to draw your blood... I mean, it is insane how great it is compared to a plan we'd get stuck with if we had to buy it privately.

I'll bet we'd have copays up the wazoo if we self-insured ourselves. And it would probably be prohibitively expensive to get the kind of coverage we're used to having. Even having a child on the plan meant we paid nothing, except for the $1,700 we paid for the private hospital room after giving birth for two nights. I cannot imagine having a baby without good health insurance. So you're basically a slave to the company because of the great benefits. So how then, after having a baby - can a woman NOT work? It's so risky if you're not in a stable financial position.

Maria D, I don't understand WHY companies wouldn't let more women work part time. They get experienced workers in the deal. They can use the young up and comers to burn out as they make their way to the top. And also, I don't see how people always rail about how much it would cost. Compared to our wars... or how unhealthy we are as a society... there are so many trickle down effects. If moms could stay home, they could nurse. That cuts down on their risk factor for obesity, which actually costs our system hundreds of millions of dollars. They could also cook fresh healthy meals instead of having their kids eat junk takeout and etc. More parental involvement means less risky behavior among teens... just so many benefits for our future here if parents were allowed to parent. We could just be a healthier happier society.

Even the jobs nowadays are all the workworkworktilyoudieearly jobs. Bankers, consultants...they are SO burned out. They're walking dead, essentially. Companies milk every last white blood cell from your body to give you that big paycheck and bonus at the end of the year. It's just not normal. Sure, as a partner you make over a million a year. But is it worth it if you drop dead at 56? Or have tons of diseases from chronic stress coursing through your body? I mean, the stress moms face going RIGHT back into the workforce is really something to think about. A year is really the minimum for a woman to heal & rest, establish her "new normal" within her family and bond with her baby. So many moms go back to work too soon and are like walking zombies. I fear for them while on the road! Some moms say they have actually fallen asleep at traffic lights! This is how overtaxed they are - imagine if you have more than one! Oy vey!!!

Anyway... feminists have fought the good fight. I'm grateful, truly. It just seems that now a small part is kicking us in the butt. Sure, I love outearning my male counterparts. I love having equal power. But I am also expected to have a baby and jettison back to work like nothing happened? I'm expected to work at the same level as before? Not possible, not while I have a young child. Something happens when you have a child. You kind of "wake up" and realize that life is about meaning and while work is awesome, the world is such a bigger place that extends far far beyond my office.

I can't remember if I read it here, but I remember reading one mom's statement that she would clip coupons until her fingers bled to stay at home and raise her own kids. I refuse to let a company dictate the safety and well being of my family. Sometimes you have to make a stand - move to a smaller city, downsize or whatever it takes if you feel strongly about raising your kids when they are very young. I would have quit my job in a heartbeat if I had been forced to return to work full time after a mere 12 weeks. It is outrageous!!!!! I'm angry for all of my fellow mothers. It is truly a grievance against society that we tear babies too small away from their moms. And God forbid they can't afford nannies or high quality child care. To have to put a tiny infant in a crib in a room lined with other cribs filled with other crying infants - all wailing for the comfort and safety of their mom's arms... heartbreaking! All a baby wants and needs is mom. To deny this is a crime.

Pandora's account of how shocked the Italians were to see a new mom back at work is how I feel when I hear about babies being stuck in cribs for hours and hours every day because their moms have to work. They need to be held and loved! It's their one and only need at such a tender age. It is heinous!!! Is this what we have come to as a society when this is the norm?!! What mom wants to come back to work after just 12 weeks?!?!? She's barely recovered from giving birth and is still in the throes of sleep deprivation and exhaustion from a newborn's demands!

Outrageous! We should all march! Start an OCCUPY movement for moms!!!!

I agree with Novemberbride. Frankly, I find some of your comments shocking and offensive. And btw, I don't see companies jumping to hire part-time MEN either. I don't see men at companies who are expected to work 80 hours a week but only work 40 (for kids, health, personal preference, whatever) make partner. Woman who work fewer hours and don't climb the ladder are not treated differently than a man who also does not put in "enough" hours either. (generally - I am sure there are exceptions, as there are exceptions to every rule) I don't understand why women should be treated DIFFERENTLY, than men. Why should they be able to put in less hours for the same pay/status? Scratch that, why should MOTHERS, be treated differently aka. better, than women who choose not to have kids and men who don't have kids or do not sacrifice as much as other parents? Just because I don't have children does not mean that I would not enjoy more time at home with my family or friends and not have any negative consequence from that choice.
Not EVERYTHING is a huge conspiracy against women/motherhood.

 

[Circe]

Oh ladies - what a wonderful thread full of thoughtful perspectives and healthy disagreements! I just have to add my two cents.

First, a bit of background since I am a PS newbie.

I'm in my late 20s, single, no kids. I still have an opinion on the question of parenthood and careers - and I think we're not going to solve this problem until its a concern of EVERYONE, not just mothers.

I also happen to be a human capital consultant. I work for one of the large management consultancies and I specialize in human capital - so I spend a lot of my time working with clients on matters like aligning/revising their talent strategies, workforce planning and effectiveness, succession planning, and mostly ensuring that clients actually have the right people in the right roles with the right knowledge and incentives to execute on business strategy.

Let me tell you - there is a war for talent out there - and the companies who succeed in the "new normal" environment will be the ones who can manage to attract and retain the best talent out there. This, naturally, includes women. Now I don't have the stats offhand, but I think that its safe to assume that more than two thirds of women will eventually become mothers. That's a pretty significant talent segment. If we accept the premise that today's firms aren't going to be able to continue to grow with a male-dominated workforce, it stands to reason that companies large and small are going to have to find ways to retain their female employees - and this means tackling the complexities of parental leaves and the demands on working parents.

From the research that my firm has conducts, and the studies and trends that I am seeing, it seems as if the most successful changes are when firms are thinking broadly. Even in this discussion, which is so smart and inclusive, we've really been talking about tactical bits like maternity leave and I've not read much about fatherhood. Sure, extended paid or unpaid maternity leaves would help in the US workforce, but my experience tells me that it's not just the first year of a child's life that women are slowing their careers or choosing to stay at home.

Really valuing women's contributions to the workforce requires a major change in the systems and attitudes of the entire workforce. That includes mothers, women who think they might eventually become mothers, fathers, men who might become fathers, managers and supervisors who have high performing women on their teams, and executives who feel the pressure to identify the best talent for their organization. This also includes governments who will create and revise policies that were created during a time when the typical family meant a working father and a stay at home mom, where this was economically feasible both for the family and for the employer. That's just not true anymore.

To me, this means flexible workforces which allow more than one or two paths - today's model of the hard-core up-or-our vs. the slower "mommy track" just doesn't work. I see companies starting to adopt multi-path models - and it's working. The trick is it has to be more than just mothers who ask for it, because in my opinion it is more than just mothers who take advantage. Fathers, employees who want to go back to school part-time, those caring for relatives, you name it. There also has to be fuidity between paths - an ability to step up or down on the intensity scale depending on other life factors.

The first step is separating the needs of women from the needs of parents. This is really the crux to me. I can't tell you how many times I've left a women's networking session shaking my head. Women's issues are not exclusively about motherhood, and likewise the challenges of being a working parent extend to men. To create an effective workforce, we need to make this critical distinction and work to change those systems and models that are one-size-fits-all.

<steps off soapbox>

Oh, I can tell I'm going to like you - co-sign to each and every word.