Pure Parents

Question:

>I don’t think my best friend, who is an > oncologist, could make herself > marketable again by taking some > freshen up courses, for instance. Again, > it really varies from one individual to > another, according to circumstances.

It is interesting that you should mention your oncologist friend.  Last year, I was having my yearly examination.  My doctor (a woman) was asking me much more than the usual questions.  She was pregnant with her second child and was asking me questions such as, "How did you come upon the decision to quit your job?" and "What type of effect did it have on your relationship with your husband and on  your self-esteem?" Recently, I called the office to make my yearly appointment (my doctor was one of several in the practice). When I asked to make an appointment with Dr. S, I was informed that she had left the practice so she could devote more time to her family. ~Jan

Response:

When our pediatrician had twin boys a few years ago, she cut her hours down so she could work part time.  To make this work, she brought in another pediatrician who also wanted to work part time.  Together, the two of them handle the work she used to do by herself.  Both pediatricians like this arrangement so they can both be with their families more.  We continue to drive 45 minutes to see her, even though there are many other pediatricians closer, because we trust her very much.  I have never minded her decision to be with her boys. Where I live, most of the women do not need to work for money.  I’ve watched countless women go from full time jobs to part time to completely quitting.  They’ve left careers from Emergency Room Nurse to Accountants. All of them are very happy with their decision. It’s not for everyone, and not everyone has this choice, but I see many people who have made this decision.  For me, I feel like I am having my cake and eating it too… just not all at once.  During the years while my kids are young, I get to be the full time Mommy.   When they are grown, I can then pursue a career. I had a very close friend die of cancer while her children were very young (2 and 6).  When she had her first child, she closed down her business, a store that sold clothing and jewelry.  When she found out she had cancer and would die, she was devastated like any of us would be, but she felt peaceful knowing she had given everything she could to her kids while she could. What’s wonderful is that women can now choose to decide whatever they want.  If they want or need to work, they can.  If they want to stay at home, they can do that too.  This choice was not readily available just a few generations ago. Take Care! Vicki Surratt Proud Mom of Kathy (almost 6) and Jenny (9)! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I don’t think my best friend, who is an > oncologist, could make herself > marketable again by taking some > freshen up courses, for instance. Again, > it really varies from one individual to > another, according to circumstances. > It is interesting that you should mention your oncologist friend.  Last > year, I was having my yearly examination.  My doctor (a woman) was > asking me much more than the usual questions.  She was pregnant with her > second child and was asking me questions such as, "How did you come upon > the decision to quit your job?" and "What type of effect did it have on > your relationship with your husband and on  your self-esteem?" > Recently, I called the office to make my yearly appointment (my doctor > was one of several in the practice). When I asked to make an appointment > with Dr. S, I was informed that she had left the practice so she could > devote more time to her family. > ~Jan

Response:

Jane Lumely wrote" >However, I’m sure you also see that > however flexible your husband’s > employers are, it’s the case that by > working he can’t spend as much time > with the children as you can. I just > wonder, uncritically and ruminatively, > how people decide that that’s not > important, or not as important as having > Mom available.

Actually, about 1 1/2 years ago my husband left his job of 12 years and started his own business.  The company for which he worked was obviously starting to fail, and he was being asked to do things which were clearly unethical. He did not want to leave the company in its   time of need, yet could not resolve the ethical situation with his employers,  so he quit.   When he did this (started his own business), his work hours increased greatly, as did his commute (which now can be as long as 1 3/4 hours one way).  So, it is true that he can’t spend the amount of time with his children as I can.  BUT… we want ONE OF US to be the full-time caregiver, be it father or mother, and I already explained in a previous thread how we came to the decision that I would stay home and he would be employed outside the home.   ~Jan P.S.  And I must add that when DH does arrive home, the time is totally devoted to his family, with the exception of his Friday Night basketball league, but that activity was curtailed when DH broke his foot (while playing basketball, of course).    

Response:

>May I ask if your husband shares your > philosophy? That is, does he also think > he should stay at home to be with the > children in their short youths?

My husband would also "love" to be an at-home parent.  However, one of us needs to bring in some money.   > If he does, how did you decide which of > you got to do it?

When making this decision we took many factors into consideration.  One of the factors was that we were planning on having more children. Another factor was that my field of expertise was easier to translate into a "work at home" situation, should the need arise.   > I am not being sarky, but am genuinely >curious as always as to why people think > it important for them to see a lot of their > children, but not for their children’s other > parent to see a lot of them too.

I do think it is important for my husband to spend a lot of time with our kids. >More generally: the book is called >Having None of It by Suzanne Franks. > IMHO, the problem with the ‘few short > years’ thesis is that really children need >you all their lives. They don’t stop > needing you at fifteen or even at > twenty-five. That’s one problem. It may >not be a problem isf you have ample > money in one salary and are willing to > devote your life to parenting. Not > everyone is in both these positions.

I agree that children don’t stop needing you at fifteen.  Originally I thought I would return to full time work when my children entered school.  That plan has changed because I realize how much kids still need their parents, even as teenagers. We don’t agree on the point, however that a "child" needs her parents’ full-time support at age 25.   As to the ample salary…. when I quit my job, my husband made less than $25,000 per year (well below the national average at the time but still above the "poverty line".   He did get regualar salary increases, however.  But money was still tight.  We were just very carfeful about how we spent our money.  We made a budget and stuck to it.  Since my husband quit his job and started his own business, money is no longer an issue.  But the habits that we formed are serving us well.   >The other problem is that most people > find their market value as an employee > falls if they take five-ten-fifteen short > years off. Some families (ours) could > manage – hell, did – on one income for a > year, but can’t manage indefinitely on > one income. some people also find their > value falls if they take part-time, > flexihours options. This is so in my own >profession.

My last job offer came in last year. (I have been out of the workforce for nearly 10 years)   I did not even express a desire for employment, but my former employer was looking for someone to fill a position and called and offered me the job.   I am sure there are fields where being out of the work force for this long would be a detriment.  However, I believe that one could make oneself "marketable" again by  returning to school to take a few courses and "freshen up" skills. As for living on one income… we have done it for nearly 10 years now. For 8 of those years our income was rather limited. (see above).  It is also a matter of priorities.  For instance, our priorities are that we do not wish to be on welfare, so one of us works.  The priority to have a home and food is put before my husbands desire to spend more time with his family.   When I was tutoring 12 hours each week (evenings, away from home), the priority for more money for extras was put before my desire to spend those evenings with my husband and kids. We  then decided that eating out more often and owning certain items was NOT worth the time I spent away from my family and I cut back drastically on my tutoring schedule AND changed the way I worked (I now work here at home, no more than 4 hours each week). >i say all this not to defend position a or > attack position b, but to point out the > constraitns under which some families > are operating.

Although I would argue that sometimes those "constraints" are self-imposed. ~Jan

Response:

Also, Jane, in checking my previous post, I found several spelling errors, including your name.  Forgive me for spelling your last name incorrectly.  I have misplaced my glasses and today I sat on my spare pair, thus breaking them.  I have had to type these posts while squinting and did not catch all my "typos". ~Jan

Response:

>>May I ask if your husband shares your > philosophy? That is, does he also think > he should stay at home to be with the > children in their short youths? >My husband would also "love" to be an at-home parent.  However, one of >us needs to bring in some money.   > If he does, how did you decide which of > you got to do it? >When making this decision we took many factors into consideration.  One >of the factors was that we were planning on having more children. >Another factor was that my field of expertise was easier to translate >into a "work at home" situation, should the need arise.

Thanks for explaining this.  If you are in the fortunate position of having a partner who supports you all and can spend a lot of time with his children, then that’s great.  However, in non-electronic life I simply don’t know anyone in that situation.  Most of the sole-earner fathers I know have to work very long hours, sometimes with long commutes as well.  Of course, it depends on what you mean by ‘a lot’. Because it’s not traditional for fathers to do childcare, some people (not you, I’m sure) think one Saturday a month is a lot.   However, I’m sure you also see that however flexible your husband’s employers are, it’s the case that by working he can’t spend as much time with the children as you can.  I just wonder, uncritically and ruminatively, how people decide that that’s not important, or not as important as having Mom available. >As to the ample salary…. when I quit my job, my husband made less than >$25,000 per year (well below the national average at the time but still >above the "poverty line".

Well, I really hate to say this, but by European standards that’s not wealth, but it’s a fairly decent wage.  It’s a lot more than I earned for the first five years I was in full-time work. All sorts of factors come into play in determining how much is enough. For instance, here in Oxford, UK, the average four-bedroomed house is around 250,000 pounds, about 350,000 dollars.  Even a two-bedroomed house, very small, not near good State schools, is 120,000 pounds. Property prices are one of the big factors keeping everyone on the treadmill.  Don’t forget that petrol here is about ten times the price it is in the States… Little things like that can often make the difference between a viable family income and an impossible situation. >My last job offer came in last year. (I have been out of the workforce >for nearly 10 years)   I did not even express a desire for employment, >but my former employer was looking for someone to fill a position and >called and offered me the job.   I am sure there are fields where being >out of the work force for this long would be a detriment.  However, I >believe that one could make oneself "marketable" again by  returning to >school to take a few courses and "freshen up" skills.

In my own profession, and also in e.g medicine and law, it’s not so much a matter of de-skilling as a general expectation that there’s only one possible career path, one that doesn’t include motherhood (or fahterhood either).  I don’t think my best friend, who is an oncologist, could make herself marketable again by taking some freshen up courses, for instance.  Again, it really varies from one individual to another, according to circumstances. >Although I would argue that sometimes those "constraints" are >self-imposed.

Sometimes.  More often, though, I see women doing their very best with what’s available to them. — Jane Lumley

Response:

I’m rather new around here, but I am also a SAH mom by choice.  I gave up my own computer consulting business in which I charged $50/hr to write custom programs for small businesses.  Most of my work was done out of my home.   When I did go to a client’s place of business, I arranged the meetings around my own schedule. While not every parent has the choice, I am fortunate that my husband makes a good salary so my income isn’t needed.  But he doesn’t have to work long hours for that good salary.  His boss would like to see him be more aggressive with his career, but we both agree we are comfortable enough on what he makes and don’t want to trade more money for less time with him at home.  He usually works 40 or less hours a week. People make different choices depending on their situations, preferences, and needs.  I really don’t care what happens to my "career" if I take off some 10-20 years.  That’s not my personal priority.  If given the choice, I would much rather stay at home with my kids.  I am one of the lucky ones with that choice, so I made it.  And I made it happily.  Others, given the same choice, may select something else – and they will also be happy with their choice.  Still others simply do not have the choice at all which can be sad at times. For those who have the option, can’t each family to choose what’s best for them and to be allowed to feel happy about the choice they made – even if it differs from our own? Take Care! Vicki Surratt Proud SAH Mom of Kathy (almost 6) and Jenny (just turned 9)! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->My philosophy is this:  kids are young for such a short period of time. >I have the rest of my life to work.  We will enjoy their childhoods >together because it will not last forever. > May I ask if your husband shares your philosophy?  That is, does he also > think he should stay at home to be with the children in their short > youths?  If he does, how did you decide which of you got to do it?  I am > not being sarky, but am genuinely curious as always as to why people > think it important for them to see a lot of their children, but not for > their children’s other parent to see a lot of them too. > More generally: the book is called Having None of It by Suzanne Franks. > IMHO, the problem with the ‘few short years’ thesis is that really > children need you all their lives.  They don’t stop needing you at > fifteen or even at twenty-five.  That’s one problem.  It may not be a > problem isf you have ample money in one salary and are willing to devote > your life to parenting.  Not everyone is in both these positions. > The other problem is that most people find their market value as an > employee falls if they take five-ten-fifteen short years off.  Some > families (ours) could manage – hell, did – on one income for a year, but > can’t manage indefinitely on one income.  some people also find their > value falls if they take part-time, flexihours options.  This is so in > my own profession. > i say all this not to defend position a or attack position b, but to > point out the constraitns under which some families are operating. > — > Jane Lumley

Response:

> >My philosophy is this:  kids are young for such a short period of time. >I have the rest of my life to work.  We will enjoy their childhoods >together because it will not last forever. > May I ask if your husband shares your philosophy?  That is, does he also > think he should stay at home to be with the children in their short > youths?  If he does, how did you decide which of you got to do it?  I am > not being sarky, but am genuinely curious as always as to why people > think it important for them to see a lot of their children, but not for > their children’s other parent to see a lot of them too.

Exactly. Since she had choices of working part-time and flexible schedule as she stated, why not take it so that her husband can also reduce work hours and spend more time with the children. I work in a male dominated field (engineering), those with SAH wives often work insanely long hours. I’m not so sure that’s really the best for the children. > The other problem is that most people find their market value as an > employee falls if they take five-ten-fifteen short years off.  Some > families (ours) could manage – hell, did – on one income for a year, but > can’t manage indefinitely on one income.  some people also find their > value falls if they take part-time, flexihours options.  This is so in > my own profession.

Yes, there is a difference between having a job and having a career. I’ll always have a job, but my career basically stands still since I take the option of telecommuting. If I were to stop working for a few years, I would have to start from the bottom again. Julia

Response:

Jane: I certainly can’t speak for Jan, but I can speak for myself (and Mike). We decided that it was critical for one of us to stay home with Andrew. The decision that it would be *me* was based on several issues: 1. Mike earns quite a bit more money than I did (now that I’m working from home, that’s still true, but at least I don’t feel as if the entire financial burden is on him). 2.  I have more patience with young children than he does (after the fifteenth time in a row reading the same book, he starts to lose it! LOL) 3.  Mike has *major* issues with vomiting; I’m not just talking phobia here, it’s an absolute obsession (since he has some mild OCD in addition to TS, I’ve learned to deal with it). Children *do* vomit occasionally, and he just can’t handle it. 4. Mike is able to stay plenty involved anyway – he takes care of Andrew in the evenings, and puts him to bed, and Mike is the "primary" caregiver on the weekends, so I can sleep past 4:00 AM and eat hot meals. Just thought you might appreciate another perspective on the "who decides who stays home" issue. Kathleen >My philosophy is this:  kids are young for such a short period of time. >I have the rest of my life to work.  We will enjoy their childhoods >together because it will not last forever.   >May I ask if your husband shares your philosophy?  That is, does he also >think he should stay at home to be with the children in their short >youths?  If he does, how did you decide which of you got to do it?  I am >not being sarky, but am genuinely curious as always as to why people >think it important for them to see a lot of their children, but not for >their children’s other parent to see a lot of them too.

[Snip] **Spam Trap** Accentuate the Positive to send e-mail.

Response:

>My philosophy is this:  kids are young for such a short period of time. >I have the rest of my life to work.  We will enjoy their childhoods >together because it will not last forever.  

May I ask if your husband shares your philosophy?  That is, does he also think he should stay at home to be with the children in their short youths?  If he does, how did you decide which of you got to do it?  I am not being sarky, but am genuinely curious as always as to why people think it important for them to see a lot of their children, but not for their children’s other parent to see a lot of them too. More generally: the book is called Having None of It by Suzanne Franks. IMHO, the problem with the ‘few short years’ thesis is that really children need you all their lives.  They don’t stop needing you at fifteen or even at twenty-five.  That’s one problem.  It may not be a problem isf you have ample money in one salary and are willing to devote your life to parenting.  Not everyone is in both these positions.   The other problem is that most people find their market value as an employee falls if they take five-ten-fifteen short years off.  Some families (ours) could manage – hell, did – on one income for a year, but can’t manage indefinitely on one income.  some people also find their value falls if they take part-time, flexihours options.  This is so in my own profession.   i say all this not to defend position a or attack position b, but to point out the constraitns under which some families are operating. — Jane Lumley

Response:

Actually, I WAS offered the opportunity to work part-time instead of returning to full time work after my first child was born. When I said , "No, thank you anyway", I was then offered a full year of leave during which my position would be held open so I could return to it.  I again declined, feeling that since I knew I would not be returning, it was not fair to have them hold the position "just in case".  Also, in the years since, I have been offered other part-time work and a job-sharing position.  I declined these also.  So, I think that I can firmly state that even given the option of working part time or flex time, I would still have "marched boldly home" to be the full-time caregiver.   Now, I must add that I have found ways to "work" from home that could be tailored to fit my family situation. .  I taught baton twirling and ran a baton corps for a few years (my kids came along if  DH wasn’t home… they took baton lessons right along with the rest of the kids or just played in another part of the room).  This situation involved "working" for 4 hours a week.  I quit this when my third child was born.  For the past 9 1/2 years, I have tutored mathematics on a part-time basis. Right now, I do the tutoring at my kitchen table (while the kids are otherwise occupied …. sleeping, playing with friends, etc… or at outside activities).  I work anywhere from 1 to 5 hours a week (sometimes not working at all if our family schedule is hectic). My philosophy is this:  kids are young for such a short period of time. I have the rest of my life to work.  We will enjoy their childhoods together because it will not last forever.   ~Jan  

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->So, did the book say that women should > all go scampering back home, or did it > go at all into the possibiity that the > *workplace* could change? > Banty, I understand the need for change in the workplace, however, I > feel your description of "women scampering back home" to be demeaning. > I (and many other women in the same situation) made a decision to leave > the workforce.  I had an excellent education and held a job which I > enjoyed and, quite frankly, at which I excelled.  My decision was right > for our family and in no way did I go "scampering back home".  If I had > to describe it at all, I would say that I "marched boldly home", as I > was criticized quite a bit  for the decision that I made. > Respectfully, ~Jan

But, if there are other choices like flexible hours, work from home, etc, would you still choose to "march boldly home"? I work from home with very flexible job arrangement. Whenever I talk to other SAH parents (I know, many don’t like this term, but I don’t know what’s the alternative.), they all envy my job. My guess is that if they have choices, they may choose other options. Julia

Response:

>So, did the book say that women should > all go scampering back home, or did it > go at all into the possibiity that the > *workplace* could change?

Banty, I understand the need for change in the workplace, however, I feel your description of "women scampering back home" to be demeaning. I (and many other women in the same situation) made a decision to leave the workforce.  I had an excellent education and held a job which I enjoyed and, quite frankly, at which I excelled.  My decision was right for our family and in no way did I go "scampering back home".  If I had to describe it at all, I would say that I "marched boldly home", as I was criticized quite a bit  for the decision that I made. Respectfully, ~Jan

Response:

Oh,and BTW, we went from two incomes (but certainly not anything resembling a lawyer’s income) down to one income that was less than $25,000 per year.  It was quite a struggle at first.     But, in our case, it was worth it.   ~Jan (who is no longer "struggling" )

Response:

I am very sorry to hear you were criticized for your decision.  Criticism or not, I strongly doubt you’ll ever regret it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->So, did the book say that women should > all go scampering back home, or did it > go at all into the possibiity that the > *workplace* could change? > Banty, I understand the need for change in the workplace, however, I > feel your description of "women scampering back home" to be demeaning. > I (and many other women in the same situation) made a decision to leave > the workforce.  I had an excellent education and held a job which I > enjoyed and, quite frankly, at which I excelled.  My decision was right > for our family and in no way did I go "scampering back home".  If I had > to describe it at all, I would say that I "marched boldly home", as I > was criticized quite a bit  for the decision that I made. > Respectfully, ~Jan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >  >So, did the book say that women should >  > all go scampering back home, or did it >  > go at all into the possibiity that the >  > *workplace* could change? >  Banty, I understand the need for change in the workplace, however, I >  feel your description of "women scampering back home" to be demeaning. >  I (and many other women in the same situation) made a decision to leave >  the workforce.  I had an excellent education and held a job which I >  enjoyed and, quite frankly, at which I excelled.  My decision was right >  for our family and in no way did I go "scampering back home".  If I had >  to describe it at all, I would say that I "marched boldly home", as I >  was criticized quite a bit  for the decision that I made. >  Respectfully, ~Jan

That’s great for you, Jan.  But the post I addressed presented a problem to which (the way the problem seemed to be presented, anyhow) the solution presented seemed to be that many women *who otherwise don’t want to* should leave the workforce.  Don’t take it personally. Banty Banty

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Has anyone other than me read this book?  It argues that the result of > women’s entry into the workforce has been bad for families because the > workplace has not changed to accomodate the dual-income family, but > rahter extended its demands into the private sphere, leaving both women > and children (and fathers) unable to make the time to be with each > other.  It covers many topics often debated here, very clearly and > incisively. > The problem is that it doesn’t really suggest any answers, except > downsizing, but since the instances she gives of this include people > bravely giving up the income of two attorneys (bah humbug) and reducing > themselves to live on the income of one atorney (poor souls) I don’t > know that it contains many ideas for the rest of us. > — > Jane Lumley > What’s the name of the book? It’s rough not being home but not having the $ >either! What ARE we to do? >Roby

 Right offhand, I’d recommend something under the table that you don’t have to pay taxes on. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

 The "changing" that the workplace seems to be centered on long hours of unpaid overtime for salaried workers. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Has anyone other than me read this book?  It argues that the result of > women’s entry into the workforce has been bad for families because the > workplace has not changed to accomodate the dual-income family, but > rahter extended its demands into the private sphere, leaving both women > and children (and fathers) unable to make the time to be with each > other.  It covers many topics often debated here, very clearly and > incisively. > The problem is that it doesn’t really suggest any answers, except > downsizing, but since the instances she gives of this include people > bravely giving up the income of two attorneys (bah humbug) and reducing > themselves to live on the income of one atorney (poor souls) I don’t > know that it contains many ideas for the rest of us. > — > Jane Lumley >(Rrrrrr – I just hate it when I see scenarios written so exclusively >from an upper or upper-middle income prospective.) >So, did the book say that women should all go scampering back home, or >did it go at all into the possibiity that the *workplace* could change? >Banty

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Has anyone other than me read this book?  It argues that the result of > women’s entry into the workforce has been bad for families because the > workplace has not changed to accomodate the dual-income family, but > rahter extended its demands into the private sphere, leaving both women > and children (and fathers) unable to make the time to be with each > other.  It covers many topics often debated here, very clearly and > incisively. > The problem is that it doesn’t really suggest any answers, except > downsizing, but since the instances she gives of this include people > bravely giving up the income of two attorneys (bah humbug) and reducing > themselves to live on the income of one atorney (poor souls) I don’t > know that it contains many ideas for the rest of us. > — > Jane Lumley > What’s the name of the book? It’s rough not being home but not having the $

either! What ARE we to do? Roby

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Has anyone other than me read this book?  It argues that the result of > women’s entry into the workforce has been bad for families because the > workplace has not changed to accomodate the dual-income family, but > rahter extended its demands into the private sphere, leaving both women > and children (and fathers) unable to make the time to be with each > other.  It covers many topics often debated here, very clearly and > incisively. > The problem is that it doesn’t really suggest any answers, except > downsizing, but since the instances she gives of this include people > bravely giving up the income of two attorneys (bah humbug) and reducing > themselves to live on the income of one atorney (poor souls) I don’t > know that it contains many ideas for the rest of us. > — > Jane Lumley

(Rrrrrr – I just hate it when I see scenarios written so exclusively from an upper or upper-middle income prospective.) So, did the book say that women should all go scampering back home, or did it go at all into the possibiity that the *workplace* could change? Banty

Response:

>Has anyone other than me read this book?  It argues that the result of >women’s entry into the workforce has been bad for families because the >workplace has not changed to accomodate the dual-income family,

 Yes, I have taken part in this discussions on this topic before. Actually the economy has in fact made accomodations to dual income families.  It used to be that a family would only have to send out one member to work a cash producing job to support the family. Now, for most families, the household requires two outside workers to support the house. This is about 2000 extra hours of work. >but >rahter extended its demands into the private sphere, leaving both women >and children (and fathers) unable to make the time to be with each >other.

 2000 hours, + commute times that might have been spend at home or with the family. That’s not the whole story however. The house also requires upkeep, so much family time is also spend running house related chores. >  It covers many topics often debated here, very clearly and >incisively. >The problem is that it doesn’t really suggest any answers, except >downsizing, but since the instances she gives of this include people >bravely giving up the income of two attorneys (bah humbug) and reducing >themselves to live on the income of one atorney (poor souls) I don’t >know that it contains many ideas for the rest of us. >Jane Lumley

 Consider that the bigger part of one of those incomes is actually going to pay taxes. If one partner is making considerably less, they may actually SAVE money to keep one partner home. This is especially true if they have small children in daycare.  There was a show on a tv news magazine that demonstrated how a young wife/mother was working full time, but only collecting about a thousand dollars in actual profit every year.  Obviously, if she just quit her job, they’d already be ahead if just in the hours that she could devote to keeping house and being with her children. If she needed a few extra bucks? Gee, she already had a toddler. She could babysit one extra child, 5 days a week, and see the same profit she was getting from working 2000 hours a year outside.

Response:

Has anyone other than me read this book?  It argues that the result of women’s entry into the workforce has been bad for families because the workplace has not changed to accomodate the dual-income family, but rahter extended its demands into the private sphere, leaving both women and children (and fathers) unable to make the time to be with each other.  It covers many topics often debated here, very clearly and incisively. The problem is that it doesn’t really suggest any answers, except downsizing, but since the instances she gives of this include people bravely giving up the income of two attorneys (bah humbug) and reducing themselves to live on the income of one atorney (poor souls) I don’t know that it contains many ideas for the rest of us. — Jane Lumley

Response: