Work and a family

[Matt Deckard]

I saw this article on MSN the other day and think it is true. I have many female friends right now who were told all through their lives that they could have a family and have a corporate career only to be shut out of having a family because they can't let go of the career.

http://women.msn.com/1250831.armx?GT1=6785

What do you think. Has has the modern working woman been left without a family?

Can you have both?

Was The golden era way better by divying up the responsabilities having one at home and one at work (hard to do with today's cost of living)?

 

[ITG]

I can say that as being a teacher, I have noticed a difference in kids who mom's work versus those whose mom's stay at home. The ones who have mom's that stay home seem to do better in school, be more organized, get along better with other kids, and be more respectful. Please understand, this is not in the case with all kids who have stay at home moms but it seems to be the case in the majority of the situations I've seen.

For me, I know that when I have kids one day, I'd like to be able to stay at home to raise the them (traditional gender role). Raising kids and having a job are 2 full time jobs and I'm not a good multi-tasker. I know I don't want to ignore my kids or be too stressed out or tired from work to give any time to them. I also realize that it's possible I may have to work for income purposes depending on what the financial situation is and staying at home may not be an option one day, but if I had a choice I'd rather raise my kids than having a day care do it. Any one built a time travel machine yet?

 

[elsewhere]

Excellent topic, Matt.

This was something we were very concerned about.

Granted... I didn't have much in the way of a "career" to give up, and other factors were involved.
I was a bartender for many years, but I have bad knees which have only gotten worse over time. Soon after my new-husband and I moved in together with his young daughter (now 7) we decided that I would stop bartending and be home for our little gal. That was almost 3 years ago.
I've sold vintage online part time since 1998... but I now work full time online and he goes out and earns the majority of the family bread.
This allows me to earn some money myself as well as keep her out of daycare as much as possible and to always be available to her. Plus, we're hoping to add one more to our family unit.

It's certainly not a possible choice for many (most?), and I would never look down on someone who couldn't do it this way... but personally I DO think it's best for the children.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

I agree with the other two ladies and think that it is best if you can stay with your children to they are least in school. Also, the cost of childcare is often so high that in many cases, you end up working just to pay for daycare—it’s almost a total wash. Personally, I would prefer to stay home, if at all possible. And again, I wouldn't look down on any mother who had to work--but given the option, I think it's better in the long run if you do stay home.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

I keep my wife barefoot and pregnant. Any ambition she had I squashed a long time ago.



Just kidding of course. My wife is an intregal part of our business. She runs the administration and financial part and I run the operational part, and never the twain shall meet. It works out perfectly for our personality types.

We decided go into a privately owned and operated business, #1 so she could devote most of the day to homemaking and child rearing ,and B because neither of like working for other people.

 

[sandysot]

It may not take a village but I am sure that it takes two fulltime parents to obtain credible results in raising a family.I was raised by a single parent and am keenly aware of the problems it creates for kids

The Modern and the Golden Era each had its advantages and disadvantages.One primary advantage of the golden era was the extended family that watched the children 24/7. Here I include the aunts auncles,grandparents and neighbors who related any deviation from normal integrated social behavior.I could travel miles from home, do something bad and before I got home everyone in the family knew of it.I include strangers who werent afraid to give me a swift kick in the butt when needed.

The modern era has fast food, lawn,housekeeping and other services which allow parents to concentrate on more productive avenues of career and child rearing.But both eras require two parents.Kids being raised by single parents are at a disadvantage.so, I am saying that a wife can have a career, but she needs a good husband to accomplish career and home.

 

[Angelicious]

While I think that 2 parent families plus extended family help is the ideal way to raise kids, I have to admit that I'm kind of reluctant to give up my freedom in a hurry - I'll actually be financially worse off with a working partner than I am by myself. Maybe if the right guy comes along...

I'd love to be in a position to be able to choose to work part-time or from home while my husband worked... Still get out and about, but be home when my daughter left for and came home from school.

It's unfortunate that right now there isn't a lot of choice for most people. Financially, few can afford to live on a single income. Socially and politically, there's still a lot of pressure on women to work. I don't really understand politicians who complain about kids who lack basic social skills and basic achievements, and then complain about "scummy beneficiaries leaching off the state" and "the lack of women in the workforce"; governments who then turn around and undermine the kids by effectively denying them the people who should be teaching them those basic skills and achievements because the parents, aunts & uncles are all at work and the grandparents are in nursing homes or retirement villages. Maybe that's worse in NZ than elsewhere though.

Still, it's easy to glorify home-making in the Golden Era... My grandmothers both worked full time at various points. The work was hard - NZ appears to be almost a generation behind the US in technological terms (an American friend of mine was aghast to learn I have a washline, no dryer, and no dishwasher, although I'm sure it's not that uncommon over there), so I still recall, or have stories of, working appliance-free. When my mother was young they still did the washing in a copper, and it took all day. There's been months at a time in the past where we had no washing machine and had to do all the laundry by hand - that ain't fun, I can tell you! (And yes, Biltmore Bob, I walked to school uphill, both ways. )

How did this post get so long?

 

[Wild Root]

Well, this is indeed an interesting topic. I shall toss my two farthings on the table of discussion.

I was raised by two parents. My father went to work and my mother stayed home. She gave up her office job with Crocker Bank when she became pregnant with me.

She was there to help and I feel that I’m a better person because of it. My brother and I saw our father when he came home every afternoon and well that was good.

The ideal family life is to have a male bread winner and a wife at home tending to the kids and such. But, that don’t mean that the male doesn’t help pitch in with some of the help and responsibilities around the place. It wasn’t always a bed of roses in the golden era! In the depression it was very hard to raise a family! Most that started families were broke and didn’t have much to offer but hard work. Even kids were working to help support the family! As things got better financially well, wouldn’t you know it but, a world war was just around the corner! So, many men who had families were sent off to war and all young prospective fathers went with them. The war was a hard time to raise a family too. With mostly women and 4F men at home things were a little different. In most families that the father had to tend to his country’s duty, the homemakers were busy knocking out B-17’s and Sherman’s for Uncle Sam.

It wasn’t till just after the war that the family unit was idealized as we often think of it today. Thus, we call that generation the baby boom. It is so easy to watch Leave It To Beaver and think: Gee, their so perfect and that’s how I want my family to be. Well, it’s awfully easy to think that 50 years ago things were that way. Well, they were that way only on TV and in Better Homes and Gardens. Oh, don’t get me wrong, there were families that were much like the Cleavers but, they had their ups and downs too.

The main ingredients to a happy marriage and family are often questioned. It is often on my mind to how I would be able to support a family! The way things are now days it’s so hard for an average Joe to make the doe for a wife and kids. Especially in this crazy state! I have seen many start families over here and most of the young newlyweds both work. Some times the husband is still going to school, working and raising children! The wife is working and also raising the kids. In most cases there are grand parents or other relatives that offer a hand wile the folks are working. I don’t believe in daycare in any way shape of form. They can’t possibly give your kids the nurturing they need. So, it’s better to have lost of family around to help out.

For me it’s a very scary world out there but, if you have the right tools and know how any thing is possible! You don’t need a million to raise a happy family, but it wouldn’t hurt. To survive you need to fight! Fight hard and never give up for what you truly desire in life.

All the best,

Root.

Now a photo of a golden era family. Just look at the parents, they have a look in their eyes that tell a million stories. But, in the long run, it was all worth it!

 

[jamespowers]

Gee Root, I don't think I want quite that many kids.
You also bring up a good point that closes the loop on a previous message. I don't like day care or rest homes for that matter. Both are just warehouses for the inconvenient. I can actually see more need for the rest homes though. There is a point at which a person just cannot remain at home and adequately be cared for by the family. I experienced this first hand not but a few weeks ago. My 93 year old grandmother had a massive stroke that left her completely incapacitiated. No more walking and not much coherent speech. She can not even swallow so there is a feeding tube needed. This along with special beds, equipment, constant care and other things that are too detailed for this answer. My point is that there is a need for that kind of care.
Children need a different kind of care. They are never static. They move, eat, sleep and need a parent to teach them what it is to be a human being and part of a family. A relative gives a child a greater understanding of his background and how he fits in. Daycare gives an amorphous sense of self that is not specific and tailored to the individual. They also cannot give the attention needed to every single child as intently as a mother could. It is just the way it is.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Wild Root]

No JP, I don't want that many kids as well. But, it sure is a great photo!

I have talked to youngsters who have gone to day care and they feel abandoned for the most part. They grow up with a feeling that they're not as important as a Job. And well, they some times understand that it has to be done to have food, clothes and a roof, it still is a bad deal. Single mothers have to resort to day cares because if she didn't work then what? But there in most ways there are alternatives. Family is always a good way to go but some times extended family is not something you can always trust. My family is great! I'm very lucky to have a family I can trust. But, not every one is so fortunate.

Convalescent homes can be good for those who can not take care fo them selfs. I have done volunteer work in a few of them wile in Canada and I have met some people that were still able to take care of them selves. It's sad that they're kids just threw them in there because they didn't want to hassle with them. It is so sad!

Any way, that's my buck’s worth.

Root.

 

[jamespowers]

Convalescent homes can be good for those who can not take care fo themselves. I have done volunteer work in a few of them while in Canada and I have met some people that were still able to take care of themselves. It's sad that they're kids just threw them in there because they didn't want to hassle with them. It is so sad!

I see them in there everytime I go see my grandmother as well. There are people there that could be at home with a minimal amount of help. They can get around and think clearly. It is just a shame. I wonder what kind of people kick them out of their homes in their twilight years to spend the rest of their days there when they could be at home until a real crisis hits. It is sad indeed.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Wild Root]

It is sad isn't it!

Life is very unfare some times and well, we can only do our best.

Root.

 

[shamus]

On the same thread but another spool.

I was raised by two parents up until it was fashionalble to get a divorce. But I mostly grew up in an Amish community where their view on children is probably much like that of the "golden age".

Amish have for the most part a lot of kids. 12 is very common. So what is an amish mother to do? Well she cares for the youngest. As the other get older they care for the younger ones. When there's a new one, off he goes to the oldest for care.

Amish parents pretty much let their kids go wild till about 8-9 then it's off to work. Much like the "golden age" when it wasn't uncommon for 9 year olds to be working. My grandfather talks about driving a model T on a cattle drive when he was 9.

 

[Wild Root]

Good points there friend! It's good to hear another story from a different culture.

Root.

 

[Feraud]

Leave it to Matt to start great conversational threads.
Here are a few more cents to the pot...

In an ideal world children should have a mother and a father. When was the world really ideal?...The things that make us healthy and happy are given to us from having both moms and dads involved in our lives. Sadly the parents do not always stay together but that is a different topic.
The days of 'mom raising the kids and dad as a breadwinner' was an unfortunate proposition to both parents! It took too much away from the father figure from being involved in their childrens lives and put too much burden on the wife to manage everything for the household. Remember the saying, "man works from sun to sun, but a woman's work is never done"?

Rather than skewing this conversation to focus on a 'for' or 'against' women working, we should discuss the necessity of both parents to be involved in their childrens lives. Let us not assume a "stay at home mom" will by default raise wonderful children. There are too many examples of married couples who do not raise healthy, happy children for this to be a recipie for success.

As Matt's article outlined, women have obstacles against them in the pursuit of a successful career and/or family. I think some women today have the most opportunites for success(family or work) yet can be the most conflicted. They work outside and inside the home. They are expected to be traditional yet want to use their brains. Women want families but can be compelled by economics to have to work.

I guess I am lucky to be just a 'regular joe'...

 

[Angelicious]

I think it's too easy to generalise as "male = breadwinner, female = nurturer". The most nurturing parent should stay home, and the one with the most qualifications/best salary/most enjoyable job should work, regardless of gender. I'd go stir crazy stuck at home all the time, and so, for that matter, would my daughter! She asks to go to daycare on weekends!

I agree that childcare shouldn't be a dumping ground. But at the same time, the parenting "instinct" doesn't just switch on when the baby arrives. I am not a teacher, and there are many skills I am just not equipped to teach to my daughter. Also, I am a human being, not a machine. I'm not personally equipped to be mother, teacher, nanny, and entertainment complex all at once, 24-7. I need a break sometimes... I believe that there is nothing wrong with good, quality, early childhood education (at least for kids 2 & over, babies should still be at home where possible), as long as it's balanced with a supportive, warm, & secure home life.

Firstly, a lot of people now just don't have that extended family to call on, either to learn parenting skills from, or for practical help. People are having fewer kids, so there are fewer aunts or uncles to call on. Parents of the current new-parent generation often don't retire at 65; they're still working to pay bills! And families are often wider scattered now that travel is easier. Personally, my mother is 4 hours' rough drive away, and the rest of my family are in Australia and Scotland.

My mother worked part time when I was small, and I was in home-based daycare and then kindergarten (starts at 3 years here, & start full-day school at 5 yrs). I don't see that it's scarred me in any way...

 

[Phil_in_CS]

We have a 3 1/2 year old at home, and my wife quit her job to stay home with her.
Its very difficult from a number of areas. Obviously, our income took a bit hit right as expenses went up. We were aware of many of these issues before hand, since we had our child rather late, we had time to observe others. There really is quite a war going on between the women who work and have the kids in day care, the women who stay home with the kids, and the women who forego kids to further their career. Since we live in a college town, its all the more apparent; we have many friends who are professors, or other professionals who struggle with this. Each side in the war has its own reasons and rationalizations, trying to justify their actions. Unfortunately, this can often be expressed harshly to people who make other decisions about what is right.

My mom worked; I had family day care (a great aunt) before I started pre-school. I don't see myself as scared by that, but I can really see the differences in groups of 3 and 4 year olds of those who are in day care and those who are at home. The day care kids are much more aggressive, competing for attention and toys, than the kids who stay home.

When my wife left her job, I wasn't sure it was the right choice. We were deciding to forgo some of the nicer things in life (vacations, newer cars, etc) in order to put the labor that earned that money into the child. My wife wasn't previously a "nurturer type", but she's done a fabulous job. She's had to learn how, her mom wasn't very good to her and her sisters. But she's done it, and when I see how well my daughter is doing at 3 1/2 (reading at a 1st grade level, social skills at a 2nd grade level, math at 1st grade, violin, etc) I'm sure we've made the right choice.

On the other hand, we don't have the funds to travel like we used to; we won't take her to Europe. Most things that aren't day trips are too pricey. I'm not the only person in the family getting "pre-owned" clothes, and its not because she wants a vintage look. AC's been out in one of our cars, and if you don't know how bad that is you haven't spent a summer in central Texas. It was 83 at 6:30 this morning....

Its all a struggle, a matter of deciding what is important and setting your priorities.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I've seen both sides of this question...

My parents worked together in the family biz (commercial photography). When my sister and I were very little, we had one of our grandmothers living with us to aid with childcare (but by the time we were both in school full time, she had developed Alzheimer's and was institutionalized.) Throughout my youth, my mom would leave the studio early - around 4:00 - so she could shop and get home in time to make dinner. (Once I was old enough to help out, I worked in the studio too, and sometimes I went home with her, but more often I'd stay until 5:30 or 6:00 with my dad, depending on the workload.)

So, my mom was working mom even way back in the early 60s. True, it was in a mom and pop business, and she had major flexibility, and only a 10-minute commute. But she was no traditional stay-at-home mom. (But she had never been traditional - after all, she was a sergeant in the Marines in WWII!) My sister and I got plenty of attention...

When my own kids were born (starting in 1990), we made the unconventional (and financially disastrous) choice of letting my wife quit working to be a stay-at-home mom. She didn't go back to work even part-time until our second child was in first grade. There is *no doubt* in my mind that having their mom around all the time through their early childhood was instrumental in helping my kids become confident, well-adjusted, and good students. It was a gift to them, and to her (and, indirectly, to myself). But...

The stresses eventually tore my marriage apart. We ended up in tens of thousands of dollars of credit-card debt, and the doing-all-the-child-care-ourselves-with-virtually-no-help combined with the financial strain (along with long-simmering "compatability issues", etc.) was too much for us. Despite having wonderful kids, we were beaten down, and shortly after our daughter turned 7 we separated and divorced...

But that's all five years ago now, and we've all come through fine. And I don't for a moment regret the decision to have her take care of the kids...

 

[LaMedicine]

I've been at this game for close to 30 years now, and you can't say one way or the other in one fell swoop's for sure.

Breadwinner=male, nuturer=female, sure. What are you going to do with nurses for one, who are highly qualified professionals, and traditionally a female, though we are seeing more male nurses these days? The best nurses I've known were almost invariably wonderful moms/housewives, too, and I think that being a good mom/housewife factored in to their being great nurses.

What's important is for the females to have a choice and be allowed to make that choice without fear of being criticized/ostracized.
The male/female ratio is almost 50/50 but not quite, with the female slightly higher in most developed nations, and while there are some jobs that are better fit for one gender or another, there are a lot of jobs that would benefit everyone by a ratio closer to the actual population to my thinking. Teachers for one. Doctors for another, if you ask me. I sometimes get sick and tired of my male colleagues who don't give a **** what really is at the root of their female patient's complaints, and once they are all tied into knots by an un-understanding male, it sure is one **** of a job for us female counterparts to try to unravel everything and get them straightened out and on their way to a cure or acceptance and cooperation. Which could have been done easily with a patient and sympathetic ear from the very start and very efficient and less time consuming in the end.

As for children, what is most important is the quality of care and love that you give them. This necessarily does't translate into time, in fact, you can fool yourself that just because you're a stay-at-home mom, you're giving your kids quality care. Of course, you will need quantity--meaning time--as well, but how much depends on the needs of the individual kids -- and how they can vary!--and at what life stage they are, besides, the balance of their needs constantly change. It's more a matter of how well you can keep your antennae tuned to each child, and how well you can juggle things. Some women will be better at picking up the signals and juggling, others will find it harder. What each woman chooses is up to her, most certainly, because, since you need a partner who is full-well willing to cooperate, the choice of such a guy is up to the gal.
Since I've been always aware that my career demands a lot, I've always made the effort to spend quality time with my kids (I have 2 girls who now are in their mid 20s) whenever I was with them, whether at home, or out somewhere with my family. Now that my girls are grown, I think that I've done a good enough job, and I'm very good friends with them thankfully.

I have a career that is almost equal to 24/7 because there's always someone or another on my mind, and I've also been mom/housewife for close to 30 years and this also is a 24/7 job. But I don't think I've ever shortchanged anyone, at least consciously, because whoever is right in front of me is the person who has priority of my attention for that period of time. I love my work, and I believe I have done well for myself, and to be honest, my satisfaction with what I've been able to do on the job, as well as working hard to be a good mother to my daughters is fundamental to "who I am". If I lacked one or the other, I would not be the person I am now, and truth be told, I don't think that I'd have been able to function as a good mother if I didn't have my career, and likewise, I wouldn't have been able to function well as a caring doctor if I didn't have children/husband of my own whom I care about very much. Having a career meant for me that I had to define cleary what I needed to be a good mom for my kids, while if I had chosen to be a stay-at-home mom, I'd probably have ended up only vaguely defining what was necessary, thinking that I was spending enough time with them, and missing out on some important signals.
I don't mean that mom/housewiving is only fit to be a part-time job, though. I know it is a lot of hard work, because I do most of the housework, and there are a lot of short-cuts that I take, that I know are full-time jobs were I do apply serious work to them. It's just that, well, I'm good at some things but not as much with others, so what short-cuts I figure I can take, I do, and apply myself to something else instead. I very much admire the women who do full time mom/housework, it takes a lot of patience and hard work, to be sure. I just figure, I'm not made out of that kind of fiber, so I chose differently.
In that sense, I think Biltmore Bob's choice is an ideal that many would envy.

I took out a few years from my work when my girls were still babies, but even then, I spent two half-days a week (babysitters and my mom to the rescue) at the hospital I was on leave from, just keep my finger in the pie, so to speak, since it was easier to take time out to attend meetings and teaching conferences than to try to keep up by reading medical journals at home. It was better for concentration, and I didn't want to shortchange the girls by my doing work when I was home, when they would expect me to pay attention to them. Just before they turned 2, I managed to place them in public day care which was about a 5 minute walk from home. All the full time caretakers were qualified people with childcare licenses and/or kindergarden teacher licenses, (I don't know how the system works in the US, but here, you can't get these licenses unless you're graduates of accredited schools that require at least 2 years of schooling+on the spot training that's equivalent to the first 2 years of college in the least) plus a registered nurse and a licensed dietitian. Since the public day cares are basically locally oriented, my girls made friend with kids who lived in the same neighborhood, I got to know lots of moms in the area, and the kids also got to know/play with kids younger/older than themselves, and the older ones learned to care about the younger ones the way you learn to care about your siblings in a large family. There may have been some things they missed out by going to day care, but I figure they gained other experiences that they wouldn't have had, had they stayed home.

As for the MSN article, I was a bit surprised that things would be that way in the US, since a lot of women outside the US tend to think that career/family options are ideal for American women. Why, it's not much different from what the situation is here, I thought, while the US have women in far more influential positions than we do, what obstacles they have had to face, and still have to face, are pretty much the same as we do here.
I guess it means that we females still have to use our brains and muscle our way into this male oriented world. And stick together, of course.

P.S. Angelicious, I have a dryer and a dishwasher, but though I let the washing machine do the laundry, I prefer the washline, and I prefer to wash my dishes by hand, somehow, it all seems quicker and more efficient done that way. Also, good luck in everything you do, and I'm sure your precious girl will grow up a lovely lady with such a wonderful mom :clap

PPS Sorry this has gotten so dastardly long...

PPPS Gosh, Matt, your avatar is just GREAT!!

 

[Feraud]

My wife and I both work. When our son was young we needed a childcare facility. With some research we chose a Montessori center.
It was one of the best 'investments' we made in our young sons future. He was loved and educated by truly caring individuals.

He is polite, intelligent, active in our community(sports, Boy Scouts, altar boy) and an all around pleasure to call my son. All this at 11! I have no doubt he is going to grow up to be a fine citizen. If anyone were to meet him they could not deduce that he was somehow raised by 'strangers' in a pre-school setting.

I believe we cannot help but generalize in our opinions on how best to raise children and maintain a working career for a woman. Most of us see answers to life's questions and hope to find a pattern that what some do wrong and how we can avoid those pitfalls.

Regardless if a family is divorced, both parents working, mom staying at home, etc. the most important thing a child needs is the parents to be involved in their lives. 12 hours a day is not necessary but being proactive is.