"I have no doubt that most women (and men) would like more time with their children and more flexible schedules and workplace policies to facilitate that being possible. That's definitely what feminists want."

Amen to that! This is a big reason why I like Chris Dodd so much in the presidential race...it's too bad he hasn't gotten more traction. He sponsored the original FMLA, and is now pushing for an updated version that would make the mandatory leave paid instead of unpaid (so we can join ever other country in the world except for, what, Swaziland and a couple other backwaters?).

Alan

I'm a SAHM. I love it, I get to play with my 5 month old,work on my cooking skills, have a breastfeeding support group and read Feministing all day. We (my husband and I) sacrifice the income that I would be making so that our baby has the attention she deserves. But you know what, there are some things I miss about working. I miss having my own money, especially around the holidays. I also miss that feeling of accomplishment that I used to get when I got my paycheck, or when I taught my consumers something new.

There really is a different kind of happiness in working outside the home.

I think it's really important not to fall into the stay-at-home-parent/parent-working-outside-the-home
"controversy" that the media loves so much. While I can't picture myself being happy being the full-time at-home parent when/if I and a partner have children, my mother viewed her parenting, as a home-educator in the 1980s, as political and counter-cultural. Being an parent full-time does not necessarily mean being socially isolated or publically productive, especially if your interests and abilities match the sort of work you're doing based at home (my mother was interested in early childhood education and intentional community years before having kids). I don't necessarily think it has to be mothers doing this work, or one parent exclusively even. But I also don't think if is the mother and she is doing it full-time, it is necessarily a less-happy option.

What I'm wondering is if the data are impacted by the fact that full-time stay-at-home mothers tend to be in family systems that are more traditional--and THAT's the factor, rather than the work/not-work issue?

I forgot to really touch on the social aspects.

I don't doubt that many SAHMs have social issues, hell I did until I found out that babies are portable. I have a wonderful tool called a Nojo baby sling that allows me to tote my little one with me everywhere, so I still keep up with my friends. I think having organized activities for mamas is important, similar to annajcook's mom, I have my own interests. Right now its spreading support for other breastfeeding moms, next year it could be anything.

I wonder if working moms get more or less outside of work social time than us SAHMs?

I agree with annjcook, I think. These studies need to be thought about and discussed. It's probably not as simple as just working outside the home. When I look at a study like this I think that the point it really emphasizes is that women (and men) cannot be fulfilled with a one-track life. Especially a life that is confined to the private sphere, one that is socially isolating, one where a woman (or man) is not free to follow any or all passions or interests. If the majority of stay at home moms are from traditional or conservative systems (like annajcook points out), chances are they are not taught to think about themselves or pursue interests beyond being a good wife and mother.

Plus, no one is ever summed up neatly in one identity and women who work outside the home automatically have a separate and independent identity.

I think it is important to note that this article states that "non-working mothers are more satisfied with life once their children start school."
The costs of full time care for young (infants to preschool age) children, at least in my experience, virtually cancelled out any income I made from working outside the home. That definitely did not make me happier!
I'd be curious to know what the average income to childcare expenses ratio was for the women in the study.

acranom - i think you're right; it's not about being "at home" or "outside the home" per se, but rather access to social situations and participation in activities that are fulfilling to the individual distinct from marriage and family, whatever those might be. i imagine that most people, irrespective of gender, thrive best in an environment that allows them to both commit themselves to work and to having a family/personal relationships. nothing new here, we just suck at making it happen in this country.

But when it comes women who are stuck at home with no outlets for public productivity, less financial security and--as Amanda points out--less ability to be social--it's not exactly shocking that they would be less satisfied and happy.

A more useful feminist reaction might be to inquire as to the soceital factors that prohibit women from getting the most out of a choice that many take freely, and many more would like to. It's disappointing that the reaction here seems so resigned, no thought to the idea that those "keys to happiness" factors are necesarily dictated by culture. Must we shrug it off with "just go to work, then?" or as in the Salon article "maybe they need a job?" Is that the best we can do? How about the crazy idea that some mothers might like to stay at home AND be happy, and how can society support that choice that many many make, or might like to, if it wasn't a recipe for alienation and unhappiness in our culture?

The message seems to be: get a job and we're behind you all the way, stay home and your unhappiness is your own fault, and now we have the stats to prove it. Obligatory disclaimer: we support your choice to be unhappy, should you decide to make it.

Where's the creativity here? Where's the world changing ideas?

I feel like the study is a side issue altogether. Who cares what a study says about happiness?? - the point is having a choice. If you're happier staying at home with your kids, go for it, and enjoy. If you prefer to work at a paying job, that should be an option as well. You shouldn't be made to feel like you chose "poorly" in either case, so long as your children are loved and well-cared for and you find satisfaction in your day-to-day life. For me, one of the main points of the feminist movement was to create this choice, rather than requiring everyone to quit their jobs as soon as they got knocked up. It also created a choice for men, who should have the same stay-at-home option if they're married to someone who can financially support the whole family.

On a side note, I discovered feministing about 2 weeks ago and am completely hooked! Thanks for all you do. I'm driving my husband crazy quoting you, but it's good to be back in the feminist-know, as I've been lax about it the last few years.

As other commenters suggest, I think a prominent issue here is the element of choice. Ideally, a woman would have the chance to decide whether or not she would stay at home with her children or work outside of the home. Unfortunately, though, class difference doesn't always afford women the opportunity to work inside the home instead of in both the private and public spheres. Not to be total theory nerd, but Arlie Hochschild has written several books on the work/life balance for women, "The Time Bind" and "The Second Shift," in particular. My perspective is one which comes largely out of hearing stories from friends and colleagues with kids, so I haven't experienced it first-hand...but the work/family balance seems to be a constant point of anxiety and concern for women, especially among Women's Studies circles, where I am currently.

The study did show that there are happy stay at home mothers. But when compared to mothers who have a paycheck job, the percentage of happier ones was greater on the paycheck job side. This doesn't take away from those that are happy to stay at home. This doesn't take away from those of you happy at home. It's like gay marriage is not a threat to straight marriage. The happy career woman is not a threat to your lifestyle.

But don't presume that the study must be flawed, thinking that there must be some block in the way because surely, more women should be happier at home all the time.

Also, I think it is fruitful to reconsider what that recent author wrote about the financial dangers of stay at home mothers. If I were to give advice in this changing, scary economic world, as I did to my best friend who is stay at home, it would be to somehow keep your toe in the door professionally. You never know if your husband gets laid off (as happened to my friend) or something happens where you need a job with health benefits - which usually means a full time job where you are in tight competition with other people to get it.

To not do so is also not caring for your family and it is also not keeping that investment in your college education and your years of work experience valuable. You can do this without taking a full time job.

It is not easy to jump back into work, you aren't greeted with open arms from those who did not jump out of the work force (they figure they should have an advantage over you for their builtup time and commitment), and this difficulty getting back in is often minimized by the media.

"How about the crazy idea that some mothers might like to stay at home AND be happy, and how can society support that choice that many many make, or might like to, if it wasn't a recipe for alienation and unhappiness in our culture?"

...or a recipe for unhappiness on our planet?

I mean, it's not just human societies that put pressure on women to work for a living. Some of that pressure comes from survival instincts too. Most adults in most animal species on Earth need to put some effort into feeding themselves, instead of focusing more on reproductive instincts while someone or something else provides all the food.

"Where's the creativity here? Where's the world changing ideas?"

Now if only there was a way for people to photosynthesize... ;)

I agree with the others who are talking about choice. I am a working mom with a two-year-old, and I would LOVE to stay at home with him. Unfortunately for us it is not an option. We have to have two incomes. It does seem to me that the happiness factor depends upon whether or not you have the option of staying at home or not. And recent studies have shown that is true in all aspects of life; that is, the happiest people seem to be those that have the most choices. It seems obvious that this would carry over into working mothers vs. stay-at-home mothers.

"It's not exactly surprising that women who have paid jobs are happier than their unpaid stay-at-home counterparts."

Actually, I'd say that's pretty surprising. Where I grew up, lots of moms, including my own, stayed home and were happy to do so. Attacking stay-at-home mom or assuming they are any less happy is to limit the number of acceptable feminist occupations.

SuzyQ, SAHMs themselves are reporting lower levels of happiness. Nobody's assuming anything. And nobody's attacking anyone.
And raising one's children is not an occupation. Unless you consider the roof over your head and the food your husband pays for your "compensation."

I'm sorry, I didn't mean my last line to sound like an insult to SAHMs. It wasn't meant to be, but now that I read it, it looks like I'm accusing SAHMs of leeching off their spouses or something, when I definitely don't feel that way.
I think the husbands who are part of this equation should be part of the discussion as well.

tgood--welcome! I discovered feministing last spring, around the time of the Supreme Court ruling on abortion and it's been wonderful to be a part of an intellectual community of feminist thinkers again.

we support your choice to be unhappy, should you decide to make it.

I think it's important not to paint "feminism" with a single brush here. The feminist activism that has gotten the most press attention in the last 30 years has been focused on women's access to work and childcare--both very important issues--but there are certainly feminist theorists and activists out there who are trying to creatively re-imagine family life. off our backs did a two-issue special on motherhood and feminism last year, which I thought had some really great stuff in it.

Oh gosh, Mina, you're right. Mothers who want to stay at home simply *forgot* they had to feed themselves!

Attention all mothers who would like to spend your days with your children (or those wishing you could, if you could only afford it): you silly girly gooses, you have to feed yourselves, so get a job. You can thank me later for rescuing you from slackerdom in "focusing more on reproductive instincts while someone or something else provides all the food."

And Sarah MC, you don't have to get paid to have an occupation. Deliberately not acknowledging it as an occupation would go a long way toward delegitimizing the value of mothering as work (and whose ends does that serve again? Not feminists, surely...?) but unfortunately the dictionary doesn't support you on this.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/occupation

I liked my parent's strategy-- my father worked full-time during the week but he never took his work home (though he sometimes got called in if there was a problem). My mother worked part-time out of the house when we were infants, then would go into work 2 days and work at home 3 days a week once we were able to go to daycare/preschool. That way we got the advantage of a dual income, but someone was around to shuttle us to sports and clubs and pick us up from daycare, and to stay at home with us when we were very little so we didn't get dumped into daycare too early. Plus she was able to shift her schedule of days she went into work if we were sick, etc and work at home on those days; and she got the social aspect of going into the office and could get time to herself in the evenings and on weekends when my dad would watch us.

I know most parents don't have the best jobs for that, but if you can do it, it's a great system. I'm going into medicine so I probably won't have that kind of flexible schedule, but my current boyfriend is a writer, so if we wind up having kids someday he'll be able to work out of the house and make sure there's someone around to take care of the day-to-day childcare.

Having a parent who can work out of the house some of the time is a fabulous middle ground, in my opinion.

Also, I wonder what this study would be like if they made more categories: one for people who chose to work, one for those who feel forced to work to pay bills, one for those who chose to stay at home, one for those who stay at home for social/cultural reasons (because they feel it is their duty) and one for those who stay at home because of a specific reason, like caring for a severely disabled child.

I bet the highest happiness would be in those who chose to work, or chose to stay at home, and there wouldn't be all that much difference between the two. But many women who stay at home aren't choosing to do it-- they either feel pressure to do it from their family, partner, or community, or their child has specific and demanding needs that require lots of attention-- and I'd guess those are the women who will be reporting that they are unhappy with their situation.

I think some people confuse being an SAHM with having a reasonable maternity leave. In most countries, women have 6 months to a year or more, either partially or fully paid, before they go back to outside jobs.

In my own experience as a mother of three, it wasn't just the opportunity for social contacts when I was home vs. at work; it was the kind of social contacts. I was more fulfilled by the conversations I had at work, where I socialized with a variety of people (not just other women my age with kids around my kids' ages).

The pleasure I found in working may have been enhanced because my hours were reasonable (I was a teacher), and my husband was with the kids during the day and worked in the evenings, so we had minimal childcare costs. Though I personally don't think there's anything wrong with daycare, we avoided censure from those who do.

The women I knew who were most interested in being home were often those who carried the bulk of the second shift when they were working or who hated their jobs and were looking for a socially acceptable way out. They probably enjoyed being home more than they enjoyed either of these alternatives.

is there such a think as a non-working mom?

I don't think anyone is attacking SAHMs at all. I just think it's important to acknowledge the unhappiness that women who don't work outside the home may feel--especially considering social conservatives are so hell bent on telling young women that this is how they'll be happiest.

And it's not only that I think the potential isolation or whatever could make women unhappy--I think we can all agree that the work women do at home isn't valued, and I imagine that could play a big part in women's unhappiness.

"I think some people confuse being an SAHM with having a reasonable maternity leave. In most countries, women have 6 months to a year or more, either partially or fully paid, before they go back to outside jobs."

Exactly. I stayed home with my daughter for a year and it was wonderful. I never considered myself a stay at home mom though. I knew that I had a job waiting for me and I received employment insurance benefits plus top up from my employer.

I bet some of the unhappiness comes from feeling unappreciated/unsupported by husbands who work outside the home.

I know some SAHMs have husbands who refuse to contribute to childcare, cooking, or other chores after they get home from the office at night. They think they deserve to relax all night since they "worked hard all day" and "this is her job."
In effect, he works 9-5 while she works from dawn until her head hits the pillow.
I know that's true of many women who work outside the home as well (the second shift), so...

"Oh gosh, Mina, you're right. Mothers who want to stay at home simply *forgot* they had to feed themselves!"

I was responding to your statement "how can society support that choice that many many make, or might like to, if it wasn't a recipe for alienation and unhappiness in our culture?" and pointing out that earning a living is hardly an arbitrary custom generated by snobbery alone.

Meanwhile, how many adults who can earn a living for themselves but prefer doing something else do you think societies should support?

"Also, I wonder what this study would be like if they made more categories: one for people who chose to work, one for those who feel forced to work to pay bills, one for those who chose to stay at home, one for those who stay at home for social/cultural reasons (because they feel it is their duty) and one for those who stay at home because of a specific reason, like caring for a severely disabled child."

Also, just as some women don't have the choice of whether or not to work outside the home, some women don't have the choice of whether or not to be a mother.

What if someone wants to be a mother but no sperm bank, adoption, agency, or potential sex partner is willing to help her have a child?

What if someone doesn't want to be a mother but doesn't have enough access to birth control?

What if a pregnant women doesn't want to be a mother but doesn't have access to abortion and her husband won't let her give up their kid for foster care or adoption?

"is there such a think as a non-working mom?"

Great point.

Well, I do find it surprising for women with full time jobs to be happier, just based on what I’ve seen with my co workers. I have many female co workers who have children under the age of 2. Maternity leaves are 12 weeks at MOST and unpaid. Most co workers take significantly less because they cannot afford to be without income for that long. One of my co workers took only 2 weeks because she was a single mom and could not afford to live. Now we are a fairly normal/average American establishment with a 9 hour workday (includes lunch), 2 weeks vacation a year, most employees don’t work overtime except certain managers during certain times of the year. But add in commutes and such and most of my co workers only see their children an hour or two a day. Plus when their children get sick they get flack for taking too much sick time (we aren’t allowed to work from home and daycare will not take sick children). I am not the least bit envious and plan to quit at least for a couple years when I have children. Not that I think being home full time will be the most ideal environment, but it seems to be all or nothing in corporate America today, and I think staying home will be less stressful as a whole and allow me to explore different more fulfilling ways to spend my time than what I do at work, which frankly is not that enjoyable.

I think part time/flexible options would strike the ideal balance, unfortunately in the US these options are not to the point where they are financially viable. Most part time jobs are in the retail/food service sector, provide little pay and no benefits, and do not provide the intellectual stimulation that many women need. I agree that instead of fighting between stay at home and working moms we should be campaigning for more part time and job sharing options for both men and women that allow them to spend time with their children and enjoy the economic, social, and intellectual benefits of working outside the home.

I thought the most important message of this study was that working women are happy and fulfilled. *That* is what flies in the face of the traditionalist notions about gender.

They don't report the means or standard deviations in the piece, but I'm guessing it's a small effect. That overall, there probably isn't that much of a difference between the groups.

I think this piece also points out that staying at home isn't a magic happy button for women. Whether or not staying home produces happiness will depend on a number of factors (how much they like their social contacts such as other moms, how much family support they have, how many kids under age 6 there are to deal with, etc.).

we aren’t allowed to work from home

I know that telecommuting has become more popular in the past few years, but I know it could be (and should) be better.
What is the point of making all your employees drive to and from work in order to sit at a desk for a set number of hours, when they could do their jobs from home?
Allowing and encouraging telecommuting, in sectors where it's viable, would reduce traffic congestion, cut down on travel time, and allow workers to have more flexibility in their jobs. I know I often feel like it's a huge waste for me to be sitting here in my office, waiting for 5:30 to come so I can get out of here, when I've had the day's work completed for two hours and could be chilling at home.
Abolishing the strict 9-5, five-day work week, wherein all workers must leave home in order to do jobs they *could* do from their home computers, would go a long way towards making many parents' lives easier and more fulfilling.

Okay, now that I've read the actual report, there really isn't anything there.

On a 7 point life satisfaction scale:

Women who work 6-10 hours per week are the happiest (5.3)

Women who 0 hours a week are least happy (5.0).

Women who work more than that fall in between (means 5.1-5.2).

But in other words, that's pretty much nothing on a 7 point scale. The only reason is a significant difference is because there is a large sample. I didn't read carefully to see what factors they controlled for (e.g., income, etc.) but really that whole news article is making alot out of nothing.

So, just to restate my opinion, the major finding of this study is that working women are just as fulfilled as stay-at-home moms, if even a little more so. Which is positive news for feminists trying to open more opportunities for women.

http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/pubs/workpaps/pdf/2007-20.pdf

Meanwhile, how many adults who can earn a living for themselves but prefer doing something else do you think societies should support?

I think, Mina, that it's wrong to say that parents who are full-time parenting and not doing wage-work are not "earning a living." Marriage or other like partnerships in which adults and children share resources are small-scale communal arrangements. Families enter into economic as well as social relationships--we share resources and apportion the work that needs to get done to benefit the overall health and wellbeing of the family. Parenting is one of those tasks.

While I understand that people should keep in mind that these partnerships may not last forever, I also don't think it's freeloading for one parent to spend some years not earning a wage, but instead raising children.

"What I'm wondering is if the data are impacted by the fact that full-time stay-at-home mothers tend to be in family systems that are more traditional--and THAT's the factor, rather than the work/not-work issue?"

Very interesting. As part of my marketing degree, we had to construct surveys to take different factors into account, but I hadn't even considered the above. Knowing WHY the people happy or not is vitally important.

"The message seems to be: get a job and we're behind you all the way, stay home and your unhappiness is your own fault, and now we have the stats to prove it. Obligatory disclaimer: we support your choice to be unhappy, should you decide to make it."

"The message seems to be: get a job and we're behind you all the way, stay home and your unhappiness is your own fault, and now we have the stats to prove it. Obligatory disclaimer: we support your choice to be unhappy, should you decide to make it."

I am saddened to hear or read the stories of women [not here] who feel their status of SAHM is looked down upon by many in modern society, or literally, about some young women who feel like they have somehow failed as modern women, if they would like to [hypothetically] stay at home to raise a family in the future. It is just another choice for people to make. It is too bad so many families (like mine) need more than one income.

"And raising one's children is not an occupation. Unless you consider the roof over your head and the food your husband pays for your 'compensation.'"

In the strict modern sense of earning a living, as in typical leading definitions on dictionary.com, perhaps. But as a calling, a calling as valid as any other like a man getting into nursing at the age of 39, nearly bankrupting the family with full time schooling, I wholeheartedly disagree. I understand you did not mean to imply SAHM are taking from their husbands. It is simply a division of labor.

wonder what this study would be like if they made more categories: one for people who chose to work, one for those who feel forced to work to pay bills

The problem is that those categories are, for all but a few people, entirely overlapping. I have to work to support myself, sure. But I have chosen the work I do, and I love it. If I didn't have to work to support myself, I'd probably change some of the restrictions under which I work--hours, courseloads, etc.--but I wouldn't give up the job. Similarly, how are we going to differentiate between women who stay home because they want to and those who stay home due to socio-cultural pressures?

Hang on, I misspoke--when I said "for all but a few people," I was thinking of the very few who don't have to work, not the all too many who do have to work at jobs not of their choosing. My class error. I'm sorry.

I maintain that for a great majority of middle-class households, those categories almost completely overlap.

"'Meanwhile, how many adults who can earn a living for themselves but prefer doing something else do you think societies should support?'

"I think, Mina, that it's wrong to say that parents who are full-time parenting and not doing wage-work are not 'earning a living.'"

Of course they're working. OTOH, not all work is earning a living. Can these workers in question eat the results of the work or exchange the results of the work for something else to eat...?

"Marriage or other like partnerships in which adults and children share resources are small-scale communal arrangements. Families enter into economic as well as social relationships--we share resources and apportion the work that needs to get done to benefit the overall health and wellbeing of the family. Parenting is one of those tasks."

Yeah, that sounds like another adult/s in the household supporting the one/s who choose to not earn their daily bread/rice/etc.

Meanwhile, Sage sure seemed to be talking about societies supporting adults who choose to not earn it.

Which reminds me, what if both parents in the household (or all the adults in a polyamorous or extended-family household) want to stay at home and raise kids full-time instead of earning groceries too...?

What if both parents in the household (or all the adults in a polyamorous or extended-family household) want to stay at home and raise kids full-time instead of earning groceries too...?

In my mind the idea would be to come up cooperatively with a plan that might be a compromise, but took into account everyone's wishes as equally as possible. Just because one parent/partner WANTS to be a full-time parent, doesn't mean that gives them the right to do so regardless of all the other family members' wishes.

Barring some sort of socialized childcare, where adults who wanted to parent full-time took care of the society's children, and all the other adults supported them collectively, it seems like the balance of parenting and wage-earning needs to happen on the level of individual families (in whatever form), with a framework of support from the state and business sectors--eg flexible work schedules, childcare options, etc.

What is the point of making all your employees drive to and from work in order to sit at a desk for a set number of hours, when they could do their jobs from home?
I think the basic attitude is we're all slackers who will naturally spend our time watching soaps and eating bonbons on the couch and not getting done 8 hours of actual work unless we are in the office being supervised. Which fails to recognize that most people find plenty of ways to goof off in the office. But yeah, I see more telecommuting as being a necessity as traffic gets worse and worse and worse and cities keep expanding ever outward. Here's hoping it will happen. I know I would be a lot happier, because I could get all my work done in about half the time and actually get some exercise during the day instead of sitting in this dratted chair.

EG: I meant asking mothers, "Would you prefer to work?" If they want to stay at home because that's how they were raised, that's fine; it's more of the difference between someone who says "I want to stay at home because I love being with my child" and someone who says "I stay at home because it is my duty to take care of my children."

I was just pointing out that this study might not actually mean that SAHM are all unhappy, or that a given SAHM is less happy than one who is in the workforce. I think the reason for the decision to work or stay at home would be significant.

"Which fails to recognize that most people find plenty of ways to goof off in the office."

Exactly. Did you see this article?

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/study_finds_working_at_work

"...To conduct the study, researchers split the staff of a Washington-based insurance company into two groups and assigned each group a series of tasks to be completed by the end of the day. The control group engaged in normal workplace activities, such as standing around and talking, staring vacantly at the computer screen, and surfing the Internet. The other group was instructed to do work and complete its given tasks. Incredibly, the group that did not do any work failed to get any work done, while the group that did do work finished all the work..."

It's just so stupid, Antigone, because who the hell actually works the whole entire time they're at work? I know a lot of people do, but I am certain that for every person who needs that 8 hour work day, there is a person who must find ways to occupy herself when she has nothing to do. It's ludicrous for employers to believe their workers are actually using their 8 hour days productively. If it weren't for Feministing, for instance, I'd go mad.

"I was responding to your statement "how can society support that choice that many many make, or might like to, if it wasn't a recipe for alienation and unhappiness in our culture?" and pointing out that earning a living is hardly an arbitrary custom generated by snobbery alone.

Meanwhile, how many adults who can earn a living for themselves but prefer doing something else do you think societies should support?"

Actually, the idea that everyone should be working for someone else and earning a salary is pretty modern. A century ago, people were doing a lot more work for themselves. I could go to work to earn money to pay someone to take care of my son and earn more money to buy groceries and eat out. Or I could stay at home, take care of my some myself, create some of our food through gardening, and cook from scratch. Once you consider that with the cost of childcare, gas, and taxes, the household would be taking a net loss in income, my choice is hardly irresponsible. Unless, of course, you think I owe it to everyone else to earn money so it can be taxed. Is that what you're saying, Mina?

And as for other adults who could earn a living but don't - are you saying we should stop letting people go to college?

I think the study is a breakthrough in showing that mothers aren't miserable working a career.

This would get around the "naturalness" argument that once the mommy hormones kick in, no woman wants to leave the nest and certainly, no "natural" woman.

Ah, this topic is full of SO many dimensions....

On the choice part, people have made some interesting points on whether fathers would be happier staying home and whether we should be around supporting the parents staying at home as a society. Do fathers get a choice? I think there is point to be made that women assume the choice, especially with some folks comments around "some women don't have the choice to work" as if they's stay at home given the choice, yet we don't have that conversation for men.

There's also the point, and I'm going to make it and am ready for the veg to be tossed at me, of a certain percentage of women who give up their careers because they find that it is dissatisfying due to sexism on the job. At home they are the boss over the kids. At work, they are passed over and they see the glass ceiling. They are appaulded by some of giving up their career for a "higher purpose" and have a gleam of goodness; but for this certain percentage of women (AND I AM WRITING THAT THIS IS NOT ALL WOMEN) they become stay at home because work is full of patronizing gits and the grind of job evals and being step and fetch it to a boss didn't pan out like they wanted.

I also have to say that I once had a childless artist boyfriend who scheduled time off to show his work at an art show, then denied because people with kids needed time off. Nows the time for people to get on their soapbox on propogating the species and that important work versus an individual's right to pursue whatever they want to design their life to be.

Betty, I don't think you'll get the vitriol you're expecting. I totally agree with you. I bet having a child gives many unhappy working women the perfect excuse to leave their awful jobs.

A century ago, people were doing a lot more work for themselves. I could go to work to earn money to pay someone to take care of my son and earn more money to buy groceries and eat out. Or I could stay at home, take care of my some myself, create some of our food through gardening, and cook from scratch.

That's not really true. Even as far back as the 16th century, people in Western Europe, at least, were working in a cash economy. The peasantry were not, by and large...except when they were, selling their food at markets to city dwellers and in order to pay the blacksmith, the horse dealer, etc. In cities, people by and large bought groceries, fabrics, etc.

My husband was feeling guilty about his upcoming tenure as a stay-at-home-dad to our twins, until I did some math for him. The money it would cost for us to 1) obtain childcare, 2) drive the kids to and from that childcare, 3) buy disposable diapers for the childcare providers, and 4) purchase more processed/prepared foods pretty much cancels out whatever he would make. Not to mention the intangible benefits to our children and to ourselves such as knowing exactly who is with our kids and how they're being taken care of each day. (I'm not anti-daycare for those who need it or choose it, but I do prefer this option for our family.)

That having been said, I think UCLAbodyimage summed it up neatly: "the major finding of this study is that working women are just as fulfilled as stay-at-home moms, if even a little more so. Which is positive news for feminists trying to open more opportunities for women."

"Do fathers get a choice?"

One thing I appreciate feminists for is offering greater opportunities for men as well. My wife has a bachelor's degree and worked full time until her company kicked her out for announcing she was getting married (typical in Japan). Prior to getting married, she had more financial assets than I did. However, in her home country or mine, my wife's income once married has never been more than a quarter to a third of mine. Rather than being proud of myself, I consider it grossly unjust. If anything were to take me out of the workforce, my family would instantly go into poverty, and lacking family support, be homeless as well (family rents *start* about $1300/mo. in Hawaii).

Do I realize I am missing out on my children's lives while at work? Of course I do. Playing basketball with my children or taking them to the beach does not get me the same kind of love that "Mooooommy!" gets. It saddens me. Does my wife want to work more than she already does (she spends 38 hours per week on two part time jobs) and get more money? Of course she does. In her words, she would like to "work like a [Japanese] man." For that reason alone, she sometimes wishes she had been born a man. Sad. [It would be ok for me to have been a woman, but I would never want to be a Japanese man. My wife refuses psychiatric care for her numerous issues.]

However, we have no other choice to make a living (because of my shift work, and the irregular schedules typical of the Hawaiian service economy if she were to take on a full time job). And I mean "make a living." I've taken a wait and see attitude toward paying for my children's higher education, retirement, or ever owning a home (old firetraps start just below $400,000).

I think that people ought to be schooled on what it takes to maintain a certain standard of living. And why living wage movements and health insurance for all are so important. This is not happening and I would kind of worry about Hawaii guy with a wife who can't pursue her career for that reason and has to cobble together 2 part time jobs.

I imagine getting a job in Vail or some other eden is very hard. I won't go on about my wanting to live in Hawaii.

I think it is a shame that some spouses are taking McJobs while one spouse has the "real career." And there are some professions that people have, like teaching, where you can't support a family if you are missing one income. I'm all for the socially important jobs, but I often think that with some guilt that if there weren't so many people married with a spouse that brings in the bacon, then the pressure to raise wages to a serious level would be greater.

I think cash prizes ought to be thrown at teachers and social workers and all the low paying professions where you have a college degree and serve the community.

In reality, if both partners don't plan for the need for either to jump into a profession where they could maintain a good house and home beyond prayer support, they are in denial and they are really showing a lack of care for their kids. This sobering conversation doesn't happen too often when a wife decides to stay at home. The "head of household", sometimes with the Bible for support kicks in and the house goes on a "lord will provide and protect the widow" thing kicks in. Like God especially protects women who make the choice to be housewives. I've met women in my work who actually believe this and won't plan any further because their work as wives and mothers is so noble in the Lord's eyes, that they need do nothing more.

In reality, with these women, upon divorce, death or disability of their spouse, they are in sorry shape without the capability to get quickly into a profession that can keep them out of poverty.

betty, I agree with most of what you said, but I want to take some issue with the last bit of your first comment. I absolutely agree that people should be able to get time off to attend to personal matters that are important to them, whether it is showing artwork or caring for a family member who is not a minor child. And I do not know the exact circumstances at your ex boyfriend's job. Maybe it really was unfair.

But speaking to that on a more general level, the reason time off to deal with kids is given more priority is because kids are little human beings in a profoundly dependent position. If my kid's daycare is closed for a teacher in-service (as occurs several times a year) or if my son is sick and cannot go to daycare, either I or my husband must stay home with him. If neither of us could get time off, that would mean leaving a very young child unattended for 8 hours. That is unacceptable for obvious reasons and would constitute physical neglect and psychological abuse. And every day in this country, parents lose their jobs because they had to put their sick kid first.

We all have personal lives outside our jobs and employers should respect that we are more than wage slaves. But sometimes the worker with the kids really does have a greater claim on time off. Before I had kids, I sometimes took the overtime or weekend shift for someone with kids. Now that I have kids, sometimes I have to leave by 5:30 or cannot take a night shift on short notice. I'm not skipping off smugly so others can finish my work. I'm sick with worry about getting to daycare before they close and what leaving "early" means for my future job prospects.

BitchPhd put this in a really good perspective. Having kids is a choice for individuals but not for us as a species or as a society. In the end, human beings as a biological species cannot choose not to reproduce, none of us ever. And so we need to accommodate families. Not because children are the future but because children are dependent human beings to whom we have moral and ethical obligations and meeting those obligations requires accommodating families.

I hope you don't take that as a vitriolic attack on you. It's not. Like I said, I agree with most of what you said. But I see this meme pop up here and there and I needed to speak my peace.

"I imagine getting a job in Vail or some other eden is very hard. I won't go on about my wanting to live in Hawaii."

If you or a partner have some way of earning six figures a year (to qualify for a loan) or are independently wealthy, you are most welcome to come to Hawaii. The newest development in my community is homes for people "worth $20 million or more." I'm afraid not even feminism can help me there.

One of my cousins is an ER doc. His wife is a pediatrician. In Hawaii, the average 2005 income for physicians was $250-350,000 per year. At one recent family gathering, he lamented how hard it was with payments on their own half million dollar house (and a baby). I was seated across the table, still a full time student.

Let me get my fiddle, cuz.

We need to remember that every role (like me picking up trash alongside the roads for $1.85/hr in 1987) is necessary to support the community, not just people with college degrees. Living wages and support services like childcare are so much more important.

It is unkind to consider people not trying to be all that they can be, or people choosing to stay at home (or live in Hawaii) to be irresponsible in some way. Because of the economic realities, I'll simply work as long as I am healthy, and get the most generous life insurance I can. I'll teach my children there are alternative lifestyles to working and spending. If my mother allowed it (I asked unsuccessfully), I'd put up a yurt or dome on her property and start a farm. Unfortunately, mother is concerned about neighborhood association and housing codes, and the occasional hurricane. Bah.

This was touched upon by another poster but how long do you have to stay at home before you are considered a SAHM? 6 weeks? 6 months? 2 years? kindergarten?

It seems to me that there is a huge difference between staying home for the first year vs. never returning to work at all.

I stayed home for the first 18 months and then transitioned back to work. Let me admit that the truth is that in many ways I'm not "happy" either way. Because of my upbringing I felt guilty staying home and so I would have been more likely to say that I was unhappy. Now that I'm back at work, I often claim to be happier than I am. Sheesh I think it can be very hard to be torn between two things (kids/work) that you love so much.

"That's not really true. Even as far back as the 16th century, people in Western Europe, at least, were working in a cash economy. The peasantry were not, by and large...except when they were, selling their food at markets to city dwellers and in order to pay the blacksmith, the horse dealer, etc. In cities, people by and large bought groceries, fabrics, etc."

No, EG, I get that. The cash economy is even older than that. But not in the form of our current cash economy. I get that it's convenient to have all these services that we can buy, and I certainly don't want to make my own soap (though some people do, and there's nothing wrong with that), but a lot of our economy exists for the sole purpose of growing our economy, and it pisses me off that a SAHM, or a voluntary simplicity person, for that matter, is treated as if she's a leech because she's not part of the cash economy. It's not a sin against the market to grow your own food or take care of your own children, nor is it especially irresponsible, which is what Mina is suggesting. I'm not denying that my family will always need cash. But to suggest that my non-cash contributions don't count is both insulting and buying into a capitalist viewpoint that keeps a lot of people oppressed.

"Having kids is a choice for individuals but not for us as a species or as a society. In the end, human beings as a biological species cannot choose not to reproduce, none of us ever."

Technically untrue. Humans have no more obligation to continue the species, than a woman to bear sons to carry on her husband's name. There is no reason to fear a future with no humans in it.

"On the choice part, people have made some interesting points on whether fathers would be happier staying home and whether we should be around supporting the parents staying at home as a society. Do fathers get a choice? I think there is point to be made that women assume the choice, especially with some folks comments around 'some women don't have the choice to work' as if they's stay at home given the choice, yet we don't have that conversation for men."

Yeah, good points. Likewise, how about same-sex couples? What if two women in love and raising kids together marry each other in MA, and both want to be stay-at-home moms (without telecommuting or anything)...?

"'Meanwhile, how many adults who can earn a living for themselves but prefer doing something else do you think societies should support?'

"Actually, the idea that everyone should be working for someone else and earning a salary is pretty modern. A century ago, people were doing a lot more work for themselves."

Yeah, I wasn't just talking about earning currency. Bartering goods and services for food, and farming/fishing/gathering/hunting food directly, totally count as much as earning currency to spend on food does.

"Unless, of course, you think I owe it to everyone else to earn money so it can be taxed. Is that what you're saying, Mina?"

No. I was wondering if everyone else owes food, shelter, etc. to you (and your partner) if you (and your partner) don't want to earn money, barter, farm, or whatever any of it for yourself.

"And as for other adults who could earn a living but don't - are you saying we should stop letting people go to college?"

Of course not. For starters, many of those adults are paying their way (yes, taking out student loans and paying them back later counts).

"It's not a sin against the market to grow your own food or take care of your own children, nor is it especially irresponsible, which is what Mina is suggesting."

I'm not suggesting that it's irresponsible to raise your own kids at all.

I'm just saying that raising your own kids isn't very comparable to growing your own food (unless you plan to eat the kids, barter the kids for something to eat, or sell the kids for money to buy something to eat, I guess).

" . . . it pisses me off that a SAHM, or a voluntary simplicity person, for that matter, is treated as if she's a leech because she's not part of the cash economy."

Bravo. I am a nurse. Prior to that I taught for 12 years. Prior to that I was a government employee, and a volunteer with the elderly. In my entire life, I have never, ever created anything material to directly benefit our economy. But be certain any community needs people to teach the young or care for the elderly while they are at work. Or keep the streets clean.

Try asking your local elitist asswipe what they would do without mothers.

"What if two women in love and raising kids together marry each other in MA, and both want to be stay-at-home moms (without telecommuting or anything)...?"

Republicans for a small government may hate me, but compassionate relatives aside, I would expect community services and taxpayers to take good care of people like that. Same as for my family if I am unable to work full time.

"I was wondering if everyone else owes food, shelter, etc. to you (and your partner) if you (and your partner) don't want to earn money, barter, farm, or whatever any of it for yourself."

It is why people with income pay taxes. Republicans hate it. I vote against them and call people like Bush bad names.

"I'm not suggesting that it's irresponsible to raise your own kids at all.

I'm just saying that raising your own kids isn't very comparable to growing your own food (unless you plan to eat the kids, barter the kids for something to eat, or sell the kids for money to buy something to eat, I guess)."

. . . Fuck me. You are actually getting worse. How do you even joke about using kids for money? $50 for ten minutes, maybe?

Perhaps if you are in a nursing home one day, because your loving children have more important things to do, like earn money, you will remember this exchange. Don't ask the male nurse to get you a cup of iced water.

Do fathers get a choice?

Likewise, how about same-sex couples? What if two women in love and raising kids together marry each other in MA, and both want to be stay-at-home moms (without telecommuting or anything)...?

I think (an opinion firmly rooted in my feminism) that ALL parents, regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, marriage or other formal arrangement, etc., who are part of a family that includes children who need care, should be included in the decisions about provision of care for those children. Their desires to spend time with those children and nurture them , as well as their need and desire to do other sorts of work for money or for personal pleasure, should all be taken into account.

So, at least on my part, my belief in the importance of supporting parents who care for their children full-time or otherwise, is not altered depending on whether they are fathers, mothers, or how many of them in what combination they are.

I am in an unusual situation, myself. I quit my job and got pregnant that night (ha! Nice timing, me!) and couldn't get another job while pregnant. When my baby was about a year old, I was offered a temp job at my church as secretary. I jumped on it, on condition I could bring my kid with me. They said sure as long as I could do the work, they were happy. And it was only supposed to be 4 weeks or so. It's been 8 months now. I still bring my kid with me to work. And the reactions I get to this are PRICELESS.

Men (in general) say, "Wow! How perfect for you! You can earn money and not have to put the little guy into daycare!" Women (in general) look at me in horror and say, "OMG! How do you do both jobs at the same time?!" or they look at me skeptically and say, "Okay... I don't think *I* could manage that one".

Now, I like working because (a) I like being able to pay off my fucking massive student loans, (b) I like the conversations.

To (b), it's not that as a SAHM I can't have conversations. I can join baby groups and library groups and whatnot. But there's only so much of that I can stand. They tend to be women talking about their kids. *sigh* I want to talk about politics, religion, the news, etc. Not Little Billy's bout of constipation. At work, I get that.

As a SAHM, one thing that would help enormously would be time to do something just for me. Sports if I were into it (I'm not), a book club, I dunno. Something. So why don't I get out and do something like that? Well, in a nutshell, I feel like that'd put a burden on my husband. We both work all day, and then I go out and have social time? Hardly fair. It's also not unreasonable for me to expect that kind of support, I realize. But it's how I've been socialized.

The point of the original article, which struck me as "Women can be happy at work too", is an important point, as we're often told how women are happy at home, and only work because they have to (and are defective if they feel otherwise). And to say that this is an attack on SAHMs is just ridiculous. But I understand why SAHMs feel defensive. As someone who has it both ways, so to speak, I also get both sides of the criticism hurled at me (men say I have the best of both worlds, and I do, but I also have the worst of both worlds - I get drive-by mommied by both those who say I should work more and those who say I shouldn't work outside of the home at all). SAHMs get hit with a constant barrage of criticism for their choice (assuming it is one - Lots of moms can't find jobs). And employed moms get a constant barrage of criticism for not 'being there' for their kids. What we need to do is STOP criticising. Stop. Stop. Stop. There are pros and cons to both situations, and anyone who says differently is deluding him/herself in an attempt to validate his/her own decisions.

Ideally, men would share an equal responsibilty for child-rearing, and to be fair, more and more men are. But society hasn't caught up to that. Until it is a given that men must share an equal responsibility, we must stop punishing women for not being able to be employed full-time and look after their children full-time. We must stop telling women that they should be perfectly happy to be SAHMs, and that less than perfection is failure. And in the same light, we must stop telling women that they should be perfectly happy to work outside of the home. Society sets us up to fail. We are physically unable to do everything society wants of us (unless we're the magical WAHM who founds a Fortune 500 company during naptime, and keeps her house perfectly neat by following her children around picking up after them, and dusting, vaccuuming and the whole nine yards after the little one goes to sleep effortlessly at 7pm). So really, let's give up the quest for perfection, and work on making both situations happy, healthy choices. Let's support SAHMs with time for themselves, time to go out, time for intellectual development and a decided mortorium on the 'leeching of their husbands' attitude. Let's support employed mothers with subidized daycare, flexible hours, and an end to the 'you're failing your children by not being with them 24 hours a day' attitude.

Homemade gluten-free cookies to you if you read that all the way through. :)

"'What if two women in love and raising kids together marry each other in MA, and both want to be stay-at-home moms (without telecommuting or anything)...?'"

BTW, note that the above says *nothing* about whether or not they're *able* to work at some other job.

"Republicans for a small government may hate me, but compassionate relatives aside, I would expect community services and taxpayers to take good care of people like that. Same as for my family if I am unable to work full time."

...*and* if you *are* able to work full time?

"'I'm just saying that raising your own kids isn't very comparable to growing your own food (unless you plan to eat the kids, barter the kids for something to eat, or sell the kids for money to buy something to eat, I guess).'

". . . Fuck me. You are actually getting worse. How do you even joke about using kids for money? $50 for ten minutes, maybe?"

Back in my first post in this thread, I pointed out that one of the big reasons so many people feel pressure to earn a living is the biological pressure on us to get food.

So *if* having and raising a child is equivalent to all those other activities that put food on the table (you know, as some people out there insist it is), *then* how does one go from a babe in arms to a meal in a stomach...?

"'Do fathers get a choice?

'Likewise, how about same-sex couples? What if two women in love and raising kids together marry each other in MA, and both want to be stay-at-home moms (without telecommuting or anything)...?'

"I think (an opinion firmly rooted in my feminism) that ALL parents, regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, marriage or other formal arrangement, etc., who are part of a family that includes children who need care, should be included in the decisions about provision of care for those children. Their desires to spend time with those children and nurture them , as well as their need and desire to do other sorts of work for money or for personal pleasure, should all be taken into account."

Right on! Also, thanks for pointing out that I should have been clearer. The scenario I had in mind was not

"I want to stay home"
"No, I want to stay home instead"
"No, you should get another job because I want to stay home"

but instead

"I want to stay home"
"I want to stay home too"
"Society should make it possible for both of us to stay home at the same time"

"Well, in a nutshell, I feel like that'd put a burden on my husband. We both work all day, and then I go out and have social time? Hardly fair."

He can always say "no" if you quite reasonably ask him as a human being to have your own personal time once in a while. My wife sometimes went to company drinking parties in Japan, and so did I. Your husband is not the only resource, either.

On the other hand, if you for some reason, have a physical or psychological need to have your own time, I'd say your husband most certainly does owe it to you, and you should not concern yourself with any "burden."

"What we need to do is STOP criticising. Stop. Stop. Stop. There are pros and cons to both situations, and anyone who says differently is deluding him/herself in an attempt to validate his/her own decisions."

Bravo. Don't forget to take a break yourself. I never forget mine.

"'Well, in a nutshell, I feel like that'd put a burden on my husband. We both work all day, and then I go out and have social time? Hardly fair.'

"He can always say 'no' if you quite reasonably ask him as a human being to have your own personal time once in a while. My wife sometimes went to company drinking parties in Japan, and so did I. Your husband is not the only resource, either."

Right on!

Besides, don't forget the possibility of taking turns. Like maybe you go out on Tuesday evening while he has the kid, he goes out on Thursday while you have the kid, all three of you go out on Sunday, you and your husband go out on Saturday night if it's possible to let a friend/relative/babysitter mind the kid, etc.

I read many of the comments here and I have to disagree with most of them.

A few things that really caught my attention was that someone mentioned that part time jobs are often low paying, non-intellectual jobs that are not stimulating enough for women. I really think that's a huge generalization. There are jobs that are part time or free lance that do offer high hourly wages and are career based. There are also retail jobs that offer people the opportuntity to learn new things and interact with very intellcual people and are mentally stimulating. Also most mothers working part time wouldn't need benefits from their job because those would be avalible through their spouses/partners job. Also I would think working parttime at ANY job would be more benefical from a finanical and intellicual standpoint then staying home full time.

Another thing that struck me was that SHAM moms are really militant about how much they love staying home with their child and a few people have commented about daycare costs and other expenses. Working part time I think allows lots of moms to make extra income, but not deal with those challenges because their spouse/partner can watch the child while they are working.

I stayed home for most of my child's first year and just recently got a part time job right when my boyfriend became unemployed. I am not sure how things will work out once he does start working at his new job and my daughter will be spending about 2 hours a day in daycare or with another person, but so far I really enjoy my job that just pays above minimum wage. I find it "intellilectually stimulating" because I am working at a health food store and I am very interested in alternative medicine and organic food. I also like having an opportunity to socialize with my peers and like minded people. I also think working part time has really improved my relationship with my daughter, because when I come home I give her my undivided attention instead of worrying about cleaning, or checking my email.

"I also have to say that I once had a childless artist boyfriend who scheduled time off to show his work at an art show, then denied because people with kids needed time off. Nows the time for people to get on their soapbox on propogating the species and that important work versus an individual's right to pursue whatever they want to design their life to be. "

This is slightly OT but I have to agree where Betty is going with this. Someone who has had a child has made a lifestyle choice (a choice) that involves sacrifice, dedication, commitment, etc. But who are you (general "you", not directed at anyone in particular) to tell me that your lifestyle choices are more important than mine. Your kid is sick, school has shut down early because of a storm...yep, s@$! happens, and I understand that you are in a bind but you know what? I've chosen not to have children and why does the lifestyle choice of the woman/man in the cubicle down the hall override my lifestyle choices and the sacrifices, commitments, dedication, that I have put into it.

Okay, had to get this off my chest. Sorry for the rant, this is really a hot button issue with me -- especially since an incident a few years ago when I had to cancel participation in a competition I had been training almost a year for to cover for someone with child-care issues (non-life threatening child care issues). Not. My. Problem. Okay, really, rant over this time.

No. I was wondering if everyone else owes food, shelter, etc. to you (and your partner) if you (and your partner) don't want to earn money, barter, farm, or whatever any of it for yourself.

Well then, you aren't talking about SAHMs at all. Your average SAHM is married and solidly at least middle class. She's not asking society to support her. She's asking her partner to support her. I'm not sure who you're talking about.

I'm just saying that raising your own kids isn't very comparable to growing your own food (unless you plan to eat the kids, barter the kids for something to eat, or sell the kids for money to buy something to eat, I guess)

I think in today's society it is the same in many ways. They're both services that I need. I can do them myself or I can pay someone else to do them, at least in part. I'm not contributing to the cash economy if I do them myself.

I'd like to kn