I'm one of those women who doesn't want to "have it all".*
*depending on the definition of having it all, that is
The internets have been sort of abuzz about Anne-Marie Slaughter's article (uh, really it's more like book-length!) about how women can't have it all. She's a resident of New Jersey, but she took a job working for Hillary Clinton, which meant that during the week, she lived in Washington D.C. while her son and husband stayed in New Jersey. This started to wear on her, and after two years, she came back home to her old job so that she could be more involved in her son's life.
Some people are quite in agreement with her and others are quite put out with her for suggesting that having a high-powered career might interfere with parenting.
While I've never had a high-powered career, I have had a piano-teaching career for the last 20 years or so. It's gone from part-time to full-time to part-time, depending on my life circumstances (high-school student, college student, married without kids, and married with kids).
Piano teaching has been a great job for me...I love music, I like kids, I especially like relating to kids one-on-one, I like to help kids learn to love music, I can teach at home, the moms of my students have watched my kids for me, and I can make my own schedule.
I've always felt like teaching piano lessons has been a job that's more than just a paycheck, and that's something a lot of people don't have.
However, as my kids grew and more and more of them reached school-age (I homeschooled all four of them this past school year), piano teaching became harder and harder for me.
So, last spring, I cut down my teaching schedule pretty drastically and kept just a few students. That helped, to be sure, but midway through this past school year, I decided that I needed to stop teaching altogether.
It wasn't an easy decision, to say the least, but I really felt like it was the right thing to do. Teaching even the smaller number of students I had was making it tough to get school done with my children. I'm pretty efficient, but I just could not seem to make this piano teaching/homeschooling thing work.
That was making me stressed out.
And a stressed-out me makes for a not-so-fabulous wife and mom.
Ahem.
We were squeaking by, but I don't want to just be squeaking by, getting the basics done. I want to do a bang-up job of homeschooling, thankyouverymuch.
On the hard days, it seems like I'll be homeschooling forever, but in reality, it won't be that long. Joshua will be in 8th grade this year, and in just a few short years, he'll mostly be taking classes at a local college. Zoe just finished her kindergarten year, but I know in a flash, she'll be Joshua's age.
I had kids kind of young, so when Zoe's 18, I'll only be in my mid-40s. Barring some unexpected health problem or accident, I'll probably have a good number of empty-nest years in front of me when my kids leave home, even if they stay here for a while during college.
If I want to start teaching piano lessons again at that point, I certainly can. Or if I want to pursue any of the many entreprenurial career ideas I have, I can do that.
But I will not be able to get back these next 12 years, the years I have until Zoe graduates from high school.
I don't feel at all resentful that my piano teaching career is over or is on hold (whatever it turns out to be!), but that's probably because my definition of "having it all" doesn't necessarily include a career.
And that is what annoys me about "having it all" discussions. Sometimes, there is this insinuation that all of us ought to want to pursue a career as strongly as we want to pursue parenting or homemaking, and that we're not living up to our potential if we don't have a fulfilling career. I think that's sort of narrow-minded, though.
I'm not going to say that every person should promptly dump their career as soon as kids come along, but I would like to say that choosing to stay home with children can indeed be "having it all" for some people.
Having it all could mean having more hours to devote to homeschooling.
Or having picnic lunches at the pier.
Or taking three trips to the pool in a week.
Or having time to bake bread and make yogurt.
Or having time to browse the Goodwill racks with my kids.
Or having only one inflexible work schedule, which allows for more family togetherness (we can adjust our lives to match Mr. FG's ever-changing work hours)
I know myself well enough to be sure that when Zoe graduates in 12 years, I will not look back and wish that I had worked more hours.
Instead, I will look back and think, "Yep. I am so blessed to have had it all."
I think we can have it all in our lifetimes--just not all at the same time: I taught, married, had kids, stopped teaching, spent great timesfull-time and later part-time with my kids, then taught again. Now I am retired and a grandma who retired in part to have time to visit grandkids out-of-state. I can honestly say I have had it all. I was fortunate like Kristen to have a full-time wage earning husband--not every mom has the luxury of choice. In many cases I think women do what they want to do and then are either honest about it: "I couldn't handle it as a full-time mom"--or cover it up:"I need he income."
We have a new mentor-type mom in my weekly mom's group, and she said the exact same thing - you can have it all - just not at the same time. It's okay to say no for a season so you can say yes to more important things at that moment.
As a young mom, those words were like a life line - thanks for reminding me of them, Gail and Kristen.
Wow! Well written. Thanks for saying what I feel and believe. It is difficult to go against the cultural grain some days..."I'm a stay at home mom who homeschools" doesn't have the same panache as "I'm a lawyer/teacher/doctor..." in the eyes of the world. We need to have that long term look at the life we are given.
Good point about having no regrets at the end of your days. Just to add, I have come to also realize that I as a STAH mom, I will not say, "I wish I had cleaned my house more".
That is true, isn't it? People aren't usually all, "Oh, wow! That's so great...good for you!" when they hear you stay home and homeschool. Oh well.
I think that's true even for most jobs, though. My dad was a quality assurance manager at a large corporation, and my mom was a preschool teacher. Nobody was ever particularly wowed by their jobs. People don't seem any more impressed when I say I'm part-time faculty at a public university than when I say I'm a SAHM, and I don't think my husband gets any more kudos from people for being a research associate than I do for being a homeschooling mom. Nobody who works as a full-time cashier or medical assistant or parapro in a classroom feels like they impress people when they share their jobs.
I think most things that most people do, both inside and outside the home, are undervalued. We have a handful of jobs we think are very important, and seem to think that what everybody else does just doesn't matter much.
Yep, that's true. I often think that about the job of collecting trash...it's not highly respected, but good heavens! Where would be be without those people??
I used to live in a remote Alaskan village, where we didn't have plumbing and the toilet bucket was emptied weekly by the "Honey bucket man." He was an outcast. Then his class had the assignment of each child having to doing a little speech for the class about his or her parent. Honey bucket man's kid got up and said, "My father is the most important man in this village. Every day he collects your poop and pee so that you don't get sick and your house doesn't smell. If he went away, you would cry more than if your TV went away."
It brought tears to my eyes, that this little guy knew the value of his father's work, even though most of the adults did not.
Sorry, his kid's class had the assignment. Too quick fingered today.
I had a hectic job , missed out on a lot of my kids stuff and felt terrible.I hurt my back and have been home since last November,spending tons of time with my kids and loving life.I'm happier my kids are happier hubby not so much,he misses our ""fun money" . You know though we still do the same things and we get by just fine ,we don't eat out as much,which is a good thing ,we have family game nights and we talk ,I never realized how much I really was missing out on.
Way to go!!! A women was quoted years ago (don't ask me the name, I can barely remember mine) and Gail paraphrased it somewhat 'You can have it all, just don't plan on having it all at once!' I do believe the saying 'If Momma is happy, everyone's happy'. That is why even though I would love to have more money come our way, pay down some bills, etc, I wouldn't trade the time with my son... swimming, gymnastics, bike rides, snuggling on the couch... or the 'hobbies' I like to do... gardening, baking, sewing, etc. Because when it gets down to it, going full speed and trying to be everything to everyone will eventually lead to a very stressed out and unhappy life. Sometimes slowing down and smelling the roses (or coffee) sounds like a perfect plan!
Yep...having children at home is a phase of my life, and I think it's a phase where some other things need to take a backseat. There will be time for those things later.
Though I only read part of Anne-Marie's article the important things I took from is the need for business to make flexible schedules a reality and the need for women not to guilt each other about their choices. I agree with both of those completely. My husband and I each work part-time so that we both get time with the kids. It would be a lot easier if one of us worked and the other stayed home but then we'd both be missing out. This schedule (though hard at times) is "having it all" to me.
Yes, I guess I should have been more clear about that...I didn't really disagree with much of what Slaughter said. What I disagree with is the people who are responding with a very narrow view of what having it all really means.
Totally agree about not guilting other people. It doesn't accomplish anything and just makes people miserable.
Good point, Adrienne. I was going to chime in similarly. The article has a philosophical side about wanting "it all" and what "it all" is, but there are also some practical points like you say about schedules and such.
and those practical points would apply to any working mom, whether she was actively pursuing a career choice or just trying to put food on the table.
So true -- the whole point of the women's movement was choice, including the choice to be a kick--- mom and keeper of the flame -- there are as many choices as there are families, and each mom needs to make that choice for herself, minus kicks and pressure from her sisters.
So, so agree with Kristen and posters that "having it all" is so subjective -- it can be hard to hear the voice in your own head sometimes, the voice that urges you to think for yourself and do best for your own family, regardless of the MANY opinions that will be tendered! I do so appreciate the level of thoughtful discourse here!
I consider myself so lucky to have been able to spend my sons' early years at home with them. We certainly had no extra money, but we got by. I recently had a conversation with my recent college grad about those years, and if he would have preferred that we had had more money like some of his friends families, with me working. He said "no way." So I am confident that my husband and I did the right thing. But now I work full-time with one more son to complete college and it's catch-up time to save for retirement. But it's always worked out financially for us before, and I'm sure it will again in our retirement years.
I agree with your philosophy completely. I've always thought that homemaking was a career even though the "world" thinks it's something that can be done in one's spare time.
Quite. At least, I can't do it the way I want to do it in my spare time.
I live in a commuter belt village halfway between London and Birmingham (UK) and I'm definitely in the minority. The other women that don't work are 'ladies who lunch'. Or go to the gym. And have a cleaner, masseur, nanny etc. All fine, I'm not knocking anybody else's choices, but not very frugal or green!
I do get made to feel I ought to be justifying my choices. For the same reason you stopped teaching Kristen, I cut my (already part time) hours at my children's school. I was working with (challenging!) children, running a guiding unit for children and then coming home to children. My children (especially DS who has ADD) were not getting the mum I wanted them to have.
I read _Radical Homemakers_ and it helped me to make a decision.
When people realised I was cutting my hours, the question I was asked most was 'what are you going to do with your time?'. Apparently garden, cook, sew, can, thrift shop, be a calmer person/parent are not correct answers to that question!
Oh well. Like Laura I'm happier, the children are happier. DH is happy I'm happy but does wish we had a bit more money although we're managing fine.
Yes!
Carole I agree with you. Running a home, really running it, is a profession.
So well said! I completely agree with what you stand for. I too stay home full-time with my gang and wouldn't give up the time I've had with them for anything. Had I went off to work everyday, leaving them in someone else's care, I know I would have had to fight major guilt and regrets. (I also would have felt completely stressed out!) Last year I read, and am now re-reading Jill Savage's books "My Heart's at Home," and "Living on Less so Your Family Can Have More." I would highly recommend these to anyone struggling with the work/stay home dilemma.
Wow didn't realize you had stopped teaching paino! I work, I hold the heath insurance (which is very important!) Of course I am missing out alot with my kids. But I think I have the next best thing, because my mom is able to watch my children.
Ooh, that IS nice! I bet your kids love the time with their grandma too.
Beautiful post, Kristen! I am still child-free (and husband-free...both not by choice!) and hope I will be able to make this decision. From my view you have it all and then some, and your joy and contentment shines through in your writing.
You know when you read things, like Slaughter's piece, or Wurtzel's, and you have a lot of thoughts, and you know what you think, but now how to express it?
Turns out ( again), you're saying it. Thanks, Kristen.
I agree, too often we judge our lives by success standards set by our society.
Great blog, Kristen! I did read Slaughter's article - all seven pages of it - and she did make some valid points about women working, and especially "high powered" working women. I made the same choices that you have, though many years ago, when it was not so rare to want to be a SAHM. "Having it all" is a very personal definition and it would be so lovely if we could all respect each others choices, but there is a tendency to want to be validated, no matter which road we take. There is an excellent follow-up article by Mark Morford at the Huffinington Post titled "101 Easy Steps to Having It All." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-morford/having-it-all_b_1629261.html. Of course there aren't 101 ways, and the article isn't seven pages. Basically, if you are absolutely and totally passionate about what you are doing you are under that special star that makes all things possible, even the bumps in the road.
Amen!
I have many thoughts on this topic, but I'll keep it brief. 😉
Mainly, I just think these discussions are wildly irrelevant to the lives of most men and women. Because "having it all" doesn't just mean having a family and a job; nobody thinks that the woman who works full-time as a cashier at Wal-Mart and has three kids at home "has it all." It's about having a very specific type of career, one that is lucrative and fulfilling and gives somebody power and influence, that the vast majority of people don't and will never have, no matter how ambitious or educated they are.
I sometimes teach part-time, and I sometimes don't. There are pros and cons to both. Semesters when I'm teaching, I enjoy working with my students, and the extra income is nice, but it's also an added responsibility and there are weekends and evenings I need to devote to lesson planning and paper grading rather than doing stuff with/for my family, and my husband subsequently has to take on more of those responsibilities on top of what he's already doing. Semesters when I'm not teaching, I'm able to settle my family into a more stable routine (things tend to always seem chaotic when the schedule changes every other day) and I have more time both for family/household stuff and my own interests, but it's harder financially and I do miss having interesting discussions with smart people a couple of mornings a week (I do not ever miss grading papers, though ;)).
It's not like I "have it all" when I'm teaching and don't when I'm home, or the other way around. I don't even think there's such a thing as "having it all." I've just got my life, which includes and excludes different things at different times.
So, I don't know, I just find the discussion a bit frustrating, because it seems to really only apply to a very privileged minority of women, who are choosing between extremely rewarding (both personally and financially) careers and a life as a SAHM that would require few if any sacrifices (because most of these women have husbands with equally financially-rewarding jobs). Most people don't have those choices.
I do actually agree with you...I don't feel like I was exactly, "having it all" when I was teaching piano.
And of course, being home with my kids and homeschooling them isn't quite having it all either...there are certainly frustrations associated with that lifestyle.
Very few people really have it all, but my annoyance stems from this assumption that we all OUGHT to want a high-powered, personally fulfilling career. I find that to be a kind of condescending attitude, and it's especially ridiculous when it comes from someone who is a feminist and should be defending women's rights to choose how they want to spend their time.
I should add that I do realize Slaughter doesn't have that attitude...I'm just seeing it in some of the web responses to her article.
I totally agree that we hold up having a great career as kind of the best thing you can do, and that's really a problem, for both men and women, because many people simply won't ever have the kind of lucrative, high-power, prestigious job we're supposed to want.
And I also agree that Slaughter doesn't take that attitude (unlike, say, Elizabeth Wurtzel, whose essay in The Atlantic is so outrageous as to not even be worth commenting on). In fact, she seems really open about the fact that, for most of her readers, these are not really issues. They are unemployed or underemployed and "work-life balance" is just not something they are too concerned about.
But, yeah, it is frustrating how we see only a career--and then only a certain type of career--as a worthy thing to aspire to. There are so many good, creative, interesting, fulfilling, necessary things people can do that don't fall into that box.
I think you also hint at a really important point, which is that we should all define what "having it all" might mean for us individually. Society might say that "having it all" is marriage/children/career/personal life/spiritual life/ lovely home (goodness, I'm tired just typing it!), but I think most of us need to step back and decide what would make our own life full. For some, it might mean (horrors) having full-time homemaking as a career. (Smile.) For your whole life. (Shudder!) My own parents have hinted that "someday, when the children are grown" I will need *more* than just homemaking, but honestly, I can see life being so full here. I would love to spend time gardening, cooking, baking, and finding creative ways to stretch dollars my whole life. Really. 🙂 I had a career post-college, and I love being busy at home vs. heading away from home to work each day. However, I realize this is a tremendous blessing. I have a supportive husband, and we have financial means enough for me to be working at home. I know that is not the case for everyone.
I think one of the interesting things about Anne-Marie's article has to do with the type of career she is in, which she discusses at length. As Kristen mentioned, Anne-Marie was a top aide for Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. Many of the women she talks about were in the upper echelons of achievement in their fields. Not many of us will work our way up to become department heads at prestigious universities or be appointed inside the White House. For women, there is a perceived compromise between parenting and achievements like this. She points out that men in those circles feel much less of a tug-of-war between their working time and their family time--it's doubtful that as many of the men are wondering "would I be a better parent if I didn't have this job?" as are the women. If a man in these high positions says, "I've been doing this for two years and I'm going to resign because I'm missing out on my kids," the perception is he actually got fired; if a woman says the same, the response is more like "well, of course you are"--or worse, something hostile or critical about her choices to date.
Nobody asks expectant dads how they are going to balance being a parent and their career.
Lori, your post came up while I was typing, and inspires me to p.s. my post. I was interested by the dichotomy between men and women with regard to the highest achievements vs. having a family.
Virginia, I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, Slaughter has a type of job that few people (and extremely few women) will have. And of course, those who make different choices are equally valid, important, worthy, and lots more good stuff. And the snarky internet commenters, well, I have tuned them out because I didn't find them helpful or insightful.
But what I thought was interesting about the article (and I did read all 7 pages) was the idea that for some people (men and women), their careers are passions. Slaughter has a gift and a passion for public policy, and she wants to use it for the good of our country. While it's not a position that I would want, I admire her knowledge, skill, and dedication to something that she finds important. And in reality, this was not a job that she could defer to another time (such as Kristen can do with piano teaching) or wait to start until the kids get older (Slaughter covers that in her article as well).
So why is it that if she chooses to also have children, she is unable to do this job that she finds so important? The answer she gives is that it's because the requirements are so inflexible. Hillary Clinton makes a point of being in the office only from 7:00am-8:00pm (if I remember correctly), so that her staff will not have to stay longer. Uh, folks, that's 13 hours! And Clinton is unusual in that -- most folks in her position work longer hours in the office, and so do their staff.
What I took away from the article is that for women (and men) who are drivent to perform these kinds of jobs -- whether in public policy, business, science, or any other field -- due to their own passions and interests, there is a serious toll on parenting. For Slaughter, it's not about the money. Contributing to society, and using her skills to the best of her ability, are some of the things that make her happy. Her analogy of the marathon runner who is looked at with admiration compared to the mother who is looked at as "taking time away from work" is all too accurate in my opinion.
Speaking as someone who has chosen a somewhat less demanding field, and who has refused promotions in order to have more time at home, I am comfortable with my choice. But I am a highly intelligent and skilled adult, and I am certain that had I made different choices I would have a more interesting and engaging career at this point in my life. And it's really a shame that we have to choose between these things.
Virginia, I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, Slaughter has a type of job that few people (and extremely few women) will have. And of course, those who make different choices are equally valid, important, worthy, and lots more good stuff. This is not about comparing stay-at-home parents with work-outside-the-house parents. Both are valid choices, of course. No question.
What I found was interesting about the article (and I did read all 7 pages) was the idea that for some people (men and women), their careers are passions. Slaughter has a gift and a passion for public policy, and she wants to use it for the good of her (and my) country. While it's not a position that I would want, I admire her knowledge, skill, and dedication to something that she finds important. And in reality, this was not a job that she could defer to another time or wait to start until the kids get older.
Choosing a career that provides flexibility and the ability to work less at certain points is very helpful in managing the work-home balance. However, there are a lot of jobs which do not allow this flexibility. In particular, it is very difficult to reallly rise to the top of your profession if you take "time out to raise kids." I'm not supporting this situation, just stating the fact.
So why is it that if she chooses to also have children, she is unable to do this job that she finds so important? The answer she gives is that it's because the requirements are so inflexible. Hillary Clinton makes a point of being in the office only from 8:00am-7:00pm, so that her staff will not have to stay longer. Uh, folks, that's 11 hours a day! (Plus, she does work before and after that, from home.) And Clinton is unusual in that "” most folks in her position work longer hours in the office, and so do their staff.
What I took away from the article is that for women (and men) who are driven to perform these kinds of jobs "” whether in public policy, business, science, or any other field "” due to their own passions and interests, there is a serious toll on parenting. For Slaughter, it's not about the money. Contributing to society, and using her skills to the best of her ability, are some of the things that make her happy. Her analogy of the marathon runner who is looked at with admiration compared to the mother who is looked at as "taking time away from work" is all too accurate in my opinion.
Speaking as someone who has chosen a somewhat less demanding field, and who has refused promotions in order to have more time at home, I am comfortable with my choice. But I am a highly intelligent and skilled adult, and I am certain that had I made different choices I would have a more interesting and engaging career at this point in my life. And it's really a shame that we have to choose between these things.
Hmm, that's interesting. Though Mr. FG is the main breadwinner in our family, he would not take a job like Slaughter did unless he had to choose between that or being unemployed.
He and I both feel like his ability to parent would be highly compromised by being away all week.
So, yeah...we would be thinking that he'd be a better parent if he didn't have a job like that. But maybe we're odd!
We all know Mr. FG is exceptional! 🙂
Kristen, We don't think you're odd at our house! That's exactly my husbands thinking, also.
Barb, I had an 'epiphany' about having to choose between these things-parenting the way I want or a full, interesting, engaging (and paying!) career in my field of choice. It's too simple; it's almost embarrassing. But, I realized, everything is a trade-off. For example, we trade off the possibility of a larger house for a smaller mortgage, even when the bank would have lent us more (or, they would when we bought our house, long ago!) We trade off one activity for another-equally good, but we just have to choose. We do this all the time. And although I'd like to work in my field(it's still very interesting to me) I want MORE to be here for my children-and for me raising my kids will stretch out for more years than average. I'll be almost 60 when my youngest is in college and I know full well that I won't be restarting my career then. But the trade off for me (simply more time with my kids, despite no career and much less money) has been worth it. Although it does seem a shame to not have the opportunity to do both things, I cannot conceive of any solution that would have satisfied me, not even better, longer child care or even leaving them with my mother, who I love and trust. This is selfish, but I worry more about what I'm missing when I'm away from my kids than what they're missing! So, our decision-we're 'broke' by the world's standards, I do miss my career-that-could-have-been-but I have loved every day with my children (25 years and counting) (OK, that was a lie back there-I've loved LOTS of days, not every day!) Thanks for the discussion.
"Nobody asks expectant dads how they are going to balance being a parent and their career."
THANK YOU. I find this double-standard to be really frustrating.
When we decided that it was better for our family for me to stay home with our son, it was based on who had the best earning potential. Both of us are active parents in our son's life. However, the Mr. changed jobs, which was a change in shift. And though we "saw" him more, he was grouchy and not much fun to be around. So he found another position within the company, we don't see him as much, but when we do see him, he's a happier man which makes it better. So I guess, for some men, they do take their family into consideration. I have a friend who's son is the same age as mine, and she's the breadwinner in the family. She has the better earning potential and though her husband also works, he's always home in the evenings with their son, something her job wouldn't allow always (she's a nurse and works 12-16 hour shifts). She has it all. As do I. I think it's a matter of finding contentment in the moment.
I agree. I am a woman and a lawyer. I am also expecting my first child in 2 months! The problem is that for me to remove myself from my profession for a year or more is career suicide. Perhaps with other professions, or if you are self-employed, it is less difficult? My sister had a very difficult time getting back into the workforce after two years. She is a statistician.
Very good point -- you have trained and worked very hard to be where you are -- can totally see not wanting to throw that away, and yes, other professions do offer opportunities to opt out and come back when the kids are grown. I'm a teacher, a profession stuffed with older adults who are coming back or taking it on as a 2nd or 3rd profession -- it's very forgiving, as I imagine law may not be. Wishing you good luck in finding what works best for you.
CNM - I hear you. I am the CEO of a fairly successful company. I find the opposite situation to be true - so many people begrudge my choice to keep my career, and keep my husband of 22 years and my two children (now ages 14 & 19).
Being a stay at home mom was not an option that I wanted. I don't love and care about my kids any less than a stay at home mom. I work hard and I care about my family. A lot. So, one thing I would say is, do not feel guilty for wanting to keep your career. It is okay. You are entitled to that choice. And if your husband chooses to stay home with the kids, that's great. And if, as a family, he remains working, that's okay, too.
I think my kids grew up pretty darn well watching both of their parents work and play (with them and without them). Be careful not to get trapped into the "Why aren't you staying at home with the kids" game. It is one you cannot win. Good luck!
I also agree with this statement. I am lawyer and the main breadwinner in our household. When DH and I choose to have kids, we have decided that he will stay home with them and I will go back to work. This will be my definition of "having it all." 🙂
Here's another point: it's not unusual for any high-powered White House staffer to burn out after a couple of years. But, again (see my earlier post, below), for male staffers its rarely framed as a child/family-oriented decision.
Totally agree with you, Kristen. As for this stage of life, my family is my "career".
I hear you! I was an elementary teacher for eight years and then when I had my four children decided (and was fortunate enough that it was possible) to stay home with my children. I LOVED being a "SAHM" and I know that it was the best decision for me and my children. They are now 28, 24, 21 and 16. I went back to substitute teaching at the amazing charter high school my last three kids attended. Because I so loved the high school and wanted to become a permanent employee there, I decided to go back to school and get my Masters in Exceptional Child degree. I am almost finished and when completed I can be employed in the high school as a certified teacher. Whew, long winded! Anyway, I am just saying that I never thought I would go back to school and yet everything worked out wonderfully. I see my son at school everyday, (and his friends) and I feel so proud that at the age of 56 I returned to school and did something for myself, that has been such a wonderful reward for me. And, I did it on my own terms. You just never know how things will work out, you just have to do what feels right at the time and trust that the good Lord knows what he wants for you.
My girlfriends and I discuss this from time to time. We tend to feel that the pressure to have it all (meaning work while raising children) has eased somewhat in the last decade. Perhaps it's our phase of life, or just this recession and slow recovery, but most of us (meaning my circle) actually feel less societal pressure to have a career while our kids are still young. However, many of us feel the financial pressure to find some paying work, with spouses earning less and inflation continuing to rise.
Lili, I agree that currently the pressure to "have it all" (meaning career and children) has eased off. And I absolutely applaud the parents who decide that it is best for their families to have a stay-at-home parent.
But. And for me, it's a big one.
But, if we women decide to step out of the career world in order to raise children, who are we leaving in charge? There are so few women in positions of actual power -- you know, the ones who vote in the Senate or who are staffers for senior political officials or who run companies -- why is that?
I think women bring just as much intensity, interest, skill, and passion to their work as men do. But women of my generation opt out of this intensity to raise children. [Full disclosure -- this includes myself! I worked part time for years, refused promotions, and focused on my kids. As a single parent, I did work outside the home, but I was not career-oriented. Nor am I now.] That leaves people who are not focused on their children in these positions, which makes it a never-ending cycle. These people do not change their expectations of 11-hour-days in the office plus being available on weekends. "That's the way it's done," they say. But why? Why does it have to be that way?
Making kids / home / family a priority is absolutely a great choice. People who choose that route do a lot of good for themselves and for society. But I find it sad, and upsetting, that people who also feel a pull to contribute to society through their work can't find a way to manage it while parenting their kids.
Barb - Thank you for that last paragraph!! I was trying to figure out how to say exactly that and failing.
That leaves people who are not focused on their children in these positions, which makes it a never-ending cycle.
This is such a revelation to me Barb. Will have to think on this more!
No one asks a man how he's going to balance work and home, indeed. And biased as all hell. Society defines having it all differently for men and women. For a man, it means seeing the kids some nights, and helping with homework, but not keeping the house clean and certainly not being SAHD. The definition for women is the old definition - keeping house, raising kids, cooking - plus a career.
Why shouldn't men get to be SAHs without being looked at sideways? Can you imagine the blow-up if a mother said she was "babysitting" her own kids? Have you ever heard a male political nominee being asked how he was going to keep his house clean, as Janet Reno was when she was nominated to be Attorney General? It's so screwed up that words fail me.
"Can you imagine the blow-up if a mother said she was "babysitting" her own kids?"
Thank you sooo much for your post! This frustrates me so, so much! It is so sad to basically have it socially acceptable to have men out of the equation when it comes to living life. It's as if men are supposed to be just dollar signs who mind their own happiness and if they deign to "help" with family life, their wives should just be grateful and not ask for more. This is so sad for everyone involved!
Shouldn't men be considered whole persons who also rear their children and are not just work horses? Shouldn't women be considered whole persons who, if they do choose to stay at home, are not looked at as "keeping their place"? :/
Men and women are both humans. Why do we allow society to pretend otherwise?
You hit the nail on the head. I chose to leave my full-time employment to raise my son. I did go back to work part-time when my two youngest were small only to leave that job. Our family had lost peace. Now my family is a bit older and I work part-time again. On my own terms this time. We are all happier and healthier for it. I truly believe you can have it all but it must be on your own terms. Life will be better for all of us this way.
The kind of thinking in the original article frustrates me because I think it sets up a sort of false argument. These sort of articles are always, subtly or implicitly, about the failure of feminism and women's rights; the take away (from the author's POV) often seems to be that we were lead astray by women who convinced us that we could have it all --that we could be wives and mothers and daughters and bosses and so on, without giving anything up. But myself, I don't think that was ever the point.
I believe that we can have anything (and should have a right to), but we can't have everything. It just isn't possible for anyone.
I feel like the experience you shared sums it up nicely. In your family, you are the primary caregiver, providing for your family in that way; the more you work at anything else, the more time you are away from your family. Since your top priority is your family, you are making the best decisions for yourself and them by maximizing your time doing that work (and it is definitely a whole lot of hard work!). Are you missing out on the experience of having a career? For now, sure, but that doesn't matter because you are having the experience that you actually want to have! We all "miss out" on different experiences, but as long as we are satisfied with our lives we aren't really missing out on other things; those just become options we didn't choose or weren't interested in.
That is what a feminist world looks like, at least in my humble opinion. If a woman wants to stay home with her family, she should have the choice to do that. If she wants to go out and have a career, she should have that option. If she wants to be CEO or President or anything else, those doors should be open. But it would be just foolish not to realize that whatever you spend your time on, means that you will spend less time on other things.
Thanks for giving us some food for thought! I just found your site the other day and, even if we don't have much in common, I enjoy reading many of your articles and looking at your lovely photographs!
This is beautifully said!
Very nice!
What an awesome response. I am an avid feminist, but also believe it is a misunderstood area. To me it is about having choices - and every time one makes a choice, that in itself implies a sacrifice, one way or the other. Each person, in a perfect world, should be able to make choices about the things most important to them, and not be judged for those choices.
Thank you. I so needed that this morning......more than you will ever know! Funny how God does that!
I agree with you that everyone's definition of having it all is different. I currently work for a company that has some high-profile positions and we do work for another company that has even more high-power/high-demand positions. There is one woman within that company that I talk to regularly and her life is drastically different than mine. She works 60+ hours a week; She travels at least once a week; She is required to entertain clients on a regular basis. And she loves her job and her life. But that couldn't be less appealing to me. I like working from home, picking my daughter up from school and playing with her and taking her fun places. I wouldn't trade it for a higher profile, higher paying job. But I definitely don't disregard those who strive for that. If they feel successful in their busy work life, great. I feel successful when I have a great meal on the table and the house looking decent.
I'm really glad you brought this up Kristen and am enjoying reading through the comments here. As someone who is quite career driven (science) and single, I always felt the backlash was from the other direction! That in the eyes of the world, I was a sad figure for not being married and for enjoying my work so much. And that I wasn't fulfilling my duty as a woman if I did not have a family and place my children above everything else. I feel lucky to have a job that doesn't feel like a job and like everyone else here, wish to simply make the choices that are best for my individual self and not be subject to someone else's judgement.
Yay, you!! 😀
I am currently trying to "have it all" in the form of doing school full time (18 credits per semester) online in the evenings, being a stay at home mom to my 3 children (5, 4, 1) during the day, and being a good wife/helper to my active duty military husband on top of it all... did I mention that we live overseas?! Needless to say I am learning very quickly that I do not want to "have it all" if it means continuing to live with this kind of stress in my life. A wise woman at a church we went to once said that a Proverbs 31 woman is not about doing it all AT THE SAME TIME, but about doing those things in their own season. I try to remember what she said when I am unable to fulfill my vision of a perfect Proverbs 31 woman. Wow, rambling, sorry! 🙂
Wonderful post. As a new mom with a baby, and staying at home for the first time, I am adjusting, and it is sometimes a hard process. I miss working, and raising a baby has forced me to take time and energy away from my other interests in order to raise my little girl. I have to remind myself that this is a season of my life. At some point, I may have the opportunity to work again, but for now, this is what life is and I should make the most of it. I feel blessed to be able to stay home, but it's always hard giving something up.
Amen!
Oh Boy - that's why you should turn your e-mail off when blogging yourself. Working on my new baking obsession blog and then read first paragraph of your post.
Career crunch time is coming for me... I'm gonna absorb this post once I've done what I'm supposed to have!
I really love this post! I agree that spending time with children is so important. My son is only 3, but sometimes I look at him and wonder how he isn't still a baby! The time goes so fast and I don't want to miss it just to 'get ahead'.
In my early 20's I lived in a large city on the East coast (I grew up in a small town in the West so it was quite the transition!) What surprised me the most was with the commutes to and from work most parents were there to see their kids off to school and then put them to bed. I knew at that point in my life when I had children I wanted to be there for them! I didn't want to miss most of their lives. Even though we have to 'go without' and I don't have a high powered job (or really any employment at all...) I wouldn't change it for the world! I love the time I get to spend with my son and see the cute things he does every day.
Alternatively I am glad I did work in a full time job before I had children as it helps me relate to my husband and the stresses/annoyances he goes through at his job!
This is a great post! I work full-time and have high hopes of having a fulfilling career. However, once I have kids I know that my priorities will change. Despite having a masters and a job that I enjoy, I want to be a SAHM. Right now, I have it all (almost), but when I have kids, having it all will mean being able to stay at home with my children and run a part-time crafts business. My mother "had it all"- a fulfilling, successful career and was an amazing mother- but she's told me many times that she really wishes she could have stayed home with us when we were children. You put it all so eloquently as usual!
I was just talking to my son about this, this morning. The staying at home to teach children - how people seem to be slaves to their material possessions and their egos. Your blog made me smile today. I wish I hadn't been a single mother during my son's teenage years, so I could have been here for him more often. He turned out to be a fine man, by the way.
I really appreciate this piece as I feel that we, as humans, need to support people in their decisions without judgment. Although I desire a career, I completely understand the judgment placed when you choose something out of the norm. Unlike you, I choose schooling/a career before my children. However, I get a TON of flack because I don't want to have it all either--I don't want to be the doting perfect mother there 24/7 AND have a fabulous career. I want the career and just so happen to have children. I figure that as long as people are happy at the end of the day, who cares what is right for you? Thank you for showing that what's right for one woman should not and is not right for EVERY woman!
I am a long-time reader here (and will continue to be!) but I have to respectfully disagree with you.
The beauty of your jobs, as you have chosen them, is that they allow you to both manage your time on a day-to-day basis and choose to opt out temporarily so you can opt back in later. That isn't built in to the types of jobs she talks about in the article. Either you're then when they say you are or you stay home- permanently. Taking five or ten years out of these jobs isn't yet an option.
I have really appreciated all the discussion that her article has inspired in the blogosphere, but I really worry about the trend of women choosing to opt out. On one hand, I think it's a choice that should be available to women and even fought for, but we also need to realize that by doing that, we are writing ourselves out of the discussion. It's tough to argue for parental leave rights, or increased flexibility in work schedules when we're not at the table. Let alone when it comes to arguing for foreign policy changes. Rather than including ourselves in the political processes that have the power to change the world we live in, we wind up sitting out on the outside, relying on someone else (whether it be our husbands or other women who don't have childcare responsibilities or have chosen not to exercise them) to speak up on our behalf.
Maybe it's because I'm a fan of PF blogs, but the reason cited for women working outside the home always seems to center aroud a second income as the explanation. That's certainly not the case in our house- I have a chance to change the world, hopefully for the better, one decision at a time, one input at a time, and the way things are set up now, that is exceptionally hard to do from the outside.
Agreed, completely! You said this so much better than I did above. 🙂
I agree that it's about being at the table, and making change. I also think it's about following our passions. If a woman has a passion to be a CEO, or a senior policy analyst, or whatever -- why does she *have* to choose between that and being a good mom? Why are these positions set up to exclude people who also take family seriously? (I'll tell you why: it's because the systems were created at a time when women stayed home and men worked. My mother worked at MetLife at a time when a woman was not allowed to work there if she was married. Women hid their marriages so that they could remain employed!)
I just want to say that I appreciate the very respectful, calm way you worded your dissenting comment. And I'm so glad you felt like this was a place where you could say something that goes against the majority of the comments. : )
I have only read this blog post and not the other article to which you are referring, but my 2 cents is that "having it all" - while a myth for the most part for most women - is for me, about having CHOICES. You have the choice, Kristen, through being married and choosing frugality all these years, to not work outside the home. Many women MUST work, to put food on the table, to earn health insurance, etc. I have been home for 8+ years as a SAHM, not without sacrifice but it still was a choice I'll never regret and I feel so privileged that I could fulfill that dream. I think your writing is excellent and filled with great tips, photos, recipes. But that is just my 2 cents 🙂
Ok, having had some time to ponder this over the course of the afternoon, I'd like to add that I think that that men ought to step up to the plate and demand more workplace flexibility. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. FG wouldn't consider taking a job like Slaughter's unless it was the only thing he could do. A job like that would be too hard on our family life.
So, I guess I don't think that women are the only ones who should be fighting for the things Slaughter wants to see...if we had more men who valued family life, then they'd demand change in the workplace.
Hi all I love the way an interesting and important discussion is brewing after this post! I am located all the way in Mumbai , India and let me tell you ladies, it doesn't matter where you are, if you are a woman, you are the one who has the 'responsibility'. In some cases women have a choice to work because they want to, in some cases they work because of financial reasons and juggle work and home , kids etc. But when you look at the situation of women at large, we can see that even if you decide to be a stay at home mom or manage both worlds or manage only career, women still shoulder majority of the responsibility. They have to work extra hard at workplace to compete and prove themselves and when they are homemakers they have to manage the house extra efficiently! I am a full time working, married woman (no kids yet) but I know if I have kids soon I will HAVE TO prioritize, juggle and work my butt off to manage both worlds. If I stay at home , yes it would be great but somewhere I would be looked down upon and somewhere I will lose out on my career which I have earned after so much hard work!
I feel it's about time men spoke on this issue.It's about time they also shared household responsibilities as if it was their 'duty' and not a choice!
Only when men will start sweating over how to manage deadlines at work and kid's homeworks, things will start to change, maybe better policies for working parents will come into place .
Personally, I would like to 'have it all' but I know it's a long and difficult road to actually figure out 'how I can have it all'
What a well articulated comment to an alternative viewpoint. (dissenting seems like such a hard word to describe it).
Very well said. Personally, I think "having it all" is a myth for the most part. Every lifestyle is going to have some tradeoffs. But if you spend the bulk of your day doing work that you find fulfilling and important (and yes, I know that not every diaper change isn't going to feel that way, nor is fighting on the phone with a client who acts like he should still be in diapers, but keeping the big picture in mind...), that's a pretty good deal.
I had a very similar response to the article. My mom worked full time, and my three sisters all plan on working full time (only one of them has children thus far). They gave me such a hard time when I made the choice to stay at home, telling me I was basically wasting my time and talent and allowing myself to become too reliant on my husband. I've been staying home three years now, and I wouldn't trade a second. I think my time and talent are well spent, and when the kids are older and I feel the need to get back out there in the work force, I will. If any of my sisters decide to choose career over kids, I will understand that, too. Thanks for the post.
Very well said. It's good to hear someone standing up for the job (and vocation and commitment) of having children and bringing them up in the way you want them to be. For me, that was having it all . . .
J x
I feel that there is a season for everything in life. I am a SAHM mom to DS 6 and DD 2. My husband and I made the choice to live on one income and have never regretted the decision. Yes, my children drive me a bit crazy some days but when they are sick or have school projects, swimming in the summer, enjoying popsicles on the deck in the middle of the day, etc....I am so glad that I am here to have those moments with them. I do miss having time to do things that I want to do but I am realizing that they are growing up so quick that those days aren't to far away ! Everyone has to do what is right for them and their family......don't judge other mom's, it's tough enough without being judged, be supportive !
Amen, Sister!
This year I went back to work part-time, because as kids get older, they get more expensive (sports cost more, hand-me-downs are harder to come by, car insurance for teens can add up quickly, kids eat more, etc), and my husband's pay hasn't increased enough to keep up.
While I am blessed to have a job that I can do while the kids are at school, and I am blessed to have a husband who divided up the housework and assigned it to the kids, it has been a rough transition for me. I feel not so much like a part-time worker as I feel like a part-time mom. All the basics are getting done (everybody's fed, everybody has clean clothes, the house is reasonably clean, everybody gets to their activities), but the extras...the fun things...have fallen by the wayside. I rarely bake any more. I still plan meals, but rarely the menus that are more time-consuming. And I'm just plain TIRED all the time!
I entirely agree that "having it all" depends on how you define "having it all."
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that if you gain the whole world you can loose your own soul:)
Kristen- Thank you so much for taking the time to write this post. It truly spoke to my heart this morning. So well written, so well said.
Speaking of recent articles about the state of modern life and parenting... what do you think about the "food in pouches" discussion? I find it HORRIFYING. If "having it all" requires products like these, I consider that a net loss, actually.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/garden/food-pouches-let-little-ones-serve-themselves.html?_r=3
Wow, that's a bit scary. Sucking food out of a pouch sounds a bit space-age-ish to me! They say it's for toddlers, but then they're talking about giving them to kids on the way home from school. Where's the variety of taste and texture and smell that can give such pleasure? Like the Sunday evening roast - all afternoon was made more pleasurable by the anticipation of dinner, by that scrumptious and growing smell! I doubt if a pouch smells like anything. Also, a factor they didn't mention in the article, what about the incredible amount of waste in the packaging and manufacturing? Scary.
I agree that the definition of having it all is different for everyone. For me the definition of having it all it to have the option and freedom to choose either way. Financially I have to work at least one day a week to make ends meet. I also homeschool so I am still home to do that. I also have to option to work more if we need to save money for something. That freedom of choice makes me feel that I have it all.
You know, the title of your post is what really speaks to me. We live in a society where we constantly get the message that we're supposed to want "it all," whether that means a high power career and a rich family life or a huge house and endless toys for both kids and grown ups. And yet I am increasingly stuck on the idea that if each person wants and tries to get "it all," then it leaves many, many people (and the earth) with nothing, and the rest of us ever striving for something unattainable.
I realize that the term "having it all" in the context of Slaughter's article and the ensuing conversations refers specifically to women having careers and families. But I think the term itself reveals a lot about what the problem is. Employers increasingly want "it all" from their workers. Raising children, something once done in between and in conjunction with farm chores in many families, increasingly takes "it all" from one or more parent. No matter how we choose (or are forced) to make a living and raise children, someone is sure to let us know that we haven't done enough, haven't done "it all."
My life choices (and I know how lucky I am that I can honestly call them choices) have led me down a very different path than you, Kristin, in that I work full time and choose to send my kids to school. But I so respect both the choices you have made and the sentiment you express in this post.
I too am "one of those women who doesn't want to have it all" but rather wants to have a right-sized life. 🙂
I agree with everything you said 1000% !
I've cut down to working only 5-7 hours per week. I'm a clerk at my dad's law office, and I'm really only continuing because I know he really needs the help. Plus, the kids get Grandma-time while I'm working!
This is a beautiful post, and I sincerely applaud your decisions.
You know, I'm sort of an odd duck. I'm a flaming liberal, I'm child-free by choice, and I have pretty much shunned the entire idea of a career, choosing instead to embrace the bohemian lifestyle - yet I often end up feeling like I have much more in common with conservative stay at home moms than I do with people who are more "like me" (whoever those people might be - still haven't really found any.) I guess I have fairly strong opinions about what children need, and I don't think those needs can really be met by full time daycare and a few hours of harried "attention" before bedtime. In fact, a huge part of the reason I chose not to have kids is that I didn't feel I had it in me to give what a child really needs.
I guess I feel like women have been sold some rather crazy ideas about what it means to be "fulfilled." And it breaks my heart to see so many people trying to squeeze themselves into some sort of mold based on a totally unrealistic picture of what they think they should do, or be, or accomplish.
I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I just wanted to say that even though on some level you and I have absolutely nothing in common, I totally admire the decisions you're making and your sense of integrity and commitment to your children.
This really resonates with me. I'm also a liberal, I'm a feminist (I even have two women's studies degrees), and I just cannot get behind the idea I see coming from so many people in our society, that our worth is in our paychecks and/or careers. It absolutely infuriates me when I see feminists (and, honestly, I've only seen this from feminists online, not any I've met in real life) who think that the only valid choice women can make is having a high-paying career outside the home. There are so many things outside of the market economy that people can do.
Ditto.
I never, never comment on blogs or posts....until now. This article really hit a nerve with me. Our family is currently working like crazy to get out of debt so that I am able to stay at home and "have it all". Looking back, I wish that I had never worked full time so I could have spent more time with my kids. We could have lived with less stuff, but those years are so precious and can't be given back. I applaud those of you that have made the tough decision (according to the world's standards) to stay home and really have it ALL. Thank you so much for the article.
Well, I'm a woman who always believed I could have it all. Just NOT all at the same time. There are many passages in life we woman go through. There's a time to go to school, to college, to start a career, to date, to get married, have children, raise them and then see them go off and follow all of the above.
My kids are grown and settled now. I hope this year to become a grandmother. There's a time and place to have it all. I hope I get to experience every last drop of it!
I just saw your comment, I agree!
I teach in a poor part of my city, and it amazes me the number of families who work two jobs or three just to get by. Yet they and their kids go to Wal-Mart and load up on expensive snacks and have the latest games and electronics, and the kids write me Christmas lists wanting more and more things. I meet with these moms at parent teacher conferences and they share the longing they have of a slower-paced life, with more time for their little ones. Thinking of the world I live in, and the world that you all here describe--I just don't see how it's possible, but I admire you greatly for your commitment to thoughtful, intentional living.
I wanted to come back to say how much I am loving this discussion. I've seen several blogposts about this topic in the past couple of weeks, but this one and the comments are by far the best. I love how everyone is so respectful, and how women of a variety of backgrounds are contributing. A few thoughts I wanted to add: I totally agree with whoever said that having choices is the best way to have it all. When my son was a baby, I had no choice but to work fulltime outside the home. I was able to cut back to part-time when he was 18 months old, by making many sacrifices, but the fact that I now have a choice makes a huge difference (if money were no object I would ideally love to be home fulltime, but I still have so much more choice than I did when he was a baby).
I agree that changing the workplace is key, and would love to see both men and women work toward that. The work schedule that Slaughter described seems insane to me. Even when I was single without children, and even if I loved my job, it just doesn't seem right to have so little downtime. And it certainly doesn't seem to blend well with family life, whether the mother or father is working that much.
Regarding feminists who look down on stay-at-home mothers: I agree that this is much more common online, and there are plenty of feminists who are respectful of stay-at-home mothers. However, I have encountered some of this attitude in person. I especially resent it because my earning potential is almost three times my husband's, and I was always the primary breadwinner until my son was 18 months old. So it's not like I don't see the value of women in the workplace. (Even now, my part-time job is the only thing that allows us to live on my husband's salary, which is not a living wage.) I never exactly had a high-powered career, but it was certainly an upper-middle class income. So for people to look down on me because I now only work 15 hours/week in order to be more available to my son, to me seems really ironic. But, I wouldn't judge all feminists based on the couple I've encountered who have acted that way.
I read all 82 comments and feel like I need to share. I was raised by a single mother and I hated it we never had enough money or time with our mother. So when I had my first child 19 years ago I decided to do whatever it took to stay at home with her I felt like no one could take care of her like her mother. My husband was active duty Army for 20 years so believe me we lived on a shoestring. My husband was always gone with his career and the one constant my daughter had was me I was home with her. We did without a lot so I could stay home but the sacrifice was so worth it.
Now my husband retired from the military and he is a government contractor (that means gone more than when in the army) lol. To make a long story short my daughter just got accepted to BSN in Nursing in the fall. I feel like for us we made the right decision when it came to me staying at home. My own mom and sister put me down all the time and make comments (when r u going to get a real job, you need to do something with your life) I forgot to mention I also have a 11 year old daughter I am still raising. Children grow up so fast enjoy them while you can.
It takes a SELF-assured woman to do what you did---when assurance, praise, applause and paychecks weren't rolling your way! Good for you. You did what you wanted. That's freedom. True feminism includes this personal choice.
Just for a flip view--I'm a woman who doesn't want to have it all either, but from the other side. I've always wanted and can only imagine being a career woman, without kids. I can love and mentor neices, nephews, and kiddos in the school system, but not have my own and just wanted to say I agree but from a totally different viewpoint. I love that there are women out there who want to do both and that there are women who are caring stay at home mom's also, I think it makes us all around a wonderful gender--and I hope you can appreciate my side too (many are ready to bash women who want the career without children, but I'd rather choose the career and not end up trying to have both and leaving both shortchanged, as I know I personally would)
I'm lucky enough to be a stay at home mom for our almost 7 year old son that we were blessed with after 20 years of marriage. I have never gone to bed, not even once, wondering or regretting staying home with him. A child is the greatest gift from God. It is also the most important job I will ever have, the most rewarding, & sometimes challenging. It might not "be" for everyone, but it's what makes my heart sing! I am truly blessed as my mom was a SAHM to me & my siblings.
I heard the phrase, "Women CAN have it all, just NOT AT THE SAME TIME" I'm with you, I don't want to be spread that thin.
What a great post. I agree completely!!
God Bless you with your little ones.
d
What is most disturbing to me about this post is that in your photo of the piano only half of the brass is polished 😉
after this entire list of differing comments, this is the one that made me literally laugh-out-loud. Thank you for the humour.
and to all you other lovely ladies/ and gents. The ideas that we CAN all have our "all", and that my "all" isn't your "all", and that my "all" isn't all gonna happen at the same time - good reminders indeedy
Maybe that was the point! Lol
Perhaps I'm deluding myself, but I think that I *do* have it all. I work as a labor and delivery nurse in a high risk unit, which is both fulfilling and well paying. But I choose to work only 16 hours per week.
My kids are 14 and 16, so they'll be off and on their own in a few years, so it's very important to me that I'm home and present as much as possible during these last few years. I highly doubt that I'll increase my work hours much in the future, (although I may go up to 24 hours/week while paying for college.)
I am aware that my job is a rarity, in that it's skilled, satisfying and well paying, yet allows me to have scheduling flexibility. Plus it's the ultimate feminist/woman power job ever!
Of course, my family is extremely frugal in order to make this work, but it's worth it.
I too am enjoying reading all these great comments. Terrific post, Kristen!
I think it goes back to the fact that each person defines "having it all" differently. For the women who Slaughter is describing, a high-powered demanding administrative career is one component of "having it all". For them, working as a staff nurse 16 hours/week wouldn't be "enough" of a career (she was criticized for leaving her Washington job to "just" be a fulltime college professor. My situation is very similar to yours. I am also an RN and work 15 hours/week. For me, though, this does not fit my definition of "having it all". There are parts of my job that I like, maybe even a couple that I love, but if money were no object, I would quit in a heartbeat and be home 100% of the time. Even working 15 hours/week, I miss out on so much (family dinners, adoption seminars that inevitably occur on the evenings I work, etc). But you have found an ideal situation for you, and that's great! It's good to hear that some women really are able to meet their definition of having it all.
One root cause of this issue is that we live in a society which does not highly value children. Instead our society values paid work and material possessions.
Totally agree with this statement!
Did anyone notice how adult-centric the entire dialogue has been?
But I have to add that I've really enjoyed reading all of comments-- Very insightful and well-written. Read every single one!! Super-interesting. Thanks for prompting a great discussion, Kristen.
Scheduling is most important to 'Have-it-all'. But sometimes, its overwhelming too. I am just trying to 'have-it-all' as full time working from home, mommy of a toddler and doing my online post graduation.
I have to be honest and say that "having it all" has not really ever occurred to me. I *do know* that I have always - my whole life - wanted to be a wife and a mom. That particular goal was accomplished when I was 20 (wife) and 23 (mom). It was (and continues to be) the greatest joy of my life to stay home and watch my kids grow up.
Now that my kids are older (21, 18, 14) and I have gone through a couple of gigantic life changes (separation/divorce/remarriage), my goal of being an excellent mom to my kids continues to be worked on daily - but my horizons have expanded a bit as I have chosen to go back to college to finish my degree. I am NOT dying to go to work (I am going back to work primarily for financial considerations), and I don't particularly think that it will be terribly fulfilling, but a means to an end (contributing to retirement fund).
For me personally - being a great mom and having children who feel deeply loved and cherished, is "having it all".
I completely agree with what many have said about having it all, but not all at once. Trying to do it all at the same time, for me anyway, results in me doing it all only partially successfully, and then being eaten alive by my "failure".
When I was married and my kids were small, I quite my teaching job to stay home with them. I LOVED having that time with them, but then life took an unexpected turn and I ended up divorced with a 4 and 6 year old. I had no choice but go back to work. Fortunately, I was able to get a teaching job in the same school as my children attended, which allowed our schedules to match up and for me to still be available to them. I didn't want to become one of those single moms who never saw her kids because she was working so hard to provide for them.
My lifelong dream has always been to go into school administration, but I've seen the hours the principals put in, and especially as a single parent, I just wasn't willing to sacrifice being there for my kids.
Now however, my children are teenagers, and only have a couple of years left before heading to college. I'm back in school working on my masters degree, and when they leave the nest, I fully intend to pursue that goal of becoming a principal! I don't feel deprived at all, or that I've "missed out", because I know the years I've spent being the best mom I could be were well worth it. My kids have grown into such great people, and NOW I can focus on the next step in my life of "having it all".
I have started to hear about employers who are figuring out that flexible scheduling and leave policies for everyone--men, women, married/partnered, single, parents, without children--end up creating a happier and more stable workforce.(And that offering the same options to everyone saves the employer a lot of headaches trying to figure out who gets what. I hope that spreads! I do think things have changed so much in twenty years since I graduated from college, because I see parenting treated much more as a partnership, and fewer assumptions about which partner will be the primary wage earner--thus that work-life balance is a woman's problem. (Still not there yet, witness the article and 103 comments, but further down the road). So I have hope that our sons, daughters, nieces, nephews and grandchildren will be in a better position to have what they want, career, family, or a balance of both.
I am in my mid fifities and this topic was discussed, somewhat heatedly, when our son was in diapers....in on it goes. I agree with you wholeheartedly! You can have it all, just not at the same time. That is true for everyone, everywhere, regardless of age, sex, race, or social status. I was 38 when we adopted our only child. After 15 years of marriage and trying to have a family, I did not want to miss one moment of our son's childhood, so I went to a part-time position. I was miserable! Within six weeks back at work part-time, I know it was not going to work and handed in my notice. I couldn't do it all, nor did I want to. Soon after, my husband developed a chronic, life-altering illness that requires handfuls of medications and zaps his energy. No, he cannot have it all either because he simply does not have the energy for it. He concentrates on work (as our only breadwinner) and our son. Our 17 year old son attends a very rigorous high school, plays sports, has countless friends, and is active with community outreach organizations and church activities. He has recently discovered that he can't have it all either without something suffering.
My point is that we are human beings and our energy levels only go so far. Some people have more energy than others but no one has an endless supply. If we all try to do it all, something will suffer. Life is all about choices and, as individuals, we all have things that we want to excel at in our lives. Those things will vary from person to person, but it doesn't make one person's choices less valid, only different.
I loved this post. Just wanted to let you know.
For me, I felt like I was judged in the reverse also. I tried to stay home when my son was born and well, I hated it. I was a very unhappy and grumpy person. So I decided when my church needed a secretary, I would volunteer for the paid position. (Barely above minimum wage.) I felt like I was the only person who was working because they wanted to. Everyone who worked because they felt they had to, glamorized staying home. Everyone seemed to want to stay home and be a stay at home mom in my neighborhood. No one actually wanted to work. I was only working for about 9 hours I think at first, by the time the job ended, I was working about 16 hours a week. At first, it was hard, as my son came with me for awhile, then I had to put him in daycare if I stayed working, as bringing him with wasn't working anymore. When he started school, he could come with me during the summers, or holidays, etc. So overall, working part-time enough to feel worthwhile to society, etc. and get some spending cash, but staying home a fair amount of time too was what I desired. Now, I am only working 4.5 hours a week, which is a tad light, but with the blogging and all and my son out of school over the summer, I am overall enjoying it. When he heads back to school, I may decide to work a bit more, but the job I am at now won't end until September. May wait until then. Yes, I know I like to work partly because I don't find value in parenting. My 14 year old son doesn't overly need me at this point. He never really needed me much. He is and always was more of a daddy's boy. My husband also works from home, so that makes it easier for me to work now too.
So interesting -- and really illustrates the point so many here are making -- there is no one way! We have to figure out for our families and ourselves the right way. A choice is valid and worthy if it works for you/family, both economically AND emotionally, as yours has. Love how little judgmentalism (real word?) has gone into this discussion, and really appreciate your view in this comment. And though it's NOMB, it seems you do value parenting just as you value work and making a financial contribution. Your example proves that these concepts are not mutually exclusive. Cheers!
Thank you so much for this!
I have been home full-time "mothering" since my oldest - now 24! - was one year old. I have four children and the youngest is now 15 and home schooled. I have found that being here for my children is what is right for me and I have never regretted my decision to stay home. I have no plans to enter the workforce when everyone is gone from home - and am fortunate to be able to make that decision. Obviously, not everyone has a choice, but I have always that having that choice (when economically feasible) is the height of feminism. I will never regret the time I have had - and continue to have - with my family. No amount of money or prestige could ever take its place.
I couldn't agree more. Thank you so much for posting this. I am surprised how often I am strongly encouraged to have both kids and a career. I've never had an urge to have children, although I really love their company, and adore being around them. I ended up with a wonderful, but time intensive career where I can give back to my community and provide a nice place for people to come to work. For myself I don't think I could be an effective parent, and hold the job that I have. Something or someone would get sacrificed. I regularly explain my position that I don't think anyone one can 'have it all' or have all of anything, but with clear choices can have a very full life that brings others joy. I applaud such conscious choices, regardless of if they involve family, career or other.
In reading these posts, I am struck by how many women feel that staying home with infants is crucial. I would like to suggest or add something based on working in corrections for 24 years: if I had to choose between staying home with an infant and staying home with a teen, I would select the teen years. I cannot count how many kids raised in really great homes with very attentive parents manage to veer off in their teen years because their parents think the kids need them less and end up spending less time paying attention to them. Ideally, a parent would be there the entire life cycle, but if that is not possible, I believe that teens are more vulnerable than at any other time.
I also think that many high fliers don't want to have it all. I had a job at the top of my bureaucratic food chain in my state and loved it. I could spend 18 hours a day there and never miss my home. My husband was similarly driven, and neither one of us has missed having children or a lot of hobbies or even that many friends. We've been married 30 years and while I would not trade him for my job, I would pretty much trade anything else. (In fact, I left my career when he got cancer, so I did have to make that choice and it was a no-brainer. But kids, they don't even come close in terms of wishing I had had them instead of my career. All of which is to say, I don't think you can do certain jobs unless you are super driven, so very few balanced people are attracted to those jobs for very long. To each his own.)
I am a long-time reader but first-time commenter so bear with me. The article as written by Ms. Slaughter truly resonated with me and has given me much to ponder. While I am a full-time work-outside-the-home mother of two 5-year-olds, I really felt the author was respectful of the wide spectrum of choices that women make about how to have an authentic and fulfilling life. I did not get the impression that having it all was equated with $. What I got from the article, was that women are finding it difficult to get a seat at the table. A seat at the table where women will have the ability, authority and power to affect meaningful change in workplace policies. Women need to be there in larger numbers. That's not at all a criticism of women who choose to be at home with their children on a full-time basis. It's a recognition that many women with the skill, ambition (and I use that term in a positive way), and passion are unable to achieive professional success because of the difficulty of balancing career with parenting under current societal and workplace norms.
One of the parts in the article that spoke loudly to me was the story of a male colleague who, because of religious practice, made it clear he was unavailable from Friday sundown through Saturday and that this decision was greatly respected. Ms. Slaughter pointed out that someone drawing the same line in the sand because of parenting responsibilities would not garner the same respect. And I see that everyday in my workplace.
There's so much more to say and it's great to see such respectful and lively discussion.
Mega like 😉
All the comments are so wonderful, and I agree with many of the perspectives offered.
The one perspective that I haven't seen is in the importance of women having earning options in the event of becoming single parents, or just single women. Although I strongly agree in the value of different kinds of work, one powerful part of women's movements around the world has been to ensure some kind of earning power. I certainly don't keep my career going because I'm betting on my marriage failing or my husband dying, but that is a reality for many women who [gladly, perhaps] gave up their career to raise their children, enabled their husbands to earn, then found themselves destitute late in life.
For me, this is as much a reason that this elusive equality in the workplace is important even when we're not talking about high powered jobs. Equality that allows men and women to have families and pursue careers. If men and women are given options to both work part time, it puts women in much sturdier footing in the event of hardship.
Jo, I have to agree with this. I do believe that women really need to be able to support themselves financially. That's not to say that they MUST support themselves financially all the time (as in always working a full-time, high-paying job), but they really should have the ability/knowledge/where-with-all to do so. Being a SAHM is a great option, however it does require that the woman relies on the man for financial stability (because as much as we hate to admit it, we do need an income to live). This works when there is a spouse in the picture, but that may not always be the case.
I recently completed my Master's degree in School Counseling (guidance) and was running a Sophomore career workshop. When asked what they wanted to do when they grew up, a LOT of girls said "be stay-at-home moms". Although I KNOW this is a valuable position, it prompted a discussion about the reality of life. Sophomore girls (many of whom were quite high achieving) were basically saying, I am planning on relying on a man for my financial stability. Yikes.
Yes, I do recognize that being a SAHM is wonderful (I do not have children yet, but I do recognize that being a SAHM may be in my future). However, I think that with young girls, it really is important to encourage them to have career goals, to pursue further education, and to be able to support themselves until life circumstances change.
What if they did not get married or were unable to have children? Or what if there was a decade between graduating high school and starting a family? Being a SAHM can not be the original plan. It should be the revised plan after a family is already in the picture (or planned in the near future).
Sorry if this sounded harsh or opinionated. Just my two cents 🙂
I always wanted to be a SAHM, but I still made sure to have a plan in place to support myself. And even though I am not the main income-earner in our family, I have a plan to support myself if something happened to Mr. FG.
So yeah, I agree that it's important to have a way of supporting yourself.
Jo, Erika, I totally agree. In the homeschool community some years ago (maybe they're still there, I don't know) one would occasionally hear of someone who didn't think it was necessary to encourage their daughters to higher education or career choices; they 'knew' they'd get married. This may have been a small group/fad, but I always strongly disagreed. I was then a SAHM (I work part time now) and I was grateful that my parents insisted on my completion of college. I have always taught my children that a large purpose of higher education is to be able to support yourself! We are never told in advance what God will call us to. I know ladies who never married (they're fine with that) married late (one 40, one almost 60)-that's a lot of years when they needed to live and eat! I very strongly believe in the necessity of my daughter to be able to support herself, her children, maybe her husband(they'll get to make those choices, not me!) I mean, I hope that I will be enough of a joyful mother that my children will want to have a home similar to ours, but once again, not my choice! Meanwhile, I can indeed support my children if I need to; so grateful that my precious husband is still around to do it himself, like he wants!
Yes to this -- if this were facebook I'd be" liking" all over the place . . .
I wanted it all and now, at 60, I've realized, I did it all.
Here's how I did it:
http://mylifeinfocusblog.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/my-life-in-decades/
Thanks for this post! God has been putting many things in my path and your blog is one of them. I want to stay home with my one year old but we have quite a bit of debt and will have to get independent insurance as my husband is self employed. I am not used to being very frugal and I've been reading your blog as I prepare myself mentally for this change. Reading your perspective has given me more confidence in what I need to do. Thank you!
I am late to the discussion, but I thought I would share anyway! One thing I find frustrating is being a SAHM with a college degree. I have been made to feel that I owe it to someone (my parents, my peers) to work outside the home to "use" the education I have. Well, I think I AM using that education. Shame on the society that would encourage people to forgo education if they know they desire to raise kids full time. I feel like my education has helped me to be a better Mom, volunteer, wife and cook. I don't feel like education is EVER wasted.
Well said, Elizabeth. I am in the same boat. My father has often asked me when I was going to "use my degree" and get a "real" job again. Raising my son to be a fine man and a citizen of the world IS a real job, and the most important one I'll ever have.
I am a working mom. I hold a full time job and my son goes to daycare 3 days a week. He loves it. I like my job and I enjoy working. If we have more kids though, it is likely that my husband will need to stay home at least until they are in school. Being the primary breadwinner in my family, I really want women to have the same opportunities that men have. I think that the article and the ensuing discussion by many women is not about finding fulfillment in our jobs v. staying home full-time. I think that this is about the opportunities for working mothers.
A working mother is a different stigma than a working father. Working fathers don't have this same discussion. For instance, when my son was born I was working at a law firm. I heard many negative comments about whether I would quit now that I am a mom. I am good at my job and enjoy it. I didn't like the assumption that my career was over because I decided to have children. I did leave the firm because of the negative comments, the long commute, and also the lack of flexibility and long hours. I just can't work 15 hour days anymore. I don't want to. Would a man make the same decision? Possibly, but more women do I think.
I think that women are more likely to feel societal pressure to stay home (not that staying home is bad, but rather the assumptions, the pressure, and the stigma are). If you work, you can't possibly be a good mom, and if you're a mom you can't possibly be good at your job or good for the company. I think a good goal for women and men would be to find a good middle ground, where flexible work schedules are made more available and women are not chastised for either staying home or working. I like to think I am a good mom and a good employee.
One this that's interesting is that in this discussion, there have been women who worked full time who felt the societal pressure to be home with their kids, AND there are women who stay home who have felt similar pressure to be 'productive' or 'use their degree' by working. It seems that we can't leave each other alone in our society! One thing I'm enjoying about this discussion is that I'm hearing from women that aren't in my situation, or that don't feel the same way I do. It really helps me see beyond myself and understand the much larger world out there. Hopefully I'm not the only one who has a limited scope; I'm loving reading the comments of Kristen's very varied readership!
There is So Much pressure on women to have a successful career and raise children, and if you decide to stay at home and bring up your babies you are rather looked down upon....Mine are in their 20's now and I have never ever regreted choosing to stay at home and bring them up, enjoy their milestones, and share all the joys of their growing up. I am well educated and have qualified in other things since they have grown, but I never had the urge to leave them with child minders or in nurseries, so I can earn lots of money.
My Mum always taught us, your children dont remember the material things in their early life, just the love and the time you give them.
I understand that some women have no choice but to work, to keep a roof over their families heads, but there are just as many who can't give up their holidays abroad and expensive cars etc.... This is on a massive scale in the UK, and I think its kind of sad.
Maybe it was pure selfishness with me, but I didn't want to share my boys with strangers, they grow up too fast, so we need to treasure those early days,
I truly believe I had it all....
(just looking forward to my grandchildren now...Hint, Hint...)
Well said, Kristen. I feel the same way, and yet I often feel that what we do is something inferior to some grand career and I have to justify myself when people ask, "So, do you work?" Uh... yes, I work very hard, but I'm not in paid employment! 🙂
I'm just catching up on my blog reading so I'm coming late to the conversation. I loved being a SAHM when my boys were young. When they got to school full time, my husband expressed the pressure he felt being solely responsible for our finances, the kids' future educational expenses and eventually our retirement. I went back to school, became a teacher and began contributing to our total finacial picture. It seemed right for us. My adult sons don't look back on their childhood and feel like they were cheated having me work. In fact they think it made them become more independent. It's interesting to see that their wives are SAHM for the most part for now while their kids are small. I agree that what is right for one family isn't always right for others. Just thought I'd add my two cents worth. Thanks
I kind of agree with Barb O's earlier comment that we can't seem to leave each other alone in our society! We will never all reach consensus on one right way to raise children...nor is consensus necessary. What is needed, however, is more respect for the individual to make personal decisions which are right for her family. We women should respect and support each other, and show tolerance for those who have made choices that differ from our own. It's all good! As long as kids are loved and cared for well, everything will work out. Maybe 'having it all' is that freedom that allows your to carry out your life as you see fit. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 🙂 Happy belated Fourth of July!
I know we don't all want to be in the positions that some women (and men) put themselves in, but we need women in leadership roles in order for women's issues to be heard and for women to be represented in government and the workforce. So hats off to these women in powerful and influential roles who are trying to make a difference in this world and are also trying to raise children. They are the ones who can lead the mindset that having a family is NOT something to count against us in the work force! And balancing family with a career can be done for those of us who are single, full time working parents.
I agree whole-heartedly with this statement! My wife posted this to her Facebook wall with the caption "This pretty much sums it up for me." I have been juggling Grad school, 3 odd jobs, my wife's photography business, and taking care of our rapidly-growing, now 7 month old. At the same time, I haven't put in as many hours as my wife has between her day job and her photography business, and she feels like she's missing out so much with our son. She was recently forced to choose and I feel that she made a BRILLIANT choice, as my Grad school is coming to a close, to leave that stinky old day job behind and really just focus on taking care of the soon-to-be big boy and her business. I, on the other hand, will hopefully find a steady full-time job with my new Master's of Education degree and be able to provide enough to pay the bills and put bread on the table while we use the money from her business to dig us out from under the ENORMOUS piles of debt that swallow any student (or students in our case). In any case, I know she will be much happier and better able to handle home life and business much better than being pulled in additional directions from a J O B. Thank you for standing up against the notion that We aren't living up to our potential if we're not juggling a billion things at once. The only reason that the notion ever existed in the first place is because people were striving for this picture perfect life that was beyond their means, forcing every able bodied adult to get into the workforce and abandon home life just to be able to afford the things that it would take to "make them happy," though I can't see how you could enjoy it if you're ALWAYS working to afford it.
You make some excellent points!
There is a mentality in our particular society that our career defines who we are and must somehow, magically FULFILL us. In reality, work/career is only one aspect of our multi-faceted lives and it's unrealistic to think that it can fill our every need.
It is unfortunate that those who choose to stay at home with their children are often seen to be or made to feel as if they are missing out, or, possibly even worse, made to feel as if what they're doing is not WORK and does not hold the same weight as "building a career".
I ran across this blog while looking for the recent Time magazine article on childfree living.
The problem with the "not all at the same time" outlook is that certain jobs, including those that are most important to society, really can't accommodate decade-long breaks. For instance, being a surgeon, CEO of a corporation, or a leader in government. Everyone certainly has a right to make her or his own decisions, but I hope that not everyone takes the approach advocated here because I don't prefer for society's leaders to all come from the same demographic (e.g., men married to supportive women where the wife/mother decides that she needn't have it all at the same time, perhaps so that he can) I want to live in a world where the most demanding careers are, at least in some cases, occupied by women who have children.
E.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grown-and-flown/why-i-regret-being-a-stay-at-home-mom_b_3402691.html
I wish that some parents would open their minds to the idea that, as much as your emotions suggest otherwise, running a government agency is actually more important to society than spending additional hours with one's own children. Your family is not the alpha and omega of what matters in life, and that notion is downright selfish. As a society, we're striving to innovate, invent, and advance ourselves. You can be a part of that, or you can tell yourself that it's more important that you be around to make snack at 3 PM.
The whole "supporting the next generation" argument regarding the merits of prioritizing parenthood aren't compelling because what if your kids all choose to be at-home parents too? Then, you've just raised another generation of humans who are essentially free-riding off the inventions/accomplishments/innovations of others.
Further, there isn't a study on the planet that suggests that being around for your kids 24 hours a day causes them to grow up into "better" adults. Absentee parenting is no good but, once you reach a threshold of "enough" time spent, you're really just wasting your time and depriving the world of your talents and contributions.
In my own case, I was never planning to be a surgeon or CEO, so I'm not exactly feeling like society has suffered a great deal as a result of me staying at home/working at home. And anecdotally, my mom stayed home with my four siblings and me, but she did not raise four stay-at-home parents who are selfish free-riders. In fact, only one of the four of us is not currently bringing in any income.
I do agree that the family is not the alpha and omega, and I agree that we should be thinking about serving our communities. However, I think you're painting with a broad brush when you say that families with a stay-at-home parent are selfish and are free-riding, and I believe you're forgetting that stay-at-home parents often do lots of volunteer work that contributes to society and to their communities.
Also, I think your comments/thoughts are really more relevant for the upper quartile or so, because it would be hard to argue that it's better to work at, say, WalMart than to stay home with your kids and volunteer in the community, and when you're looking at lower-paying jobs, if often doesn't make financial sense for a parent to work during the years the daycare is required.
well said.
It's interesting that this discussion is ongoing; it apparently hits nerves! I want to address the idea that several posters have floated that 'some jobs' can't accommodate long breaks. I am sure that is true, to a certain extent. But 30 years after graduating from college I can say with certainty that my profession does not look at all like it did when I got my degree. And these days, it seems that people change 'jobs' (but not necessarily professions) more frequently than ever. The world is changing; the law or medical degree of today will have unheard-of opportunities in 10 years. The same job? Probably not available, but something different may be, if we are open to change.
Of course, this does not begin to consider 'ageism' (my fear) but that's another post for another time.
Well said, Kristen. Exactly when does a mother reach the "threshold of enough" time with her kids? There is no one-size-fits all answer to that question, and it is incredibly arrogant for anyone to presume to determine it for all mothers. Furthermore, I don't know that everyone would agree that being a CEO of a corporation is one of the most important jobs to society. If it is, does that mean that nannies, caring for children whose parents work outside the home, are wasting their time by doling out the 3pm snack (that was certainly my motivation for reducing my work schedule to part-time)? Are nannies also free-riding off the accomplishments/inventions/innovations of others?
So there's an article about a woman who regrets being a stay-at-home mom. I think pretty much any woman reading this article could match that with accounts of women who regret time spent away from their children. If a woman wants to have a high-powered career while raising kids, go for it. I'm sure there are plenty of women who can make that lifestyle work. I am not one of them. Thankfully we live in an age where women can contribute to society while being at home with their kids. Maybe some day we'll be able to eliminate even more regret by fighting for high-powered careers that are more family-friendly in terms of accommodating part-time schedules, reasonable full-time schedules, and even decades-long breaks.
I suppose I'm still not compelled by this line of reasoning. There seems to be this notion that once one has children all of one's time is divided into two categories: time spent with or away from one's kids. I just don't see how that's the defining feature of an activity. If I'm reading a newspaper, taking my car for an oil change, drafting a motion, or spending time with friends, I'm thinking about those activities not that I'm with or away from my children. I am a human who happens to be a parent. And a singer. And a lawyer. Parenthood is one part of my life. I don't regret time spent "away" from my children living the rest of my life, and that line of thinking seems toxic and likely to lead to a loss of personal identity.
I also don't think there's anything special about time merely because it's spent "with" my children. I love the time we spend at the park, going to museums, cooking a special meal, or working on an art project. I value that. Time where we are together but not engaging is not inherently superior than time I spend doing other things that I enjoy. I feel no constant need to be around my kids, and I'm not sure that could be healthy or productive for anyone.
The threshold for enough time spent with children is best determined by experts in child development who conduct studies on such things. The fact that one woman successfully gave birth gives her the right to make decisions about that offspring, but certainly doesn't give her any expertise. Nothing I've read has suggested that 24 hours a day is an appropriate threshold.
Well, I am a mother despite the fact that I have never successfully given birth. And while I don't claim to be an expert, I do claim to be able to discern the individual needs of my child better than an "expert" who has never met him. Children are individuals who don't fit into a box, and as I said, there is no one-size-fits all approach that is going to work for every child or every family. And I am not with my child 24 hours/day, nor did I (or anyone else) indicate that as the appropriate threshold. If your lifestyle works for you and your kids, great. But that doesn't mean that a different family's approach is unhealthy, unproductive or toxic.
I don't think Claire was suggesting a 24-hours-a-day approach. She was just saying that it's not a one-size-fits-all thing and that each family should make the decision that's appropriate for their own family.
I don't really get the sense that you're giving that same grace to people who choose something different than what you've chosen, though.
I also wanted to add that I'm very curious to hear your take on Claire's question about the nanny. Do you feel that domestic jobs (personal housekeeper, nanny) are a free-riding sort of thing, or do you only feel that way when they're not done for pay?
Yes, early childhood professionals have come up with many things that they've determined to be "good" for young children. Do you even know what goes on in most child care centers, whether a large center or in someone's home? You have high staff turnover, caregivers who receive low pay and are often undereducated, high child to caregiver ratio, low quality food offerings, maybe even hours in front of the television...the quality of care you are going to get is extremely variable. None of these things have been determined to be "good" for children either. In fact, just the opposite is true. Are you only reading the research that supports your current line of thinking? Maybe you need to read the hallmarks of high quality care. After years of working in child care settings and studying early childhood, I know that the quality of a center is going to vary from year to year, and even from day to day as different staff enter the room or management changes. Most parents have no idea what really goes on in day care centers and homes. Some are great, some are great only sometimes, many are just dreadful.
I'm not perfect, but the care I provide certainly meets the definition of "high quality" if you are looking at what the "experts" say. I'm less than confident that the care I could afford if I went to work would meet those standards.
If you can afford a nanny with an early childhood degree, then that's great. Most people can't do that! I'll make a lot of sacrifices to make sure my kids are getting high quality care, and it's hard to find caregivers you can really trust.