Motherhood and Careers

[Pandora II]

One thing that does intrigue me is how big corporations work/think when they are multi-nationals.

Finance is one of the biggest sectors in the UK economy especially here in London. I have friends who work for Goldman Sachs, worked for Lehman Brothers, work for many of the major banks/hedge funds etc - and all in pretty high-up jobs. They all took the year's maternity leave and the super-dooper extra benefits that went with it (6 months full pay etc), and many are now working part-time.

I don't think Lehman Brother's collapsed because of UK maternity leave laws (could I be wrong ), but it seems that these firms all just tick along up and down with the world economies. The same people at the very top must be saying okay, we can deal with the Brits all having stacks of holiday time and big long maternity leaves and then being stroppy and wanting to work part-time... but no-one tell the American girls or they might think we can do the same here!

Just strikes me as interesting how a company that does the exact same thing in various different countries must deal with such very different emploment law situations.


Bliss, you are such a sweetheart. Your posts always make me smile - I love how involved and passionate you are about everything!

Circe, I think you should go into politics.


I agree that people should have the right to choose what works for them - although they may not know until they have the baby there!

I always thought I shouldn't have kids unless I could afford a nanny full-time as I'd be such an awful mother and would want to go back to work asap, heck I didn't even like kids very much. Then I had a baby - she's 2 and a half and I have never spent a night away from her and wouldn't even like to think about doing so. I cried the day I sent her to nursery for the first time (5 weeks ago) as she had never, ever been away from me - she cried when I went to pick her up and said she wanted to stay there...

 

[Circe]

<snip>

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.

But ... that's the thing. Men and women are different, and right now, women experiencing a disproportionate pressure to both live up to the standard set for your socio-typical 21st century male - work 80 hours a week, don't take time off for predictable medical issues like ... recovering from childbirth ... and basically, expect to have a support staff at home to succeed in the office - and the expectations set up for your average woman to be a "good mom," said definition oscillating wildly but nevertheless defaulting to the expectation of doing a hell of a lot of hands-on baby-raising.

As for why mothers should be judged according to a different standard than other women? Um, dude? If my coworker needs time off to, say, heal from a car accident, I'm not going to agitate for an identical space of time off, because I'm not dealing with her issues. Kids aren't a car wreck, of course - but the effects they wreak on the female body can be almost as traumatic, from what I hear. And even assuming the healthiest of pregnancies and deliveries, the woman raising the kid? Is doing a service to society, by providing the next generation. In an ideal world, employers would cut the childfree similar slack to go forth and perform community service, but I think it's wildly selfish to argue that we should retard progress across the board because we can't grant it unilaterally immediately. Is it really so hard to prioritize?

Oh, and btw? Yeah, it is. Me, I blame the patriarchy. (TM)

 

[Circe]

One thing that does intrigue me is how big corporations work/think when they are multi-nationals.

Finance is one of the biggest sectors in the UK economy especially here in London. I have friends who work for Goldman Sachs, worked for Lehman Brothers, work for many of the major banks/hedge funds etc - and all in pretty high-up jobs. They all took the year's maternity leave and the super-dooper extra benefits that went with it (6 months full pay etc), and many are now working part-time.

I don't think Lehman Brother's collapsed because of UK maternity leave laws (could I be wrong ), but it seems that these firms all just tick along up and down with the world economies. The same people at the very top must be saying okay, we can deal with the Brits all having stacks of holiday time and big long maternity leaves and then being stroppy and wanting to work part-time... but no-one tell the American girls or they might think we can do the same here!

Just strikes me as interesting how a company that does the exact same thing in various different countries must deal with such very different emploment law situations.


Bliss, you are such a sweetheart. Your posts always make me smile - I love how involved and passionate you are about everything!

Circe, I think you should go into politics.


I agree that people should have the right to choose what works for them - although they may not know until they have the baby there!

I always thought I shouldn't have kids unless I could afford a nanny full-time as I'd be such an awful mother and would want to go back to work asap, heck I didn't even like kids very much. Then I had a baby - she's 2 and a half and I have never spent a night away from her and wouldn't even like to think about doing so. I cried the day I sent her to nursery for the first time (5 weeks ago) as she had never, ever been away from me - she cried when I went to pick her up and said she wanted to stay there...

Heheheh - brief thread-jack, as I'm starting to think that's exactly what I DO want to do, given that family life has derailed the ambitions I started out with. Eventually I'm going to start a thread to pick the brains of yourself and the other politicos on the board: I have no idea how one gets started on that sort of thing in the US if one doesn't come from money, but I'd be a hell of a hypocrite if I was as attached to the notion of "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way" as I am while being as congenitally unsuited as I am to both the latter ....

 

[Bliss]

NovemberBride and iugirl, I sincerely apologize for making you feel the way you do. The last thing I want to do is make anyone feel badly and perhaps I got to passionate spouting off in this thread. Having read my posts again, I see that I did get worked up and for moms who do work full time and make it work, I can absolutely see where one can take it personally and be offended. I feel badly about that and I sincerely apologize to all of you. When I write about moms I know, I mean moms I know. I hardly know many of you wonderful PS moms and don't know your specific situations. I am sure many many of you (being smart PS moms) have worked it out. When I write about having to hand off parenting, I speak for myself and the terrible choices moms here have to make.

I live in a land of extremes, otherwise known as NYC. Lots and lots of moms are not able to parent here. Also, moms who have to choose low quality care (again, not representative of the PS community) do face heart wrenching decisions about where they have to leave their kids. If you look up studies on lower quality daycare options, it can be really heartbreaking. I'd say all PSers are able to find high quality daycares and child care in general. We are not the general population and this is where I get worked up because most moms don't have this as a choice.

Here, every class I take my child to is filled with nannies. I would LOVE to say most women here are able to be with their kids Mon-Fri but that is not the case. If I worked full time, my child would also be in those classes with a nanny instead of with her mom. This is where my frustration lies because most of us moms have to make this tough choice. I would LOVE to work full time, too! I love my job and am proud of being a working mom! I would love for M to grow up and be proud of how hard her mom worked for her and what she can do. I applaud you all who can make it work! I, however, was not able to do so and this is where I feel companies should change. 12 weeks maternity leave is atrocious. Having to separate a mom from her tiny baby so soon makes me sad for all moms. I don't think this should be the case. Maybe it's the American culture, but it's not this way in other countries.

I have always admired your posts, Novermber, and I bet you are an incredible mom and your DH is an amazing dad. My words reflect the insane world that is NYC. I live in Manhattan, the place of extremes, and what I see affect much of what I wrote here. Lots and lots of women here do not get to raise their kids due to extremely demanding careers that start at 6am and end around midnight in many cases. And yes, the lifestyles here are also extreme. Many moms here who have to work full time do not get to see their kids until the weekends. Maybe NYC can be extreme or it's extreme in different fields and according to varying careers. But this is what I'm talking about when I say I had to make a difficult choice for my *own* family. Lots of other women are forced to make this choice (quit or hand over child care to another person) and I'm not happy about that. I think women shouldn't be forced to make a choice. You and I were very fortunate to make it work. Many many women are not as lucky as we are. This is where my frustration comes out. I think we should all be able to make it work.

I am both impressed and happy that you have worked it out so that you can work full time and parent at the same time. Personally, I would not be able to do it if I worked full time. I would see my baby in the morning in the rush to work and would be home after she was asleep. I would get to see her on weekends, but that would not be raising her in my personal definition - a nanny would be raising my child while I worked. Maybe working relationships here can be very extreme and I was unable to work it out. This is why I went part time. But if I wasn't able to do this, like many women here, I would be forced to quit or have a nanny raise my child. Again, this is my own personal situation and what I see among many other of my peers.

Perhaps this entire issue is so emotionally charged because we care so much about it and love our families so passionately. There is no conspiracy, but things can change and should. I know we all care very deeply about our kids and our careers, which is why this debate can be so charged and become personal. We don't know each other personally and we make the choices we do based on what we think is best for our families. I just wish it were an easier choice because I feel that there can be a middle ground. You and others were fortunate enough to have found this good balance. Many many more are not.

We all do the best we can. Perhaps I get worked up too much over these issues because I don't think women should have to choose between having a career (valuable and satisfying for them) and staying at home. Can't we have a longer maternity leave? Do we have to discriminate against moms in the workforce? Working moms also have to take many sick days. It's inevitable. I can only imagine how much this is frowned upon in certain fields that are very demanding. I am sure men don't have this problem. I think it should be equal and I feel many of you illustrated that very beautifully in the previous posts.

 

[sapphirering]

One thing that does intrigue me is how big corporations work/think when they are multi-nationals.

Finance is one of the biggest sectors in the UK economy especially here in London. I have friends who work for Goldman Sachs, worked for Lehman Brothers, work for many of the major banks/hedge funds etc - and all in pretty high-up jobs. They all took the year's maternity leave and the super-dooper extra benefits that went with it (6 months full pay etc), and many are now working part-time.

I don't think Lehman Brother's collapsed because of UK maternity leave laws (could I be wrong ), but it seems that these firms all just tick along up and down with the world economies. The same people at the very top must be saying okay, we can deal with the Brits all having stacks of holiday time and big long maternity leaves and then being stroppy and wanting to work part-time... but no-one tell the American girls or they might think we can do the same here!

Just strikes me as interesting how a company that does the exact same thing in various different countries must deal with such very different emploment law situations.


Bliss, you are such a sweetheart. Your posts always make me smile - I love how involved and passionate you are about everything!

Circe, I think you should go into politics.


I agree that people should have the right to choose what works for them - although they may not know until they have the baby there!

I always thought I shouldn't have kids unless I could afford a nanny full-time as I'd be such an awful mother and would want to go back to work asap, heck I didn't even like kids very much. Then I had a baby - she's 2 and a half and I have never spent a night away from her and wouldn't even like to think about doing so. I cried the day I sent her to nursery for the first time (5 weeks ago) as she had never, ever been away from me - she cried when I went to pick her up and said she wanted to stay there...

Pandora, that's really interesting because one of my closest friend works at one of these big banks and she always said that once you're pregnant, it's like the kiss of death. She's always telling me that she needs to have a full-time nanny too if she starts a family. I asked her once about working PT and she just laughed and said that those "mommy-tracks" end up nowhere. And she's not even in the cutthroat departments. I think another factor that we haven't discusses is that some American moms who want to work PT still want to be held in the same regard as when they were working FT pre-baby. And ideally that would be the case for anyone who wants to work PT for whatever reason, but realistically people who put in 80-90 hours are going to be favored by the top partners/big dogs than people who put in 20-40 hours per week. In that regard I agree with Missy- there are only so many hours in the day and you reap what you sow.

I used to work for a British firm (not in the banking industry- but one of the top 500 companies in the UK) and we were always jealous of how many holidays our British counterparts got. However, almost all of the Brits who worked in our office (NYC) wanted to stay in the US. They talked about how many more opportunities you get in the US if you're willing to work above and beyond your duties. I don't think there's one perfect system, and that privileges granted in one area means that some are taken away in others.

 

[sapphirering]

<snip>

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.

But ... that's the thing. Men and women are different, and right now, women experiencing a disproportionate pressure to both live up to the standard set for your socio-typical 21st century male - work 80 hours a week, don't take time off for predictable medical issues like ... recovering from childbirth ... and basically, expect to have a support staff at home to succeed in the office - and the expectations set up for your average woman to be a "good mom," said definition oscillating wildly but nevertheless defaulting to the expectation of doing a hell of a lot of hands-on baby-raising.

As for why mothers should be judged according to a different standard than other women? Um, dude? If my coworker needs time off to, say, heal from a car accident, I'm not going to agitate for an identical space of time off, because I'm not dealing with her issues. Kids aren't a car wreck, of course - but the effects they wreak on the female body can be almost as traumatic, from what I hear. And even assuming the healthiest of pregnancies and deliveries, the woman raising the kid? Is doing a service to society, by providing the next generation. In an ideal world, employers would cut the childfree similar slack to go forth and perform community service, but I think it's wildly selfish to argue that we should retard progress across the board because we can't grant it unilaterally immediately. Is it really so hard to prioritize?

Oh, and btw? Yeah, it is. Me, I blame the patriarchy. (TM)

You've just said that I couldn't articulate coherently so THANK YOU.

Countless studies have shown that regardless of the proportionate amount of money a couple makes, the woman does disproportionately large shares of domestic chores. And that not only includes housekeeping, but other tasks such as scheduling doctor's visits/vacations and keeping up social contacts. This is the 21st century, yet men and women aren't treated equally both at work and at home. So if we really want gender equality to be a reality, we have to start from HOME. We have to start from within ourselves before we can demand changes in the workplace and in government policies.

And... I've just totally ignored my kids for the last 45 minutes so that I can follow this thread.

 

[ladyroadwarrior]

Circe - thank you. After re-reading I guess it was a major geek attack, but alas this is me.

 

[missy]

Working moms also have to take many sick days. It's inevitable. I can only imagine how much this is frowned upon in certain fields that are very demanding. I am sure men don't have this problem. I think it should be equal

That is just not right. This is something that should be worked out between each couple raising the child. My family and friends who have children don't just normally assume it is the mother who will take the time off when the child gets sick. They take turns or they accommodate who can more easily take that specific day off from work.

So if we really want gender equality to be a reality, we have to start from HOME. We have to start from within ourselves before we can demand changes in the workplace and in government policies.

Exactly! Thank you Sapphirering.

I used to work for a British firm (not in the banking industry- but one of the top 500 companies in the UK) and we were always jealous of how many holidays our British counterparts got. However, almost all of the Brits who worked in our office (NYC) wanted to stay in the US. They talked about how many more opportunities you get in the US if you're willing to work above and beyond your duties. I don't think there's one perfect system, and that privileges granted in one area means that some are taken away in others.

Yes, I have had this experience as well. We have many friends and colleagues who are British and live here and this is exactly what their experience was as well. I was just discussing this very thing with my dh tonight. They moved here for the opportunities they weren't getting at home and were happy to put in the extra hours and work.

There really is no perfect system and we can just do the best we can with what we have and if someone here can find the answers and "fix" the system then I'm all for that. I don't think anyone wants undue stress and hardship on their fellow human beings. Go Circe!

 

[ladyroadwarrior]

Countless studies have shown that regardless of the proportionate amount of money a couple makes, the woman does disproportionately large shares of domestic chores. And that not only includes housekeeping, but other tasks such as scheduling doctor's visits/vacations and keeping up social contacts. This is the 21st century, yet men and women aren't treated equally both at work and at home. So if we really want gender equality to be a reality, we have to start from HOME. We have to start from within ourselves before we can demand changes in the workplace and in government policies.

+1. Could not agree more.
Until we really really look at parenthood and domestic work as a real job that is necessary and valuable (and something to be divided equitably among family members) we're going to continue to have these issues.

Bliss - appreciate your open views on the reality of how challenging it is to try to balance. Think this is something that each family must manage themselves based upon their own priorities and options. Each will find their own solution.

Another perspective on nannies, for what it is worth:
I'm the grown child of a full-time working parents. I was the baby in the scene of mom breastfeeding with one hand and conferece calling with the other. At the time I was born, mom was a sales director for a high-tech firm. I know she set quotas and did team meetings from my earliest weeks. In fact, her employer at one point had to let her know that if she continued to work, they would going to terminate her maternity benefits. Not exactly something every mom might aspire to - but this was our reality. My mom would personally not have been satisfied (or sane) had she been home with me full-time. This is just the way she is built.
I also had a nanny, who lived with my family for about five years. Now I grew up in the midwest, and recognize that the financing of such a situation is going to be different now than it was in the early 80s. I just want to provide a personal perspective on my thoughts and experiences being partially raised by the hired help.

What a blessing. My parents are driven, loud, passionate, type-As. My nanny was calm, gentle, quiet, hypnotizing. The combination was really the greatest gift. I was a high spririted and dramatic kid, but she could say my name in her calm but firm way and I would immediately behave. For my own parents, it required a fair amount of ranting and raving. In my house dinnertime was sacred, and my parents were always there to share a meal and talk about the day - this was the tradition we had.
I have a very very close bond with my nanny. She taught me about flexing my personality and style to meet those I interact with. She gave me my life-long love of reading. She taught me that there are many successful ways to parent. She made me feel extra-special - like I had two loving parents plus nanny + husband who were always going to be in my corner.

Not everyone has such a magical experience - but these things do happen. Did my mom feel guilty about leaving me home to work? Sure sure did. We're catholic - I think guilt is required
It goes without saying that I still have a beautiful relationship with my parents.

Clearly this thread is from a mom's perspective. And I'm not yet in that club. However, I did think that it would be valuable to share my perspective as a partially-nanny-raised gal.

 

[NovemberBride]

Bliss,

I really appreciate your apology. I also have admired your posts and your passion for motherhood - you have a lovely way with words. It was just that the particular choice of words got me riled up - it's something that working moms hear a lot and I think I can speak for most of us when I say we are raising our kids - we are the ones getting up with them in the middle of the night, holding them when they are sad or sick, making all the decisions about how they are raised, celebrating their milestones. I can also understand where you are coming from re: NYC. I started my career there and when we got married DH and I decided to relocate to Philadelphia in large part for many of the reasons you mentioned. I love New York, a part of my heart will always be there, but it is really tough for families to survive, whether you are in the top 5% or the bottom 5%, albeit for different reasons. To be honest, I don't think we could have done it if we had stayed in NYC with both of us in our current careers.

I also can't say it enough in that I am extremely lucky that my DH more than pulls his weight. If she is sick, we decide who stays home based on how our schedules look that day. We are both in our mid-30's and far enough along in our careers that for the most part we can work from home without a problem. I can't lie, it is hard to know that I am not home with her when she is sick on those days DH stays home, but I know Daddy is snuggling her on the couch watching cartoons, offering popsicles and taking just as good of care of her as I would. I know he feels the same way when it's my turn to stay home. I personally wouldn't be comfortable leaving her with a nanny or someone else if she were sick. Again, I am so fortunate to be in this situation and I know I am in the very small minority with these options.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

I'm exhausted today--the work-family balance is a little skewed at the moment--so I've been following this thread, but not posting today but I think plenty of women on this thread have said what I wanted to far more eloquently than I ever could have! Yay Circe, and LRW, and Sapphireering especially!

I have to say, this thread is what I love about PS. There are a lot of very smart women on this thread with differing opinions and yet we are able to discuss them in a respectful and productive way, even when we get a little passionate We should all run for office We might actually be able to broker a bi-partisan deal that gets something done

 

[yssie]

Another perspective on nannies, for what it is worth:
I'm the grown child of a full-time working parents. I was the baby in the scene of mom breastfeeding with one hand and conferece calling with the other. At the time I was born, mom was a sales director for a high-tech firm. I know she set quotas and did team meetings from my earliest weeks. In fact, her employer at one point had to let her know that if she continued to work, they would going to terminate her maternity benefits. Not exactly something every mom might aspire to - but this was our reality. My mom would personally not have been satisfied (or sane) had she been home with me full-time. This is just the way she is built.
I also had a nanny, who lived with my family for about five years. Now I grew up in the midwest, and recognize that the financing of such a situation is going to be different now than it was in the early 80s. I just want to provide a personal perspective on my thoughts and experiences being partially raised by the hired help.

What a blessing. My parents are driven, loud, passionate, type-As. My nanny was calm, gentle, quiet, hypnotizing. The combination was really the greatest gift. I was a high spririted and dramatic kid, but she could say my name in her calm but firm way and I would immediately behave. For my own parents, it required a fair amount of ranting and raving. In my house dinnertime was sacred, and my parents were always there to share a meal and talk about the day - this was the tradition we had.
I have a very very close bond with my nanny. She taught me about flexing my personality and style to meet those I interact with. She gave me my life-long love of reading. She taught me that there are many successful ways to parent. She made me feel extra-special - like I had two loving parents plus nanny + husband who were always going to be in my corner.

Not everyone has such a magical experience - but these things do happen. Did my mom feel guilty about leaving me home to work? Sure sure did. We're catholic - I think guilt is required
It goes without saying that I still have a beautiful relationship with my parents.

Clearly this thread is from a mom's perspective. And I'm not yet in that club. However, I did think that it would be valuable to share my perspective as a partially-nanny-raised gal.

That was a lovely post ladyroadwarrior. How special to have such a strong bond with your child-minder


I was the same baby with bottle in one arm, and my mum had the pager in the other - she would've hated being home day after day with me. We couldn't afford live-in help, and my dad was often working out of country, so I went to daycare from the first.

I hated daycare. Despised it. It was my fervent wish to have a parent at home with me like all my friends had, and I remember asking why they couldn't... they told me they'd make it up to me by paying my way through college, and they did, in full. And that was an incredible gift - definitely worth every minute of daycare! We plan to do the same for our kids one day.

 

[Matata]

The only thing that makes me a bit twitchy in this discussion is this notion of "doing a service to society by providing the next generation." That particular wording makes reproduction sound mechanical and regulated. But the other reason it makes me twitchy is because we're still ignoring global sustainability. I know I'm the lone environmental voice in this discussion but there are currently enough young people (under age 1 with reproductive capacity on the planet today to sustain the human population for a looooong time. I'll search for the population study. Couldn't find it easily to link here. Heck, the Duggars alone are going a lot of the work for you.

Granted, those young people might not be westerners, may live in another hemisphere but they are still there. They will still need food, water, jobs, all the basic necessities for a decent life for them and their future offspring. Ya'll are still thinking within the box of "you" and the biological imperative to leave behind some DNA to carry on the familial line.

We are compromised in our ability to feed the population we have. Oceans are being fished dry; farmland is being developed or destroyed due to environmental changes. Fresh water is an issue too. We may have sufficient quantities falling from the skies but it is not always in areas where it can be easily accessed and transported.

It's already tough enough for current high school and college graduates so what indications do you have that it'll be better for those who come after.

I know I'm being a negative nelly but there simply is no deux ex machina that's going to save us from population overload.

 

[Laila619]

Not EVERYTHING is a huge conspiracy against women/motherhood.

Thank you, iugurl!

 

[Circe]

The only thing that makes me a bit twitchy in this discussion is this notion of "doing a service to society by providing the next generation." That particular wording makes reproduction sound mechanical and regulated. But the other reason it makes me twitchy is because we're still ignoring global sustainability. I know I'm the lone environmental voice in this discussion but there are currently enough young people (under age 1 with reproductive capacity on the planet today to sustain the human population for a looooong time. I'll search for the population study. Couldn't find it easily to link here. Heck, the Duggars alone are going a lot of the work for you.

Granted, those young people might not be westerners, may live in another hemisphere but they are still there. They will still need food, water, jobs, all the basic necessities for a decent life for them and their future offspring. Ya'll are still thinking within the box of "you" and the biological imperative to leave behind some DNA to carry on the familial line.

We are compromised in our ability to feed the population we have. Oceans are being fished dry; farmland is being developed or destroyed due to environmental changes. Fresh water is an issue too. We may have sufficient quantities falling from the skies but it is not always in areas where it can be easily accessed and transported.

It's already tough enough for current high school and college graduates so what indications do you have that it'll be better for those who come after.

I know I'm being a negative nelly but there simply is no deux ex machina that's going to save us from population overload.

I'll acknowledge that this is true: I think that Western nations need to accept the fact that educated citizens generally choose to have fewer children with a higher quality of life, get over their xenophobic fears, and unlock their borders.

However. If you asked me to pick which agenda was likelier to succeed, universal maternity care in the US or an open-door immigration policy, either or preferably both aimed at maintaining a sustainable population and generally improving the quality of life all around ... well, it'd be sort of like asking me to pick whether I'd like a unicorn or a gryphon. Either! Both! But neither of them is going to happen - my best bet is donating to the local pound and maybe adopting a third kitty. So I sort of think we need to figure out which half-measures we can achieve within our lifetimes on all three fronts - feminist, global, and environmental. No?

 

[Matata]

I sort of think we need to figure out which half-measures we can achieve within our lifetimes on all three fronts - feminist, global, and environmental. No?

I forgot to add the impact of a longer-lived population to the mix in my previous post. I just don't think half-measures are enough; it's akin to being a little bit pregnant. The scientist in me believes that we are unable to pull back from the brink because we cannot make the unpalatable choices and sacrifices that could make a positive difference for humanity's future. Private nursing rooms at work and 12 mos paid leave aren't going to do it. Every generation before us worried more about what could be done in their lifetimes and not enough about what would happen and the future. I suppose we'll continue on this way until Mother Earth decides to take things into her own hands and I'm betting it won't be pretty.

I am not unsympathetic to the issues and challenges working parents face. Just trying to add another layer to the great dialogue in this thread.

 

[Sha]

I'm exhausted today--the work-family balance is a little skewed at the moment--so I've been following this thread, but not posting today but I think plenty of women on this thread have said what I wanted to far more eloquently than I ever could have! Yay Circe, and LRW, and Sapphireering especially!

I have to say, this thread is what I love about PS. There are a lot of very smart women on this thread with differing opinions and yet we are able to discuss them in a respectful and productive way, even when we get a little passionate We should all run for office We might actually be able to broker a bi-partisan deal that gets something done

I've really enjoyed reading this thread too, for the same reasons. It's been really thought-provoking too!

 

[Circe]

I sort of think we need to figure out which half-measures we can achieve within our lifetimes on all three fronts - feminist, global, and environmental. No?

I forgot to add the impact of a longer-lived population to the mix in my previous post. I just don't think half-measures are enough; it's akin to being a little bit pregnant. The scientist in me believes that we are unable to pull back from the brink because we cannot make the unpalatable choices and sacrifices that could make a positive difference for humanity's future. Private nursing rooms at work and 12 mos paid leave aren't going to do it. Every generation before us worried more about what could be done in their lifetimes and not enough about what would happen and the future. I suppose we'll continue on this way until Mother Earth decides to take things into her own hands and I'm betting it won't be pretty.

I am not unsympathetic to the issues and challenges working parents face. Just trying to add another layer to the great dialogue in this thread.

True enough, but ... I think we've seen that government-limited birth isn't the way to go, via China's example. We can certainly continue encouraging people to be more eco-conscious - I'm all in favor of it! But in the context of this thread, I'm a little puzzled - are you saying that by preventing women from reproducing with inhospitable maternity care, big business is doing an inadvertent good for the environment? I feel like I'm missing something.

If that were the case, while I still wouldn't be in favor of it, at least it'd be a silver lining. The problem, I think, is that most people will choose family, and frequently genetic family, over both career and the environment. We can and should encourage less of a carbon footprint, all around. I'm just not sure if the issue of conditions facing working mothers is really the place to start. Can't we, oh, ban SUVs and bottled water and regulate large factories before we start in on how this, too, is the fault of the mother? I mean, Freudian theory is bad enough without tossing in global warming to boot ....

P.S. - And a good thread it is! As always, enjoying the debate.

 

[Matata]

I think we've seen that government-limited birth isn't the way to go, via China's example.
It may have worked better if the culture weren't so male offspring oriented.

We can certainly continue encouraging people to be more eco-conscious - I'm all in favor of it! But in the context of this thread, I'm a little puzzled - are you saying that by preventing women from reproducing with inhospitable maternity care, big business is doing an inadvertent good for the environment?
Welll, I didn't want to say it outright, but, yeah, from my eco-feminist-old geezer want-it-my-way perspective, it does serve that purpose.

If that were the case, while I still wouldn't be in favor of it, at least it'd be a silver lining. The problem, I think, is that most people will choose family, and frequently genetic family, over both career and the environment. We can and should encourage less of a carbon footprint, all around. I'm just not sure if the issue of conditions facing working mothers is really the place to start. Can't we, oh, ban SUVs and bottled water and regulate large factories before we start in on how this, too, is the fault of the mother? I mean, Freudian theory is bad enough without tossing in global warming to boot ....
I'd like to see incentives given in all countries for families to limit themselves to two children. I would package the deal to include generous paid leave for mothers & fathers, education assistance for children, health care for children, employer provided on-site child care where parents could visit their kids throughout the working day. I think if we could achieve that for parents, it would make a dent on the population issues I was ranting about. It's my fantasy and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[Mara]

Haven't read all 8 pages..but did catch a few snippets here and there.

I also have to echo what NB said re: you can still be a working Mom and not let anyone else 'raise' your child just because you are not at home all of the time. Bliss, I know you meant well with what you were saying but it did come across a little as though it could be construed wrongly. (eta I see I missed more discussion on it and an apology, you go girl..luvya!)

I also ditto Missy on the...you have to make sacrifices if you choose to work AND be a parent. There are only 24 hours in the day. How do you split them before and after child. If you were 14 hours at work before and after you are only 7...it stands to reason your employer might feel the sting a little from your hours cut in half. In my opinion, if you choose to have a child, do it fully knowing that you can't have everything the exact way you want *in most situations* and be prepared to rejigger your life. I would never expect to have everything at work be the same as it was before if I was dedicating less time and brain power to my job.

I'm also in a camp similar to what TG noted re: working & having it good enough so not seeking anything elsewhere. When I came back from my mat leave, I wanted to go PT. I spoke to my new Director (reorg while I was gone) and he freaked, understandably because I have an expertise that is hard to come by and he had just started. He said what if we are just more flexible. So we had an arrangement that I didn't broadcast. I worked from home 2.5 days a week and came in the other 2.5. After 4 months we sat down and reviewed it and moved it to 1.5 days a week and it's been there since. I am quite happy for the most part but it is definitely stressful.

Bliss, you ask why companies can't let more women do part-time. I can tell you why it won't work in my own situation though I would love if it could. I work in a very highly 'reactive' environment. Things pop up at all hours of the day...and I spend most of my day putting out fires and creating last minute powerpoints or attending last minute meetings or educating people in other depts on what my team does instead of sitting working on a scoped-out project where I know I need to do A/B/C today. If I was PT...what would happen to the time when something cropped up and my boss needed me? Someone else would have to do the work and they'd have to stop what they are doing to fill in. Similar to what someone else mentioned re: urgent items coming up in a law firm and people feeling like they couldn't 'rely' on someone who wasn't there.

So I could take a step down and do something that is less reactive and more predictable. But in my org and business unit, that doesn't REALLY exist. So I'd need to leave and go to another business unit or another company. But I like my job. It was just easier to take the flex schedule, not take a pay cut and still do my job. And I make no bones about the fact that my family comes first. Meeting at 5pm? I say sorry I gotta head out at 4:30 to pick up my son, but I'll be online later after he goes to bed and I'll work on my action items then. My boss knows I do this and he trusts me after 1 year of this so I rarely get flak about it. I run my own channel and I'm responsible for it, never do I feel like he doesn't give me the important things because *I* know my own business best. But I also know if they got rid of me tomorrow, they'd do just fine without me after a few stumbles. We're ALL expendable.

Overall, I think it's about trying to make the situation work for you as best as you can. I know I'm extremely lucky to have carved out this space for myself (for now). I'm home with my son 15 more hours a week than I would be otherwise...which is wonderful. I also actually LIKE what I do (most of the time) and would prefer to work outside of the home at least a few days a week. My Mom was a working Mom who worked TWO jobs to support us and I have crazy respect for her.

In the end, the companies make the decisions that are right for THEM and their business. I know and understand from an economics perspective why this is, and yes it sucks for women who want to stay home, or want more time with their kids etc. I think it's a case of the grass is always greener. I have counterparts in the UK who get 1 year unpaid leave, and their job is held...but I wouldn't want to take 1 year of unpaid leave. In my industry, I would come back to an entirely different landscape. IMO you can't have a one size fits all rule for any of it...the grass always seems greener on the other side.

 

[ksinger]

I sort of think we need to figure out which half-measures we can achieve within our lifetimes on all three fronts - feminist, global, and environmental. No?

I forgot to add the impact of a longer-lived population to the mix in my previous post. I just don't think half-measures are enough; it's akin to being a little bit pregnant. The scientist in me believes that we are unable to pull back from the brink because we cannot make the unpalatable choices and sacrifices that could make a positive difference for humanity's future. Private nursing rooms at work and 12 mos paid leave aren't going to do it. Every generation before us worried more about what could be done in their lifetimes and not enough about what would happen and the future. I suppose we'll continue on this way until Mother Earth decides to take things into her own hands and I'm betting it won't be pretty.

I am not unsympathetic to the issues and challenges working parents face. Just trying to add another layer to the great dialogue in this thread.

A little threadjack for Matata, the eco-feminist geezer (love that phrase BTW!) I read this poem many years ago and it's stuck with me. It's appropriate for you...

Mother Nature
Sends a Pink Slip
Written by Marilou Awiakta

To: Homo Sapiens
Re: Termination

My business is producing life.
The bottom line is
you are not cost effective workers.
Over the millennia, I have repeatedly
clarified my management goals and objectives.
Your failure to comply is well documented.

It stems from your inability to be a team player:
* you interact badly with co-workers
* contaminate the workplace
* sabotaged the machinery
* hold up production
* consume profits
In short, you are a disloyal species.

Within the last decade
I have given you three warnings:
* made the workplace too hot for you
* shaken up your home office
* utilized plague to cut back personnel
Your failure to take appropriate action
has locked these warnings into the Phase-Out
mode, which will result in termination

No Appeal.

 

[Pandora II]

I agree with November that parents are still bringing up their children even if they devolve care to others. I do think that it's not ideal in the first year - as much as anything because of what the parents miss that can be so important to their enjoyment of being a parent... the first steps, first words etc... not because it's inherently bad.

I was sent to boarding school at 12, and many children in the UK start boarding school at 7 - we are still 'brought up' by our parents, but with other people in 'loco parentis'.

Mara, all maternity leave in the UK is paid for the first 39 weeks - it may not be at the usual salary (unless the company offers enhanced benefits), but you are still being paid something - more than enough to cover the costs of nappies and other bits and pieces.


I do think that it is pretty unlikely to expect that your career will continue to progress in the same upwards direction once you have children if you want to have things like a long maternity leave followed by more flexible hours. For me that is a bit of a given and I consider it the sacrifice that you make in order to have an family and be able to continue to work.

I don't think it means that your career should go backwards either. I know that with my previous job, had I gone part-time I would have stayed in the position I was in, but had my immediate boss resigned, unless I could return to full-time hours I would not have been the ideal candidate to replace him and that would be totally fair. Many women here tend to like to work part-time until their children start full-time school between the ages of 4 and 5, and then go back to work full-time.

Certainly in London, amost the more educated and well-off, mothers tend to be in their 30's. Partly because housing is so expensive that it's pretty much impossible to buy anywhere without 2 incomes, partly because both men and women are also concentrating on their careers in the 20's and aren't thinking about marriage until their 30's, and partly because women want to get to a certain point in their careers before they decide to have children.


I didn't marry until I was 36 and I was nearly 37 when I had Daisy. IF and it's a huge IF, we decide to have another child, I will be 42 when they are born (assuming that I can still get pregnant etc). It's pretty unlikely though - with my husband's job we have to live in Central London and a 3-bedroom flat costs nearly double that of a 2-bedroom flat even in a 'cheap' area. We also have to consider that the public schools round here are dire and so we will be facing the cost of private school fees, plus wanting to maintain a certain standard of living. Certainly we could do it if we reckoned on squeezing two kids into a 11ft x 10ft bedroom, in an already very small flat, giving up any luxuries or any ability to save and having to rely on the local schools. My husband is Head of Public Affairs for the UK for a huge multinational, so it's not as if we are on minimum wage either.

I think this is why it annoyed me when I used to deal with constituents who had 8 children by 5 different fathers (who paid not a penny towards their offspring), had never worked a day in their life, lived on benefits and were moaning because I couldn't get them a free 5 bedroom house. It's this that tends to make me disagree with Matata - although I agree that the world is overpopulated, I do think (and this is VERY non-PC of me) that my child, and I would imagine the child of most PSers, is statistically far more likely to be a benefit to the country in the future that any one of the eight bred by Ms. Feckless who lives down the road from me.

I don't like the idea of systems that encourage the least productive members of society to breed like rabbits and discourages the most productive from breeding at all. One thing the USA is getting right IMO is the 'Welfare to Work' program which our own government is seeking to bring in over here.


For those who worked with Brits who said that they preferred the opportunities in the USA, were they young 20-something, 30-something, singles, or married women with kids? There are an awful lot of us who move abroad for the experience and an adventure when we are young and then move home when we are ready to settle down!

 

[ksinger]

I'm enjoying this thread quite a bit guys. Great stuff. I promise I'm not trying to threadjack, but my thoughts are elsewhere so I'll just toss them into the mix: Closer to home, I don't see how any of it has much of an impact for the women at the other end of the working spectrum - the women who have jobs, not careers. (And poor women in urban settings have always worked outside the home, BTW. Those halcyon 50's are something that we mythologized and now incorrectly see as something we moved away from rather than as the aberration they were) All this talk of disincentivizing (what a word!) childbirth through various governmental means won't change the number of the truly poor who reproduce their children into a poverty that they (statistically) will not escape. These people are not cannily calculating the government benefits they will receive from having another child. Many of them who are breeding are children themselves, as my husband will attest from the sheer number of pregnant girls that roam his school. And the draconian policies to punish the parents generally roll downhill to their offspring, who are thus doomed to repeat the cycle.

I've been a feminist my whole life, (and I certainly feel the "geezer" status planting itself firmly on my person) but right now I can't muster the outrage over the top 20%'s problems with balancing work/childbearing issues. I realize there are problems, but I have limited concern in me in a world of unlimited problems. Call me a traitor to the cause, but right now as a life-long feminist who marched for choice in my younger days, I'm much more concerned about the impact of the attacks on the basic reproductive rights of ALL women, from low to high, from the "personhood" attempts in Mississippi - which could have adversely affected access to plain old BC, to the positively medieval laws being passed here in Oklahoma.

OK, I'm done with my tangent. Carry on ladies. Even though I have a different focus, I'm enjoying this thread a bunch.

 

[vc10um]

I sort of think we need to figure out which half-measures we can achieve within our lifetimes on all three fronts - feminist, global, and environmental. No?

I forgot to add the impact of a longer-lived population to the mix in my previous post. I just don't think half-measures are enough; it's akin to being a little bit pregnant. The scientist in me believes that we are unable to pull back from the brink because we cannot make the unpalatable choices and sacrifices that could make a positive difference for humanity's future. Private nursing rooms at work and 12 mos paid leave aren't going to do it. Every generation before us worried more about what could be done in their lifetimes and not enough about what would happen and the future. I suppose we'll continue on this way until Mother Earth decides to take things into her own hands and I'm betting it won't be pretty.

I am not unsympathetic to the issues and challenges working parents face. Just trying to add another layer to the great dialogue in this thread.

True enough, but ... I think we've seen that government-limited birth isn't the way to go, via China's example. We can certainly continue encouraging people to be more eco-conscious - I'm all in favor of it! But in the context of this thread, I'm a little puzzled - are you saying that by preventing women from reproducing with inhospitable maternity care, big business is doing an inadvertent good for the environment? I feel like I'm missing something.

If that were the case, while I still wouldn't be in favor of it, at least it'd be a silver lining. The problem, I think, is that most people will choose family, and frequently genetic family, over both career and the environment. We can and should encourage less of a carbon footprint, all around. I'm just not sure if the issue of conditions facing working mothers is really the place to start. Can't we, oh, ban SUVs and bottled water and regulate large factories before we start in on how this, too, is the fault of the mother? I mean, Freudian theory is bad enough without tossing in global warming to boot ....

P.S. - And a good thread it is! As always, enjoying the debate.

Matata, a little note on your tack. My DH was very pro-big family (3 kids, at least) since he grew up in a family of 3 kids and only one of his aunts has only 2 children, the other 3 have 3, 4, and 5. I was always pretty firm on the "I want one, we'll see how it goes, I can certainly see having 2, but no more" side of things. Since he started getting more involved in environmental issues, he has come around to the idea of stopping at 2. Not because he only wants 2, but because he knows it's better for environmental sustainability. So your thoughts are not lost, nor are they singular, and he and I actually had a lively and productive discussion the other day about population control. Not really sure I had a point, except to say you're not alone.

/end tangent

 

[Bliss]

Sapphirering, Ladyroadwarrior... I commend you and others! I, too, am learning so much from such intelligent women who bring so much to the PS community. Best thread ever, even if it does make us uncomfortable at times. It has made me reflect and question my own preconceived notions, which is a great great thing. Being in one's comfort zone feels nice, but this is new territory where there is room for us all to grow and learn from each other.

Ladyroadwarrior, that was the most thoughtful and beautiful story I have read in a long long time. What an incredible caregiver you had in your nanny and your parents. I found it deeply touching and sweet. You must have been a very sensitive soul to have blossomed so beautifully under their care, getting and giving sunshine to each person like a flower. You were very lucky and it sounds like your mom is an incredible woman!

November, your child is SO blessed to have such an amazing mom and geez, a Superdad!!!! How lucky you two are to be able to spend with your daughter when she is sick. And how AWESOME it is that Dad is so hands on and works with you to co-parent! She is a fortunate girl to have two involved and available parents. That's not seen much here in NY. The dads simply aren't as lucky to be able to do so and many are so burned out, they aren't even willing. You have a good man, there! You know all this, I am sure, since you've worked and lived here. It's an extreme society in a lot of cases. I'm so glad you left for a better life! DH and I also want to leave!!!!

Mara, luvya too!!!!! I have been the lucky recipient of your wisdom throughout the years. I would not be the mom I am today if not for you, Pandora, Dreamer, Somethingshiny, Fiery and so many others. Smartest and best moms out there for sure. My baby thanks you all!

I would think it's safe to say that PSers, who are crazy enough to research diamonds, do way way more research on child care and put a great deal of thought and care into their kids. You guys probably have better options than 99% of the population and your kids are VERY lucky to have such crazy parents who care so much. Let's start from there. And let's also say, because I felt awful last night thinking about how my words made fellow moms feel guilty, that I would be a way sorrier mother if not for you PS moms. We moms feel ENOUGH guilt, so to think that I made it worse for you is a terrible thing. I really am sorry about that. I wish I could take it all back if the words stung at all. I can see why they would if I were in your shoes and I would probably be a lot more angry and less graceful than you have been here. I'm sorry. I do not in ANY way mean you, the crazy researching intelligent and caring PS mom community. Heck, I've leaned on you during my miscarriage, during my subsequent pregnancy and birth, then leaned on you during the first three months after I had my beautiful daughter as I struggled with being a mom to a newborn... all of that.

Also, I think that having quality child care and being happy is WAY WAY better than having a SAHM who sits on the couch resenting her child for making her stay at home. No contest. None. It's also a great thing for a child to see their mom hustle and bring home the bacon! I am also proud of my career and this is why I chose to work part time - I don't want to give it up or toss it in the recycle bin yet because darn it, I LIKE IT!

What I stated about lower quality child care has to do with the work that I do serving on a board or two for organizations serving the needs of our inner city residents and the immigrant population in NY. THAT is heartbreaking. The poverty you aren't aware of in NYC walking down Madison Ave. is something that will keep you up at night. And perhaps I got too passionate and outraged about it, because I have seen things that most people have no idea exists. When it comes to lower quality child care and what mothers face when going back to work, it is really unfair and shocking. Places you wouldn't even drive by, let alone know exist, are where kids are left while their moms go to work. And no, they aren't certified...some are just rooms with one person watching the kids, some are a mix of babies and toddlers running rampant with one TV blaring in the background and a few dirty toys... Immigrants who speak no English taking in a few bucks on the side watching many children at once. (And I say this as a first generation immigrant whose parents also did not speak English when they came to the U.S.) These causes are near and dear to me and so perhaps I do get worked up after seeing the poverty people live in...and how their kids are raised. Babies getting no attention all day. This is what a lot of moms face in the city. The disparity is huge. If a mom doesn't want to go on welfare and wants to work, this is what she faces.

DH and I are very close to our mailwoman and helped her daughter get a grant in college. We talk a lot about raising kids. When I mentioned child care, she scoffed at me. She said, "Daycare? Most women I know can't afford daycare. I couldn't and I have a GOOD job." I mean, let's be real here. We buy diamonds. We aren't the general population. Plus, NYC is a skewed society. It's worse here. The lifestyle of working people is insane. For example, here is the schedule of my friend who works a big consultancy (top tier). Wakes up at 6am, maybe squeezes in a workout. At work at 7am. Works full steam until 10pm. Comes home at 11pm. Does more work, answers e-mails. Goes to bed at 1am. Now, how in the world are you supposed to have a child on this kind of schedule? To continue on her career path without throwing it away, she must either get a full time nanny who sleeps there or two nannies to split shifts. She would only see her baby on weekends. This is why she is delaying having a child, even though she has fertility issues right now. And the thing is, her story is not unique at all.

Maybe Manhattan is a twisted world because most moms here do not raise their own kids. They can't. Companies demand far too much of their time. To make that much, you must work that much. And earning a six figure salary here is nothing to live off of. This city is all about money, money, money! Our doormen joke that DH is whipped because he takes care of the baby so much. They say the dads in our building would never watch the baby a whole day, let alone two. I meet only nannies in the elevator during the day. There is only one other mom in my entire huge tower of a building I have ever met with her babies. Even moms who don't work have nannies. It's not uncommon to have a baby nurse for the first 6 months of a baby's life so the mom and dad don't have to wake up at night. Money solves everything.

Then you see moms (again, not PS community moms) who have no choice but to put their kids in lower quality daycares, many of which are not certified. Even the certified ones are pretty horrendous if they are at all affordable for moms with few options. This is what gets me so upset because these are the at risk kids who need the most nurturing if we want them to make it in today's society and achieve the dreams that are their birthright as well. That's when I get to ranting and raving about how unequal it is for moms.

Anyway...carry on! Sorry about the massive typos and crazy grammar... typing furiously as baby tries to crash my laptop! She is surprisingly good at it! Tried to fix most but...ya know how it is!

 

[ladyroadwarrior]

I've been a feminist my whole life, (and I certainly feel the "geezer" status planting itself firmly on my person) but right now I can't muster the outrage over the top 20%'s problems with balancing work/childbearing issues. I realize there are problems, but I have limited concern in me in a world of unlimited problems. Call me a traitor to the cause, but right now as a life-long feminist who marched for choice in my younger days, I'm much more concerned about the impact of the attacks on the basic reproductive rights of ALL women, from low to high, from the "personhood" attempts in Mississippi - which could have adversely affected access to plain old BC, to the positively medieval laws being passed here in Oklahoma.

Tangent? Bah! You're dead on. All, I mean all, of the studies have shown that intentional motherhood is a cornerstone to societal advancement as it leads to increases in female education, children's physical and phychological health, and reduces the number of women (and their children) living in poverty.

Pretty slick, huh - you give women the education and tools to decide when to get pregnant, and wouldn't you know, they typically make sound decisions about it.

 

[Circe]

I've been a feminist my whole life, (and I certainly feel the "geezer" status planting itself firmly on my person) but right now I can't muster the outrage over the top 20%'s problems with balancing work/childbearing issues. I realize there are problems, but I have limited concern in me in a world of unlimited problems. Call me a traitor to the cause, but right now as a life-long feminist who marched for choice in my younger days, I'm much more concerned about the impact of the attacks on the basic reproductive rights of ALL women, from low to high, from the "personhood" attempts in Mississippi - which could have adversely affected access to plain old BC, to the positively medieval laws being passed here in Oklahoma.

Tangent? Bah! You're dead on. All, I mean all, of the studies have shown that intentional motherhood is a cornerstone to societal advancement as it leads to increases in female education, children's physical and phychological health, and reduces the number of women (and their children) living in poverty.

Pretty slick, huh - you give women the education and tools to decide when to get pregnant, and wouldn't you know, they typically make sound decisions about it.

This, this, THIS. I've actually been thinking it but not addressing it, because ... dude, my dude date was yesterday. I don't need to raise my blood pressure as much as I inevitably know I will once the thread moves further away from women with whom posters can comfortably identify. The "welfare queen" has been an American bogeyman since the 1970s, despite study after study proving the fact that (like the bogeyman!) she doesn't exist - women living high off the hog using their wombs like assembly lines are a myth used to intimidate women into compliance and shame re: everything from promiscuity to poverty. I believe I caught a couple of references to her early on.

But the kinds of situations your husband faces? Oh, yeah, those are real - and they go away once you provide comprehensive sex ed and access to condoms, like LRW points out. It's just that, for some reason, those pesky facts don't seem to sway our politicians ... which, in a catch-22 Heller himself would appreciate, is why we need more women in the upper echelon of politics and management making policy choices.

As for situations like the ones Bliss describes - women who aren't poverty-stricken teenagers confused by their own fertility, but aren't earning 6 figures+ (or married to anybody who is, either)? I'd say that, for them, most of all, this issue is crucial. Yeah, it stings like hell when you don't get the corner office, and the difference it will make to your lifetime stock portfolio is truly galling. (Tongue. Planted. In. Cheek. Needs. To. Be. Watered. With. Whiskey.) But to a woman whose combined household income is below the 64K figure I pulled out of my ear earlier, where it's more cost effective to quit her job then it is to use daycare?

To use the words of the old song, she's screwed, blued, and tattooed. That woman loses almost any chance of social mobility. And, in today's world of needing two incomes to scrape into the middle class, so do her kids, barring extraordinary luck. And thus do we continue to watch the wage gap grow ... and grow ... and grow.

Bottom line: for all women, across the board, we need to start providing some acknowledgment of their different needs. High-earning ambitious women who can afford the childcare don't have to take it ... but it'd be awfully nice if the option was there. I'd be happy with 12 weeks paid leave to start, because, despite the many wonderful things I've heard about Papua New Guineau and Swaziland, I don't know if they're my role models when it comes to basic civil liberties (I won't be really happy until we have something like what Pandora laid out, and what Missy was observing the lack of - a system that covers the children of working moms until public education kicks in, but, hey, beggars and choosers). Not just for the sake of women, and not just for the sake of children, but so we don't wind up living in some kind of comically stratified post-apocalyptic society where our politicians seriously suggest that poor children as young as 9 learn a work ethic by replacing union janitors and learning the skills of toilet-scrubbing and and window-washing to which they are so naturally accustomed at the earliest age possible for the betterment of all.

Oh. Wait ....

 

[ladyroadwarrior]

Circe - can we be friends?
Also best wishes to you on a safe and smooth delivery and that you'll have your little peanut in your arms soon.

 

[ksinger]

I've been a feminist my whole life, (and I certainly feel the "geezer" status planting itself firmly on my person) but right now I can't muster the outrage over the top 20%'s problems with balancing work/childbearing issues. I realize there are problems, but I have limited concern in me in a world of unlimited problems. Call me a traitor to the cause, but right now as a life-long feminist who marched for choice in my younger days, I'm much more concerned about the impact of the attacks on the basic reproductive rights of ALL women, from low to high, from the "personhood" attempts in Mississippi - which could have adversely affected access to plain old BC, to the positively medieval laws being passed here in Oklahoma.

Tangent? Bah! You're dead on. All, I mean all, of the studies have shown that intentional motherhood is a cornerstone to societal advancement as it leads to increases in female education, children's physical and phychological health, and reduces the number of women (and their children) living in poverty.

Pretty slick, huh - you give women the education and tools to decide when to get pregnant, and wouldn't you know, they typically make sound decisions about it.

This, this, THIS. I've actually been thinking it but not addressing it, because ... dude, my dude date was yesterday. I don't need to raise my blood pressure as much as I inevitably know I will once the thread moves further away from women with whom posters can comfortably identify. The "welfare queen" has been an American bogeyman since the 1970s, despite study after study proving the fact that (like the bogeyman!) she doesn't exist - women living high off the hog using their wombs like assembly lines are a myth used to intimidate women into compliance and shame re: everything from promiscuity to poverty. I believe I caught a couple of references to her early on.

But the kinds of situations your husband faces? Oh, yeah, those are real - and they go away once you provide comprehensive sex ed and access to condoms, like LRW points out. It's just that, for some reason, those pesky facts don't seem to sway our politicians ... which, in a catch-22 Heller himself would appreciate, is why we need more women in the upper echelon of politics and management making policy choices.

As for situations like the ones Bliss describes - women who aren't poverty-stricken teenagers confused by their own fertility, but aren't earning 6 figures+ (or married to anybody who is, either)? I'd say that, for them, most of all, this issue is crucial. Yeah, it stings like hell when you don't get the corner office, and the difference it will make to your lifetime stock portfolio is truly galling. (Tongue. Planted. In. Cheek. Needs. To. Be. Watered. With. Whiskey.) But to a woman whose combined household income is below the 64K figure I pulled out of my ear earlier, where it's more cost effective to quit her job then it is to use daycare?

To use the words of the old song, she's screwed, blued, and tattooed. That woman loses almost any chance of social mobility. And, in today's world of needing two incomes to scrape into the middle class, so do her kids, barring extraordinary luck. And thus do we continue to watch the wage gap grow ... and grow ... and grow.

Bottom line: for all women, across the board, we need to start providing some acknowledgment of their different needs. High-earning ambitious women who can afford the childcare don't have to take it ... but it'd be awfully nice if the option was there. I'd be happy with 12 weeks paid leave to start, because, despite the many wonderful things I've heard about Papua New Guineau and Swaziland, I don't know if they're my role models when it comes to basic civil liberties (I won't be really happy until we have something like what Pandora laid out, and what Missy was observing the lack of - a system that covers the children of working moms until public education kicks in, but, hey, beggars and choosers). Not just for the sake of women, and not just for the sake of children, but so we don't wind up living in some kind of comically stratified post-apocalyptic society where our politicians seriously suggest that poor children as young as 9 learn a work ethic by replacing union janitors and learning the skills of toilet-scrubbing and and window-washing to which they are so naturally accustomed at the earliest age possible for the betterment of all.
Oh. Wait ....

Yeah, and remember: the little buggers need to not only learn to mop early and often, but to work on those HVAC systems and use caustic chemicals, because hey, they're POOR! And janitor jobs are so mindless that hey! they can be done by children! Hmmm...wonder what else those little people might be good for.

If there has been anything trotted out recently that is just nuttier than this idea, I haven't heard it. But hey, tonight we're gonna party like it's 1873!

 

[sapphirering]

For those who worked with Brits who said that they preferred the opportunities in the USA, were they young 20-something, 30-something, singles, or married women with kids? There are an awful lot of us who move abroad for the experience and an adventure when we are young and then move home when we are ready to settle down!

Pandora, most of my coworkers were in their late 20s and early 30s. They were still trying to establish their career, and most hadn't had kids yet. There were a couple of VPs who had children and actually the kids LOVED being in the US and didn't want to move back at all!

I've been a feminist my whole life, (and I certainly feel the "geezer" status planting itself firmly on my person) but right now I can't muster the outrage over the top 20%'s problems with balancing work/childbearing issues. I realize there are problems, but I have limited concern in me in a world of unlimited problems. Call me a traitor to the cause, but right now as a life-long feminist who marched for choice in my younger days, I'm much more concerned about the impact of the attacks on the basic reproductive rights of ALL women, from low to high, from the "personhood" attempts in Mississippi - which could have adversely affected access to plain old BC, to the positively medieval laws being passed here in Oklahoma.

Tangent? Bah! You're dead on. All, I mean all, of the studies have shown that intentional motherhood is a cornerstone to societal advancement as it leads to increases in female education, children's physical and phychological health, and reduces the number of women (and their children) living in poverty.

Pretty slick, huh - you give women the education and tools to decide when to get pregnant, and wouldn't you know, they typically make sound decisions about it.

YES! Overpopulation is linked to poverty, both here in the US and in other developing countries. To control population, we need to end poverty first. Providing economic opportunities so that families can raise themselves out of poverty is going to be more effective than handing out condoms.

Ladyroadwarrior, my upbringing is similar to yours except that it was my grandmother who was the soothing presence in my life. Thank you for sharing your story. There is more than one way to be a good and happy mother and I think your story illustrated that beautifully.