Another article, same old story: Young women are choosing to stay home and be moms instead of having careers.
Let me start out by saying that I have a lot of respect for stay-at-home parents. It’s definitely up there on the list with jobs that I probably could not do. So please, let’s not interpret what I’m saying here to be condescending to them, because staying home with your kids all day and trying to manage an entire household on your own is not easy. There’s nothing wrong with making the choice to be a stay-at-home mom — if it really is a choice. But what this article shows is that many young women don’t feel like they have many options:
“My mother’s always told me you can’t be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time,” Ms. Liu said matter-of-factly. “You always have to choose one over the other.”
I wonder if Mrs. Liu ever told her sons that they have to choose between being a good career man and being a good father?
“I’ve seen the difference between kids who did have their mother stay at home and kids who didn’t, and it’s kind of like an obvious difference when you look at it,” said Ms. Abugo, whose mother, a nurse, stayed home until Ms. Abugo was in first grade.
Right, this old argument: If your kids are screwed up, it’s mom’s fault for working. Let’s pick a random example here — say, First Daughters. Who would you rather your kid turn out like — Chelsea Clinton or Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumber (known to friends as Barbara and Jenna)?
It’s problematic that young women (these girls are 19) are already convinced that there’s no way they can “have it all.” And I know someone is going to throw it out there that “You can’t have it all,” but I wonder how many men hear that in their lives. If men work 80 hours a week, they’re applauded for being good providers. If they stay home with their kids, they’re applauded for being good stay-at-home dads and sensitive father-types. On the other hand, if a woman works 80 hours a week, she’s a bad mother who doesn’t raise her own children. If she’s a stay-at-home mom, she’s a soap-opera-watcher and bon-bon-eater. Working women are blamed for kids who grow up to be criminals, or who are at the very least anti-social or “bad.” Stay-at-home moms are blamed for “coddling” their kids, for being over-zealous PTA-mom types, and for turning their sons gay. It’s hard to win. But the stay-at-home mom role is still, as far as I can tell, more highly praised than the working mom — “putting my kids first” always sounds better than “balancing my life.”
The Times at least does a good job of pointing out that choosing not to work is very much an upper-middle and upper-class privilege that many women (particular unmarried women and low-income women) simply don’t have access to.
The women they are counting on to lead society are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity.
Of course, this isn’t much of an issue for the Yale students that the Times interviews — I thought the whole going to college to find a husband thing was long over?
“What does concern me,” said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, “is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn’t constructed along traditional gender roles.”
He’s right. So what do men think of all this?
Sarah Currie, a senior at Harvard, said many of the men in her American Family class last fall approved of women’s plans to stay home with their children.
“A lot of the guys were like, ‘I think that’s really great,’ ” Ms. Currie said. “One of the guys was like, ‘I think that’s sexy.’ Staying at home with your children isn’t as polarizing of an issue as I envision it is for women who are in their 30′s now.”
Sexy and great? If it’s so sexy and great, why don’t you do it? I suspect that the perception these men have of stay-at-home moms is a sweet wife who will keep the house clean, iron his socks and have dinner on the table for him when he gets home. If that was the case, I’d want a wife too.
I think what this article speaks to most poignantly is the frustration that so many so-called “post-feminist” women find in a culture where the women have progressed further than the men on gender equality issues. That is, feminism has told women, “You can do it!”, but men haven’t caught on that their roles need to shift, too. We’ve told women, You can go to college. You can work outside the home. You can live by yourself, you don’t have to get married, and you can make yourself happy. And men have certainly heard, You can stay home with your kids too if you want, but that doesn’t mean much when definitions of masculinity still rely on the ability to be a breadwinner. And it doesn’t seem like our culture has shifted to the point where we’re telling men, “Work within the domestic sphere should be equally divided. Iron your own socks.”
Placing value on child-rearing is incredibly important, and I’m not trying to downplay that or argue that every household should have two working parents. It’s good to see that young women feel entitled to an education, even if it’s not part of their path to an outside-the-home career. It’s just problematic that, like the dean of Yale College said, so many young people seem unable to think outside the box — being an economically stable, family-centered unit automatically means that Dad works and Mom stays home with the kids. And it’s scary that kids think that they need to make these decisions at 19.
UPDATE: Slate takes on the NYT’s bogus trend story (as a sidenote, I REALLY hate trend stories, in particular any which interview “trend forecaster” Faith Popcorn). Thanks to Liss for the link.
Working all day and then having to come home and do the laundry, the shopping, the dinner, and entertaining the kids IS exhausting. What these people don’t get is that with more of the home stuff equally shared, it would lessen a lot of the stress.
Men have been “having it all” for generations; I don’t get why this is even up for debate?
Ironing socks? I don’t iron socks.
I am a bad mother!
I am a stay-at-home mom and I get the impression that we are looked down upon just as much as working moms, although by different segments of society. If we weren’t criticized or punished for our decision, if staying home really was an easier option than working, then women would actually have a way to win the mommy wars! Instead, society conspires against all mothers to make each of us feel bad for not “having it all.”
I also think that, while it’s true that many men haven’t caught on to changing roles, most workplaces stand in the way of greater changes. A former co-worker’s husband received a lot of resistance and raised eyebrows when he was looking for part-time work so he could spend more time with his family (but no one thought his wife was unusual at all when she sought part-time work rather than full-time). My husband’s company only gave him two weeks of parental leave when our daughter was born and he felt a lot of unspoken pressure not to ask for more time. When employers start being more family-friendly to both fathers and mothers, then I think we’ll be on the road to better balance.
I think we have a lot to learn from European workplace policies. 1 year paid maternity, which you can split with the dad as well so that one or both are home with the kid for up to a year or two. Family-friendly workplaces that actually acknowledge holidays as holidays, and don’t poo-poo people wanting to go home early or not come in on the weekends. And more accessible health care, so that people don’t feel obligated to work full-time if they don’t want to, just to get benefits.
And a whole slew of other advantages.
Exactly.
And this is also a part of the custody and child-support issues discussed here.
Rhetorical hyperanalysis-
1. “My mother’s always told me you can’t be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time,”
This statement seems rather logical to me.
I wonder if Mrs. Liu ever told her sons that they have to choose between being a good career man and being a good father?
Being a “good” father or mother vs. having a “good” career is a degree of meaning different from being “the best,” which is to say exemplary. By that standard, fathers who work very hard and spend a great deal of time at intensive careers are certainly not the “best” fathers either, regardless of what they are “told.”
And I know someone is going to throw it out there that “You can’t have it all,” but I wonder how many men hear that in their lives.
Not that many. And odds are, less of them would care. There is a certain self-selection bias to any of this analysis, namely, the fact that more women than men want it all (the desire to have and nurture children is hard-wired more prevalently in women). Of course there are plenty of men that want a family, and a good percentage of those that want a “traditional” family with the wife at home, and a percentage of the latter that insist on it, but as a man’s desire to have children and be a fantastic dad increases, so the devotion to be an exemplary dad follows, with the concommittent realization that one can’t “have it all,” phallus or no.
Now ask yourself – do men go forth and work like maniacs, bucking the emphasis on the slog of family work (and it is work) because society doesn’t place equal emphasis on them to do their share? Somewhat. But I’d argue that the bigger element is the fact that they don’t really put a priority on it. Instinctively.
i.e., when a new mom brings a baby into the office, women from 3 floors swarm and ululate like Median pilgrims to bathe in the child’s reflected glory, having delighted mini-mommy-by-proxy orgasms that echo in the hallway, whereas the men typically express no/vague/mild/moderate interest. (except that one guy that loves kids)
Personally, I hide in my office and close the door to drown out the ear-lashing sounds of cooing and avoid choking on the fine cloud of estrogen that mists the air.
This is my intuition. I’m 30, I could care less about having children in the immediate future, thus my time horizon towards the prime working years is uninterrupted. You see, I have less instinctive inclination to adapt.; this has nothing to do with what society “told” me. I just don’t give a crap. I’ve spent literally 0.00000678% of my life pondering the implications of planning for offspring, and 0.00000549% of that has taken place writing this comment. And I’m not alone.
That is, feminism has told women, “You can do it!”, but men haven’t caught on that their roles need to shift, too.
Or they’ve heard it somewhere, but they don’t particularly care.
We’ve told women, You can go to college. You can work outside the home. You can live by yourself, you don’t have to get married, and you can make yourself happy. And men have certainly heard, You can stay home with your kids too if you want, but that doesn’t mean much when definitions of masculinity still rely on the ability to be a breadwinner.
As opposed to definitions of masculinity that rely on the ability to crochet socks and sweep the floor? Being a breadwinner isn’t so much about fulfilling some prideful male cliche – what we’ve been “told” (though there are many patrician families that will fit your generalization) – it’s often a reflection of an instinctive aggression that men have to compete, attack, acquire, something which is less fulfilled nurturing children.
As an accredited male (references on request), I would love my future wife to have a high-powered career nailing down high six-figures. I don’t care a whit whether she makes more money than me. I would appreciate independence. But I’m still going to go out and kill for the tribe because it’s in my nature to do so, and if the emphasis is on having kids within a certain timeline, it’s going to be her emphasis, and something will have to give. (Assuming we don’t farm out the 9 to 6 nurturing to a team of Swedish nannies)
And that thing that “gives,” across a large average distribution of couples, is more likley to be elements of the woman’s career. Why? Because on average, more men would be miserable nurturing a child all day, vs. a higher percentage of women that might find the endeavor rewarding.
My $.02. YMMV
One of the first things I thought about when reading this article is a bit of an age old debate I have had with many down though the ages about the notion of women who want a career and the mates they tend to choose.
It seems to me, anecdotally, that the more career success driven a woman is, the more likely she wants that same quality in a man. They both what the same thing, so the choices for these couples are:
One of the two is the primary caregiver who must skip work when the child is sick or when other issues come up require a parent to divert attention from their work which means that parents job is placed second on the priority chart (typically the woman). Of course this means that the “caregiver” parent is now at a disadvantage in the workplace. The other choice is to divide up the responsibility between both parents but all this does is put both parents at a competitive disadvantage.
Now I have posed the idea to some of these women that if they want to succeed in a highly competitive job the kind of man they really need is one who is comfortable in the role of caregiver and is willing to be a stay at home dad, while he supports his ladder climbing wife.
Now here is were the argument starts, almost all the woman who desire to achieve success in highly competitive jobs, seem to attracted to men who also want success in highly competitive jobs as well. Indeed they admire a motivated, ambitious man just like they are. So I pose the question, “why not look for a man who is willing to play the nurturing role.”
The answer that I get, without any qualification, is that men don’t want to marry woman who are the main bread winner”. “Well”, I typically say, “You’re right, a lot of men don’t, particularly highly motivated men with lots of ambition. But by the same token not many women really want to be the financial head of the household so there should be some crossover.”
“No…” I’m told, “…women would absolutely marry men willing to take on the primary nurturing role if they could find men willing to take that role”. It is about this time that I mention a few names of eligible men who have more of an artistic side and who have very nurturing personalities (one who is rising a daughter) what I tend to here is basically that these type pf men don’t turn them on.
One time I when thought this exercise one of the women said, “These guys are all wimps.” I was a bit shocked (after all what might we say about ment who don’t like powerful women because they are “bitches”), I mean sure we are not talking about John Wayne types but the nurturing personalities do tend to be somewhat less stereotypically “manly”.
These are typical responses I seem to get from women when I suggest that they are looking for the wrong partner, one of whom had a very high level job and married a guy who was going to be the primary caregiver until she divorced him due to his “lack of ambition”.
So from my extremely unscientific and purely anecdotal survey I am left to conclude that woman, in general, who are motivated and ambitious are simply not interested in the kind of men who are willing to take on the primary nurturing role.
Without speculating on the reason for this I’m wondering is this right, or is my limited and anecdotal survey producing bad data?
Good analysis, Jill.
“And it’s scary that kids think that they need to make these decisions at 19.”
I doubt they view themselves as ‘kids’, though.
I think folks ‘make these decisions’ earlier than 19, don’t you? Heterosexuality is a normative role we’re forced into, usually from birth onward, unless we’re born to “progressive” parents. Marriage is a norm: it’s what people do. (Lauren linked earlier to a good post by Alley Rat on the subject.)
Growing up (and before my consciousness-raising) I never gave a second thought about marriage. I assumed I would marry at some point in my adult life, because that’s what people do.
Now, now that I’m able to critically analyse the institution of marriage and the institution of heterosexuality (and the institution of gender and the institution of The State, etc…), I am not ever marrying.
But a lot of folks perfer to carry on Tradition, play according to their religious precepts, or think they need to marry (social validation, taxes, laws, etc.) instead of working to change society and it’s laws.
Like you, I won’t begrudge anyone who wants to marry (well,…) and/or stay at home with their children. More power to them, as long as they don’t push the same lifestyle upon me, or automatically assume I should do the same just because I’m female.
Bill your comment made me crack up, but let me offer this Dr. Phil-ism: “That dog don’t hunt.”
No, not that one.
This one: There is an option somewhere inbetween identity at workhorse and identity as nurturant goddess. Women seem to have accepted in recent years that there are all kinds of ways to live and to define oneself — or rather, women’s options have widened significantly — but many men still have strong identity ties to their earning power.
Knowing that Success with a capital S is more than the money one can pull in a year is significant to the family-work divide, and this is what women are essentially discussing in this article.
Why lump our concentration on being the best at one thing when we can be pretty fucking good at a lot of things?
FWIW, I know one young married man who lost his job this year and became a part-time volunteer and stay-at-home dad with his daughter. No one who knows him thinks this is a bad idea at all — his wife agrees it is more suitable for all of them than any other option for various reasons — but most of the responses he gets from outsiders are lukewarm at best. Lots of whispering behind their backs about how unsuccessful he is because he can’t get a “real” job. That’s bullshit point blank.
As a part-time working mom, who still does the majority of childcare, I straddle these debates all the time (even tho that sounds like the beginnings of a dirty joke). Here are some of my thoughts:
I agree that we do also look down on SAHMs– every image of the soccer mom, who is so crazily invested in her kids because she has no life of her own, every time we look down on minivans as mom-mobiles, every time Judith Warner writes snarkily about women at preschools wearing overalls and giving up on sex, we’re mainly talking about SAHMs, even though most moms (like me) do all of those things too.
Also, I think the question never comes up for men because in many ways, we conflate being a good career man with being a good father, still, so it’s never posed as a dilemma at all. This shortchanges families, men, women and children all at the same time, and we all need to look more at that.
Re-imagining famillies is one of the major tasks still ahead of the feminist movement, and one I think that is sorely neglected.
Gloria Steinem said decades ago that one of the most radicalizing experiences in a woman’s life is having children, and this article is just more evidence that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
and yeah, everyone wants a wife– what we need to do is work towards re-envisioning what wife and husband will mean.
I second Rick DeMint’s comments. I once opened my heart on a date and sang half the catalogue from Les Miserables, and never heard from the lucky lady again. Now I’m all butch, all the time.
I think Rick’s on to something.
This from Anne however, is pretty odd:
Heterosexuality is a normative role we’re forced into, usually from birth onward, unless we’re born to “progressive” parents.
“Forced into,” you say? While many (most) homosexuals are unnaturally sheparded into hetero roles because of assumptions(while most later explicitly reject these roles and embrace being gay), on what parallel planet is heterosexual identification a forced paradigm? I mean, to the average extent that it’s forced (or forced via implication) on homosexuals, it’s just because most people make rational assumptions based on overwhelming predispositions.
“institution of heterosexuality[?]” I can’t even parody that characterization. Imagine how the derisive words “institution of homosexuality” would sound to you when coming out of the mouth of a Bible Beater. It’s as if you’re making their case that sexual preference is a largely fluid social paradigm … one that can be dubbed a perversion in the DSMV based on statistical incidence and supposed free will? Congrats!
While women tend to have more fluid bisexual arousal patterns (meaning many are naturally into men as well as women (again, on average, and only referring to arousal from visual stimuli)), men have distinctly focused arousal patterns (gay or not gay), and most women still self-identify as heterosexual. Do you really think it’s because of the insidious hand of society’s mindless socialization? Our sheep-like acquiescence to “institutions?”
And that you – having seen through the rote, restrictive paradigms – are naturally more enlightened?
There are multiple reasons why institutions like marriage are coded into our society, and while that specific incarnation of pair-bonding may somewhat rely on tradition (and I also think that many of its tenets – specifically the financial arrangments – are bs), it’s also a reflection of an evolved desire to pair-bond. And breed. And form stable families. And such.
But a lot of folks perfer to carry on Tradition, play according to their religious precepts, or think they need to marry (social validation, taxes, laws, etc.) instead of working to change society and it’s laws.
You express the approval of “Work(ing) to change society and it’s laws,” followed almost immediately by “More power to them, as long as they don’t push the same lifestyle upon me.” Which, isn’t that friggin’ ironic?
Don’t you think?
I wouldn’t say “forced into,” I would say “assumed” and all expectations come from that assumption.
FWIW, I know one young married man who lost his job this year and became a part-time volunteer and stay-at-home dad with his daughter. No one who knows him thinks this is a bad idea at all — his wife agrees it is more suitable for all of them than any other option for various reasons — but most of the responses he gets from outsiders are lukewarm at best. Lots of whispering behind their backs about how unsuccessful he is because he can’t get a “real” job. That’s bullshit point blank.
hey, I’m not endorsing the idea that a man that nurtures is a failure, not at all. More power to him, in many ways he’s stronger than I am, as I’m probably inclined to grab a roll of duct tape and break a xanax into teeny-tiny dosages with a razor blade when confronted with a screaming two year-old, whereas nurturing guy reaches for Blues Clues and a sock puppet.
No, I’m simply saying that more (most) men would prefer not to be the primary nurturer. More women have a higher priority on having and caring for children. As you say, there are degrees of difference – and in a distribution over a large population (say, everybody in America), these gender preferences account for some (a significant amount) of man’s unwillingness to shift roles and the practical reflections of this in society (economics, quotes in NYTimes articles, etc).
Thus, it’s not just because society hasn’t “advanced enough,” but you’re also fighting a “nature” component in any accurate characterization of gender roles.
Why lump our concentration on being the best at one thing when we can be pretty fucking good at a lot of things?
Diff’rent strokes and all. Again, I’m speaking to average tendencies over large populations. I think it’s perfectly possible for a woman to have a very good career and be a good mom. It’s just harder. And there is a relevant argument that being highly dedicated to a busy career that involves lots of time away from home sabotages being a good parent, specifically during a child’s beginning years. There is also an argument to be made that a child receives potentially better care from a mom (on average, again. random i.e., men and women have different biological recognition of and reactions to the sound of a baby crying).
And most importantly, there is an argument to be made that gender differences in societal roles (work focus vs. nurturing home life), are at least partially accounted for by evolutionary differences and tendencies in addition to socialization. So my rhetorical dog is hunting just fine. It hasn’t killed your dog, but it demands at least a nice spot on the porch.
And he’s a big manly dog.
Screws all the bitches in the neighborhood, and has never so much as met his 43 puppies (to date).
I wouldn’t say “forced into,” I would say “assumed” and all expectations come from that assumption.
A rational characterization. But it’s perhaps unfair to paint this assumption in a negative light, until it becomes some aggressive push to make a gay kid embrace straight modes of conduct.
“Now now, we can’t talk about boys kissing girls and getting married until we know which way Johnny swings!” is a bit extreme. And I wouldn’t characterize parents having an unaffected casual focus on hetero relationships a somehow negative “institution of heterosexuality.”
(Cue music – duh duh DUH!)
No one can have it all. If a parent works 80 hours a week and ignores his or her kid, that kid will not respect him/her as a nurturer or authority figure. If all you want out of reproduction is genetic continuation, I suppose that’s fine, but for anyone who actually wants to be a father or mother, compromises in the career are necessary.
My partner and I both work. My mother and mother-in-law help with the baby and she spends some time in daycare. Neither of us works the hours we would if we didn’t have the little one, but our careers seem to be progressing fine and the baby seems to be thriving with attention from a number of different adults. I don’t iron socks though. In fact, I don’t wash them either. We use a laundry service. My excuse is that, without medical intervention such as only been available in past few years, I would have died in childbirth and no one wants their laundry done by a bean nighe do they?
The only comment I’d like to throw in at this moment is this:
Men’s *nature*? Women’s *nature*? How much of that is socialization from the day of birth onwards (both of the subtle AND the blatent type) and how much is truly inborn?
My opinion is that we don’t know. We will probably never know. But unless and until we start challenging “The Way Things Are and Always Will Be”, we don’t have a chance of ever figuring it out. I figure there are elements of both nature and nurture in everyone’s make up, and people should just be encouraged to play to their strengths, whatever they are. Goodness knows that *I* would go batshit crazy taking care of small children and a household to the exclusion of other work. And I’m not exactly the high-powered executive type, either. But my husband and I somehow make our strengths work together, and while there are elements of traditional gender based roles in our daily lives, they aren’t there because we didn’t think about them. We just simply try to play to our personal strengths and not get lost in the clutter!
–Laurie
How much is inborn? Not bloody much, apparently And the supposed differences are greatly exagerrated. So not only are the differences between men’s and women’s natures not inborn, they are largely imaginary.
Laurie,
…until we start challenging “The Way Things Are and Always Will Be”, we don’t have a chance of ever figuring it out.
Agreed, but the question still remains who makes the first move? Sure in an ideal world both men and women would bend a little and try to meet in the middle. And many do, but “the way it is” right now is that men who have the temperament and will to be a full time nurturer and play a support role in their wives careers are simply not desired by the type of women who want to pursue those challenging and competitive careers (if I’m right about that).
Sure, most couples tend to play mix and match and both partners give a little and get a little, but that is not going to work for the most lucrative and competitive careers. In order to challenge the status quo isn’t it incumbent on those women who crave the challenge and stimulation of lucrative and competitive careers to make the first move? Shouldn’t these women be looking for the nurturing men to develop relationships with (and fetishizing them to some degree) in order to mitigate the “super-mom” lament?
Oh and the name is DeMent, DeMint is a republican senator from SC :)
Dianne, you said that so much better than I could. That’s a big part of what I was trying to get to in the post, my point being that women who try and compromise are often seen as selfish, and men are never told that they should compromise.
As a slight side note, my mom worked part-time when I was a kid, and my dad worked full time but was always home by 6. My mom got us off to school and was home most afternoons when we got home, and on the nights mom worked, dad made dinner and put us to bed. Mom was on PTA, dad coached my sister’s basketball team. They were both at every sports game, every music performance, and every play. I think it’s fair to say that my mom did more housework and more of the emotional parenting work, but I grew up feeling very close to both my parents (and feeling like they were always around). So from them I think I learned that balance is possible — and in my life, the balance will probably be different from theirs, but I don’t feel like I’m faced with a life where I have to choose between being a mom and working.
Jill – very interesting that you note the negative stereotypes of both stay-at-home moms and working moms. Similar to the virgin/whore complex, no?
I do think it’s important for children to have more than a few hours’ contact in the morning or evening with their parents and I’m not sure about generations of children being raised by nannies and babysitters. At the same time, I’m reluctant to penalize anyone for their choices, because situations are more complex than I could usually imagine. There are some women, especially single or divorced ones, who do not have a choice about working. Even women who are economically comfortable I wouldn’t force out of the workplace. I don’t know what the answer is.
Rick – appropriate that you should note that, since Mr. DeMint does not believe single mothers should be allowed to teach in schools. (http://www.amiannoying.com/(lxjvapv1352aclf5fetb1k45)/view.aspx?id=12859&collection=2804)
If you haven’t already seen it, Slate has a rather good column on the stupidity of the original article – though you may not agree with the last paragraph:
http://www.slate.com/id/2126636/
I wonder if I can find a way of including the beautiful, beautifully appropriate pop-up ad which appeared when I opened the article.
[experiments]
Sadly, I cannot. It depicts 50 babies, in serried ranks, waving manically at me, over and over again. On each nappy is the name of a state. The advert invites me to lower my household bills by clicking on the appropriate baby. It demands a caption competition.
I so knew I was wrong to break my NYTimes boycott…
I meant to say – Slate’s analysis reminded me of Backlash. Why NYTimes so dumb?
Kate,
Which is why I wanted to make sure no one would confuse me in with that guy (I have the misfortune to live in SC).
:)
Note that these guys are still in college, many will have student loans to pay off, and will be just starting out in life…unless they have family money or a very well paying career, chances are that their wives will be working, regardless of what they say now.
It’s harder than ever for a family to get along on what one person makes. I know; I’m a single mom, working two jobs AND selling stuff on ebay. For a family to live on what a single worker makes, it takes a lot of sacrifice, and it impacts retirement significantly for the person who isn’t working, something that many people don’t take into account.
I would have liked it very much if I could have spent the first 4 years at home with each of my children. It didn’t work out that way…but they still turned out OK.
Both my parents worked. Both shared the housework equally, both were invested in taking care of us children.
Having been a daycare child, and having been the parent of children who went to daycare, here is my take on this: having a parent stay home and not work, or having both parents working part time, is better and less stressful FOR THE PARENTS, which then has a trickle-down beneficial effect on the kids. Otherwise, kids tend to be very accepting of their lives, whether they get to stay home with mom or dad or whether they spend time at daycare.