This article is Exhibit A of why "feminism"--the kind practiced by the old ladies still hanging around, ranting and raving as if it's still 1965--is dead, irrelevant, ridiculous!

That this writer so devalues being a full time mother nauseates me. What higher purpose could one have than to be granted the privilege of giving full attention to one's children, to love and nurture them oneself, rather than farming them out to nannies and/or daycare? If women who have the financial wherewithal don't take advantage of the PRIVILEGE of being a full time mother, I think there's really no hope for our society. It's not about the man, it's about the KIDS--kids whose care is far more important than billing hours at Skadden Arps.

As a 23 year old mixed race woman of color I am grateful for all that was done to make the world a welcoming place for me--thank you! I cherish the rights and opportunities I have because of these brave, outspoken crusaders. But I hope one day also to have the privilege of staying home and care for my children myself, to raise them to be confident, enlightened, independent people like ME. I can think of no better use of my Ivy League degree. I hope NOT to have to put them in the care of someone much less educated and worldly, someone I would probably not otherwise even know, much less socialize with or have at my dinner table.

How terribly sad that "feminists" have no understanding of what makes life wonderful--and what children need-- and condemn, rather than celebrate, women who make the world better by making its future citizens better.

Yay! I couldn't agree more. Why bring children in this world if you aren't willing to do the work to raise them? While my degree is far from Ivy League, I am still educated and informed, and I am still choosing to leave a full-time job to stay home with my soon to be three kids. My oldest is 5 and we are finally in a financial position to do so, and it is such a blessing. My children are awesome, funny, smart little people and I look forward to making sure everything their father and I want to teach them is possible. The best of day-care situations is still never a substitute for Mom and Dad. Not every mom can stay home (or dad, dads are equally good stay at home parents if they choose), and you do what you must to get by. But if you can stay home and raise your own children, why wouldn't you? Don't you owe them that much? And why on earth does that constitute a backwards slide for feminism? I wouldn't stay home if I had no children, my husband doesn't need a mother. He has no expectations that I am home to care for him, and the choice to stay home was entirely mine. It is about my children, and when they are grown, it will be back to work I go!

I wouldn't call myself a feminist (I'm not even fem!), but some might say that is pretty simplistic to imply that having a job and being a parent is mutually exclusive. After all, one of things that KEEPS you 'worldly' and smart is testing your innate talents in the workplace. To the degree that this rubs off on your kids, your working actually benefits them, while also setting a good example for your daughter who will learn that you can't expect to be dependent from a very early age, thus making her a harder working, more desirable, and better mother in the long run. It's called parenting by example. And are there any empirical studies that find that, controlling for other background factors (age of parent at childbirth, IQ, education, wealth/income), that the children of working mothers are worse of than those who choose to stay at home?

Further, while there is nothing at all wrong with parenting, is there any reason why (after the nursing period), the father can't devote himself to such a noble pursuit?

It is of course not mutually exclusive, but in my opinion and experience, it is better, if you can have a parent at home. It is also entirely possible to be a good example to your son or daughter while staying at home, just as it is possible to be a working parent and set a terrible example. I just honestly feel that a child should be raised by a parent, usually mom but I applaud and support dads who take this on, not in a day-care or by a babysitter/nanny. The idea of my kids coming home to an empty house, or off running around when I am at work and have practically no idea where they are or control over what they are doing, frightens me to no end. If I chose to pursue a career in the same manner as my husband, that would precisely be the scenario. Or, I could chose to just work a random job that gave me flexibility to be home, and have the worst of both worlds.

I don't know of empirical studies, and don't have time to Google it at the moment, but from the people I have known in my life, pretty much everyone I have known with problems with drugs, the law, school, etc, have had a single working parent, or a two-parent family where both worked. Not that every kid in that situation turns out bad, of course that isn't the case, but I do think the amount of time available to monitor and be involved with your kids makes a difference.

nikita84:

It's not about the man, it's about the KIDS--kids whose care is far more important than billing hours at Skadden Arps.

*Applause*

As the breadwinner and male half of a SITCOM - Single Income Three Children Oppressive Mortgage - I'd like to second that emotion. When you're a parent, it's not "about you," it's about the kids. I guess my wife and I could have more "stuff," and certainly we could have a more secure future retirement-wise, but we've made the decision that our children need one of us at home full time for all the skinned knees and homework and everything else that comes with kids. In our case, I just make the money. My wife does the really important work.

1. This writer does not devalue "motherhood."

2. You do not need an Ivy League education to raise a child.

3. There is no reason to overglorify raising children.

4. This post should be entitled, "Why Sexism is Alive and Well."

"There is no reason to overglorify raising children"

Thank you! I am SO sick of people acting like that is the most important mission in life, and that those who choose a career over children don't get it.

See, I this hasn't been my experience at all, which is why I think this 'mothers working is selfish' meme has to be questioned. An alternative theory is that you are doing your children a disservice by cutting yourself off from the workplace. Without any good empirical studies on this topic, I would not assume the high ground.

Of course, kids in which both parents work are on average worse off on a range of outcomes, but those families also tend to be less affluent and educated to begin with. They have low levels of 'cultural capital', which hurts the kids in school and eventually the workplace. So the question is whether parents of an equivilant social class influence childrens outcomes by staying at home or not, and, if so, in what direction. Are your kids better off because you are at home, or is your being at home just the result of your being better off?

"I am SO sick of people acting like that is the most important mission in life, and that those who choose a career over children don't get it."

Ask your parents about it sometime.

Choosing a career over children is great--as long as you don't have children.

Ask your parents about it sometime.

I have. My mother bitterly regrets quitting her job when she had my older brother. But then, she also never finished college (a decision made easier by her semester-long illness and awful school) primarily because she knew she'd have children someday and would quit her job when she did.

Self-fulfillment is vital, too. If someone gets that out of raising children, awesome. But if they don't, I really don't see why anyone should be shamed for acknowledging that, and acting upon it. A child is not going to be scarred for life by attending daycare for a couple of hours after school.

Kitty Love:

1. This writer does not devalue "motherhood."

2. You do not need an Ivy League education to raise a child.

3. There is no reason to overglorify raising children.

4. This post should be entitled, "Why Sexism is Alive and Well."

Hmmmm....I'm thinkin'......you have more love for your KITTY than children; which is a twisted priority (if true).

But, now really, you've lost something about what it means to be human if you think people "over" glorify raising children merely by wanting to be with them instead of working at a job (MANY of which are pointless--except for the money--and often soul killing as well).

mmalott:

"There is no reason to overglorify raising children"

Thank you! I am SO sick of people acting like that is the most important mission in life, and that those who choose a career over children don't get it.

Yes, billing clients for M&A work is *so* much more important than raising loving, moral, responsible, well-adjusted human beings.

I can see how one couldn't *possibly* derive any satisfaction from that. It's so 20th century.

And are you under the impression that one can't both work and raise "loving, moral, responsible, well-adjusted human beings" at the same time? Because it seems to me that fathers aren't under any societal obligation to quit work when their wives/girlfriends/the mothers of their children have babies, and yet "absentee fathers" is one of the great bogeymen of American society. Gosh, if they were working, then they weren't raising the kids anyway, so who cares if they leave?

Lilitu:

And are you under the impression that one can't both work and raise "loving, moral, responsible, well-adjusted human beings" at the same time? Because it seems to me that fathers aren't under any societal obligation to quit work when their wives/girlfriends/the mothers of their children have babies, and yet "absentee fathers" is one of the great bogeymen of American society. Gosh, if they were working, then they weren't raising the kids anyway, so who cares if they leave?

As I noted in my initial post, my wife and I *both* agreed that it would be important for one of us to stay home with our children. Since I earn more, it was a simple mathematical decision as to the division of responsibilities. My function as breadwinner is purely utilitarian, allowing me to provide food and shelter and life's other necessities for my family. Again, as I noted, I just make the money. My wife does the really important work. That's not to say that people who both work outside the home and raise children can't raise loving, moral, responsible, well-adjusted human beings, just that it's a much harder job to do so. The reality is, one can't have it all, which is why many women have decided to "opt out" of the myth that they could.