"Having it all sucks" (sucking, clothes, diapers, grandfather)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ironically that is the only line I 100% don't agree with. With careful planning, committed partners and so on it is by no means a forgone conclusion that anything wil suffer, especially not our daughter. My husband and I carefully chose jobs, schools, and living situations where we were both able to work without anything suffering. You know, priorities.
The notion that fathers are some how capable of working and not have their relationship with their children suffer and mothers are inherently not is the most sexist BS of all time.
Please elaborate on "careful planning" and "suffering".
As for the "sexist" thing, sure, mom wants to work and the father wants to hang out with the the kid(s) and not work? Nothing wrong with that in my book, better than a kid having 2 parents working in my view. But science has other views:
In the end, as parents, I believe we have kids to want to spend as much time with them after all and do the proper job of raising them.
Regardless, you apparently have your priorities and work/the money you earn from it and the things it buys is a major priority for the both of you. Exactly what I was referring to in my earlier post.....priorities.
on the other hand I don't feel too sorry for the author because it doesn't sound like she NEEDS to work financially, just that she chooses to. And trying to work from home right after giving birth, with a three year old, and again without HAVING TO just to put food on the table is insanity in my view. No amount of extra money would make it worthwhile for me to put myself through that but that's just me. And if I chose to for the sake of keeping a career, I would say screw the money and hire a nanny/housekeeper to help even if it meant spending most of my paycheck. The SUVs and vacations aren't worth your sanity and health.
AMEN to this ^^^
the rep fairy has frozen my wand for now, but I will come back when it is freed again.....
The author talks about taking only one day off for childbirth.... I can not help but think that that was HER choice.... I am sure her podcast/radio show/column/whatever, would have been just fine with a few weeks downtime or substitute host(s).....
I am 55 and childfree by choice, but her essay did strike me as whiney.... I GET that babies and toddlers are a HUGE amount of work.... anyone with half a brain knows that.... if she chose to have these children, she can also choose to cut back on her work or bring in help or not keep her husband's business afloat.... HE can choose to find a job with a reliable paycheck until the children are a little older and less demanding....
I think it is silly that an adult woman could translate "having it all" as "having it all without any real cost", i.e., it should be a right to having it all without any real sacrifice.
Anyway, I never thought "having it all" meant anything besides having choices about how I want live. I personally think I have it all. Right now, I can honestly say that I am living the life that I want. Sure things aren't perfect but who really strives for a perfect life?
I've always heard we can have it all but just not at the same time. You do something first then you work in something else. Some women have kids early and then have a career and some do the opposite. And some decide not to have either one and do just fine.
You know, I agree with a lot of the criticism of the article. But there are still a few valid points. I find that the burden for unexpected events such as having to leave work to go get a sick kid, having to stay home unexpectedly for a snow day, etc... generally falls to the woman. It is me who 95% of the time has to scramble to reschedule clients when something like this happens. When I point that out to DH, his argument is that the person who makes less money (me) should have to defer to the one who makes more (him). Especially since we're both self-employed and are not paid when we don't work (billable time). I guess that makes sense, but it can be very irritating at times.
Please elaborate on "careful planning" and "suffering".
As for the "sexist" thing, sure, mom wants to work and the father wants to hang out with the the kid(s) and not work? Nothing wrong with that in my book, better than a kid having 2 parents working in my view. But science has other views:
In the end, as parents, I believe we have kids to want to spend as much time with them after all and do the proper job of raising them.
Regardless, you apparently have your priorities and work/the money you earn from it and the things it buys is a major priority for the both of you. Exactly what I was referring to in my earlier post.....priorities.
Ok, careful planning. We organized our schedules so that our daughter was not in day care for more than 3 hours a day. When she was school aged, we again rearranged our schedules so that one of us was home until after she left for the day, and the other was there when she got home. We deliberately choose careers and positions that made this possible.
Suffering, our daughter is now about to graduate and getting read for grad school. She had both the material and emotional advantages of working parents and those who were home when she was.
Yes, we live a comfortable lifestyle. So does our daughter. How exactly did she suffer from having parents who both worked, if one of us was always home with her?
BTW, parents magazine is not exactly a science source. So let this scientist, provide you with a few meta analyses.
Hayes, Cheryl D., and Sheila B. Kamerman. Children of Working Parents: Experiences and Outcomes. National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20418, 1983.
"The general conclusion is that parental employment is not a uniform condition with consistent effects on all children in all families. Income, race, and family structure as well as the special characteristics of the child and the supportive services available to the family seem to be far more important than whether their mothers work in determining how children develop. "
And the most recent meta analyses of over 69 studies:
Lucas-Thompson, Rachel G., Wendy A. Goldberg, and JoAnn Prause. "Maternal work early in the lives of children and its distal associations with achievement and behavior problems: a meta-analysis." Psychological bulletin 136.6 (2010): 915.
Found in part, for children without learning or emotional disabilities " Employment was associated with higher achievement and fewer internalizing behaviors.....Maternal employment during Years 2 and 3 was associated with higher achievement"
Ok, careful planning. We organized our schedules so that our daughter was not in day care for more than 3 hours a day. When she was school aged, we again rearranged our schedules so that one of us was home until after she left for the day, and the other was there when she got home. We deliberately choose careers and positions that made this possible.
Suffering, our daughter is now about to graduate and getting read for grad school. She had both the material and emotional advantages of working parents and those who were home when she was.
Yes, we live a comfortable lifestyle. So does our daughter. How exactly did she suffer from having parents who both worked, if one of us was always home with her?
BTW, parents magazine is not exactly a science source. So let this scientist, provide you with a few meta analyses.
Hayes, Cheryl D., and Sheila B. Kamerman. Children of Working Parents: Experiences and Outcomes. National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20418, 1983.
"The general conclusion is that parental employment is not a uniform condition with consistent effects on all children in all families. Income, race, and family structure as well as the special characteristics of the child and the supportive services available to the family seem to be far more important than whether their mothers work in determining how children develop. "
And the most recent meta analyses of over 69 studies:
Lucas-Thompson, Rachel G., Wendy A. Goldberg, and JoAnn Prause. "Maternal work early in the lives of children and its distal associations with achievement and behavior problems: a meta-analysis." Psychological bulletin 136.6 (2010): 915.
Found in part, for children without learning or emotional disabilities " Employment was associated with higher achievement and fewer internalizing behaviors.....Maternal employment during Years 2 and 3 was associated with higher achievement"
Good for you, so you did provide for a parent to be their all/most of the time for your daughter. Most working parents I know don't do such a thing.....the kids spend most of their time in daycare, at their grandparents, etc. The "parents" are anything but except in name.
As for the article I referenced, it did indeed discuss science/study information so just because it's from a source that isn't traditionally a scientific news source is non-sequitur. One can search away for the source study if they want more details.
As for the meta analysis, not knowing the specifics of the studies/how they were conducted, here's something that hints that many of these "studies" have some major holes in them:
And isn't it common sense that the more time parents spend with kids, assuming they are fit/stable parents, is a good/positive things vs spending very little time with them? I don't think we need countless "studies" and analysis of combining multiple studies(meta) to tell us this.
Please elaborate on "careful planning" and "suffering".
As for the "sexist" thing, sure, mom wants to work and the father wants to hang out with the the kid(s) and not work? Nothing wrong with that in my book, better than a kid having 2 parents working in my view. But science has other views:
In the end, as parents, I believe we have kids to want to spend as much time with them after all and do the proper job of raising them.
Regardless, you apparently have your priorities and work/the money you earn from it and the things it buys is a major priority for the both of you. Exactly what I was referring to in my earlier post.....priorities.
Yup, priorities absolutely. My husband and I did some research, some thinking, and some calculating, when I was first pregnant. The choices were me stay at home and cuddle my kids as babies, pretty much get locked out of returning to my hi-tech career in any substantial fashion, and sacrifice their quality of education. Versus I stay at work, someone else cuddles my kid for 8 hours a day when they are babies (according to research, outcomes are the same for babies as long as they have a stable set of caregivers, it doesn't have to be all mom all the time), and then when they are older we can now afford a better school district/private school, tutoring, piano lessons, test prep, summer camp, talent searches, travel to a foreign country to learn a language, college savings, retirement savings so that our kids don't have to support us later, etc.
So I worked. I would have much rather cuddled my kids more as babies. I would LOVE to be at home right now with my preschooler. And believe you me it HURTS not to be. But I sacrificed all that for the long term goal of providing them a better education and preparation for adulthood and careers of their own.
Wow did this thread spiral into the older generation bashing the younger one. Oy vey. Look someone in a blog giving their experience is kind of just that. No more no less. Somethings are much easier about being a mom today, some are much harder. It's too easy and meaningless to look at something that could be improved and just tell them to suck it up.
There are real issues that blog touches upon that need to be addressed, the one that jumps out at me is having real federal PAID family leave. The family, in all its wondrous forms, is the base until of society. It is in every member of that societies best interest to have the family unit function as best as possible. Paid family leave supports that.
As for young moms, good luck. It's a wild ride. Hold on (lean in) and good luck. Most kids turn out ok. Even when their moms pee their pants occasionally.
Seriously? PAID family leave is taking from other workers and keeping it for your family, because of a choice YOU made. If "the family" is the base of society, and it's in society's best interest to have the family unit function well, then THAT FAMILY needs to make it happen. Whatever it takes.
How dare you get paid for a choice you made, when others (men, childless women) have to pick up your slack AND don't get that leave. You want family leave, then you need to sacrifice somewhere else - higher taxes, cut in overall pay, something. I already pay for your kid to attend school, and now you want MORE?
Just an fyi - this whole "good for society" thing is NOT the American way. Here, we celebrate the individual, not the collective. And we have a right to protect our property, which in this case is being taken by force to give to someone else.
I don't really think this discussion is about stay at home parents vs working parents at all. It's about whether or not we should whine about the choices we've made.
If this woman was writing an article about changing public policy and how she was working toward making a difference in her company's maternity leave policy or even on a government level, I'd respect her opinion. But mostly she's just complaining about society's expectations of her. Which is silly because she's a grownup and makes her own choices.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
