NYT: The Opt-Out Revolution (Women Leaving The Workplace For Motherhood)

This article is far too comprehensive for me to try and condense it into the 4 paragraph limit this site imposes. So I won't even try. If you take a bit to read it I think you'll find it to be time well-spent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/magazine/26WOMEN.html

Children, spaced close together, as these women's children probably will be, are only small for a little time.. It makes sense for Moms to "take a break" and raise them themselves.. Those "jobs" will still be there when they decide to go back..

Women's Lib was about the Opportunity, and women have that now.. What they do with it is their choice..

Before women's lib, they could be teachers, but not school superintendents, nurses, but not doctors,paralegals, but not lawyers..etc,.

Those barriers are gone now, and so what if they do not make CEO by 40?? Once those kids are grown, they can go back..

For the women who want to juggle it all, they can do it, but doing everything at the same time and doing it well, is next to impossible.. If the family budget can afford it, staying home is the smartest thing to do..

Lots of the super-smart Mommies will probably figure out a way to start their own businesses while at home, and by doing so, guarantee their own futures when the kids are older and in school all day./..


As long as society "needs" a next generation, there will always have to be women willing to put their own lives on hold for a bit, and they should not be made to feel guilty about it..



disclaimer:.. I stayed at home with mine, so I may be biased :P

After reading nearly all of it, it is really just stating the obvious. I think this about sums it up.

Women are women and men are men, and each seems to come with some pretty basic intrinsic characteristics.


For the most part, women LIKE being mothers and nurturing (the horror of it) and men LIKE providing and beating their chests (metaphorically of course; those brutes).

No matter how hard society tries to convince each gender they must adopt characteristics of the other to be more whole, most just aren't interested in that at the end of the day.

Perhaps one day being a Mom will once again be honored by society as it deserves to be.

This woman is happliy single and cheerfully child-free and would not give up my lifestyle choice for kids or husband. My 3 paternal aunts were the same.

I prefer to give my time to pursuing my dreams and kids are a nightmare to me.

Child-free and child-less people make up close to 20% of the population. That's the highest it has been since the 1920's after women won the right to vote. People with kids under 18 make up about 35% of the population. Per 2000 Census.

They ought to do it themselves. Only this time, stay-at-home motherhood is voluntary, not foisted off on them!

You'd be surprised at the number of women who'd rather be full-time moms, working full time only because they have to make ends meet.

Women of color have done so for generations. Ditto for immigrant women; there have been times in our history when entire families worked in textile mills, even toddlers. Farm women were home, of course, but they had little time to "nurture" their kids in the way that we think of it. They had to chop wood, haul water, make meals from scratch (no refrigeration, preserve meat and store vegetables for the winter, make clothing, milk cows, etc. They had little one-on-one time with their children. (Childhood as we know it is also a very recent phenomenon, but that's another issue.)
Also, in "days of yore," any woman who could afford it hired a nanny or governess -- horrors, day care! This allowed her the time to run the day-to-day operations of a household (infinitely more complicated than what we have today) and allow her the free time to contribute to her community, if she wished. Almost without exception, these women did not work outside the home.

The big difference today is that middle-class and upper-class women are opting to WORK outside the home, and they are occupying positions of power. And positions of power, of course, require long hours away from home. This goes for men as well as women. I know people who never knew their fathers because Dad was either at the office or hobnbobbing with power brokers. By the time Dad wanted to make amends, it was a little late.

Every woman has to make her own decision in this matter and I would never presume to judge anyone. Though I personally think that staying home with small children is a good idea, each couple has to decide what is best for their family.

And, of course, we still have the women of color, the poor, the immigrants, who will have to go back to work when their children are infants.

What's new?

a lot of 40 year old women are forced out. No good child care options and mandatory overtime make it impossible to climb the corporate ladder. Men do not hire 40+ women as their peers in senior professional positions or in management. They don't even seem to be aware that anything is wrong or that in professions where they started out with 25-30% of the workforce being female that this percentage should continue. It is almost impossible in this job market to make it back into the workforce after you have left. I think there are a lot of women whose families have decimated 401Ks and they would like to go back to making the bucks but they are locked out these days (My sister is one of them. Ex manager at Nortel. Took 3 years off because her husband was transferred to France. Returned to US. Can't find a job. She's working as a substitute teacher and is sooooooo depressed. I hear the fatigue in her voice every time I talk to her.)

Women aren't ambitious is also another issue. We just are expecting the workplace to be a meritocracy. I do my job well and I will be promoted. Nobody tells women about the way the job market really works. Ergo women are frustrated.

Decent childcare is a big issue. If a woman is barely covering child care with her salary then it is foolish for her to work. Can't tell you about the number of women making 30-40K who quit when paying their child care worker costs 12-15K per year. Factor in the taxes and they aren't bringing much in to the family.

Never mind the idea that corporations will let you bolt at 5 pm to get to daycare by 6. You miss your deadline and you are out of work.

The idea that there are a lot of professional women who can afford to opt out in this economy is foolish given the amount of corporate layoffs. People are worried about her and his job as well.

No. This is just prepping us to believe that professional women can help a man get the down payment for the house and start the family and then she better bug out of the workplace.

The idea that we can have this conversation about a smaller work week is dumb when people are petrified about losing their jobs. People are not taking vacation.

I think we are being prepped for a shrinkage of the middle class as jobs go overseas.

Most of the women profiled in that article are women of privilege, that is some of them graduated from the best schools in the nation. They also married men of privilege. Just like Shrike and Classical_Liberal pointed out, they had the option, unlike women of color, immigrants. However, for those who are not as fortunate, do not have the same wonderful options as the women profiled...like how about being a SAHP for years, and then the spouse loses the job, I know people in this predicament.


"But Hewlett's preliminary research makes her pessimistic about what today's women will face when they want to return to work. At any given time, she says, ''two-thirds of all women who quit their career to raise children'' are ''seeking to re-enter professional life and finding it exceedingly difficult. These women may think they can get back in,' she said,"

I agree with this one. In some fields there is a number of years of absence where one is considered "technically obsolescent"-- that is skills are outdated. Unless the person in question has done anything (like even taking a class or attending seminar) to maintain or advance skills, chances are slim of finding meaningful work. This goes for both men and women.

I must preface my comments by stating that I am a male, and so I will never truly understand the issues that females in our society face.

Having said that, I am struck, in reading the article, by how easily these women chose to leave the workplace - a choice that is seldom, if ever, available to a man who is equally involved in the rearing of his children. It is simply not socially acceptable.

I do feel that women should have every opportunity available to man - but I caveat that comment by stating that they should as well be obliged to endure every harship that accrues to being male in this society.

Had a child? Want to take a few years off? Feel that a parent should be present to nuture the child? Admirable.

Try being a male and feeling the same way.

My greatest 'complaint' with the feminist movement is not that women seek to earn equal recognition and compensation for equal effort - to this, they are, as citizens and employees, richly deserving - it is that they accept as a fait accompli the ability to summarily withdraw themselves from the hurly-burly of corporate infighting and, later, expect to be re-admitted under terms comparable to those enjoyed by men who never left.

This, while underwriting their maternal efforts through the subsidy of their male partner's continued presence and contribution within the corporate sphere.

Organizations value many things. One of them is the willingness to subsume individual desires to the corporate good - a fact and condition that men have dealt with for years. After all, there is no male paternity law, providing us (men) with the option of removing ourselves from the workplace upon the birth of a child, and allowing unfettered return access to a position and attendant salary and perqs post-nativity.

There are fundamental differences between men and women. That being said, I am ready and willing to accept a female as an equal partner given that she is willing to make an equal commitment.

An example: I have served for 20 years in the military. A male commander has no recourse but to remain in a given theatre of operations (such as the current Iraqi theatre), while a female, who chooses to become pregnant, is immediately removed from the theatre, and with no attendant consequences.

Why is this so?

It is akin to a female lawyer choosing to leave the firm because she wishes to devote more time to the children. All well and good, but what would we expect regarding the prospects of a male attorney who chose a similar course of action?

I make no distinction between male and female professionals. I do, however, make a distinction between those profesionals who sacrifice family and personal desires to ensure a career, and those who do not.

One cannot have it both ways.

The really sad part, in our society, is that the true inequality is oriented towards men - who do not have the option of dissolving corporate ties in order to spend more time with 'family'. Or would these women rather return to work, and allow their husbands to fulfill the role of nurturer?

Let me preface my remarks by saying I'm a childless single woman. However, I've been working a long time & many of my co-workers are women.

Most of the "lower level" workers (like me!) need to work. Even married to husbands with decent jobs, they need the money for a house, their children's education and retirement.

The "higher level" workers are in academic medicine--generally, married to other M.D.'s (or Ph.D.'s or M.D./Ph.D.'s). If they leave their jobs, they WILL fall behind. Some choose less demanding specialties but don't just "drop out". At least these ladies can afford the best in child care--although they still get guilted out!

I know at least one man who's a stay-at-home husband & father. He's a fine artist who'd been sorting mail to support himself; his wife has a profession. After the child came, she went back to work & he took care of the kid (& continued with his art).

The ladies in the NY Times article are a rather privileged subset.

I believe the overwhelming trend now for families that want one parent at home (and can afford it) is to decide which parent will stay home with the child(ren) based on job status and earnings. If Mom has a more stable job or higher salary than Dad, then Dad stays home with the kiddies. If Dad has a more stable job or higher salary, then Mom stays home. It's not a gender thing...it's a money thing.

what happens when a husband leaves or for some reason, mommy is left on her own to fend for herself and her children?

After being out of the workforce for a number of years, your value as a potential employee is much lower in the eyes of employers. The truth is, that the childrearing spouse frequently ends up financially with the short end of the deal in the event of a death or divorce.

Given that the divorce rate is around 50%, it seems that taking time off might be great for the kids in the short run, but in the case of an unfortunate event, may end up w/ mom and the kids living in poverty or with their standard of living greatly reduced.

Personally, I don't have or want kids, nor do I want to work. I need more options!! ;-)