Home/Work

I wanted quite desperately to get out of the workplace when my daughter was an infant, because I hated being a working mom to an infant. I didn't feel like it was fair to her, or to me. As I viewed it at the time, it was horribly unfortunate that I was enlisted in the military and had to continue to serve out my enlistment.

That has turned out to be one of the most fortunate circumstances of my life. When my daughter was three, her father and I decided to divorce. We didn't have a lot of assets from the marriage, but I still had a great job with benefits that included housing, fantastic medical insurance, and in my particular situation, a workplace policy that allowed me to do things like stay home with my child if she were sick.  Now, 8 years later, I am retired from the military and working at a new civilian job.  The military retirement check enables me to live a very comfortable life despite being a "one-income" family.

Once upon a time I thought I'd give up just about anything to be able to be a stay-at-home mom, but I'm so glad that isn't the path I was able to take. I can't imagine how I would have survived after the divorce without the safety net I had.

I was married for 20 years, and was a stay-at-home homeschooling mom for 14.  When I decided to divorce, it was not lightly--I had to realize how difficult it would be for me financially.  And yet I had no idea that in this recession it would take me *months* to find a job that paid me only $10 per hour.  I had no real career before kids, at least not one I'd want to do again.  And did nothing in all that time to build up a career.  

I am now in midwifery school, what I've been wanting to do ever since my 12 year old was born and loving it.  And facing three years of being in school and being broke for that time, and scrambling to find the funds to pay for school.  

Would I have done it differently?  Wow, it's hard to think how.  My husband was in a high-stress job (a priest) and worked weird hours.  I can't imagine how we would have raised the kids in the manner we wanted to without me being at-home with them.  And yet I think now that I should have looked for a way, and he should have tried to accommodate that.  

So very well stated! My mom found herself in this situation when I was in junior high. She'd been at home for years with me and my brother and then my parents divorced. Fortunately she was able to get a job at great company and has been there for more than 10 years, allowing her to do things she couldn't have done otherwise like remodel and travel.

I lost my job 2 years ago. I've been at home since, though trying to find something I could consider a career, not just a job. My blog has been a lifesaver for me. I've gained so much experience and learned a lot. I'm hoping to take everything I've learned online into an offline business helping companies with their social media.

My resume may have gaps in it, but I feel the same as you, I may not be 'working' or getting 'paid' but I'm keeping myself in the game. I love my mom but I don't want to ever see myself in the same position.

Thanks again for the timely reminder, Katie!  I was moved by your first article the first time around and was no less moved this time.  In fact, it was reading your first article a few years ago that gave me a much-needed (gentle) nudge to pursue part-time work while my son was still a baby. I started at 4 hours a week! In very little time, I was comfortable enough to leave my son for longer periods and felt up to speed with my job; I was ready to take on more hours when they were offered. Now I'm at 20 hours per week where I'll probably stay until my son is in school full time.  I feel like I have been blessed to have a part-time job in health care where I can keep my fingers in the pot, so to speak, while still feeling very positively about the balance of time I spend with my preschooler. I do not use the benefits available to me by my employer, but knowing I could if necessary is a huge weight off my shoulders.

These are wise words you have shared, Katie.  Hopefully you'll touch another reader and give her the nudge she needs to pursue outside of the home work.

I've never opted out. Never wanted to trust another with my support. My mom paid a very high price being divorced from my father after 28 years of marriage. Turns out after having my mom care for four kids while he worked an intensive research job as a (finally!) tenured professor it was more fun to marry a woman who had the same career he did. But then he didn't need free childcare at that point. And now he could afford to send his laundry out.

Katie

Excellent post. As was your original essay.

You are absolutely right that the original piece was about a rarefied demographic. In fact, the piece itself stressed that very point. But the reason they were chosen for the story was because, until the moment they stepped off the track they were the ones we expected would eventually "rule the world." They were members of the best educated generation of women in American history, with resumes that were exactly the same as their husbands, and yet they decided to leave.

My Opt-Out article never said they SHOULD leave, nor did it praise them for leaving; instead it explored the fact that they WERE leaving. If 50 percent of MALE graduates of Harvard Business School were working part-time or not working at all -- that would be news. When that is true of female graduates (and it was at the time I wrote the story) it is also news. Important news when you are looking at it through the prism of why women are not making it to the top of the workplace ladder.

And your warnings that there is a risk taken by women who leave the workplace is dead on. It is one of the many reasons (paying for food and shelter and my son's college tuition being some of the others) that I work full time. I feared for these women as I wrote the story -- as did many of the thousands of people who wrote to the Times after it appeared -- and some of those fears have come to pass. I wrote an update about a year ago, and back then nearly all had gone back to work. One landed well --as the Dean of Students at Emory Law School. One was barely scraping by -- after a messy divorce she found that her liberal arts degree was not of much use after all those years out of the workforce.

Your most important point is your last one : that to paint women who stay home as clueless, or spoiled or both is to ignore the larger problem -- a workforce designed for a time when workers (mostly men) had a wife (always women) at home. Most women who leave do so because they can, yes, but also because they are tired of bashing their heads against the wall of work, and leaving seems like the better of two very imperfect options.

Lisa Belkin

i've been a full time homemaker for seven and a half years (i did a little childcare for pay) after five years of a highly lucrative and successful (but miserable) law career (and other paid work for a decade before that).  i have done a ton of volunteer work, much of which could be paid work, so i think i have some marketable skills.  but it's true, at this point i have a pretty slim resume, and i am totally financially dependent on my wife if 22 years (we just got married this summer in iowa!), including for health insurance.  she is a high school teacher and our church's choir director.  

i worry more about julie's death than divorce (i know anything can happen, but julie is the definition of loyalty and our marriage is very strong; divorce is the very last thing i can imagine), so we both have hefty life-insurance policies. and here's the thing:  we've "opted out" of upwardly mobile life together, in many ways.  we've created a life in which we have no debt at all (no mortgage on our modest home, no car loans on our 1980's era cars, no student loans from any of our many graduate degrees -- that's where all that big-lawyer-money went), our kids go to public schools, we don't take fancy vacations, we grow a lot of our own food, and we live very modestly by most middle-class standards.  the biggest check i write each month is to our church, a community we have been intimately involved in for over a decade, one that is very much our extended family and my "insurance policy" that i will be okay.

i totally get your point katie, and i think it makes a lot of sense.  i especially think that for most folks, it's wise to get something in writing so that everyone is on the same page about why they as a family have chosen to have someone pursue unpaid homemaking as a vocation, and how that is valued.  it seems to me, though, that the two best insurance policies are to live modestly enough that a very modest income could support you in the event that you need to "opt back in," and to nurture a community -- whether it be your family, or your faith community, or some other -- that will lift you up in times of trouble.

ack! are comments moderated, or did i just lose the long comment i wrote??

I am home over 5 yrs now with my two kids, but unlike a lot of determined job focused women I was mainly an artist. I never built up a lot of career experience and luckily my husband refinanced our house (but he bought it before we were married) to pay off my sizeable student loan. I am surprised the amount of trust I am able to put into him after my mother’s experience. My father was a useless cad never working, no child support etc.

As my mom always points out…..what would I do if I was suddenly a single mom? I guess I would lean on my family until I we settled. I don’t think I was losing anything I had by ‘opting out’ and actually gained some stability that I didn’t have before I was married…and no student loan!

I've been at home for almost 4 years, having left a modest career at a big company (with great benefits) to be home with my two kids. I agree there are shifts that are needed in the workplace to show respect for the role of mothering. I was torn apart by the demands of my job and my very real need to be with my baby, who was only 10 weeks old when I had to return to work. It has been a blessing to step out of the corporate world and find a new piece of myself.

I understand very clearly the risks I took in leaving, especially since I have no family to fall back on in the case of divorce. In the meantime, my husband is supporting me as I build a business around my "real job" - being a mom. And I hope that the experience of creating a business helps fill the gap on the resume (and maybe one day eliminates the need for any future resume).

Interesting idea of the legal agreement, laying out the understanding of the value of stay-home parenting. It's uncomfortable to think about this, which for me means it's something I need to pay attention to and think about more. Thanks for your thoughts.

Life requires many leaps of faith, especially if children are involved. Whether or not to take those leaps should be a carefully thought-out decision, not a game of chance.

I honestly feel that if women would use their intuition they would have a better feel for the risks involved. I, too, ended up in the suddenly-divorced-and-peniless boat, but I can't say that this was out of character for my ex. We all know when we're making a risky decision or a smart one, even if we don't want to admit that to ourselves, don't we?

My husband was asking his dad about term life insurance this summer.  My father-in-law made an interesting statement.

"Things are different now.  Ellen could get a good job."

Now, my mother-in-law got a college degree before she had her kids (in psychology, which is a whole other conversation - young women getting stupid degrees).  But the woman was a housewife even after the boys were in college, and graduated from college, and married.  Can I get a "Hell no..." I won't be staying home with no kids to anticipate my husband's every need.

Anyway, that was slightly off-topic but a revealing perspective of the boomers' look at it.  I just completed my maternity leave for #2 and made the very difficult decision to go back to work.  I didn't do it because we need it financially or because I fear a divorce. I did it because I decided that working now is worth the long-term benefit to my family.

I have to point out, though, that you are in an unusual profession.  Most of us can't stay in the game by doing part-time contract work after the kids go to bed.

Katie for Congress!!!  

I find myself looking at this issue with very different eyes than the norm.  Since the birth of my child I have worked mostly part-time, but my child goes with me.  I have the very unique opportunity to work for family and we have a child friendly office.  We have a nursery in the office and the kiddos are free to roam with not only myself but their grandfather, grandmother, one office staff member and at least one uncle or aunt there to take care of them.  This has been a miracle for me.  

Why can we not have this be more the norm? In this age of two income households where you no longer have, in most cases, family living in close proximity to help with child raising, I would like to see more children spend their days with their parents at work.  I know a lot of you are blinking, thinking how would you get anything done, that just wouldn’t work for me, would my child be safe in that environment(I know this would not work in all places of employment).  I thought all of those things, it scared me to take my infant daughter at six weeks old into the work place. But we made it work and it has worked very well.  Those of you saying she must be working were she doesn’t see the public, you would be very wrong.  We are a client based bookkeeping and tax business, clients in and out, IRS and State auditors in and out.  We have made our children the priority and they are thriving with their family and friends raising them.  

I would like for more men and women to have the opportunity to raise their children and work.  It was easy to set an office up as a nursery/play room.  Yes there have been days when the child took priority over the job, but that, in my opinion, is how it should be.  So I have had to work longer hours at times to complete projects, who cares.  I have organized my world, work and home, around my child and she is healthy, happy, and thriving.  For us the positives far out way the negatives.

Excellent and comprehensive essay. I agree with your points, yet I always round to the same conumdrum: "well, then who raises the children?"

Even when you were forced back into an inhospitable return to the workforce, you had an asset more valuable than gold: an extended family and co-parent willing to fill in those many, many holes of schedule. My ex is a physician, and we have no extended family, so every snow/sick/summer/school holiday falls on me, and let me tell you, that has affected my abiity to climb the career and salary ladder. Often I have to really check myself from not becoming so angry about my lack of choices. Sure, I wanted to stay home, but at a certain point once my kids were in school FT I expected more buy-in from their Dad. Never happened, and combined with the same lack of sympathy from the traditional workplace, it's tough.

Katie, how have you reconciled with the traditions of the workplace vs. the reality of raising kids?

Thanks for posting this.  I think there is a lesson here that little girls ought to learn from their mothers.

My mom was very clear when I was a child that I absolutely HAD to pick a career that would allow me to be financially independent, and that I shouldn't ever "depend on a man."  While she left the workforce for a few years when my sister and I were tiny, she is one of my biggest champions as a full-time working mom.  

The family story that was used to drive the point home was the example of my grandmother and her sisters.  In September 1929, my maternal great-grandfather died, leaving a wife, three teenage daughters, and a pile of debt in rural Oklahoma.  My great-grandmother had to take in boarders and let distant relatives move in to help out.  My grandmother and her sisters taught school in one-room schoolhouses to get to college (this was before you needed a BA to be a teacher).

They were luckier than many people, but this experience had a profound and not entirely positive effect on my grandmother, her sisters, and my mother.  If anything good came from that experience, it was the lesson that the bottom can drop out of your world and you'd better be prepared.  

I don't know--I do see the danger of relying completely on another person for financial support. And yet, there is no way I would have left my babies and young children in childcare if there was a way around it.  I did work part-time when my firstborn was a baby, but my husband stayed with her, since he had a student schedule.  I've been home full-time for 3 years now.  What I do have are a masters degree, several years work experience, a profession that lends itself very well to part-time and flexible work, great life insurance on both of us, and a modest lifestyle.  If I went back to work full-time, I could make probably about what my husband does.  I will go back, too, probably part-time, once my youngest is in school.  Not a risk-free path, but I feel it's been the right one for us.  

P.S. I think your suggestions are spot-on.  I am an American, however, my first baby was born in Scotland, where I enjoyed a paid maternity leave, universal healthcare, and a job share.  Of all the fellow "mums" from my childbirth class, all went back to work on reduced schedules following mat leave, to a wide variety of jobs. We now live in Canada, where my second was born--again, universal healthcare means that I do not need to factor in healthcare when making life decisions.

I didn't read the article so this may have already been addressed but I wonder if this is true for other types of professions.  Do women doctors opt out?  Do women screenwriters in Hollywood?  Do microbiologists?  No offense, but maybe being a lawyer or banker just isn't all that great.  I have a friend who was a chemical engineer and she really hated going to work.  As she put it, "I have to hang out all day with male engineers and it is making me crazy" (she is now a successful patent lawyer who works from home).

I do wish so much there were more part-time options for professional women.  I really don't understand why there are not.  It seems like companies would like hiring two women part-time who would collectively do more work than one person and who problem would opt out of any benefits package so it would save them money.

@martarose:  I love what you had to say.

@kelly:  My friend who is a physician who divorced (her husband is a teacher) ended up same as you with all the organizing and childcare and sick leave even in the summer (he goes on extended hiking/camping trips)!  

I've read several pieces that you have written on the risk of "Opting out" but I've yet to see you write a piece on the risk of letting someone else, like a sitter, raise your children. Would your tune be different if you hadn't gotten to spend those important years at home with your kids? I am sure, had you been working those years, you would not have the same children you have today. I am not saying they would be worse off but different. When my Mother went back to work, and we went into daycare, it had a huge impact on our lives as children. Of coarse once my Mother started working we had more money, though still in poverty, we would have chosen the 20 dollar Christmas gift we each got far over Mother going to work every day.

Katie, thank you for the intelligent commentary on an important topic.  I personally did not “opt out” when I had a child two years ago.  I have been working full time as a litigation attorney.  My husband works in an equally demanding field.  Financially I did not have to go back to work, but staying home was just not for me.  I would consider reducing my hours when my daughter is a little older, but right now this works for us.  I also think working makes me a better mother.  When I am home, I cherish every minute – my daughter is the best part of my day (and often night).  I take issue with those who believe if you work you are not raising your child.  No one ever said this to my father when I was growing-up and no one would ever say that to my husband now.  We work and we raise our daughter.  We have help in the form of an amazing nanny that has become like family to us as well as four doting grandparents who are happy to be “on call” for emergencies. In fact, last Monday our nanny came down with flu-like symptoms and then our daughter simultaneously had an ear infection.  My husband left work early, relieved the nanny, and took our daughter the doctor’s office.  I made arrangements to work from home on Tuesday, my parents offered to cover Wednesday and Thursday morning, and then my in-laws were penciled-in for Thursday afternoon through Friday. By working full time, I hope to set an example for my daughter and, also, to mentor younger women just becoming lawyers.  

I went back to work two months after my son was born. My husband and I (he's a PhD student and I was a journalist at the time) juggled our schedules to stay home with our son for the first seven months because we couldn't afford full time daycare. Then I got a much better paying job, our son went to a church-based day care and we are all quite happy. I feel fortunate I found such a great place for him, he loves the other kids and the teachers. I'm grateful this is working out, because I am not cut out to be a stay at home mom. I love the action and interaction of my work and I can't imagine a scenario in which I would want to opt out. It's also not a financial option right now, since I am by far the primary breadwinner, but I also enjoy my job.

@Clinton - I've actually written a great deal about the signifigance of bonding and attachment between parents and babies/young children (a whole book, actually ;-). My position in my book and other writing is that human babies thrive best when they are encouraged to develop a deep, secure attachment with a few primary caregivers. But I reject your assertion that women who utilize childcare while they earn a living are de facto "allowing someone else to raise their children.". There is a big difference between a situation where a toddler spends 40 plus hours per week in a large group daycare setting with 7 or 9 babies per underpaid worker (childcare stereotype that isn't the norm, or the ideal, although for some women this sort of thing is all they can afford.) and childcare that is a mix of loving family care, staggered shifts with a spouse, paid care, family leave, periods of PT employment, etc. This kind of mix is the way most families handle the childcare challenge, and in no way does this mean that a mother isn't raising her own child. Really good, supportive childcare can actually be a meaningful part of attached care for a baby or young child.

I am not suggesting that all mothers of babies and little kids should dive back into super full time employment. I totally support -TOTALLY - women's need and choice work less and mother more during early childhood. My caution is directed at women who totally give up all paid employment or resume-enhancing activity over long periods. That's where the risk gets really significant.

My 2 cents only - take what works for you and leave the rest :-)

-katie

Katie, are there statistics/studies which show how the majority of little children whose parents both work are spending their days?  I know an awful lot of people whose kids are in full-time large group daycares from babyhood on up.

Wouldn't you say that the unpaid and challenging volunteer work performed by many SAHMs can be of value both for skill-building and future resumes?

Life is full of risks and control is largely illusory.  I choose the risks and the financial difficulties of not working over the risks of not being around to personally take care of my children, help my husband with his business, and run the rest of our incredibly complicated lives.  I believe in doing what is right for us NOW, instead of planning for some future which may or may not come to pass.  

Do what is right for your family.  Ignore everyone else.  Simple as that.  Why are we still so backwards about this?  

Leslie:

"Wouldn't you say that the unpaid and challenging volunteer work performed by many SAHMs can be of value both for skill-building and future resumes?"

Skill-building?  Maybe, if you're interested in building skills for your own satisfaction.  

Future resumes?  Not likely.  Volunteer work lacks the all-important aspect that paid work offers - people holding you accountable.   I work full time from home, have done (and still do) lots of volunteering with my kids' school, and if I were hiring?  Most volunteer work wouldn't count for squat.

Clisby, the right kind of volunteer work can lead to jobs.  I once volunteered as a rape crisis counselor and I am positive it was that work that got me an interview for a paid position doing the same sort of thing.  Many of the paid positions at my kids school are staffed by parents who started out volunteering.  Volunteering can connect you with people who know about jobs and help you get references for the work you want to do.

I'm ashamed to say that my first thought upon reading this was, "Good, I'm glad that they have to suffer too."  This is mostly coming out because I'm jealous of women who have high-earning husbands and who thus have the option of staying home.  My husband and I make about the same salary (I make a little more) and so staying home for me is not an option.  I'm working around to feeling a little sympathy...

Sarah:  Volunteering can certainly help you get references and can help with networking.  So  yes, my statement was too broad.  If the person in charge of hiring has worked directly with the applicant in some sort of volunteer situation and therefore knows first-hand of the applicant's abilities - sure, that's a big plus.  So yeah, if you're after a job as school secretary, I'm sure it helps that you ran the annual fund drive for the past 3 years.  It's not going to matter to many people outside the school community.

"In each case, however, these women's soon-to-be-ex-husbands took the position during divorce proceedings that they  - the husbands -  had literally begged and pleaded with their wives to "get a job" during the years these women were  stay-at-home mothers to these men's children. The men gave this version of the story"

I feel their pain.

I have a husband that has a difficult time holding a job, so I got a "shift worker" job that goes into the late evenings (plus freelancing on the side) because we need stable benefits.  

After a few years, it gets tough.  I get around 4-5 hours of sleep max.  We split the child care 50-50 and he has a part time job that brings in about 1/4 of the income.  He can't do as much as me. He isn't as tough as me.  Would I like to divroce him?  I feel like he is a pretty heavy weight sometimes. Sure, I love him...but I am tired.  I would like to be free of the expense of him.  I have such a difficult time taking care of all of us, and I do feel like I take care of all of us.  Will I divorce him?  No. I would lose 50% of my child and probably have to pay him alimony, since I make more. I have a few friends that have SAH husbands that feel the same way. They are trapped into jobs they hate while they want to be doing the childcare.  Can they divorce? No. They would lose their children and would be writing out checks to their husbands every month for alimony.  

Maybe men have always felt something similar? Maybe women are less eager to divorce in this situation because losing their children would be more profound than it would be for a man--or because they didn't feel like they "signed on for this" before they had the child when both of them were working?  

I don't know.  All I know is I'm tired and if I want my child there is no way to escape this. I wonder how many other female primary breadwinners feel the same way.

The point is that a stay at home parent should be doing something in order to keep their resume current and their skills fresh.  The right kind of volunteer work can acheive that for a lot of career paths.

Clisby, what you say really surprises me.  Maybe I'm naive but I've read, heard, and always thought that volunteer experience, packaged correctly, could help you land a job.  I'm not talking about baking cookies or planning the first grade party, but about things like chairing a church council, or planning large events, or speaking before groups in support of a cause; in other words, activities that really do build skills that can translate into the paid working world.  If that's not true, I guess I'm going to be in a bad way if I ever go back to work!

Excellent article, Katie.

A friend was angry her husband refused to let her be a STHM. I now realize he did her a favor. She has been able to work part and full time at the firm she is with for many years. She did find another day care for her step sons when one of the boys said he couldn't wait until he was able to own slaves. He learned about slavery from his Bible thumping caregiver!

Here are a couple of different perspectives on it:

www.faithandfamilylive.com/.../why

and

ennorath.typepad.com/.../giving-thanks-2.html

Now, I must say that these are the statements of two Catholics (one a stay-at-home dad, the other a stay-at-home mom). This is not my religion, but they pose some interesting points to just letting go and staying home and disregarding the out-of-the-home work (career or rat race, depending on what you do, if you like it and how well paying it is).

My take on it--everyone seems to find great justifications for doing what they do and seem to want everyone else to follow suit and do it their way. Whether it's the conservative religious folks or the career moms and dads, it doesn't matter--everyone thinks their method is superior.

Or at least that's what they are saying, from my experience, moms and dads who push their theory are insecure about what they are doing. I know, I used to be one of those people.

I think you have to find the best balance given all the factors of your particular situation. Some people are very lucky in that their factors align well with their wishes, others are not, and for the latter group, the only "right" or "best" thing to do is find what works best and is tolerable for them. And this can shift and change over time.

The only theory that I push and adhere to is my fervent hope that any man or woman who decides to procreate does so after they have received vocational training or higher education than high school. I have seen a few young folk tackle school and/or training while raising children and do it well, but they are not in the majority.

just my $0.02.

Sarah:  "The point is that a stay at home parent should be doing something in order to keep their resume current and their skills fresh. "

You are 100% correct.  That "something" is called a job.  

Try being committed to your marriage, marrying at an older age when you know what you're doing and have ONE kid. Stay home while they're a baby, go back when they're in school. Don't sit around getting fat and kvetching with neighborhood moms while you're a SAHM. Read, build skills, etc. It will be fine. I certainly am not going to let this alarmist crap rob me of the experiencing of my 5-year sabbatical attaching to my young child.

Yep arghhhhhh. Sounds like common sens and a good idea. for you.

I would be very interested in reading Lisa Belkin's update on the Opt-Out Revolution.  Katie or Lisa, can you point me to it?  Thanks very much.

Clisby, et al...you complain about those who choose to stay at home with their small children AND tout that choice as "right" saying that's THEIR choice, that's what's right for THEM, HOWEVER your comments do the same, just with a different argument...

You people can rationalize all you want, but its still YOUR opinion only...

I appreciate the conversation, and would like to focus on family-friendly business practices as a way to help women (and men!) ease off work for a few years while children are young.  I would have continued to work if it wasn't going to be so stressful for me, or if I had relatives in town (so childcare wasn't such an issue).  For a while now I have been looking for that mythical well-paying, fulfilling, part-time job.  It will come, I know, but it doesn't seem right that someone with my level of education, experience, and willingness to work finds it hard to get a job that's less than 40+ hours/week.  Fortunately, I'm in no huge rush, but I'd like to find something in the next year as that's when my youngest will enter kindergarten.

I have had a couple of health scares lately, which helps put things in perspective.  One thing that became abundantly clear to me was that I have absolutely NO regrets about taking time off from working these past few years to be at home with my girls.  It was the right thing for me.  (I'm not talking about everybody!  No judgment here.)  In the end if my spouse divorces me, I will deal with the aftermath, and would likely have to downsize, move, etc.  But I can't imagine kicking myself because I decided I would like to be at home with my kids full-time during their formative years.

I am compelled to respond to commenter Jen, above---not all of us full-time SAHMs have high-earning husbands. I earned slightly more than my husband when I left my career when we had our first baby five years ago. We cut our income in half. To do so, we drastically altered our lifestyle and now live EXTREMELY modestly compared to most standards. It's not easy in the least. We pinch pennies constantly and can afford NO "extras", not even eating out more than once or twice a year (seriously). I hate it when people make assumptions that all SAHMs are affluent. It's just not true. For us, it's a matter of values, and finding a way to provide parent-care for our daughters when they're young, no matter how difficult.

As for Katie's essay, it is very well-written and makes great points. It's terrifying to imagine being destitute as the result of full-time mothering. But it's also heartbreaking to think that women can't safely decide to parent full-time (taking a break from career) without risking poverty. No matter the risks, I just can't stand the idea of putting my two baby daughters in daycare. We have no family nearby and could not afford super-high-quality (super-expensive) care for 2 children. I can't see leaving them with underpaid strangers at a center. I just can't do it. What kills me is having no good solution.

Hi Shannon - your point is taken, and I'm sorry for generalizing.  I was responding mostly to the Times article which seemed to be focussing on women who had husbands in high-paying jobs (finance, etc.).  I totally agree with your last sentence - "What kills me is having no good solution."  I think the ideal for most mothers would be some sort of part-time work, where they could keep a foot in the workplace and use and develop their professional skills, and yet still care for their young children for a significant amount of time.  I'm fortunate in that I've worked out an arrangement where I'm able to be home on Fridays, but it's not "official" and I'd prefer to be home a little more.

I take two issues with your article first that your are assuming that women were only opting out because they couldn't get a good work life balance. For one that's a rather nasty (although I'm sure it was unintentional) implication that women cannot handle the high pressure situations. Its also a one-size fits all answer how many of these women were disatisfied  before they had kids and just thought this was a good excuse. How many of these women genuinely believe staying home is what's best for their kids and wouldn't go back even if they were better working circumstances? Corporate culture isn't kind to women in general and I wonder if this was just about motherhood why more fathers weren't dropping out of these jobs as well. I suspect if we asked a lot of these women we would find that chauvanism was a problem in their work places all along and having children was just the straw that broke the camels back.

Also you seem a little judgmental when it comes to those who quit. I think stay at home parents are not something we are likely to evolve beyond I think their will always be those who find taking care of their loved ones the best job for them. Your tone suggest that these people don't exist but I think all in all the decision to stay home is more complex than just throwing in the towel.

I think it should also be mentioned that divorce can impoverish working mothers as well since the cost of paying for two households is high.

I should add my scenario:

Pre-Child: Older first time parents, I have graduate degree, husband does not, was earning more than twice his salary.

Post Child:

When my son was four months old, I returned to work full-time outside of the home to a job I disliked, but paid well. Finally, after a year of searching, I was able to find a part-time position where I work 3 days a week outside of the home. Now my husband is the biggest breadwinner and we budget and scrimp, but I wouldn't trade it for the two days a week I get with my son.

The current situation is working well for all of us. Thankfully, my husband has increased his earning potential in the past year or so, so he is earning what I used to and I am earning what he used to.

I don't think our arrangement is superior, it works for us.

This is also a problem unique to our times.  In the past, the whole family was working on the farm or in the family business.  Also, for most of history and around the world today, people tend to live among extended family much more than we do today.  

As someone who needs to rejoin the workforce after almost 6 years out, for a variety of reasons including spouse's loss of job, spouse's mental & physical illness, and sadly, violence in the home, I can say in hindsight, I sincerely wish I had not removed myself completely from the working world when my son was younger.  

Like Elizabeth above, I'm not sure in my situation how I would have done things differently when my son was younger, but perhaps the struggle to balance both then, might have made the situation we find ourselves in now easier?  

Just curious, but why is it seemingly OK to stay home when your children are small, but once they hit 5 (or 4 ,3 even 2 in many cases) then it's not OK anymore?

This recession has forced me to become a stay at home mother because I can not find a job.  At a certain point I had to accept being a stay at home mom for the time being.  It was was driving me crazy to be home alone with a one year old and looking for a job in a horrible economy.  I never imagined myself as a housewife, but I have learned to make the best of it.  However, I am terribly afraid of what this will mean for my future.  I have only been home for a year now, but the world of work is already feeling like a foreign place where I would not be welcomed.  

I have met at least a handful of mothers who also now find themselves as stay at home mothers because of the recession.   A number of these mothers were laid off while they were visibly pregnant with their second child and unable to to get a new job.  It is hard enough to go back to work after having a new baby.  To go out and find a new job and then start a new job with an infant and a toddler to care for seems just plain impossible.  I have a feeling these women may be opting out by default for the long term, just as I fear I may end up doing now that I am pregnant again.

Belkin's story is interesting and I am happy for the women that were able to make it back into the workforce when they needed to.  I certainly find it comforting and reassuring. But I am troubled by how the media is portraying this recession as a time when women are going back to work and men are staying home with the kids. It seems like wishful feminist thinking. I think there are VERY important pieces of the motherhood/work/recession story that are being missed.  

EllaAnne, I think many people accept the idea that mothers should stay home with their little kids as long as they are too young for school, but DON'T like the idea of those same mothers being at home for long stretches with "nothing productive to do" once those kids are in kindergarten and quality daycare is no longer an issue.  When my third was about to hit kindergarten it seemed like everyone I knew wanted to know what I was going to do when he started school.  My standard answer was "rest" but of course activities blossomed to fill that time and then another baby came along.  Personally, I think it's great for school-aged kids to have a parent at home who can take care of them when they are sick, come to programs during the school day, volunteer at the school, pick them up at three so they don't have to go to afterschool care, take care of business at home during the day so the weekends and evenings aren't occupied with errands, etc.  

If so many women hadn't started working way back when, it wouldn't have become the "norm" and contributed to the problem of it being "necessary" to have 2 incomes to run a household...this is why I get annoyed with those who work when they don't *have* to...it tightens the market for everyone. I appreciate women's rights to do what they want, but there ARE global effects to these decisions.

Ecomomom - how do you decide when someone doesn't "have" to work? When they can put food on the table and pay the mortgage with one income? What about retirement savings, healthcare savings, planning for college? What about caring for elderly family members.  Should mothers be allowed to work only as long as every penny of their income is devoted to some noble cause like bread and have to quit if they use income to take the kids on a vacation?

For most people, it's hard to have too much money.  If you can scrape by on one income, but manage without as much worry on two - I can't imagine not working in that case.  Yes, there are global effects to women working - increased longevity and higher comfort standards of living, for one, in America.  Empowering daughters to achieve, work, and contribute in non-parenting ways.

Yes, there is competition in the job market. But I'd rather be able to compete, thanks, than be told I have to sit at home and twiddle my thumbs because my spouse (who, as Katie pointed out, I may not be married to forever) earns enough to pay for food and rent, and you can get medical care in the ER even if you can't pay for a well visit.

You kinda remind me of my parents when I was a teenager. "Don't drink or have sex before marriage, it's bad for you..." although they did, but NOW they're over that hump. So you got to stay home with your little ones, but now that you've had your wonderful, valuable experience, you say others shouldn't have it because of FEAR about what MIGHT happen.

I sleep on a futon on the floor often by CHOICE. I have a big comfy bed, but lots of times I like the futon in my kids room better.

Ecomomom, please go take an economics course.  There is an explicit relationship between female participation in the labor force and economic prosperity.  Poor countries are poor in part because they are suppressing half of their human capital.  Plus, the reason families now need 2 incomes where 1 used to be sufficient has more to do with the escalation in expenses over the last 40 years while wages have remained stagnant.  

I commented earlier in response to Jen and want to say thanks to Jen for her response to my response.

Also, I totally agree with Leslie above, about the value of being an at-home mom even when the children are in elementary school. It's not as if the work of running a household goes away once children are kindergartners and beyond! In fact, many people would say it only increases, what with school events, activities, etc. And yes, it's important to me to be there when they come home on the bus, when they're home sick or on a school vacation, and to be able to attend their school events and do the cleaning, cooking, shopping, and errands during the weekday so the weekends aren't crammed with those things. I don't think everyone should want to do that, but I often feel denigrated for even considering staying home when my girls move into the grade-school years, rather than immediately jumping back into FT work.

Shannon, I totally see what you're saying.  I have been thinking I will go back to work PT, but for the reasons above, perhaps I should focus on looking for something extremely flexible (my own business, etc.).  

I love Lisa Belkin, but I was disappointed in the wording of her "Opt-Out Revolution." I hate it that people talk about opting-out to stay home and "raise your children." I work full-time out of necessity. I live in Orange County, CA, and it's nearly impossible to own a home and live on a single income.

I know that I am still "raising" my children. Although I work, I am still an very active and CENTRAL part of their lives. And I am their mother. They are watched during the week by an amazing woman in a home environment. But the rest of the time, it's me and my husband. They aren't "raised" by anybody else. I still get up with the baby at 3 am, and I am pretty dang sure that counts for something.