Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: I Will Give Credence To Anything, Because I’m A Real ‘Murkin Previous entry: What Obama should have said

“Opt-Out” still a fantasy peddled in the male-owned press

Mythago sent me an article from the WSJ that has almost the proper mournful tone in presenting the facts that the well-groomed, professional middle class of women are not actually giving it all up to be trophy wives in the numbers suggested by hopeful trend writers in the past few years.  The widespread, yucky fantasy that women are largely rejecting the lessons learned from The Feminine Mystique has no basis in reality.  I suggest the fantasy will persist despite the evidence against it; clearly, there’s a lot of hope out there that it’s true, and I find that extremely creepy.  Don’t the sort of men that hope to take competent professionals and turn them into dependent housewives small in number and giving off vibes of such creepiness that they’re easy to avoid?  I guess not. 

The author, Rachel Emma Silverman, suggests that it’s surprising that the numbers of women who return to work quickly after giving birth is surprising because anecdotal information swings the other way.

The study’s findings surprised me because they don’t gel with my personal experience. I have many well-educated, accomplished friends, all new moms, who have decided to stay at home with their kids rather than going back to their high-pressure jobs. In most cases, they have husbands who earn big bucks, are from places where the cost of living is low, or worked in high-stress jobs that they were never crazy about.

Often our own “anecdata” becomes more significant than large-scale studies in shaping our perceptions of what our peers are doing. Earlier this week, for example, I went to a playgroup near my home in Austin, Texas, and of the five moms there, all with babies under six months, I was the only one who was planning on returning to work. These moms were no slackers: One was a dentist, two were teachers and one had a high-powered marketing job. (To be sure, the only people who could attend a Monday, mid-day playgroup, were women who weren’t already working.)


Well, exactly—-confirmation bias at work. The less than 8% seem more numerous than they are when you’re out and about during working hours.  Believe me; I see the housewives with small children in their swishy skirts and blow-dried hair all over the place with toddlers dashing around their feet or babies in strollers during the morning hours all the time.  But for every one on that path, there are 9 in an office somewhere.  Also, like I already implied, they stand out more than other people, because they always look so pulled together, well-dressed and made up.  I don’t understand it, since I rarely can pull my act together like that and I don’t have diapers to change interfering with the process.  I have reached the uncomfortable conclusion that many women well understand the importance of keeping up appearances for the man that you’re financially dependent on, though I welcome alternate explanations.

Also, the phrase “new moms” is the key here—-the study found that women did often take time off, but returned to work in a few months or a year after giving birth.  Look around at the many housewives that supposedly provide evidence of this “opt-out” revolution.  Look at their babies in strollers.  You know, unable to walk.  Isn’t it weird how the “opt-outers” just seem to become housebound after the kids become a year old? Or an alternate and more likely explanation is that after a year of being at home, a lot of new moms say stuff it and go back to work.  They weren’t opting out after all. 

I bet this holds true for a lot of the women that told Silverman they aren’t going back to work.  That’s probably something that a lot of women believe initially.  There’s a lot of incentives and pressure there, from the incentive of throwing yourself into being a mother full time to the pressure from a husband who might take it as a sign that you’re somewhat unsure of his love and commitment if you choose to remain financially independent after the child is born.  But after awhile, those pressures change course and decisions change with them.  I know that when I was a small kid, the plan for awhile was for my mom to stay home and raise us full time, and that didn’t last that long, because she was going stir crazy.  For a lot of men, I bet the romance of the dependent wife slowly gives way to the annoyances that come from cutting the household income significantly right as expenses go up.  Boredom also creates the perfect rationalization—-she’s going back to work because she’s bored, not because that career is financial protection. 

I know that saying stuff like this is romance-puncturing and cynical.  Part of my thought process is that I’m reading a book called Single State of the Union, and there’s a couple of stories in there by divorced women talking about the self-esteem they got from learning to be self-sufficient after their marriages dissolved.  Good stories, for sure, but a telling peek into how even in our more feminist era, a lot of straight relationships are constructed on female dependence in various ways, from economic dependence to knowledge dependence for situations like car or house repairs.  The “opt-out revolution” services this fantasy of female dependence.  Luckily, it’s an illusion. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:10 AM • (75) Comments

There’s also the fact that, for a lot of women, it’s not a matter of opting out vs. going back to work immediately.  My mother stayed home for some of my childhood, and worked for other parts of my childhood, depending on what worked out the best for everyone (herself included).  Had you talked to my mother when I was a year old, she would have been a back-to-worker, but then a year or two later she would have been an opt-outer.  And another few years after that, she would have un-opted herself.  Only to opt-out again when I was in middle school. 

It’s yet another example of the media trying to put us all in two totally opposing teams.  Whether it’s Virgin vs. Slut, Good Wife vs. Homewrecker/Man-Stealer, or SAHM vs.  Career Woman, nobody wins.

Comment #1: The Opoponax  on  06/23  at  10:23 AM

Even that trend is down, and I think it’s partially for the same reason that vacation time is down.  People rightfully fear that even small breaks in their career path will have major long term consequences.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/23  at  10:34 AM

I suppose on paper I look like an “opt-outer” (though I’m the one with hair in a messy bun and sticky handprints all over my t-shirt!).  But I’m using this time to go back to school to train for a career I actually enjoy, rather than the it-pays-the-bills-and-doesn’t-make-me-want-to-kill-myself type of jobs I’ve done my entire adult life.  Thirty years ago, my mother did the same thing.  She quit her teaching job when I was born and went to law school when I was five.

It’s sort of an inversion of the dependent, opt-out stereotype, isn’t it?

Comment #3: Lee  on  06/23  at  10:39 AM

I WISH I could opt out.  Instead I drag my ass to work every day and think about my little boy.  I never thought I would be like this, but there you go, sometimes things change. 

I think you probably see more stroller moms out than toddler moms because it is fairly easy to haul an infant around, but once they get their legs under them and a mind of their own, any outing becomes hell on earth.

Comment #4: Melissa  on  06/23  at  10:54 AM

the study found that women did often take time off, but returned to work in a few months or a year after giving birth.

Have you ever seend a study that compared the length of time new mothers stay home against the cost of child care for children under 2?

I know that when I had my daughter, we literally could not afford child care for the first several months of her life. Almost 3/4ths of my husband’s teaching salary would have gone just to day care, so it was much more economical for him to take a year off and pick up a part time evening job.

In our state, the children to caretaker ratio drops dramatically after 6 months, then again after 1 year, 18 months, etc, so the cost of child care for a 1 year old can be half (or less) that of 3 month old. I’ve never seen this fact included in any report of the staying home vs returning to work decision, but I’ve seen several cases (including my own) where the cost of child care was really the deciding factor in that decision.

Comment #5: Dorothy  on  06/23  at  10:58 AM

“In most cases, they have husbands who earn big bucks”

And when hubby loses big bucks job, or wants to move on to a new relationship, or house value no longer supports home equity loans - lots of these women opt back in.

Comment #6: CParis  on  06/23  at  11:00 AM

Looks like this sentence: “Don’t the sort of men that hope to take competent professionals and turn them into dependent housewives small in number and giving off vibes of such creepiness that they’re easy to avoid? ” Got away from you—you might want to take another swing at it.

Comment #7: Alex  on  06/23  at  11:26 AM

“I WISH I could opt out.  Instead I drag my ass to work every day and think about my little boy.  I never thought I would be like this, but there you go, sometimes things change. “

Exactly, the aforementioned article does not take into account people who CAN’T not work to watch a child, the world has changed, and it’s impossible to raise a family on one income.  My wife had to go back to work a scant 2 months after having our son, there is no way we could afford to live on my salary, it just doesn’t cut it anymore.

Also, who wants to live with someone who has no ambitions of their own?  Who just wants to stay at home and be the second fiddle, it boggles my mind, I want to have a partner who has aspirations and goals.

Comment #8: Devilham  on  06/23  at  11:27 AM

I don’t think it’s only pressure—although it’s a big part of it—, it’s also that mothers often fall absolutely in love with their babies and want to spend the most time with them, particularly when they’re teeny-tiny and look so vulnerable you’re reluctant to put them in childcare. But the few friends I know in that situation—i.e. who stayed home for a while because they felt like taking time with their baby and because they thought he/she was too small to go to childcare yet—returned to work after 12-18 months.

So yeah, even if there are many reasons, not all of them negative, why mothers who can afford to stop working for a while, it’s more of a break, until the kids walk (and until they’re bored. After a few years working, taking a year off can be great, regardless of whether you have a baby or not. But it’s great because you know it’s not forever.). Even when money isn’t an object and even if they’re not bored YET, there’s also the calculation of how long you can afford to stay home and still have a competitive CV. One year, even two? That’s okay. More than that? Harder to find a good job.

One of the things that absolutely convinced me that staying at home for a long time isn’t a good idea (apart from a fact that I’m easily bored and that kids aren’t big on conversation. Plus I like having money) was seeing my boyfriend’s mother, who’d stayed home because she wanted to and adored her 2 kids, and who’d fully enjoyed it. WHEN THEY WERE LITTLE. She keeps talking about the time when they were younger than 8-10 as the happiest years of her life. Problem: they grow up. So if your life revolves around taking care of them and you don’t have a social life beyond that (and I count professional life as a form of social life—interacting with grown-ups and all that), by the time they don’t need you all that much and aren’t as cuddly and loving—their teenage years, basically, and then they leave the house—hello depression, boredom, and “what have I done with my life?” It’s one thing to see people pressured into doing it. But it’s chilling to see someone who chose it (and who refused a part-time job 10 minutes from her home when her youngest was 4, because she didn’t really feel like it), and who, while she enjoyed it for, say, 10-12 years, has spent the last two decades deeply unhappy and feeling trapped at home and useless. brrr.

Comment #9: Rafi  on  06/23  at  11:31 AM

I feel sorry for my American brothers who are subject to this never ending nonsense.  Here, in Central America, I live in paradise surrounded by bevies of femininity.  Annoying “concerns” like the subject of this article NEVER come up.  Hundreds of young (yes, not fat, not old, not bald; but please use whatever stereotype makes you feel better) American men have settled here and live in sheer joy.  The following annoyances are not even considered and only discussed as points of humor:

Work life balance - Repro rights - Diversity - IMBRA - Inclusion - SAHD’s - Political correctness - Title IX - Take your daughters to work - Affirmative action - Maternity leave - Cultural Marxism - This wave or that wave - Pay equity - Gloria Steinem - Biological clock - Wage gap - Gender role -  Career vs family

...and blah blah, ecchh

Comment #10: TeflonExpat  on  06/23  at  11:41 AM

Shorter TeflonExpat:

I have nothing to give to an egalitarian relationship.  That’s why I like my women dependent.

Comment #11: Antigone  on  06/23  at  11:47 AM

I have reached the uncomfortable conclusion that many women well understand the importance of keeping up appearances for the man that you’re financially dependent on, though I welcome alternate explanations.

Amanda, they don’t get ready while changing diapers.  The nanny or au pair gets the little darlings ready while mommy tends to herself.

You probably believe that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt take care of their kids, too.  No, no, no.  Just read a Vanity Fair interview where Ms. Jolie carries on about how they do art projects with their kids b/c they are creative people.  They’re special, you see.

She is oblivious to the fact that we all want to paint and do creative projects with our kids, but we don’t all have an International House of Nannies to do the crap work and leave us free and energized to do the fun stuff (and to clean up after us).

Financial dependency sucks, and even though I’ve used my savings to supplement our lifestyle, it doesn’t seem to count as a real financial contribution.  Being dependent can put real strain on a marriage.

As for why moms stay home…do you have any idea what quality child care costs?  I’d have to go back to work and clear $5000 a month just to take care of the kids so I could go to work in the first place.  Well, maybe not quite that much since the baby isn’t an infant anymore, and middle child is old enough for preschool, but the baby’s still a baby and not toilet trained, so there’s added cost. 

I really thought about having an abortion when I found myself unexpectedly pregnant with the last one.  I was almost out—>my daughter was almost in preschool, which would free up my days for at least part time work outside the home.  Having another baby put me 3 years behind schedule.

It’s true I can stay home only b/c my husband makes enough money that we can scrape by if I stay home and that we are unwilling to scrimp on child care.  But it’s also true we can’t afford to have an au pair or full time nanny.  That means staying home until the child can go to school.  3 years old by a September.

I love the kids.  I love being part of their lives.  But being “mommy” is not enough for anyone.  And once those mommies of one darling are home for more than a year or have baby #2 and have to learn to divide up their time they’re going to want more as well.

Comment #12: Caren, Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/23  at  11:50 AM

I can’t decide if that’s parody or not.

Comment #13: The Opoponax  on  06/23  at  11:53 AM

The above is in regard to TeflonExpat, if that’s not clear, sorry.

Comment #14: The Opoponax  on  06/23  at  12:00 PM

And the fact that you’re so uninteresting and have so little to offer that none of us care or even noticed that you’d defected to Central America means you have to come here and remind us all what we’re missing? I bet there wasn’t a single person that tried to stop you prior to taking your journey south.

Comment #15: Keeshond  on  06/23  at  12:21 PM

I’ve got a pretty decent situation—my husband earns enough that I can manage a part-time job (worked when he’s at home to watch the kids), and enough tenure that I can set my own working schedule fairly conveniently.

I can not imagine life without the pressure valve of getting out and interacting with adults, and earning some money. I need to feel like I am using my brain and contributing financially. I can’t imagine being entirely dependent. As Caren says—I like being mommy, I love my kids, but I need intellectual stimulation over and above “Peep and Chirp in the Big Wide World.” THAT, to me, is more important than the money. I would not be myself if I was “just” mommy.

I have reached the uncomfortable conclusion that many women well understand the importance of keeping up appearances for the man that you’re financially dependent on, though I welcome alternate explanations.

I don’t have an au pair or nanny to get the kids ready. I’m not maintaining my looks for my husband—I don’t blow dry my hair, or wear a poufy skirt and pearls, but I still manage to fix my hair and dress decently —for my own benefit. I’ve learned that if I take the time to make myself look more attractive, I’ll feel more attractive. I have my no-makeup, undone hair dirty-t-shirt and tevas days, but I feel better (and am a better person to be around) if I take the time to get my personal shit together. For me, that attention to how I look is as important as the mental stimulation of getting the Hell out of the house to use my degree and my brain.

Comment #16: Crabby  on  06/23  at  12:23 PM

Hee, Antigone.  It may not even be a preference, but a last resort.  “I can’t get any volunteers so my only hope is women I have to pay.”

Comment #17: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/23  at  12:46 PM

It’s really miserable to be the paragon of “selfless”, dependent femininity that Teflon is ranting about.  Even if the person who controls your life is a benevolent dictator, he’s still the dictator and you know it.  There’s a reason that married women on average have worse health and are sadder than single women, though with women’s increasing independence in marriage, that’s changing.  Not that Teflon cares about the health and happiness of the female servant class.  I don’t actually think he realizes women are human.

Comment #18: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/23  at  12:50 PM

I second the call for an analysis of child care prices vs. time spent staying home/working. Infants can cost twice as much as toddlers. Also, there is a serious lag time between when you sign up for child care and when it becomes available, much of the time, and you can’t even look for work until you know the child care situation is squared away.

I’d also like to point out that pregnancy and childbirth are exhausting and can do serious damage to your body, that newborns don’t sleep through the night, and that pumping breast milk is *much* less pleasant than snuggling up to a nursing infant. There are profound physical reasons why a sabbatical of a year or so from work after you’ve just given birth makes great sense for many, many women. Add to that how very quickly infants change—they grow and develop much faster than even toddlers, let alone older children—and there are emotional reasons why a parent would want to stay home for a year too. In fact the ideal situation for humans would be if *both* parents could take a year sabbatical to spend time with a newborn baby, or could work on a reduced-hours schedule so they could spend time with their infant.

But unless you actually enjoy toddler activities, spending an entire day with an active toddler can be hell on earth no matter *how* much you love the little critters. Infants are actually surprisingly easy—assuming they don’t have colic, you basically have to feed them, diaper them, clothe them and move them from one area to another depending on what they want to do, and maybe provide them with some toys. And hold them a lot. That’s it. They don’t ask questions, they don’t demand juice in the Spiderman cup, they don’t fuss because they want something you can’t provide (unless they’re colicky), they don’t hold you up because they want to do it themselves, they don’t run away… you can relax, read, get chores done, watch TV… dress up nice if that’s your thing. The toddler is *much* more stressful. It really doesn’t surprise me at all to find that most women who are staying at home with their infant will go back to work when the baby is toddling.

Comment #19: Alara Rogers  on  06/23  at  01:08 PM

How many dads these days are the primary caregiver for kids?
I’m going to have a baby in a few months, and my job is the less flexible, higher paying one.
That means my husband will be doing childcare during the day when I am at work, and we will switch off in the afternoons. This made sense to us, but I find that alot of women are expected to sacrifice their jobs, rather than their partner.
I have a coworker who misses about half of the days in any given week to go take care of her kid, her husband never misses work. There is a good chance this will affect how long she is employed here, and I think it seems awfully unfair that she should be the one to loose a job because she is a woman.

Comment #20: Yazikus  on  06/23  at  01:15 PM

In the Scandinavian countries, staying home for the first year isn’t “opting out”, it’s mandated, and the time is split equally between mother and father. They then go back to work.

Comment #21: NancyP  on  06/23  at  01:27 PM

My job is also the less-flexible, higher paying one.  My husband and I switch off.  He quit his crap-ass journalism job last year to go back to school.  So he teaches part-time during the day and takes classes at night.  He gets the boy up in the morning, takes him to care, runs errands/does housework in the afternoons, and picks up the child between 4 and 5.  I work 8-5 with a 40 minute commute, so when I get home at 5:40, I take the child.  I play with, feed, bath, and put him to bed (mercifully still at 8:00) and then finish up any chores.  It’s a little grueling for us both, but my husband will be finished in about 1 1/2 years and will more than likely pick up a job quickly.  Then he’ll be on a 9-month contract and can do child care in the summer.

We are lucky to have a wonderful caregiver for our child and two sets of grandparents within 2 hours who will come and either stay at our place or take the boy to theirs when the caregiver is closed.  So far neither of us has had to miss more than a few days of work - but we have been VERY lucky and have a healthy child who is rarely sick (knock on wood).

There is no way in hell my husband wants me to quit my job and stay home with the child.  He would have to find a job that pays over 3 times his current one and still go to school while managing to stay active a fairly successful band.  He couldn’t do that if I wasn’t willing to work my less-than-loved-but-not-hideous job will he retrains.  Things are always changing though, and as soon as he is fully employed, I’m going back to school as well so we hopefully both end up with 9-month community college teaching jobs.  State work rules!

Comment #22: Melissa  on  06/23  at  01:32 PM

It seems like the attitudes toward parenting stated in the comments and article are very similar to the “complaints” Alice Walker had about feminism and its attitudes toward motherhood. I know her arguments were written off as being due to her one bad experience but as an outside observer reading the post and comments it looks like she was right on.

Comment #23: Robin Rhea  on  06/23  at  01:45 PM

There’s a lot of incentives and pressure there, from the incentive of throwing yourself into being a mother full time to the pressure from a husband who might take it as a sign that you’re somewhat unsure of his love and commitment if you choose to remain financially independent after the child is born.

I think there’s another reason some men like this model, and I got a taste of it when I went back to work and my husband stayed home part-time with our son (he was in grad school and worked part-time, so we had that flexibility). The days when my husband stayed home with the baby were significantly more relaxed for me than the days when my son went to daycare, even if my husband handled the pick-up and drop-off. Instead of scrambling around to pack food and bottles and get everyone dressed and having to change when he pooped while I was holding him on my hip and it leaked out of his diaper onto my shirt, I just got myself dressed and kissed them both good-bye while they were playing or reading. And then I came home and dinner was on the stove and I got to play with my son and cuddle with him, all nice and relaxed and happy to see him after being away all day. It’s a pretty sweet life. This is a slightly more generous interpretation - I didn’t get off on my husband’s dependent position - but what it doesn’t take into account, of course, is how my husband felt about all this. On one level, I think he was glad to have the flexibility to not put a two-month-old in daycare 50 hours a week and to spend time with him when he was so small. Also, we could not have afforded full-time infant daycare. On the other, it was tiring and isolating and thankless, and by the time he went to work full-time, he was glad of that, too. Similarly, I would prefer to stay home a bit longer with a future child (maybe six months to a year), but I know myself well enough to know I would lose my mind if I were home full-time. What’s bothersome about these notions is that one partner should sacrifice 100 percent for the good of everyone but themselves. That’s not psychologically sustainable.

Comment #24: chingona  on  06/23  at  01:45 PM

Robin, I don’t even know how to resopnd to that. I don’t know if Rebecca Walker was neglected or not - the only people who really know that are Rebecca and her mother. I was raised by a mother who always worked, and I never had any doubt that she loved me unconditionally and would be there for me no matter what. Going back to work and putting a child in day-care does not equal neglect.

Comment #25: chingona  on  06/23  at  01:49 PM

How many dads these days are the primary caregiver for kids?

One of my coworkers and her husband rearranged his schedule so he does most of the child care, but he’s a registered nurse and has enough seniority that he was able to do it.  That’s pretty much the only one I know of.

I’m still convinced that the fact that my ex-sister-in-law became a SAHM (stay at home mom) was a big factor in their divorce.  When the person with the job is leaving the house at 6 am and not returning until 8 pm, there’s not a whole lot of time for adult interaction.  She became so intertwined with the kids that it got to the point where she didn’t feel he could feed them properly when she wasn’t around, so she pretty much never left him alone with them.

Comment #26: Mnemosyne  on  06/23  at  01:59 PM

chingona,

I am in no way saying that working full-time means that you don’t love your baby unconditionally or that opting out is a superior motherly decision if available. It is just that as I read through the comments the “emotion that I am hearing” (If that makes any sense) is that , yeah, we love our children, but ultimately they are a burden and we need to get back to the things that are really fulfilling. You know how in sports, they always have that trite saying that God comes first, family second, and then your team. It seems like the emotional ordering in the comments definitely has job, friends, and a few other things before family.

I’m sorry if this is harsh, and it’s probably even wrong, but just like we talked about Rebecca’s response being “emotionally true” even if not objectively true, what I have written is what I perceive through my own set of filters, even if it is not the truth that the commenters were trying to communicate.

Comment #27: Robin Rhea  on  06/23  at  02:00 PM

It seems like the attitudes toward parenting stated in the comments and article are very similar to the “complaints” Alice Walker had about feminism and its attitudes toward motherhood.

Robin.

Fuck you and the troll-horse you rode in on.

Comment #28: Caren, Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/23  at  02:02 PM

This probably isn’t fair, and it’s certainly not something I’d say if my real name were attached to this comment, but Rebecca Walker has always come off to me as one of the most entitled and narcissistic individuals whose work I have ever read.  And I find it incredibly childish to say denounce feminism because you’re not happy with the choices your mother made.

Comment #29: The Opoponax  on  06/23  at  02:05 PM

Robin, do you have kids? That’s an honest question - not snark.

Comment #30: chingona  on  06/23  at  02:05 PM

chingona,

yes I do have a daughter and my spouse are currently switching off staying at home because we cannot afford child care. Let me be clear to that I think the main thing that made me respond how I did wasn’t the comments by mothers above but especially the general tone in the post seems to want to poke a stick in the eye of women that make the choice to stay home.

I get the real sense that feminists that choose to go back to work tend to both look down on and envy those that choose to stay home, so they make fun of how made up they look and then say that there is no possible way they are sacrificing, they’re just rich bitches that can afford to hire an Au Pair like Angelina Jolie. I think that if we can applaud people that sacrifice opportunities at wealth and fame to work for non-profits like the ACLU, or other charities (and not think they are somehow wasting the opportunities afforded to them by the 1st and 2nd wave) then I think that we should also be able to appreciate women that sacrifice those things for their children.

Comment #31: Robin Rhea  on  06/23  at  02:24 PM

Oh noooooo! Someone said children are not always 100% wonderful and fulfilling! Feminists hate kids!!!!

Yeah, whatever.

I have worked part-time from home for my kid’s entire life (he’s 4 now). The jobs I had before my pregnancy were all terrible and it was easy to give them up. But to be honest, I think my son would have been better off if I hadn’t done it. He started preschool last year and the adjustment has been pretty much a nightmare. He has social problems and can’t deal with a classroom full of kids and distractions. He needs one on one attention virtually all the time. I can’t help but think that some if not all of his problems could have been avoided if he’s gotten used to being with lots of other kids earlier in life, instead of having to get a crash course at this late age.

Yeah, it’s nice that he and I got to spend so much time together, but now I’m wondering what to do with the rest of my life and he’s deliberately trying to get sent home from school every day so he can be the center of mama’s attention again. Not exactly the happy, well-adjusted family unit.

Comment #32: sophronia  on  06/23  at  02:25 PM

“I’m sorry if this is harsh, and it’s probably even wrong, but just like we talked about Rebecca’s response being “emotionally true” even if not objectively true, what I have written is what I perceive through my own set of filters, even if it is not the truth that the commenters were trying to communicate. “

Um, I don’t know if it was intended, but that reads to me “well you all think I’m wrong about this, but screw that, I’m right! And if you say I’m still wrong we just have different ‘truth’ filters”. Do you understand how a) arrogant and b) silly that sounds? You just told us that you’re willing to read whatever you want into what people write, whether there is evidence to support you or not.

also, something can’t be both true and false at the same time. “emotionally true” means what? That it’s true no matter what anyone else says about it because it “feels” true to you? Is this a new iteration of “truthiness”?

Comment #33: kodiak  on  06/23  at  02:30 PM

Well, Amanda doesn’t have kids and doesn’t ever want kids, so I’m sure the idea of being at home with young kids is particularly unappealing to her. I think it’s a little unfair to use a post by someone who is childfree by choice to imply anything at all about how feminists feel about child-raising. I suspect most of the commenters didn’t go after her for the voice that she used because we read here a lot and are familiar with her style and her perspective, not because we 100 percent share her view. I can believe that some SAHM really prefer being with their kids, even as I believe that I am a happier, more loving, more patient mother when I get some time around other adults during the day. Like many mothers, I cannot even remember what life was like before I had my son and he is the light of my life and if anything happened to him, I would be destroyed. And we’ve made a lot of changes in our life to accommodate him, and I don’t resent making those changes. That’s what responsible adults who chose to reproduce do. However, the cumulative four hours I spent this weekend sitting on the floor of the bathroom waiting for him to poop, reading over and over again the book that I really hate that he is obsessed with right now, only to have him crap in his pants anyway, no, those were not the most fulfilling hours of my life, and I don’t think I should have to pretend that they were to prove that feminists can be committed parents.

Comment #34: chingona  on  06/23  at  02:35 PM

the general tone in the post seems to want to poke a stick in the eye of women that make the choice to stay home.

Ummmm, the topic of the post is that the numbers behind the media-manufactured “opt-out revolution” turned out not to be what was originally claimed.

I guess Amanda could censor herself from ever questioning the idea that truckloads of of highly educated women had decided to permanently opt out of any personal ambitions for themselves (the source of the term “opt-out revolution”—it’s not really about women who have the NERVE to stay home with the kids, but about a particular subset of women making the choice to permanently give up any shot at a career, even after pursuing advanced professional degrees.)

But it’s her blog, and she gets to write about whatever seems significant to her.  You don’t like it, you van go start your own blog or read another blog that is more in line with your own opinions on the matter.

they’re just rich bitches

Well, to be perfectly fair, the subset of women we’re talking about, women who can afford to choose to opt-out of personal fulfillment in order to be nothing else but a mommy, who don’t have to do it for economic reasons, are wealthy, and in a certain way it’s perfectly fair to just throw your hands up and say, “well yeah they think it’s fun - they have a nanny and mommy and me yoga and     can pretty much afford to do whatever they want regarding childcare, career, etc.”

Comment #35: The Opoponax  on  06/23  at  02:41 PM

“I get the real sense that feminists that choose to go back to work tend to both look down on and envy those that choose to stay home, so they make fun of how made up they look and then say that there is no possible way they are sacrificing, they’re just rich bitches that can afford to hire an Au Pair like Angelina Jolie.”

You do realize that you’re conflating several comments and a paragraph of the post and then putting a spin on the resulting mishmash that would put Mercury’s rotation to shame, yes?

Comment #36: preying mantis  on  06/23  at  02:48 PM

As much as I want to stay at home with my child, who is now 2, I think it is best for his social development that he is around other kids.  I did stay home for 3 months and then he stayed with relative for another 5 months, so he was 8 months when he went into care.  He is at a home care with 3 other kids around his age and with a caregiver who has 20-odd years of experience.  She knows more about rearing children than I probably ever will and he is clearly benefiting from the situation.  In a perfect world, I would like to be able to work 20-30 hours a week and then be with him the rest of the time.  As much as I hate being apart from him, there is something to be said for distance making theheart grow fonder, or at least more patient.  I find I am much more patient with him than if I were there 24/7.  I have also seen how terribly my stay at home sister-in-law has managed her children.  Now that the oldest has started preschool, it is obvious that those kids should have been in care and away from her from birth onward.  She’s not a bad person, just incompetent.

Comment #37: Melissa  on  06/23  at  02:55 PM

Let me clarify just a bit…

Amanda posts about someone who doesn’t agree with a study because it doesn’t seem to match her personal experience.  Said author has enough sense to label her personal experience “anecdata” as an acknowledgment that her personal experience really shouldn’t be generalized like a real scientific study, but then goes on to do just that.

Women here, SAHMs, working moms, childfree, all comment on how her argument fails not only on the mathematics, but also based on the fact that her own anecdata will probably fail to show the “opt-out” over time.  Many women offer their own anecdata in refutation and support.  They say that being limited to being a stay at home mom, dependent on a man for support, can be debilitating.

You whisk in and claim that we’ve just validated “Alice Walker” without realizing she’s the mother of Rebecca Walker, who wrote a book complaining about her mother.  Then you claim feminists just hate SAHMs and want to demean them.

By the way, I am the poster who wrote about reading Jolie’s interview.  I brought it up sarcastically b/c I felt the arrogance she showed in that interview was similar to the arrogance shown by Rebecca Silverman.  I thought she was arrogant as hell to claim that she’s a “creative” person and that’s why she’s raising her children like an artist without acknowledging her money and international nannies (she has one from each child’s native land) make that possible.  She doesn’t just play with the kids b/c she’s artistic—she’s plays with them b/c she doesn’t have to do scut work all day.  She doesn’t have to change their diapers unless she feels like it.  Dinner can be made or brought in just as she desires.  There’s nothing artistic about it, and it makes a huge difference.  I say this as a SAHM who does the scut work and would love to be able just to play with the babies.

There is nothing special about Rebecca Silverman’s infant playgroup with six Austin moms that should make anyone question the study.  The fact that they are rich enough to stay home and have chosen to do so for six months or so simply does not translate to upholding the opt-out meme against research that shows it’s not really happening for women in general.

So, either you’re a troll along with our Latin American friend, or you’ve committed an epic fail of reading comprehension of this post, the article it’s based on, and all the comments so far.  I’m really thinking it’s “troll” since you’ve already claimed “reality is what I say it is” with your ridiculous “emotionally true” argument.

Comment #38: Caren, Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/23  at  02:57 PM

thanks for the response chingona.

Kodiak, I’m not trying to say I’m right, just how things appear

This response sums up what I see that disturbs me “opt-out of personal fulfillment in order to be nothing else but a mommy”-opoponax

I think the sentiment in that sentence is condescending to women that find more fulfillment in motherhood than the 9 to 5 work week, and it makes me wonder if feminists (in general) think that motherhood is an inherently inferior option to being a career woman, or if both are equally fulfilling, and dignified options, depending on the mother’s preferences.

Comment #39: Robin Rhea  on  06/23  at  03:04 PM

I’m not trying to say I’m right, just how things appear to me when I don’t stress reading comprehension.

There, fixed that for ya.

it makes me wonder if feminists (in general) think that motherhood is an inherently inferior option to being a career woman, or if both are equally fulfilling, and dignified options, depending on the mother’s preferences.

Again, either you’ve never read this blog, or you are failing completely in your reading comprehension.

Comment #40: Caren, Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/23  at  03:21 PM

Robin, just FYI, that’s always what I’ve understood the subset of “opt out” women to be, pretty blatantly, on the face of it.  Women who had world class educations and advanced professional degrees,  but decided not to pursue what were obviously life-long personal interests in order to ONLY be a mother to their children

That’s what “opting out” means.  Opting out of a personal life, of achievement, ambition, and even just pursuing your own interests.  My mom didn’t always work outside the home, but she played tennis and directed the church choir, and she also had an active social life with other grownups who may or may not have had children of their own (and definitely not as a function of our playgroups).  During which time we were in daycare, with a sitter, what have you.  Thus she did not “opt out”., in the way the subjects of this whole “opt-out revolution” are described as doing.

Comment #41: The Opoponax  on  06/23  at  03:26 PM

You do realize that you’re conflating several comments and a paragraph of the post and then putting a spin on the resulting mishmash that would put Mercury’s rotation to shame, yes?

My favorite is when she partially quotes self-identified SAHMs, and then claims that they’re sneering at women who choose to stay at home.

Comment #42: Caren, Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/23  at  03:28 PM

I guess where I have a problem is that you contrast motherhood and having a career. I have chosen motherhood and I have chosen a career. I am not somehow less my son’s mother because I work outside the home and have interests that extend beyond him.

I don’t think women who stay at home with young children are less than women who work. I think it’s a personal decision based on your family’s economics, your temperment, etc. I also think that feminism requires us to examine that decision critically, not necessarily to make a different decision, but to be aware of social pressures - for example, why is it so infrequently men who stay home? why is it so frequently the woman’s job that is viewed as more flexible, or that earns less? I also think that sense of being condescended to by the “other side” runs both ways (see comments like: “At least I’m raising my own children” and the like). I will admit that I question what woman who never go back to work ever are doing with themselves/to themselves. Like my aunt, who is just now looking for part-time work now that her youngest is starting his junior year of college. But I don’t think that has a lot of bearing on the discussion before us.

Comment #43: chingona  on  06/23  at  03:32 PM

There’s also the fact that a huge part of being a good parent is setting a good example. I was an underemployed freelancer—which is pretty close to being a stay-at-home—before I became a mother. I wasn’t proud of it, and I didn’t want my boy to think of women in general (or me in particular) as slackers and wimps (which is what I was, frankly).  I pulled up my socks, spent his toddlerhood getting a second baccalaureate and went to work. (I know some people think staying at home is the good example, and I certainly heard from my share of them at the time. I must say, however, that every one of them thought that the example I should be setting was about self-abnegation and susceptibility to guilt.)

Another thing is that Silverman seems to think everyone’s got a viable long-term plan here. One of the more interesting/rewarding/scary things about parenthood is that, no matter how much effort you put into getting your ducks lined up, you’re always ad-libbing.  You really don’t know what’s going to happen, not just year-to-year, but even day-to-day; what the kids are going to do, what your partner (or even your sitter) is going to do, what you or your kids or your partner are going to need. Even how you’re going to feel about it all is ‘way less predictable than you’d expect.  You’re allowed to change your mind.

Comment #44: Molly, NYC  on  06/23  at  03:47 PM

I love anecdata. It totally fills the gaping hole left when no real data is actually used.

My family is one of those “other” families - I work full-time, and my husband works part-time (and he’s self-employed). He’s been the primary caregiver for our son since the J-man was 7 WEEKS old, and I went back to work. We manage reasonably well - I get off work at 4, and take over the evening shift while my husband works. This is even easier now that I can work from home most days. Yes, yes, we could sell the house and the 2nd car and not have cable or internet and never get a latte, and I could probably stay home… but we would definitely have to move out of this county. Oh wait, this county (and the one next to it that is even more expensive) are the 2 best counties in terms of autism care.

I don’t actually know ANY WOMAN in real life (not on the internets) who opted out for good. I know a couple who took a year off, and then got right back in there… but no one who gave “it” all up for motherhood. I suppose I could get together 6 other working moms on a Saturday and get their opinions about something, and call it anecdata too. Hmmm… wonder if someone would pay me to do that?

Comment #45: Mary  on  06/23  at  03:52 PM

I don’t actually know ANY WOMAN in real life (not on the internets) who opted out for good.

Neither do I, actually.  Even thinking back to childhood, I can only think of a couple or three of my friends’ mothers were were at home fulltime even up through around middle school.  One of my grandmothers is the only person close to me in my life who has never held a job outside the home and wasn’t also a farmer’s wife (AKA career-oriented work done mainly via the domestic sphere).

Comment #46: The Opoponax  on  06/23  at  04:11 PM

I think the sentiment in that sentence is condescending to women that find more fulfillment in motherhood than the 9 to 5 work week, and it makes me wonder if feminists (in general) think that motherhood is an inherently inferior option to being a career woman, or if both are equally fulfilling, and dignified options, depending on the mother’s preferences.

Why are you setting “motherhood” and “career” as opposing forces?  I’m surprised to hear that I didn’t actually have a mother since she seemed to be there every day after work.  Was she an illusion?

I have another sister-in-law who “gave it all up” to be a full-time mother, but what she gave up was being assistant manager at Accessory Lady.  In other words, she didn’t exactly have an exciting, full-time, great-paying career to “give up” when she decided to stay home.

Though when you have four kids, you pretty much have to not work until the youngest one is in kindergarten at least.  No money for anything else.

Comment #47: Mnemosyne  on  06/23  at  04:12 PM

The fact that they are rich enough to stay home and have chosen to do so for six months or so simply does not translate to upholding the opt-out meme against research that shows it’s not really happening for women in general.

OK, yeah, I’m quoting myself here, so I should stop spamming Pandagon, but it strikes me that Rebecca Silverman is refuting her own hypothesis in a way.

Six-month old babies have no need for a playgroup.  Six months is about when they start getting interesting and start moving and babbling.  A six month old can’t crawl yet and is just starting to roll over.  Six month olds don’t need playgroups.

Mothers of six month olds do.  They need support and other adults to talk to and relate to. 

If these Austin moms were really “opting out”, they wouldn’t be attending playgroups until the kids were at least a year old.  No, they may not be planning on returning to their former careers full-time in the foreseeable future, but they certainly aren’t working at sacrificial full-time housewife/motherhood either.

Comment #48: Caren, Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/23  at  04:17 PM

“I don’t actually know ANY WOMAN in real life (not on the internets) who opted out for good.”

Well, there was my mother. She devoted her life to us kids. Oh, wait, she also worked half-time in my father’s office, and then when that stopped she went back to school and became a CPA and worked fulltime. But I still remember her as opting out. Which is a big thing here, because there’s a misty watercolor picture of how things used to be that we’re all supposed to live up to while doing all the other things that we do. pah.

And yeah, if you go to places where only nonworking parents can go, you’ll see a lot of nonworking parents.

Comment #49: paul  on  06/23  at  04:18 PM

i do know one woman that i consider to have “opted out”.  she attended an ivy league college, then got an advanced degree beyond that.  she was working on getting her career off the ground when she got married, then quit her job to take some time to figure out what she wanted to do.  then - she got pregnant and hasn’t gone back to work since.  i don’t know what she’s going to do when her youngest starts school; she’s got a couple of years before she has to face that issue though.  anyway, a piece of anecdata for you all.

the thing that gets me about these discussions is the way we are being forced into having to rank things according to importance.  yes, my child is important to me, and motherhood fulfills an important emotional need in a way that no other relationship does.  yes, my career is important to me and fulfills my need for intellectual stimulation in a way that motherhood simply does not.  so why talk about placing emotional fulfillment over intellectual or vice versa?  we don’t talk about which we need more, food or water, do we?  we need both to survive.

some women, and also some men, seem to not mind not having the intellectual stimulation that a professional career provides, or else never had jobs that provided that, and so as a result are happy(ier) staying home with small children all day.  that’s fine - i dont’ judge it as inferior as much as am completely baffled by it.  but then i’m baffled by a lot of things that people choose in this life, my husband’s predilection for pickled herring being at the forefront of the list.  but i realise and accept that there are people who love being at home all day, day in and day out, with their kids, and that’s fine.  i enjoy it for a day or two at a stretch, but much more than that and i start to go starkers.

if someone asked me who i loved more, my husband or my son, i would not have any response except to blink hard and repeatedly and say “why would you ask such a thing?  what sort of choice is that?”  and yet the notion that i must pick either my work as an engineer/planner or my work as a mother as being more important or fulfilling to me - seems to be acceptable discourse in our society.  what the???!?!?!?!

Comment #50: trishka  on  06/23  at  04:45 PM

Also, the phrase “new moms” is the key here—-the study found that women did often take time off, but returned to work in a few months or a year after giving birth.  Look around at the many housewives that supposedly provide evidence of this “opt-out” revolution.  Look at their babies in strollers.  You know, unable to walk.  Isn’t it weird how the “opt-outers” just seem to become housebound after the kids become a year old? Or an alternate and more likely explanation is that after a year of being at home, a lot of new moms say stuff it and go back to work.  They weren’t opting out after all.

Well, there’s also the fact that as kids get past the toddler stage and graduate from the stroller, they tend to get bigger and grow out of their onesies and eat more and need stuff and cost money.  I’m a spinster and don’t have any kids of my own, but I’ve noticed this about other people’s: the price tag attached to them starts out high and then rises.  Kids are big-ticket items.  Two heads aren’t necessarily better than one but two people can usually make more money than one person, even if one of the people is working for around seventy-five cents to the other’s dollar. 

It may be more economical for new mothers to stay home than not, but (this is just my guess) I bet that changes later on.  Infant care is regarded as the individual responsibility of every new mother and is therefore treated as piecework (which means that if it’s delegated it gets delegated expensively into the hands of a private contractor) but that the upbringing of older children is to some extent judged to be the responsibility of the whole society, which is why the older children are sent to school.  (If we believed that parents were solely responsible for the nurture/culture of their own offspring to the exclusion of everybody else’s, we’d leave it up to the parents either to procure tutors for their children or to educate their kids themselves or to let the little tykes run around unschooled.) 

In this society, the sole responsibility for the care of her children gets lifted from a mother’s shoulders when her kids are about 5 or 6, at which point, since she no longer has either to bring them up, as the phrase is, “by hand”, or pay a substitute directly out of her own or her husband’s pocket, I can see where it might very well, at that point, start to become more economical for her to go back to work than to stay home.  And it wouldn’t surprise me in the least, in fact, if that were to turn out to be the point at which she generally does go back to work.  I have no proof of any of this, mind you, but I wish someone would look into it and find out whether or not this is indeed the way the game runs.

Comment #51: bekabot  on  06/23  at  04:46 PM

I am a SAHM currently after being forced out of my job earlier this year. I love being at home with my son but will soon have to go back to work because we need the money, not because I need a job for my personal satisfaction. If money were no issue, I’d stay home with my son until he was old enough for kindergarden & work on upgrading my job skills - after that, back to work!. Articles like this one piss me off because they are talking about what a few upper middle class professional women are doing as if it was a full-blown phenomena that was taking the world of the working woman by storm. Rarely do these newspaper articles talk about the issues most working mothers face - lack of work hours/location flexibility, asshole employers who think that they own their employees time both in and out of the office, lack of access to quality affordable daycare, shrinking pay & benefits that might allow a family to live on one salary. No, it’s always a glowing, soft-focus story about some woman with an awesomely well-paying job (married to an equally awesomely paid man) who quit her job to be happily fufilled as a cookie bakin’, mudpie makin’ domestic goddess.

Comment #52: Echolalia  on  06/23  at  05:05 PM

“Kodiak, I’m not trying to say I’m right, just how things appear”

So you’re not saying you’re right, just that I’m looking at things wrong? Interesting. Honestly, go back and read the paragraph I quoted and try to imagine that you didn’t write it. Imagine it in a different context when you are on the recieving end. Does it sound less or more condesending from that POV?

Comment #53: kodiak  on  06/23  at  05:23 PM

Oh god, someone is whining because I brought up uncomfortable facts that they’d prefer to ignore?  If you find yourself unwilling to even think about what would happen if you husband decided not to come home from work one day, then you’re probably already fucked.  In my experience, unwillingness to contemplate the risks means that you already know they’re too high and you’re living in denial.

I tend to trust the decisions the housewives who have considered the possibility that the rug could be yanked out from under them more.  They’ve contemplated and accepted the risks.  Watch out for people who wave their hands and deny the risks, making outrageous “look over there!” claims about how the blogger supposedly “hates” housewives.  Even the term “stay at home mother” is a euphemism that says to me that there’s risk denial going on.  It’s like someone smoking and telling you about how they heard of some old man who lived to 98 while smoking every day.

Comment #54: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/23  at  05:33 PM

I get the real sense that feminists that choose to go back to work tend to both look down on and envy those that choose to stay home,

Yeah, you made that up to make yourself feel better.  I don’t have children and don’t want them.  I would sooner cut off fingers than have children.  Which isn’t a judgment on people who have them.  Some people like chocolate more than vanilla, and I like my peace more than I like children.  But being told I “envy” housewives is like telling me that I envy people stuck in traffic.  I just don’t.  It’s really that alien to me.  Not all women have the desires deemed mandatory by fucking Rebecca Walker.

But I understand that you need to believe that, because facing up to reality is too painful.

Comment #55: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/23  at  05:41 PM

And for people eager to misinterpret that comment: I am NOT suggesting that anyone is regretting children. I accept that many people want children, even if I don’t.

I’m more suggesting that the interpersonal relationships between women and the men who want them to be dependent are too troubling for many women to look at, so they lash out at the messenger or make this about children, taking men out of the equation completely.  Which is why I like the term “housewife”.  The term “stay at home mom” is a deliberate attempt to erase a man’s role in this, and to keep people from examining whether or not men are playing a role in pressuring women into financial dependence.  “Housewife” is a reminder that men do in fact play a part.

Comment #56: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/23  at  05:44 PM

(Rambling because I want to test a theory about posts getting through vs. posts disappearing without a trace).

Amanda: The term “stay at home mom” is a deliberate attempt to erase a man’s role in this, and to keep people from examining whether or not men are playing a role in pressuring women into financial dependence.  “Housewife” is a reminder that men do in fact play a part.

Hm, a woman can be a SAHM without a husband, and a housewife without children. Different roles, and words suitable for different situations. As long as the debate is about mothers, “housewife” doesn’t seem to be the most exact term…

Comment #57: inge  on  06/23  at  08:39 PM

Amanda, I think that’s a really good point, one that almost never comes up in this discussion.  I thought about it earlier when I was talking about the opt-out concept as Opting Out, Yo - giving up pretty much every aspect of your personality and former life aside from being a mom.

And then I realized that there is one thing that opter-outers are expected to prioritize in addition to motherhood.  Their husbands.  Also domestic labor and other kinds of work described by Chingona as “scut work”, which goes hand in hand with the idea of the “housewife”.

I guess there’s nothing “wrong” with prioritizing your marriage and family, if that’s really what you want to do.  And obviously a great many women find themselves shoehorned into this arrangement.  But you have to be straight up about the fact that this is what opting out is—erasing every aspect of yourself in favor of your husband and children.  Fully voluntarily.  For at least the next 18 years. 

I can’t think of a whole lot of women I know (ok, any women I know) who would freely choose a life like that, when you describe it honestly.

Comment #58: The Opoponax  on  06/23  at  08:42 PM

“Taking men out of the equation entirely” is exactly what the whole mommy-wars debate is designed to do. It avoids looking at what happens if the person supporting your “opting out” decides to opt out with one of his co-workers, or why only women are told that it’s more fulfilling and important to be a full-time caregiver than to have a full-time job.

The argument that feminists hate housewives requires an awful lot of historic revisionism, too. It’s not feminists resisting the idea of childcare at social gatherings or flexible work hours for parents.

Comment #59: mythago  on  06/23  at  10:10 PM

it makes me wonder if feminists (in general) think that motherhood is an inherently inferior option to being a career woman, or if both are equally fulfilling, and dignified options, depending on the mother’s preferences.

The argument that feminists hate housewives requires an awful lot of historic revisionism, too. It’s not feminists resisting the idea of childcare at social gatherings or flexible work hours for parents.

Mythago has the perfect point—who but feminists even consider giving women options of being career women or mother or both, much less depending on the woman’s preference.  If you don’t think women are fully human and entitled to equal treatment and protection, why would you ever consider their thoughts about what their place in society should be or whether or not they are happy in that place?

Comment #60: Caren, Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/23  at  10:36 PM

I guess there’s nothing “wrong” with prioritizing your marriage and family, if that’s really what you want to do.  And obviously a great many women find themselves shoehorned into this arrangement.  But you have to be straight up about the fact that this is what opting out is—erasing every aspect of yourself in favor of your husband and children.  Fully voluntarily.  For at least the next 18 years.

Anecdata time!

I was raised by a stay-at-home mother (while we spent a small amount of time in day-care when I was little, she never had any in-home help and didn’t start working until my parents divorced, when I was 15, which obviously illustrates one of the pitfalls) and she would say that she does much more erasing of herself at work than she did when she was staying home. As an unemployed mother, my mom did a ton of volunteering, reading, cooking, knitting, singing, playing old Nintendo roleplaying games like and other things that she really enjoys; as a full-time church secretary, she spends the vast majority of her day dealing with other people’s paperwork and being nice to strangers on the phone. She enjoys a lot of aspects of her job, but I know her, and I know she’d enjoy it more if she was volunteering part time and had more time to devote to other things she enjoys.

So I think we do women a disservice when we say that they have to obliterate themselves for their children—there are women who not only find it profoundly satisfying and rewarding to spend time with their children, but they also find ways to maintain their own interests and identity while doing that.

I’m 26 and I don’t know if I’ll ever have kids, but the (copious) time I’ve spent babysitting is enough to make me realize what an overwhelming job it is, and I’m sure I couldn’t do it full time without help.  There are things I find fulfilling (like writing) that it would be extremely hard to dedicate myself to if I had children; hell, it’s hard enough to work a full time job and still feel like a human being on a Monday night. Answering phones isn’t all that fulfilling either.

So I guess my question is, while I agree with the premise of the post, what is to be gained by talking about stay-at-home motherhood like it is completely without rewards? All that does is alienate the people who enjoy it, or who wish they had the resources to try it.

Comment #61: Licia  on  06/23  at  11:13 PM

That would be an important question if anyone really was talking about stay-at-home motherhood like it was completely without rewards.

But one is moved to ask why these ‘rewards’ so rarely tempt men.

Comment #62: mythago  on  06/23  at  11:27 PM

“So I guess my question is, while I agree with the premise of the post, what is to be gained by talking about stay-at-home motherhood like it is completely without rewards?”

I’m more interested in figuring out what’s to be gained by making stay-at-home motherhood completely without rewards.  The motherhood goalposts seemed to have been moved miles from where they were twenty years ago.  I’m waiting for the day they officially declare a mother enjoying herself bad for the children.

Comment #63: preying mantis  on  06/23  at  11:43 PM

I am a SAHM and find it the most rewarding thing I have ever done. I used to have a full time high stress job and hated it. To get to stay home and is great. And by the way, since I decided to stay home almost 2 yrs. ago, my marriage is better than ever. My husband is home at night so I can do things I enjoy. He never complains and I am happier than I have ever been!!

Comment #64: hboulware  on  06/23  at  11:55 PM

I am a SAHM and find it the most rewarding thing I have ever done. I used to have a full time high stress job and hated it. To get to stay home and is great. And by the way, since I decided to stay home almost 2 yrs. ago, my marriage is better than ever. My husband is home at night so I can do things I enjoy. He never complains and I am happier than I have ever been!!

See, everyone?!
That means we can *all* do it!
Right?!

Comment #65: hbsweet, empress of ice cream  on  06/24  at  12:36 AM

i actually want to be a SAHM, but i also want to home school my kids when i have them and be active with an unschooling group as much as im able. the idea of being SAHM probably appeals to me becos im agoraphobic and really dislike leaving my house, and i dont much care for most adult social activities becos i dont drink or much else, when my agoraphobia isnt to bad i like to go out shopping or to a concert or whatever, but thats rare. i like kids and i like the way they think and express themselves. id rather fingerpaint than be in a cubicle any day. at the same time tho i plan on having a nice vegetable garden and on self publishing comics and zines while im at home and if i ever save up enough money to do a tattoo apprenticship i would totally tattoo out of the house too. my fiance is hoping that once hes done with veterinary school and establishes himself in an existing practice that we can get some property and he can work from home too.

but really, for us its not opting out of sucess so much as opting out of society as it functions currently. im not sure what the definition would be, but it probably has alot more to do with us being dirty pinkos than with any overwhelming sense of future parental obligation.

Comment #66: jessilikewhoa  on  06/24  at  01:52 AM

jesslikewhoa, nothing wrong with wanting to ‘opt in’ to a different way of life, but SAHM and homeschooling is not going to get around agoraphobia. Kids want to get out of the house. Unschooling is going to require you to go out. Being a parent is going to mean a lot of interaction with other adults because your kids will have friends. I’m not going to presume to tell you to get help for agoraphobia because I assume that you’re already doing so, but warning you that ‘it will let me stay inside’ is NOT going to be the result of what you’ve outlined here.

Comment #67: mythago  on  06/24  at  10:05 AM

As an unemployed mother, my mom did a ton of volunteering, reading, cooking, knitting, singing, playing old Nintendo roleplaying games like and other things that she really enjoys; as a full-time church secretary, she spends the vast majority of her day dealing with other people’s paperwork and being nice to strangers on the phone. She enjoys a lot of aspects of her job, but I know her, and I know she’d enjoy it more if she was volunteering part time and had more time to devote to other things she enjoys.

It seems your mother is not one of the people we’re talking about when we talk about women who opt-out. 

She would definitely fit into the wide venn of “women who manage, or at least try to manage, living for themselves and participating in a family at the same time”. 

The years my mom was a SAHM, she was like what you describe your mother being like.  She volunteered, pursued her own interests, and had a social life.  Much the same as when she has worked (she’s a nurse, so, yeah, similar needs to shoehorn away one’s own interests in favor of doing a lot of boring stuff you probably don’t enjoy).  The point isn’t Working A Paid Job Outside The Home Is Enjoyable And Fulfilling, While Childcare Is Not.  It’s about this fiction that women with an obvious commitment to lifelong ambitions and goals and passions (you don’t go to law school just to pass the time until Mr. Right pops the question) suddenly “opting out” of their entire previous personality in order to be a full-time servant to their families.  At the source it’s not necessarily about gainful employment vs. lack thereof—I think almost everyone in the world would quit their day job in order to pursue the rest of their lives in a more leisurely fashion, whether that meant childcare , volunteering, or just having time to sleep in and play video games all day.  It’s about an approach to the proper place of a woman - in the kitchen with children underfoot, period, that’s all she wrote.

Comment #68: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  10:52 AM

I opted out when we moved last. My kids were in the middle of sixth and fourth grade and we were uprooting them from their childhood home. I thought it would be best for them to be a stabilizing presence at home and a free agent if need be during the transition time. We have been in this location now for 4 and a half years and I still haven’t gone back. I enjoy having teenagers and they have the security of knowing Mom is home if they need her. Of course, college is a huge dilemma and I will need to go back in the next year to be able to afford SOMETHING but we have pretty good state colleges and I have had the benefit of watching my children become young adults. I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

Comment #69: momly  on  06/24  at  11:19 AM

If feminists are often itchy about ‘opting out’ it’s because of the lack of involvment with the means of production.  Forget whether the tasks of being home all day with a child are ‘superior’ to others, if you are talking about your own kids, that work is unpaid, and also unlikely to lead to opportunities for paid work later.  There are certainly enough exceptions to drive a truck through, but before you regale me with stories of millionaire e-bay power sellers and childrens book authors, take a deep breath and remember that in the start up stage, those jobs also had no benefit and an unsteady stream of income.  I don’t know how we’d pay for the older child’s medical bills related to his diabetes under those cirucumstances.  If there is a partner in the picture willing to do so, I guess you could literally have that person ‘pay’ you a salary, put it in a separate account in your own name, and protect it with a ante-nuptual agreement, but I’ve NEVER heard of anyone setting that up.  Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with being dependent on others, as long as you realize that it will always have to be in someone else’s self interest to take care of you (I’m stealing that from Sheedy).  However, life being what it is, it seems like a big leap of faith to think that someone who IS involved in the means of production will be willing and able to make up for the fact that you aren’t for years.  Women who get the rug pulled out from under them by illness, divorce or death often end up underemployed and working a lot of hours to make up for their lack of seniority and experience.  If caring for one’s own children were paid work that allowed women to save, build future job skills, and have access to health care, this entire conversation would take on a different complexion.

Comment #70: bmc90  on  06/24  at  12:16 PM

Although there are wonderful moments with young-uns’, after a time you need adult stimulation.  I dearly love the sponges that are K-3.  I don’t like the repetition or the need to do basic hygiene.  And this is only during school.  It would be far more stressful to be unable to escape…is that why the wealthy have had childcare providers?

Comment #71: Mold  on  06/24  at  12:17 PM

I feel like there is more emphasis now on being the perfect, involved, engaged mother than there was in the past, when more women actually were housewives. Women were at home because they were mothers, but I think the social emphasis was more on being a good wife, keeping a clean, stress-free home for your husband to come home to, that sort of thing. The upside of women not being expected to be slaves to their children is that they did find a lot of time to volunteer and do worthwhile things. A lot of valuable civic organizations like League of Women Voters and Planned Parenthood and others really benefited from the talents and drives (and free labor) of women who, had they been born in another generation, might have become lawyers and executives.

I’m not quite sure how the shift occured, but I suspect it’s part of moving the goal posts in response to feminism. Because of the influence of feminism, people have to give lip service to the intelligence and talents of women, and as much as everyone likes a clean house, you can’t really argue that running the vacuum provides much intellectual stimulation. So the focus has shifted to talking up the very important work women do raising their kids. But because you can’t let women get too ahead of themselves, you have to create social pressure to completely structure your life around every whim of your child, instead of a more psychologically sustainable situation in which the child is part of a family, not the center of it.

Just to be clear, I’m not accusing any of the SAHMs commenting here of anything, or any SAHM in particular. I guess I’m talking more about the image of motherhood you get from pop culture and parenting magazines. Like the time I read, in a list of ways to “make time for yourself,” that mothers should keep a novel in the glove compartment and read a page or two while waiting to pick their kid up from school or soccer practice or whatever. That is a damn creepy level of self-abnegation. And I probably shouldn’t get my image of SAH mothers from parenting magazines, any more than Cosmo is an accurate depiction of the concerns of the average American woman, but I do think it’s serves to show something about cultural pressues and standards.

Comment #72: chingona  on  06/24  at  02:12 PM

Statistically, I think I’m counted as an “opt out.”  I’m home with a two year old with no plans to return to the working world and I’m pretty satisfied with my day-to-day life.  I use “home” loosely though.  We’re pretty much always up to something outdoors and I’m also administrating a family business.  But how much I want my freedom back!  I love the kid to death and I don’t regret being here, but I’m young and itching to do something of my own.  (WAHM family business?  Sucks.)  I genuinely fear that my frustration and longing to go back to school will be picked up by the kid as evidence that I somehow don’t love them.  Stupid media programming.

Comment #73: AnnaArcturus  on  06/24  at  02:58 PM

Statistically, I think I’m counted as an “opt out.”

No, hon, you’re not.

I’m starting to see how all this SAHM vs. Back-To-Work mommy dynamic works vis a vis the he “Opt-Out Revolution”, and why it doesn’t actually matter whether said “revolution” really exists.

Even though the opt-out phenomenon really only applies to wealthy a women who hold multiple degrees and had promising careers that they COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY GAVE UP FOREVER and DO NOT DO ANY WORK AT ALL ASIDE FROM DOMESTIC LABOR AND CHILDCARE (for purely personal preference reasons, NOT because it made economic sense, and not so they could also go back to school, or start a business, or volunteer, or do something else), every woman who doesn’t work a full-time nine-to-five outside the home immediately upon spewing out the babe kinda sorta sees herself as an Opt-Out Mommy, when 9 out of 10 times, she’s not, at all. 

Which then creates the false dichotomy of SAHM vs. Office Job Mommy and starts a flame war on like 57 different websites..

Comment #74: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  04:37 PM

It irritates me to no end that somehow I am not a “good” feminist because I worked 20+ years as a self-sufficient professional and then decided to have a kid - but did not want to pawn her off on a substitute caregiver.  As a feminist, I am not supposed to enjoy bonding with my child, natural parenting, secular unschooling.  Instead, I need to return to the male-dominated corporate culture and slave away once again as a litigator in a meaningless job with a group of sexist pigs so that I can feel truly fulfilled - and be a consumer.  I need to have an adversarial relationship with my husband, because it is impossible for us to work together as a team to achieve a goal we both are dedicated to.  It is a shame that my brain died when my uterus was activated such that I cannot read, write or converse in any meaningful way with my husband or anyone else for that matter.  I cannot believe that so much education (bachelors, masters and JD) was wasted on a female like me.  Too bad I cannot use it to influence those of the next generation in a meaningful way.  Oh, that’s right - I am!

Comment #75: sunshine  on  06/24  at  11:13 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.