"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 know more details about this study...what type of questions were asked on this survey, how they operationally define "satisfaction," and to whom it was administered. I have had this discussion (with no empirical basis) with friends who are either stay-at-home moms or working-out-of-house moms, and I agree with some previous posts that there is a variance in what exactly happiness and satisfaction is for each.
For those who are financially secure and able to stay at home, they express great joy and even reject opportunities to work. For others who work outside of the home and are living paycheck to paycheck or those who stay home but experience similar financial instability, the experience is different. I think that our financial conditions so frequently factor into our measures of satisfaction and happiness, and that variable will almost always confound with others.
While I know mothers happy on either side, I think that the fundamental "answer" is that there is no answer...all women will not be happier one way or another - it's the joy of being unique!

I'd like to know more details about this study...what type of questions were asked on this survey, how they operationally define "satisfaction," and to whom it was administered. I have had this discussion (with no empirical basis) with friends who are either stay-at-home moms or working-out-of-house moms, and I agree with some previous posts that there is a variance in what exactly happiness and satisfaction is for each.
For those who are financially secure and able to stay at home, they express great joy and even reject opportunities to work. For others who work outside of the home and are living paycheck to paycheck or those who stay home but experience similar financial instability, the experience is different. I think that our financial conditions so frequently factor into our measures of satisfaction and happiness, and that variable will almost always confound with others.
While I know mothers happy on either side, I think that the fundamental "answer" is that there is no answer...all women will not be happier one way or another - it's the joy of being unique!

I often wonder the same thing, K. How exactly is SAHM defined?

I think employers should be understanding when parents need to leave work on short notice because of issues with their children (to an extent, and depending on the profession, obviously). But I think they should be understanding when non-parents need to leave as well.
I have a dog, and he's important to me. Sometimes I need to get home to walk/feed him instead of staying after hours for X. I think both I and the parent with a child should have the freedom to do our work on flexible schedules.

"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 was thinking of this statement:

"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?"

which sure didn't seem limited to married and solidly at least middle class mothers who aren't asking society for support.

"'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."

Lemme clarify: I didn't mean what you can give to someone else to do them.

I had in mind what you can get for doing them and whether or not you (and any dependents you have) can live on it, cash economy or no cash economy.

What I should have mentioned much earlier was that I approached the topic of working outside the home with "OK, where did this whole 'working for a living' idea come from in the first place?"

"I think employers should be understanding when parents need to leave work on short notice because of issues with their children (to an extent, and depending on the profession, obviously). But I think they should be understanding when non-parents need to leave as well."

Exactly. Employers definitely shouldn't pit nonparents, parents with children, and parents whose daughters and sons are all adult against each other.

Yeah, there is a fundamental answer here. Let's value everyone's life the same.

Because I don't think it gets said enough, I would put out there that every women who stays at home is not as financially secure as you'd think, if she could not jump into a good paying job with benefits quickly.

Unfortunately, I think the point about money (and I'd put, insurance) being an important factor in happiness is a good point. If you wonder where the rent is going to come from as I have in my past, that pretty much drives out the joy and sparkle light. Then you are on the first Maslow level. That was not experiencing the joy of being unique.

The lady working at a church as a secretary is likely opted out of contributing to social security, so her return on it will be dismal on her retirement. Also, I wonder if she has full health and life insurance which is even more important with kids.

These practical matters a Suzie Orman would challenge you on. Taking a look at the real costs and the real risks is a conversation, and I'll say it again, most women have not had with their partners in a Suzie Orman fashion.

I was thinking of this statement:"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?" which sure didn't seem limited to married and solidly at least middle class mothers who aren't asking society for support.

It is asking society for support. But here's the point you're missing: occupation does not equal income. Support does not equal the dreaded "W" (social welfare). Instead, the beginnings of what I was recommending was said pretty eloquently by Luna:

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.

You have to start with the societal perception of the value of the occupation to make lasting change. Feminists work hard to support the choices and social perceptions of working mothers, but SAHM's often get (perhaps sometimes unintentionally, perhaps not) left behind in the feminist rhetoric.

For instance:

Describing the occupation of stay at home mothering as something where one would "pick up socks and change diapers at home all day" doesn't help.

No criticism or inquiry into Amanda's post to which we were directed where she admits to being fond of the term "housewife" over SAHM (ostensibly because it shows men's involvement in what "got" women there), a term that absolutely excludes the main work activity, *mothering,* from the equation, and focuses on the least-valued, and certainly least compelling "house" work part of the job (which some SAHM's do the bulk of, and some split with working partners), not to mention the loadedness of making "wife" necessarily part of a potential feminist's *occupation*, isn't great.

Being further directed (via Amanda) to a Salon article, where not only does the author absolutely invalidate the decision-making processes and capacities of SAHM's, concluding "they might just need a job" in the end, she also uses the qualifier "self described" to undercut the validity of the term "stay at home feminists," (arent' all feminists self-described, after all?) ...is really counterproductive.

I agree with Jessica that:

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.

So rather than resign SAHMs to their fate, one easily accessible action might be to advocate in support of mothers of any choice persuasion. Not standing ovations for SAHMs or any other mothers, just the usual "watch your language, watch your assumptions" feminist strategy will do when discussing the lives of SAHMs and SAHM feminists. In this discussion among feminists, that kind of language analysis is sorely needed and contentious, and that's only a sampling of the adversity one encounters in less supposedly woman-friendly situations.

A male: I did not say we have an obligation to carry forth the species. I said, as a species, extincting ourselves is not an option. I know of no animal in the history of the world that has voluntarily extincted itself. I don't think we're going to be the first. I don't think assuming that we will or even should do so is a sound basis for public policy.

not4nothin: Having children is not a "lifestyle choice" anymore than growing old is a "lifestyle choice." I mean, I could step out on an ice floe (assuming there are any left by the time I'm 60), and save everyone the trouble of growing old and decrepit, but we don't structure social policy and work policy as if that's a reasonable alternative. When you say "tough shit" if daycare closes, what exactly is it that you want that parent to do? Not get the kid? Or when deciding to have kids, they should have anticipated that sometimes daycare might close and decided that one of them would never work so as not to inconvenience the rest of society with the existence of the children? Sounds like you had a shitty boss for not finding someone else to cover when you had something going on that was very important to you. Why blame the co-worker who is a parent?

Also I would think working parttime at ANY job would be more benefical from a finanical and intellicual standpoint then staying home full time.

One summer I worked as a cashier in a department store. So I can tell you that this is absolutely, categorically, one hundred percent NOT TRUE.

I have a part time job I work from home. But if I didn't -- if I absolutely did nothing for money whatsoever -- then my kids would not be in day care. The cost of the day care is higher than what anyone could make as a cashier at a department store. Thus, by staying home and sitting on my ass I would save my family more money than if I had a part time job as a cashier. And for an introvert, a job as a mother, in your own home, in your pajamas, being your own boss and spending time with people who love you, is *infinitely* preferable to standing all day in uncomfortable clothing smiling at people you have no interest in and performing the utterly monotonous work of ringing people up.

Let me guess. You are either a serious extrovert who has to be surrounded by people to be happy, or you have so much class privilege you never worked as a cashier. Or in fast food. Or in any other boring, monotonous, low-paid work with bosses who assume you are a moron. From an intellectual standpoint you are better off staying home all day and reading books to your kids than being a cashier, and from a financial standpoint you need to make enough money to justify the cost of a decent day care.

Also, doing the work of a housewife -- washing the laundry, cooking the food, cleaning the kitchen -- adds value. If you are a stay-at-home mom and you are the only person doing this work, you might actually have some free time sometimes because you have a whole day to do it in. If you are a working mom and the only person doing this work, you will burn out. If you are a working mom and share this burden with a partner, then it might be tolerable to work and do the laundry as well, but I can't help but think that working all day as a cashier and then coming home to do *any* chores at home would be hell. And I have tremendous respect for the people who do manage to do that job, because it would break me.

So no. Not all jobs add more value, financially or intellectually, to your life than being a stay at home mother would do.

BTW, this addresses a different poster -- I am fucking sick of people describing children as a "lifestyle choice" that is exactly equal to your choice to backpack across Europe. I think that all care of dependent humans should be equal, whether they are children, your elderly parents, your sickly spouse or your brother with Down's syndrome, but beyond that, the care of dependent humans trumps *everything* else you can do. Because when you have dependent humans depending on you, and they need you, IT'S NOT A FUCKING CHOICE. I understand wanting to be fulfilled in your art -- I'm a writer. But if you back out of being an artist, you're the only one who suffers for it. We have a word for people who renege on their parenting responsibilities -- criminals. So once you have made the choice to raise children (and it's about the raising, not the breeding -- breeding a child doesn't get you anything from employers except maybe a few weeks of maternity leave and possibly some crappy receiving blankets at a shower), you *cannot stop*, even if you would rather work full time or overtime or travel all over or whatever. At that point it's not a choice anymore.

I don't think that parents should be given a free pass to duck out because of little Suzie's play and stick the non-parents with working late every damn day, no. if they get to go to little Suzie's play, then you should get to go home early next week to get ready for your date before rush hour. Those are pretty equal. And I *certainly* don't think parents should be paid more by employers. (And they're not. FATHERS are paid more. Mothers are conspicuously paid less. Therefore the average parent is paid what the average non-parent is.) But if you want to stay home and wait for your plumber, and your co-worker's baby has just started projectile vomiting and needs to be cared for... suck it up. Your co-worker probably can't stay home to wait for her plumber because she had to spend all her sick days on babies projectile vomiting, and that's why she has to come in to work sick while you actually get to *take* your sick days for *your* sickness, and have some left over to wait for the plumber. So she gets no hot water for her shower because no one can *ever* wait for the plumber due to needing the sick days for the baby.

Children are a burden. They are not a fun lifestyle enhancement. Once you chose to raise them, you don't get to back out of it. They cost more than parental tax breaks will ever make up for, they consume more time than your overtime takes up, and they hurt the job advancement of anyone who actually takes care of them (which excludes the men who go around going, "I have a wife and kids to support! Pay me more!") So rest assured, the coworker who gets to leave early every day to pick up her kids makes less money than you do. And she always will. Even if in fact she comes in two hours earlier than you or the boss in order to make enough hours. Because she is a mother, she takes care of kids, and therefore she cannot possibly be as dedicated as you, male or childfree female.

So get over yourselves. You wanna agitate for the right to have your care of your dying mother treated the same as your coworker's care of her new baby, I will stand behind you. You wanna agitate to have your second job, your hobby, your love life, or your personal enrichment activities treated as exactly the same as caring for a dependent human being, well, you're an asshole.

AlaraJRogers ... Holy Mother of God! callin' people assholes for pursuing something you don't value. Holy purity shame of us all!

Do you kiss your children with that mouth of yours?

Annajcook wrote:

"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?"

Bingo. IME, while the majority of SAHMs may be in those right wing, "submit to the husband" type families, there is a solid minority that are left wing "crunchy" moms who are artsy, lactivist types and who are in fact more likely to be happy. I doubt that the subscribers to Mothering magazine are by and large an unhappy lot.

Alan

Sage at 10:10 and Alara at 11:19, great posts!

not4nothin brings up a very important point, and this issue so often comes up. People feel penalized for their single or childless lifestyles because those with families are so often given priority or families are valued so much more highly by society in general. Some singles/childless complain about paying taxes for other people's kids in school, subsidized childcare, children's programs, or any kind of social infrastructure it would take to allow people to house and feed themselves while raising a family.

I believe these are perfectly valid concerns. I do not consider singles or the childless selfish. Some of these people have an explicit desire to spare the earth from human overpopulation or [increased] pollution. How can I blame them?

I really do not know how to satisfy people who feel put upon by the needs of other people with family concerns but to say that we all have a part to play in this society, including sometimes making the sacrifice or paying others' way or cover their asses. I do not complain to my health care provider that my monthly premium is too high because of "those" people who smoke, drink or have HIV. I have two children, but I do not complain about taxes being used for people with six. I am married, but I do not complain about mothers on welfare. [Actually I do complain about people in jail, but they need a standard of care, too. I've been there as a nurse.] And I have no illusions about ever receiving Social Security benefits after I make 67, because all that money is being spent on the elderly of today *, but I do not begrudge the elderly for living beyond 65 or their reliance on Medicare.

* About SS: "The government is promising $45 trillion more than it can deliver on Social Security, Medicare and other benefit programs" over the next 75 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317121,00.html

OMG, FOX News, what will we do if we can't come up with the money?

Why, the same thing as now. We need to understand that members of a society/community need to look out for one another. And it may be a difficult thing to conceptualize, but we should not make value judgments about which roles are more valuable than another, which is one cause of this career/stay at home debate. It gets even uglier than the above on other forums.

This is some real flowers and rainbows coming from my ass material, but it would make sense if people could have as much concern for random strangers in need, as your own sick mother or child. Then the sacrifice would not feel so unreasonable, and others would not be so resentful providing assistance.

"A male: I did not say we have an obligation to carry forth the species. I said, as a species, extincting ourselves is not an option."

Allowing our numbers to decline naturally through family planning is one possibility, though it will not be by conscious choice. Some in Japan are wringing their hands over calculations that their population will be halved this century, or that the Japanese will go extinct, around IIRC the year 2700. Some rural towns are ghost towns already, and one community I lived in was 65% elderly. There are other towns exceeding 80%, even 90% elderly. What a tax burden! What leeches! No, what a quaint, traditional community where few young people and families choose to live.

"I know of no animal in the history of the world that has voluntarily extincted itself. I don't think we're going to be the first."

No, but entire human societies have come and gone for various reasons including war, or as simple as lack of rain.

"I don't think assuming that we will or even should do so is a sound basis for public policy."

It's not about public policy. It's simple math. Unless the average couple successfully produces and raises two or more children to childbearing age, human numbers will decline, someday to zero. Japan and some countries in Europe are already experiencing this. The influence of a minority or immigrant population is the only thing providing America's population growth now: White Americans, or the caucasian bloodline, are on the way out. [Some fear this as well, usually conservative male whites.] But forming relationships or having children is no one else's business.

This part is about public policy: What do we do about our greying population, because the decreasing proportion of young can no longer support them directly or through "social security" payments? A very difficult question for many in government service, but the solution is quite simple. No politician who wants to keep their job will say so explicitly, but the answer must ultimately be, reduce entitlements, increase premiums; and when the program is no longer sustainable, like 45 TRILLION DOLLARS IN THE RED people will just have to take care of themselves and/or each other like in simpler human societies. I dare say even elephants, gorillas, and chimpanzees have done this for millions of years without worrying or complaining as much as humans do.

Seriously. Women calling other women who want to do something other than motherhood or being a nurse assholes? Seriously?

I wonder what she'd call her kid that chose not to have kids but to major in her career or some other pursuit. Would she value that one less?

Seriously.

I totally agree with Sage, SuzyQ et al....I get the feeling from most of the commenters that there is a bit of contempt for women who are SAHMs...that they have succumbed to the patriarchy or something.

"'I was thinking of this statement:'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?' which sure didn't seem limited to married and solidly at least middle class mothers who aren't asking society for support.'"

"It is asking society for support. But here's the point you're missing: occupation does not equal income."

No disagreement there.

"Support does not equal the dreaded 'W' (social welfare)."

I thought that "support" for everyone making the choice in this case meant something making the choice feasible for everyone. Simply praising and respecting the choice isn't enough to make it feasible (you can't eat praise and respect).

"Describing the occupation of stay at home mothering as something where one would 'pick up socks and change diapers at home all day" doesn't help.'"

Yeah, good point.

"'Also I would think working parttime at ANY job would be more benefical from a finanical and intellicual standpoint then staying home full time.'

"One summer I worked as a cashier in a department store. So I can tell you that this is absolutely, categorically, one hundred percent NOT TRUE."

Not true in terms of intellectual benefit, but as for financial benefit...

"The cost of the day care is higher than what anyone could make as a cashier at a department store. Thus, by staying home and sitting on my ass I would save my family more money than if I had a part time job as a cashier."

You and your family could also save more money by not paying for any health insurance, car insurance, fire insurance, etc. than by paying for it.

...unless and until something happens which can be more expensive for the unemployed or uninsured than for those with fresh experience on a résumé or with insurance (husband leaves, house burns down, whatever). Maybe *that's* what was meant by a financial benefit?

"Seriously. Women calling other women who want to do something other than motherhood or being a nurse assholes? Seriously?

"I wonder what she'd call her kid that chose not to have kids but to major in her career or some other pursuit. Would she value that one less?"

For that matter, what would she call her kid that chose to spend all her or his time having and raising kids instead of taking any time out to talk to her too...?

I don't think AlaraJ was calling non-parents assholes. I think she was saying that anyone who thinks taking care of a dependent family member is a "life-choice" is an asshole. I don't choose to care for my child; I am legally and morally obligated to do so. This obligation has never caused me any distress because, unlike many of the posters here, I have a great deal of support in my parenting role.

1. I have an active and involved spouse who equally shares the responsibilities of raising our child.
2. I have access to a loving extended family to assist with daycare.
3. I live in Canada, where we have social programs that provide for maternity/parental leave (1 year in Ontario). During mat leave, a person is deemed continuously employed, which means I get raises, vacation accrual, maintain my pension credits and extended health benefits.
4. I live in Canada, part 2 - I don't have to worry about basic health care.
5. I work in a unionized workplace, which is why new mothers here get 95% of their salary during their leave (as opposed to the government mandated 55%).
6. I work in a unionized workplace, part 2 - we have family leave options, guaranteed in our collective agreement so that my sick days are for when I'm sick and my family leave days are for when my daughter is sick.

And do you know why I have all these things? Because feminists (among others) fought for social change. I'm benefitting from all their hard work and I'm making sure that Canada social program isn't being reduced to American levels.

Instead of attacking others for the choices you've perceived that they've made, get out there and demand the things that every single person needs to live and work securely, happily and safely for their whole lives. Feminists should be like the 3 Musketeers - all for one and one for all. What adversely affects any one woman, adversely affects every single woman.

"not4nothin: Having children is not a "lifestyle choice" anymore than growing old is a "lifestyle choice." I mean, I could step out on an ice floe (assuming there are any left by the time I'm 60), and save everyone the trouble of growing old and decrepit, but we don't structure social policy and work policy as if that's a reasonable alternative. When you say "tough shit" if daycare closes, what exactly is it that you want that parent to do? Not get the kid? Or when deciding to have kids, they should have anticipated that sometimes daycare might close and decided that one of them would never work so as not to inconvenience the rest of society with the existence of the children? Sounds like you had a shitty boss for not finding someone else to cover when you had something going on that was very important to you. Why blame the co-worker who is a parent?"

I understand your point. My point is that I am sick of people who deem their choice to have children as not a choice (if I can decide NOT to have a child, you certainly decided to have one) and that somehow the choice to have a child, the choice to create a dependent being is more valid and more noble than anything else going on in my life, I tell you as much as another poster is sick of having people tell them that having kids is a lifestyle choice I am sick of people implying or outright saying that my choice not to have one is selfish just because I resent being put upon by those with children.

"BTW, this addresses a different poster -- I am fucking sick of people describing children as a "lifestyle choice" that is exactly equal to your choice to backpack across Europe. I think that all care of dependent humans should be equal, whether they are children, your elderly parents, your sickly spouse or your brother with Down's syndrome, but beyond that, the care of dependent humans trumps *everything* else you can do. Because when you have dependent humans depending on you, and they need you, IT'S NOT A FUCKING CHOICE. I understand wanting to be fulfilled in your art -- I'm a writer. But if you back out of being an artist, you're the only one who suffers for it. We have a word for people who renege on their parenting responsibilities -- criminals. So once you have made the choice to raise children (and it's about the raising, not the breeding -- breeding a child doesn't get you anything from employers except maybe a few weeks of maternity leave and possibly some crappy receiving blankets at a shower), you *cannot stop*, even if you would rather work full time or overtime or travel all over or whatever. At that point it's not a choice anymore."

While you say that having children is not a lifestyle choice you later say that "once you have made the choice to raise children" but then it becomes not a choice as soon as it's not convenient? Which is it? Anyway,this:

"So get over yourselves. You wanna agitate for the right to have your care of your dying mother treated the same as your coworker's care of her new baby, I will stand behind you. You wanna agitate to have your second job, your hobby, your love life, or your personal enrichment activities treated as exactly the same as caring for a dependent human being, well, you're an asshole."

is exactly the mindset that pushes my buttons.... as I have never backpacked across Europe I cannot attest to how important that may be to someone but people seem to forget that different people find fulfillment in different ways. Whatever you get out of raising a child (despite your personal inconveniences and burdens) I might get from something else. And guess what, just because I don't have a child doesn't mean I'm not doing anything for the world. In fact, with the time and money I am not spending on a child, I am involved in organizations and volunteer activities that make a difference. But not taking care of a dependent human being that I chose to bring into the world trumps any good I may do anywhere and for anyone else. Nice.

But back on the original topic -- my Mom was a stay at home mother for a while but back then, it was "the thing to do" so it was acceptable. I know she talks about how she enjoyed the time with us and I remember enjoying the time with her. However, when the situation changed and my dad left, she was very fortunate that as a teacher, she was able to find another job right away. My concerns is that, as someone said, if the wage-earning spouse loses a job, benefits, leaves, or dies, the SAHM may be up a creek.

It's funny how people, and strangely enough, some women on a feminist list will still argue about what is a "natural" woman vs. an asshole.

Here's how it goes: a "natural" woman would of course enjoy being at home 24/7 raising kids over having a career. Any study that shows otherwise must be skewed. It must be who they included. Surely natural organic mothers who would be polled would all be happy.

Remember that study that showed that men married to feminists were happier. I'm sure on the conservative blogs they thought the only ones studied were un-natural men.

The truth is: the study did show happy stay at home mothers. It did. It really did. Just more of the percentage of women who worked noted being happier.

And I have to say. The choice between being a stay at home mom is not one between that and being a cashier at a crappy place.

It's a false argument to reduce choices down to that level.

I've worked with pregnant teens, and their minds work that way. In many of their minds, being pregnant was the most noble and admirable thing they could do. I could see that faced with an array of crappy entry level jobs. I wonder what happened that their world shrank so much that their life choices were reduced to KMart cashier or mother. That there was no happy work for them and no work where they could get paid enough to "make sense and dollars and cents" to them. The world is shut to them. Their future set.

Worse are the ones who get into religion that is all about women submitting and being housewives as their holy calling. Of course the women who don't get this calling aren't true women. Some believe that if they do the submission and full time motherhood thing, God won't let them down and will protect their household, like some sort of magical protection.

This also gets into all sorts of righteous delicious judgments one can make towards those struggling with infertility or never choose to have kids.

But, in the end, I think it gets down to people's beliefs on what is a natural woman. And who are the unnatural assholes.

Ain't I a woman?

Betty, "natural" vs. "asshole" is a false dichotomy. The opposite of "asshole" is "kind person" "mensch" or something like that. I think AlaraJRogers was implying that a mensch might wonder what's to become of her coworker's kids who have no one to look after them while the mensch goes off to a writing workshop, and might see where kids alone in a house might be a bad thing. A mensch might negotiate, help brainstorm with the boss, suggest, because she knows leaving children alone is impossible, not demand her right to the workshop anyhow because it's her turn, or blame the parent whose day care closed. Nothing natural or unnatural about that. Not even anything specific to women.

Nina,

I thought that "support" for everyone making the choice in this case meant something making the choice feasible for everyone. Simply praising and respecting the choice isn't enough to make it feasible (you can't eat praise and respect).

Right. The goal is ultimately more than respect (I'd leave praise out, personally). But in order to have *systems* that support a worker (such as a stay at home mother, or an 8 hour workday, or workplace safety, etc.) you have to have the respect first. And what I'm seeing is a really insidious (besides the outright inflammatory, of course) prejudice against the choices and capacities of women who choose to mother their own children in the daytime. Things like this:

My concerns is that, as someone said, if the wage-earning spouse loses a job, benefits, leaves, or dies, the SAHM may be up a creek.

Do you really think grown women (not teenagers or children) haven't considered this, and it's up to you to save them from themselves? Now think about if a politician was similarly "concerned" for those "poor women not thinking of their future" when they got an abortion. This is just BASIC respect for the choices of women, and an interrogation of your language and prejudice where you might not see it. Respect for women isn't limited to those with the same goals, and lip service to "respect for choices" won't do when assumptions like this are allowed to run amok. We have to start there, and if it's hard on a feminist website, we have a lot of work to do.

Feminists should be like the 3 Musketeers - all for one and one for all. What adversely affects any one woman, adversely affects every single woman.

Right on. Don't disrespect the SAHM's, and be careful that you may be doing just that unintentionally through your language. If the study showed SAHM's may have a problem with happiness, ask why, and whether that is something that can change or not. Don't just use their lives and possibly unfortunate experiences as ammunition against weirdos and conservatives who try (unsuccessfully, I mean, come on...) to make you look bad for not being Suzie Homemaker. Raising children in the daytime may not be your choice with what to do with your life, but you have to assume women are capable of making this choice for themselves, and are deserving of happiness with that choice, or the next woman someone will doubt, sneer at, or use this way will be you.

No one said that people who don't have kids are selfish or assholes. If you don't want kids and you don't have them, wonderful for you. That's great. I applaud you. But your reward for that is that you get to live the life you chose, not that you will never, ever, ever be inconvenienced in the slightest by the fact that children exist and some other people have obligations to care for them.

I don't think I'm noble or any crap like that because I have kids. HOWEVER, as the previous poster said and as I said before, once I have them, I have obligations to them that I cannot get out of just because it might inconvenience someone. AGAIN, what is it that you want the parent to do if the kid gets sick?

Also, I believe (and believed before I had kids and will believe when mine are grown) that as a society we have an obligation to create a social and economic environment that protects the dependent human beings among us. That means we pay taxes to support schools and social programs, and in my opinion, it means we agitate for work environments that allow people to meet their obligations to their dependent family members.

Two thoughts:

On the economic contributions of SAHMs: Having a SAH parent can allow the other parent to take a more intense, high-paying job. In my case, we both work. My husband could make more money in a different job, but he stays in his current job because it has some flexibility to deal with family emergencies. He could only take the higher-paying job if I were to SAH. However, we're both happy with the current situation.

A couple of my SAH friends say the same thing; their spouse can take a higher-paying, higher-stress position because they SAH (in one case, a working mom and a SAH dad).

As for the working parent getting special priveledges - I think parents and nonparents need to join together to advocate for workplace reform that would benefit everyone. Many jobs could have a lot more flexibility, which would benefit everyone. Luckily, I work for a pretty flexible company; I've given the people I supervise time off both to take care of their kids, and to take classes in their art. I thought they were both important.

AlaraJRogers

Right. Fucking. On.

And for you people who can't wrap you heads around staying at home taking care of your children:

I stay home because I don't want my five month old stuck in a fucking crib while her care giver balances 8 other children to watch over. Some people believe that a baby, toddler or even (gasp) older child need to be with a parent. Some of us make the decision to stay home with the kids because raising our children is far more important than having a second income.

The attitude towards SAHMs is so shitty. Some of us are 'militant' about staying home because we are far more interested in our kids being well taken care of than we are in whether or not we drive the newest suv on the market.

Breeder,

I stay home because I don't want my five month old stuck in a fucking crib while her care giver balances 8 other children to watch over.

I don't think any parent would think that's ideal for her child. Staying at home is only one solution to the problem above, finding better care is one, and finally, for some, sadly, there IS no solution they can afford, and maybe they try to make up for it some other way.

I can hear your frustration, but it's important not to imply that some women would think that situation you described is just peachy, as long as she's chasing her dream...it's not respectful of the women who choose one of the other two options.

we are far more interested in our kids being well taken care of than we are in whether or not we drive the newest suv on the market.

Well, your attitude isn't so lovely either, is it?

Of course that's the only reason women work for pay--it's because we're shallow, superficial creatures who put SUVs above the welfare of our children. In fact, we don't care about our kids at all. It couldn't possibly be that we have a calling that it would damage our core selves and our families to ignore. Or that we think our children benefit from having a financially independent mother as a model. Or that our income benefits the entire family. Or that we are concerned about our future financial security vis-a-vis social security payments, health insurance, possible divorce or widowhood.

No. It's just that we're shallow bitches who are not sufficiently interested in our children being well taken care of. Thanks for clearing that up, Breeder.

No one said that people who don't have kids are selfish or assholes. If you don't want kids and you don't have them, wonderful for you. That's great. I applaud you. But your reward for that is that you get to live the life you chose, not that you will never, ever, ever be inconvenienced in the slightest by the fact that children exist and some other people have obligations to care for them.

Word, Chingona. I could not agree more.

EG, you're right on about attitude. It swings both ways, and it can be ugly.

Just for fun's and possibly illustration's sake, I decided to use your rationale points below as a springboard to how logical people can make a decision either way, without besmirching the validity of either argument. It's important to note that I'm in NO way debating here, just showing how different minds find different bits of evidence compelling, and that's... okay.

It couldn't possibly be that we have a calling that it would damage our core selves and our families to ignore.

or we decided that our calling can wait a few years, and though we'll miss it, we'll still be whole.

Or that we think our children benefit from having a financially independent mother as a model.

or we decided that physically being there each day as a model and companion was preferable for either our children, ourselves, or both.

Or that our income benefits the entire family.

Or that we've gotten creative on how to live with less, and have made peace with frugality. And/or we've determined that we're not placing our family at financial risk by not working for pay.

Or that we are concerned about our future financial security vis-a-vis social security payments, health insurance, possible divorce or widowhood.

Or we've made provisions in this regard, or we are lucky enough to have them built in, or we're taking a risk in favor of what we see as the potential benefits which, to us, outweigh the risk.

When you look at it this way, nobody looks ignorant except those who assume the world is made up of two kinds of mothers, and one of those is either those who want to pick up socks and change diapers all day, or those who want new cars instead.

While I do not agree with Breeder's use of language her post brings up a good point. I had no intention of staying home until I looked at the other options for infant care. I remember in one very well regarded and highly recommended center, a worker walking past a row of cribs with crying babies to show me this apron with baby pockets that they would use in case of a fire and thought... WTF am I going to do? I just couldn't do it. Aside from those lucky enough to have extended family, resources for an excellent one on one caregiver or access to an onsite nursery I just don't see any good options for combining infant care and work.

I live in a working class area and most of my neighbors follow the one partner works days and the other works nights scenario. It is grueling and from what I've seen destructive. Certainly there has to be a better way.

"Do you really think grown women (not teenagers or children) haven't considered this, and it's up to you to save them from themselves? Now think about if a politician was similarly "concerned" for those "poor women not thinking of their future" when they got an abortion. This is just BASIC respect for the choices of women, and an interrogation of your language and prejudice where you might not see it. Respect for women isn't limited to those with the same goals, and lip service to "respect for choices" won't do when assumptions like this are allowed to run amok. We have to start there, and if it's hard on a feminist website, we have a lot of work to do."

I said it is a concern that I have for SAHM and made no implication that it was up to anyone to save them from themselves. I didn't offer a solution because, frankly, I don't have one. I am all up for creative solutions and I am also interested in what former (for whatever reason they had to re-enter the work force) have to say about their transition and what help was given to them, what worked, what didn't, etc.

How did my post get so messed up? It was fine in preview.

EG,

Of course you aren't a shallow bitch who doesn't care about how your children are taken care of. I was upset when I wrote that and I should have checked myself. I apologize for that. My point was that some SAHMS take the financial blow in order to be with their little ones, and that some moms can't afford the decent childcare that is available and comparable to how we might take care of our kids.

Like I said in my first post, I remember how great it feels to earn a check. Its just more important to me to be home.

"3. I live in Canada, where we have social programs that provide for maternity/parental leave (1 year in Ontario). During mat leave, a person is deemed continuously employed, which means I get raises, vacation accrual, maintain my pension credits and extended health benefits."

"5. I work in a unionized workplace, which is why new mothers here get 95% of their salary during their leave (as opposed to the government mandated 55%)."

Holy crap. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the continuing to be eligible for raises and vacation accrual and *95%* of working salary while on leave is even more generous than offered in the northern European countries, isn't it? That is terrific.

Does Canada, like some European countries, also allow (or actually require) dads to stay at home while the mother works, with similar benefits?

"No one said that people who don't have kids are selfish"

Not here, perhaps. The childless or single often feel they are perceived and judged that way.

"as I have never backpacked across Europe I cannot attest to how important that may be to someone but people seem to forget that different people find fulfillment in different ways."

You know what? I wish I had backpacked across Europe to see some of the authentic, historical castles and palaces I am so enamored with. While waiting on my visa to be reunited with my fiance, I wanted to buy a junker in California and take a lone trek across the US, but allowed my mother to stop me. Again, I wasted my youth by comparison. The best I can do now is plan on traveling by RV with my family during my upcoming 25th high school reunion in Vegas.

If a person actually does choose to enjoy themselves (and provide a boost to the economy) instead of "settling down," why should I blame them, if they can perform the work they were hired to do.

This brings up another issue I'm starting to hear about between the child free and childed: of course someone with a sick child should be given some slack. Many pet owners also love their companion animals as members of the family. You know, like people who would reenter a burning house to rescue their dog. I know a couple unable to have children who had a dog they fully considered their son, referred to him as their son, and as much as was permissible in the community, treated as their son. It took me exactly one visit to accept the concept, and stop feeling pity. Some people deliberately get pets as child substitutes. Some owners complain that they would never receive the same consideration as someone with a child when asking to take off from work for an emergency visit to the vet. If workers are allowed to get away with fake sick calls for hangovers, there is plenty of room to accommodate people wanting to look after their beloved companions.

"On the economic contributions of SAHMs: Having a SAH parent can allow the other parent to take a more intense, high-paying job."

Damn straight. That was the traditional model, and what continues in many countries, including progressive countries like Canada and in Europe to some extent. It's one of the basic assumptions allowing men to work [often too much] and support a family on one paycheck in Japan. Hell, If people make that decision *by choice*, that is no one's business.

"I think she was saying that anyone who thinks taking care of a dependent family member is a 'life-choice' is an asshole. I don't choose to care for my child; I am legally and morally obligated to do so."

Meanwhile, when I was a child my parents were obligated to care for me, but they chose to create me and create that obligation in the first place.

I wonder if some of the anti-abortionists who chose to give birth don't like the situation they put themselves in, and wish what they did was less optional so they'd get more pity for it...?

"However, when the situation changed and my dad left, she was very fortunate that as a teacher, she was able to find another job right away. My concerns is that, as someone said, if the wage-earning spouse loses a job, benefits, leaves, or dies, the SAHM may be up a creek."

Indeed. Ever noticed how...

(a) if a programmer's company lays her off and she sends résumés to 10 more companies right away, she's called "intelligent" and the odds of her getting quickly hired again go up?

(b) when a cook's restaurant closes and she fills out applications at 10 more restaurants right away, she's called "dilligent" and the odds of her getting quickly hired again go up?

(c) if a housewife's husband leaves and she dates 10 more men right away, she's called "slutty" and the odds of her getting quickly married again go down?

"The truth is: the study did show happy stay at home mothers. It did. It really did. Just more of the percentage of women who worked noted being happier."

Of course - no doubt there's all sorts of women in both categories (and other categories like parttimer, retired, etc.).

"And I have to say. The choice between being a stay at home mom is not one between that and being a cashier at a crappy place.

"It's a false argument to reduce choices down to that level.

"I've worked with pregnant teens, and their minds work that way. In many of their minds, being pregnant was the most noble and admirable thing they could do."

...speakig of teenagers and SAHM being a career choice like any other, what advice should high school guidance counselors give about it?

If a techie 15-year-old girl with low grades says "after high school I want to go to college and major in physics," then we'd expect advice about study skills and choosing schools.

If a creative 15-year-old girl without woodworking experience says "after high school I want to be a carpenter," then we'd expect advice about apprenticeships and job interviews.

If a straight 15-year-old girl without any boyfriend says "after high school I want to be a stay-at-home mother," then should we expect advice about attracting a guy enough to marry or at least impregnate her...?

"Do you really think grown women (not teenagers or children) haven't considered this, and it's up to you to save them from themselves?"

Maybe she's thinking more of the teens considering their futures?

No, don't really think all grown women have considered all the dimensions of never having a career outside the home.

And I have seen some of the materials churches put together to help persuade women to stay at home. It's as good as you'd expect the sex education materials to be from churches. The math always comes out that it is better for the woman not to work.

And I must say, Suzie Orman and Oprah and even, Ms magazine makes a business out of letting grown women know things they may have never considered. They HAVE had shows on the implications of the stay at home choice.

Suzie Orman would say to be aware of the financial impact of stay at home and few women do it. The financial impact is everything from your future return from social security to your ability to jump into a good job with benefits and support your household. This is your responsibility as a parent, I'd say, to be worried about planning for contingencies in a real way. Could you support your house and home if you had to?

Not to mention working on some of your own dreams and ambitions. And modeling that these are important to a woman to kids and women are worthwhile enough to pursue them. Want to own a business, dream of working for an architectual firm, want to be a lawyer, be an engineer/inventor, write or manage in music... These are as valid as motherhood. The choice is not an Or it's an And. It's not going to be on a platter for you and you may not be able to work full time, but life is an AND.

Life is an AND even for single childless people. And I'd say that we don't owe people with children coverage at work upon demand. And we don't have to have a more pitiful story to justify this.

If we have scheduled an art show or lunch with a long lost friend and walk out the door when our shift is over, we are not assholes as someone spewed. They have a job; they live their lives. You don't want the childless to fall into that stereotype of having nothing but their job do you?

They never get this time back again either. Cheer up. Maybe the childless person is on her way to meet her future daddy baby. Maybe that event was the one fateful event where she'd meet her mate and avoid being childless and unmarried. Would you want to stop propogation of the species? OK, I kid. But seriously, if a business can't deal with a missing employee it is not the problem of the childless workers.

Here's a book for you all for some dirty, dirty reading, "This is how we do it":
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781594630309&itm=31

And if you really want to set it off: The Feminine mistake: are we giving up too much? (I know, I know, people here don't ever make mistakes, so maybe you could read it as a tourist. But it does go over some of the implications of having a life plan to be a stay at home mom.)

http://www.amazon.com/FEMININE-MISTAKE-ARE-GIVING-MUCH/dp/1401303064

And the people who live in a reduced world where the choice is a cashier's job vs motherhood or work at night while your spouse works at day and so forth..if these look awful to you and the only alternatives, your view is limited.

Awfulization where you paint yourself into an inevitable choice that cannot be questioned is a false logic.

Research has shown that children are not ruined by working mothers and now, that working mothers are generally a happy lot.

By the way, here is a review from "mojomom" blog on the Feminine Mistake book that I think makes some points I would make:

"I've submitted my review of "The Feminine Mistake" twice now and Amazon has declined to publish it. So if you want to know my full opinion you can easily find it on my Mojo Mom blog.

" A man is not a financial plan. Every woman needs to wake up to this reality. The cost of being caught without a personally-constructed safety net is a stiff penalty.

I can understand why stay-at-home moms are offended by Bennetts book, but I wish they'd read it anyway. We are raised to believe that if we are nice girls who grow up to marry a nice man, everything will be taken care of. This is powerful and often unconscious socialization. Bennetts pierces through cultural denial and taboos by pulling back the sentimental mask of motherhood, love and marriage. We may prefer reading books that validate our life paths and choices, but it can be even more valuable to read the opposing view and formulate an intelligent response.

"This is your responsibility as a parent, I'd say, to be worried about planning for contingencies in a real way. Could you support your house and home if you had to?"

If a family can make it on mainly a bread winner's income, perhaps they can also get excellent life insurance. When I have an extra few hundred dollars a month, I'll get coverage worth at least $2 million, which is about what I would make working for the rest of my life. Meanwhile, I have insurance with my credit card. One other reason for my wife and I being married is we *need* to be together in order to afford a family. Not even our own parents who live on fixed incomes would be able to assist us.

One cannot plan for everything. There was a time I had 4-1/2 years' salary saved up. It was my kids' college money, a start on a down payment on a house, and long term investments for my retirement. I thought I was doing fine. I thought my family was financially secure.

Then I was unemployed for nine months after attending nursing school full time living in Hawaii. I then had a few hundred dollars in the bank and lived off my credit card at 18% interest. I'm not out yet. Who would have imagined that living in my own hometown and becoming a nurse, a high demand job in nearly any community, would ever be "irresponsible?" Not I or my wife, who gave me her full support.

My cousin never imagined his child would have leukemia and need a bone marrow transplant (or that his girlfriend would become pregnant and use drugs, for that matter). It wasn't my father's fault that a good cancer research hospital was on the other side of the country, on the other side of the sea, and he quit smoking in 1977 when people realized the risks. In my community, there was a young man who went swimming in a river. Here we have a bacteria called leptospirosis, particularly common in warm weather. For the simple act of going swimming, this young man lost some limbs and had a hospital bill of $2 million and counting. He had just started a job and had a pregnant fiance, if I recall.

Are you prepared to risk $2 million to go swimming? Do you do genetic screening with your partner to reduce risk of major diseases linked to genetics? Do you think 4-1/2 years' salary is enough to see you through hard times? Don't be so sure.

"And I'd say that we don't owe people with children coverage at work upon demand."

Why not? If someone has a household of five, that's maybe a five times greater chance of an emergency than a single person. Single parents are in an even more difficult situation, as they may need to do everything themselves. And single, childless people have grandma's funerals, sick mothers, and car breakdowns as well. What do you expect these people to do?

If an employer would like to stick their necks out and hire only health screened, drug tested, married vegan triathlete Mormon men, who have SAHM to look after all their domestic needs and nurse their children; they can try it, and deal with the consequences such as a multimillion dollar class action lawsuit. [Wal-Mart, unfortunately does have too much influence at this point, to simply be forced to change.]

"The choice is not an Or it's an And."

The choice can be "or" only, if they want it to be. Why must someone with children also be expected to work if the family can afford it, and it not their choice? The ambition of some intelligent people with work experience may well be to raise a family. My brother stayed at home for a couple of years while his wife was a big shot accountant, leaving for days at a time traveling crosscountry. Then she suddenly demanded a divorce and full time custody of their baby daughter, in addition to having him arrested for assault after SHE beat him (again) and he FELL down on top of her, and getting a TRO against him (charges dismissed by HER). She also refuses psychiatric care. Some women really do not respect a man who earns less, and can be vengeful with the children.

"But seriously, if a business can't deal with a missing employee it is not the problem of the childless workers."

No it isn't. A single may be unfairly assumed to have free time, but do they not have the choice to refuse requests? I was fortunate not to be penalized for sometimes saying no, even if I was the only option, and it lost the company money. I was married covering for almost 100% single people by the way, who sometimes called in sick for unplanned vacations and dates, searching for other work, or simple hangovers. They can live their own lives, if it does not affect their work performance that way.

"We are raised to believe that if we are nice girls who grow up to marry a nice man, everything will be taken care of."

I wonder if you have the right audience. And I thought things just worked out for decent people. Despite doing what many people believed to be responsible, life for my family is a challenge.

"'And I'd say that we don't owe people with children coverage at work upon demand.'

"Why not? If someone has a household of five, that's maybe a five times greater chance of an emergency than a single person."

Do you owe a coworker who has a household of 10 or 15, which has a greater chance of emergency than your household, coverage at work upon demand?

'"3. I live in Canada, where we have social programs that provide for maternity/parental leave (1 year in Ontario). During mat leave, a person is deemed continuously employed, which means I get raises, vacation accrual, maintain my pension credits and extended health benefits."

"5. I work in a unionized workplace, which is why new mothers here get 95% of their salary during their leave (as opposed to the government mandated 55%)."

Holy crap. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the continuing to be eligible for raises and vacation accrual and *95%* of working salary while on leave is even more generous than offered in the northern European countries, isn't it? That is terrific.

Does Canada, like some European countries, also allow (or actually require) dads to stay at home while the mother works, with similar benefits?'

Okay, here's a quick and dirty run down of the benefits.

In Ontario (the benefit is different by province but I think everyone is in the ball park), new parents are entitled to a couple of paid leaves.

Mothers who give birth only are entitled to Maternity Leave, which must be taken immediately after the birth of the child. This leave is (currently) 17 weeks long and the government will pay you 55% of your regular earnings to a maximum of $413/week. During that time, you are deemed 'continuously employed' which means that your seniority and vacation benefits continue to accrue. If you pass an anniversary date while on leave, you receive the raise (either on return to work or through your top-up). When you return to work, you are guaranteed to receive the same position that you left or one of comparable value. (By the way, mothers who put their children up for adoption or whose child is stillborn are still entitled to take Maternity Leave.)

Parental leave is available for any new parent in Ontario - mothers or fathers, birth parents or adoptive parents - and is 35 weeks in duration (37 weeks if you haven't taken maternity leave first). Parental leave must be taken within the first 52 weeks after the birth or adoption of a child.

The two leave together (which can be shared by parents but, typically, is taken soley by the mother) allow for 52 weeks of paid leave after the birth of a child. So, no one puts an infant in daycare in Ontario.

As to my collective agreement, we negotiated a top up to 93% (actually, not 95% - typo). Top ups of this nature are fairly common in public service contracts. I don't work for the government directly, but I work for a First Nations police service, so we have 'me too' status on things like that. The top up is intended to assist parents on leave to maintain their pension contributions during their leave. That way, taking a year off when you're 30 yrs old doesn't lead to having to work an extra year when you're 60 yrs old and want to retire.

I'm not sure if that's better than most European countries. I'd guess that employers have top up schemes in Europe as well.

We have come a long way on this benefit, at least. My mother would have been forced to quit working when she was pregnant, suffering a break in employment, and she had to re-apply when she was ready to return to work. Thirty years later, having a baby was no financial hardship at all for my husband and me. Considering what I saved by not travelling to/dressing for work and the value added to having a partner at home taking care of all our domestic responsibilities, the year after my daughter's birth was almost 'blissful' rather than 'stressful.' That said, I was ready to return to work when my leave was up. I had good, safe daycare and I missed my job.

I just re-read what I posted and I realise that it might seem that I'm saying that people on Parental Leave are not deemed "continuously employed" the way that Mat. Leave people are. Well, they are - that is, when you take the Parental Leave, you are still considered employed and you get all the benefits associated with that.

A recent grievance in my workplace actually highlights just how 'continuously employed' people on mat/parental leave are. A woman on leave applied for an internal vacancy while on leave. The employer is required to consider internal apps before looking outside the workplace. They denied her the position because she was on leave and it was too inconvenient to them. We grieved that decision and they reversed their position. She was awared the promotion, even while she was on leave.

We had a kick-ass party to celebrate that little victory.

Actually, I have to say, we are a kick-ass union local. We have solidarity up the ying-yang and when our employer tries to push us, we push back together. We've been successful in all our actions because we're all willing to support one another, even when we're not all that chuffed about the 'choices' our union sisters and brothers make.

So, no one puts an infant in daycare in Ontario.

Not to pick nits, but some do. People with private practices who feel they must get back to them to maintain their careers (doctors, etc.) often do. People without top-ups who can't survive on the docked compensation do. People who just plain miss their jobs and want to work again do. People who weren't employed when they got pregnant and now need to work do.

But most people in Ontario take a year off. :)

On another note, I'm wondering if people who are so concerned about the future of SAHM's (and their children who have no positive role models--I find that concern a bit amusing for the irony) actually know any. Most of them have careers or interests they will get back to, or plans for them, at least part time, when the children go to school. (Just think about that one logically--no children at home, no SAHMing any more...) In which case the "what do you tell a 15 year old girl who wants to be a SAHM," or general concerns about ruining your life financially, etc. are pretty moot. Their friends who went back to work immediately will have made career progress they haven't had a chance to, and in the current climate, convincing employers your work is still relevant is a challenge, but these are risks SAHMs with eventual or suspended career plans take. And again, I would say most of them I know HAVE eventual or suspended career plans, and a bunch keep in touch with their professional contacts (the toe in the door).

There's nothing wrong with a risky career move. You just have to be convinced in your own mind that the potential gains are worth the risks to you. I mean, you wouldn't tell a woman who wanted to be an astronaut* to stay on the ground because she's risking her life, right? The SAHM knows she's taking a career hit. But she has a motivation that makes that hit seem worthwhile to HER. Maybe not to you, but to HER. So let's just stop acting like stay at home parents have decided to join a religious cult forsaking paid work for the rest of their lives when most are merely taking a break to be a full time Mom (or Dad) to small (non school age) children. Why is it that a woman who spends her twenties as a bohemian artist living on a shoestring and traveling the world without contributing to anyone's 401k is okay and part of her intellectual/spiritual/whatever development, and a woman who takes most of her 30's to be a mother isn't? The second woman still has a good 20 years+ of work ahead of her (and in many cases, 10+years of education and/or career behind her)! Is she at a disadvantage entering the workplace again pushing 40? Sure! But there are advantages SHE chose to spending her 30's doing what she wanted to do.

Go ahead and mention the homeschooling SAHM if you must, but I'd be very surprised to find they were anywhere near a significant statistical percentage, and regardless, they have their own values they make their decisions with that would NOT be swayed by all the book recommendations in the world...because they have their own ideas. Imagine that.

*and actually, the astronaut metaphor is relevant in another way, too. It's a dangerous job, but it's not like other people involved don't try to ensure their safety anyway. So when a study comes out saying SAHM's are unhappy, do we say "well, you knew you might burst into flames when you took that road, didn't you? Told ya so!" or do we encourage those involved to look at the dangers of their occupational choice, and figure out how to avoid them (but not change their occupational choice!) Get it? Astronauts do not want to BE bankers. They want to be astronauts.)

typo:

not: "most of her 30's to be a mother"

but

"most of her 30s to be a stay at home mother"

Don't get all freudian on me now. I think my previous posts are pretty clear that my opinion of working mothers is high. ;)

A man is not a financial plan. I'll say it again.

Someone wrote: "Why must someone with children also be expected to work if the family can afford it, and it not their choice?"

Ok, this is not about expectation, so don't get defensive. But I hear that fear of ripping a mother away from the house. I'll say that you ought to have that stone cold conversation about what if the husband didn't die, yet could work or couldn't find work.

I know, I know, it doesn't happen. I know a lot of high technology people that thought it would never happen to them, then it took over a year for the guy to find a job for less money.

Again. A man is not a financial plan.

I doubt you'd listen to me, but perhaps you'd listen to the authors I referenced. It's about being jointly responsible for a household.

This guy talked about life insurance but avoided talking about lay off and disability. Life insurance only covers a death, and then, not all that well sometimes. If mothers are not ready to get immediately into a profession that can minimally support their family, they are not planning like an adult.

A woman ought to look at the responsibility of being the bread winner. If they have no skills beyond minimum wage jobs, they are in trouble and probably in denial about what would happen to them if they had to get a job. I know, I know, it'll never happen to you. But I can say that the additional security may be one reason why working mothers are happy.

Take a look at the books I referenced.

One author discussed having a 15 year view of life. A woman is more than a mother of young children.

He also avoided talking about additional fulfillment women can have on the job.

So Betty, according to your logic, presuming bad things can happen to women and women's jobs too, a single (working) woman should not have a child at all. After all, she has no one to be "jointly reponsible", and thus isn't "planning like an adult." What if something tragic happens to her or her job, after all?

So, our jobs and working capacities being equally limited to that of husbands/men, we aren't even really be our *own* financial plan unless we have someone ELSE's financial plan to *back us up* in case of injury or untimely death. Interesting.

"Do you owe a coworker who has a household of 10 or 15, which has a greater chance of emergency than your household, coverage at work upon demand?"

Unless my coworker was a complete ass, of course I would do my best to cover for a coworker with that large a household, same as I'd do for anyone else. I may even entertain the idea that they would naturally be unable to return the favor. Just like I told you I did my best at my previous teaching job to cover for my almost 100% single coworkers who SOMETIMES called in sick under false pretenses to have fun or look for better work. Nurses work shifts including nights, weekends, and holidays, 24/7 by the way. Nurses might get called in to work Christmas and Christmas Eve days and nights, and that's the way it has to be. Even Wal-Mart and Kmart workers have *some* holidays. And I feel fortunate not to be penalized at my old job for saying no, even if I was the only option, and thus the company lost money directly because of my refusal.

Ontario sounds great. Too bad about the state maximum of $413/week. I thought the benefit applied to high incomes, too. And I forget exactly which country allowed a woman two years leave (though not compensated the entire time, if I recall), and required a father to take one year leave. They could also return to their old jobs. I could have sworn it was Finland, but a search reveals it is not.

"There's nothing wrong with a risky career move. You just have to be convinced in your own mind that the potential gains are worth the risks to you."

I sure as hell thought so. Hometown with family relations and hometown connections, high demand, government service with benefits, job security, and a higher salary than I had before. Well it didn't work out that way, and I didn't expect the average price of housing to continue to increase 25-50% EACH FRICKIN' YEAR. Hawaii is certainly not high income by any means. $20 million homes are not for hotel workers or civil servants.

Sidenote: the wealthiest full time member of the community is billionaire Steve Case, cofounder of AOL. He is a major landowner (at least around 40,000 acres), and a major developer. Low income housing does not appear to be a priority. Doesn't even build us slums or ghettos, and neither does state or local government.

About my SIL: She is fully independent, has independently wealthy parents with their own attorney, and her *entire* family living close by to offer emotional support and "free" childcare. She does not "need" my brother to support her*, and there is no reason for her to fear or be intimidated by him, so I trust her dropping any charges against him to be genuine. She is a very nice person, who still has love for the family. She has allowed attorneys to negotiate terms instead of taking my brother through an ugly court battle, and allows her dad to supervise almost daily visits from my brother after work. I really appreciate that. I just hope the baby will someday be allowed to travel interisland for family gatherings.

*Quite frankly, I believe this was part of the problem. My brother insists the decision for him to be a stay at home dad was mutual.

"according to your logic, presuming bad things can happen to women and women's jobs too, a single (working) woman should not have a child at all."

I appreciate hearing about Norway, at one time considered by the UN to be the best nation to live in (now #2, boo hoo), with benefits so generous that women allegedly do not "need" men, and the birthrate out of wedlock is a full 50%, which causes even government officials some concern. Wikipedia claims:

"Norway was ranked highest of all countries in human development from 2001 to 2006. It also rated the most peaceful country in the world in a 2007 survey by Global Peace Index."

"Norway is currently the second most highly ranked nation in the UN Human Development Index, an index made up by literacy rate, education level and per capita income, though it had been the highest on the list for the six years between 2001 and 2006."

Women in parliament composed at least 40%, I believe.

Equality seems to be a real practice there. However,

"Amnesty International has recently focused on violence against women in Norway and a shortage of public services to victims of violence."

And the people who live in a reduced world where the choice is a cashier's job vs motherhood or work at night while your spouse works at day and so forth..if these look awful to you and the only alternatives, your view is limited.

No, it's not your view that's limited...it's your options that are. I just love when the privileged act as if everyone enjoys equal access to education and opportunities. They do not.

Perhaps instead of believing that they live in a "reduced world" you can come to grips with the fact that you live in an "enhanced" one. The "bootstraps" fallacy, while providing a convenient explanation for your own success and simultaneously the failure of others is completely blind to the reality that poor people (especially people of color) face in this country. I live in an area with failing schools, little economic opportunity and limited resources. These kids are not being prepared for college, they are consistently faced with violence and racism and even if they graduate, they are woefully unprepared to participate in a changing global economy. But you know what? They still fall in love, have sex, make babies, and deeply value their families...and then they work like hell, day and night to keep it afloat. Sheesh, I guess that if it had just occurred to them to go to grad school they wouldn't be in this position. Dummys.

"No, it's not your view that's limited...it's your options that are. I just love when the privileged act as if everyone enjoys equal access to education and opportunities. They do not."

Thank you for reminding me.

What would feminism or egalitarian qualities look like in your community?

K, choice isn't between two extremes very far from one another. Frankly, if those people near to you in the failing schools and poor neighbors were to read what you wrote, they'd likely want to cut themselves. You really don't give them much hope. I can say that coming from poverty, it bites. But the real tragedy is with the people I came up with who just surrendered to any sort of planning in a philosophy that life stinks and it always will no matter what you do.

Choices for stay at home moms aren't between being a cashier or working nights while your spouse works days -- or -- or being a stay at home mom - so of course, a woman can't even think about it and shouldn't be asked to think about the possibility of getting a job or what would happen if she had to.

Women and men, though ought to get themselves schooled in finances and what it takes to run a household and what professions would likely pay enough and have benefits. Especially so if they plan to have kids and don't plan on moving to Canada or Norway (I'm kidding!)

Being a hopeless about people who are one paycheck from disaster is not useful.

And if you are a stay at home mom, and the only work skills you have is for minimum wage jobs, you ought to develop a plan to change that and to keep a toe in some sort of decently paying career. It's insurance.

And another thing that will piss you all off (and rightfully so): from the Broadsheet, talking about how women who stayed at home are going to lose in their pensions in Britian. In our country, SS is based on earnings and if you take time off from work or earn a meager salary, you'll get a meager SS benefit compared to others:

This means that 8 million British women have lost the chance to supplement their pension contributions so that they can receive a full pension when they retire -- or, to put it a different way, of the 12 million women over 45 who have paid contributions, seven out of 10 aren't eligible for full pensions because of time -- and payments -- missed when they took time off to care for children, the Mail reports.

Staying at home with my 1 and 3 year olds is really hard, no, trying, and sometimes, during a "mommy time out" while i stand in the bathroom and deep breathe while counting to 10 so i don't completely flip out, i think, wow, i'd be so much happier if i just went back to work. But I just can't bring myself to do it -- for me, raising my kids is too important a job to contract out. Oh, sure, staying home with an infant is easy peasy lemon squeesy. I smile to myself when I see the new moms at library and recall those months when baby is like a giant purse you can tote around. Now it is hard, no, trying, and there are moments when i think, will I make it to kindergarten without daycare? Can I do it?? Of course it is easier to go to work and of course one would feel happier outside of the home dealing with grown ups who might not even know you'd had children. Toddlers are so unreasonable, through no fault of their own, of course, but it is very trying to spend all day with them. Sure, I would be happier at work but I wouldn't trade my position for 7 figures. There is no one out there I would trust with my babies.

ok, that was a total stream of conscious, chalk that up to lack of society. What I mean to say is, no, it is not shocking working moms are happier than their non-working counterparts but isn't it a question of, or rather, shouldn't the question be )) What has happiness got to do with it§

Mainelykim,

:)

That wasn't stream of consciousness at all. I thought the same thing when I read the study. Some jobs you don't do because the everyday activities of them are bliss-inducing, some jobs you do because the *project* you're engaged in, and trying really hard at, inspires you. That drive is a kind of happiness, even if your days might not be described as wonderful all the time. Anyone with a tough job they believe in that is only occasionally rewarding directly can relate to this.

That's why my original point was if the everydayness of it all isn't so happy, maybe there are things that would help. Here in Ontario we have free drop-in centres that are a real boost to mothers at home that first year. They're funded by the government, and it's like day care except the mom (or Dad) is there playing and socializing with other moms or dads. You develop a social network that can sustain you through the harder times. These are the kinds of community supports that would really serve parents who make the choice to be with their children in the daytime. Why make them responsible for reinventing the wheel every time they give birth? Why pretend their problems don't exist? It's simple social planning, just like afterschool programs for teens, etc.

I can say from experience that there are enough Moms (and a few dads, sure...) involved with these centres that you avoid getting locked into those kinds of friendships where all you have in common is the kids. There are all kinds of women with children there, and you're bound to find friends that really do share your life goals/intersts...and happen to have children around the same age as yours, and you go through the ups and downs together. And at the very least, at least in a big city, you run into lots of people dying for some sophisticated conversation and a cup of coffee (the coffee is free, too.)

I am saddened, and I have to say a bit shocked, that self-proclaimed feminists are suggesting that the alternative to being a SAHM is having a "five month old stuck in a fucking crib while her care giver balances 8 other children to watch over." I am also saddend by statements like "There is no one out there I would trust with my babies." Don't your babies have dads (or another mom)? Would you not trust them to care for your kids? If you want to be home with your kids, that's fine, but if you'd rather be at work, there are a lot of creative solutions that allow you to combine working and parenting.

I personally have no problem with daycare (quality daycare, not the fucking crib kind), but my kids were never in it. Their dad worked a later shift and was home until I got off my teaching job at 3. I don't know which of our incomes was the "second income," but we never used it to buy the latest SUV. Instead, we made payments on a dented Nissan Sentra and a 1200 square foot house in which we raised our 3 kids.

If your partner's job won't "allow" this sort of flexibility, maybe s/he could get another job. If you are now a SAHM, you did. If you are happy with your choice, then stick with it, but cut the self-righteousness.

Pram, I think that's pretty unfair. Because you and your husband split the work, MainelyKim should too? What if she really hasn't met anyone who she's decided does as well with her children as she does (maybe not even her husband?) She should be pressured into finding someone, or her husband needs to find another job, to please...who, exactly?

I think you missed her point: she's not doing what makes her *happy* every day, she's doing what she feels is *right to her.* The alternatives to HER were not ideal. She has a life and specific situation that is not what yours was, and we don't know anything about it. I fail to see how it's self-righteous to acknowledge that part of that was a lack of acceptable alternatives. I would venture a significant percentage of SAHM's feel exactly the same way...that no one else has the connection to their children that they do. Note that K and others have said this realization was a big part of why they made the choice they did. That's why they tough it out through the difficulty. Why is it so hard to respect that conclusion for their *own* families? They are fortunate in that they CAN stay home when/if they decide this; some mothers decide it and have to work anyway...

Think about it...if disliking the alternative wasn't part of the reason she chose the road she did, then her choice makes no sense, because she just admitted it's not a life of bonbons. I guess your implication is that she didn't think through her choice enough, that she should have had the great idea of splitting the work with her husband or something else: in other words, she's a bit silly. Maybe she really isn't too bright. But this is hardly a feminist conclusion to come to so rashly, either. Talk about self-righteous.

If someone else finds care they feel %100 comfortable with, they're lucky. It's hardly a judgement of that person when someone else can't find anyone they feel works with their children as well as they do. It shouldn't be taboo to say so, or be branded as "self-righteous." It's hardly the slur that the "fucking crib" (which was dissected and apologized for) comment was. It's not even in the same ballpark.

That said, rereading the posts, when you say the job is "too important to contract out," Mainelykim, it's bound to be insulting to the people who choose or are forced to contract the job out. It's possible to think the job is extremely important and contract it out anyway.

I took it to mean, "too important to contract out to any of my available resources," but that's not really clear from what you said. So maybe some clarification would help there.

Sage, Some people actually "contract out" childcare not because they are forced, but because they think it's a good idea, which for them, it may be. I think the ideas in your second post are what I was responding to (not just from Mainelykim).

But focusing on her post, I object to comments like "of course working outside the home is easier." Having summers off, I got the SAHM experience for about a quarter of every year. To be honest, I would say the two are hard/easy in different ways. Staying home I got more sleep and had a lot more leisure time, Working I was more intellectually stimulated.

I never gave any thought to staying home as a "choice" not just because we needed both incomes, but because even if we didn't, I didn't think it would be fair to my husband to put that kind of financial responsibility on him alone, and we wanted the kids to have two parents who really knew the job.

Juggling two jobs in a way where you are both putting the kids first was not easy for us. Maybe for Mainelykim, that would be easier than her job, but that's her experience. She made it sound like it was a universal truth,

Mostly I'm still completely exasperated by the idea that the two choices in raising kids are giving up all aspects of employment to raise children singlehandedly or to "contact them out" to an overworked daycare provider who leaves them in a crib all day so that you can earn a seven figure salary and have an SUV. Maybe I didn't make it clear, but that was what I meant to be the thrust of my comment--that there are many paths, but it seems so many people--not just Breeder and Mainely kim, see only two. I didn't intend to be self righteous about my own choices/solutions, just to provide and example of "third way" thinking.

Hi Pram,

I did say "choose" or "forced to." By "choose" I meant, of course, those who know it's a good idea for them.

The reason things may seem so one-or-the-other is that this is what the original post and study was about. Women who work in some capacity vs. those who don't. The "third way" is understood, but according to the study, those people would be included in the happy "at least part time work" group.

So the question was, why are workers happy, and why aren't stay at home people happy (after some discussion of whether the study mattered, of course). So both sides talked about happiness of either working or staying at home, or motivations that aren't necessarily happiness. Of course there are lots of choices, but this was just what the article was about: the lives of those who work vs. those who don't at all.

Right you are. I do think making any family based decision solely on personal happiness is a luxury few of us have.

"The lady working at a church as a secretary is likely opted out of contributing to social security, so her return on it will be dismal on her retirement. Also, I wonder if she has full health and life insurance which is even more important with kids."

Hah. Okay, that'd be me. I'm not American, and therefore not involved in the Social Security system at all.

Health care benefits? Nope. But I'm Canadian, and that's not as big an issue as it might otherwise be. I do joke that I have great benefits: if I get sick, they'll pray for me. ;)

What really pisses me off is that I have to pay into Employment Insurance, but because I only work 12 hours per week, I can never qualify to collect it, regardless if I work there for 10 years. Seriously unfair.