Mothers who "Opt Out" of the career path
 

Comments, please.

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

Registration required. NYTimes obnoxious. Google friend

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/ma...partner=GOOGLE

Without a short summary, this really belongs in the "cool link of the day" thread.

WTLTBR.

(That's "Way Too Long To Bother Reading". I'm sure it's very, very good. I'll never know.)

Quote from NYTimes link
We've gotten so used to the sight that we've lost track of the fact that this was not the way it was supposed to be. Women -- specifically, educated professional women -- were supposed to achieve like men. Once the barriers came down, once the playing field was leveled, they were supposed to march toward the future and take rightful ownership of the universe, or at the very least, ownership of their half. The women's movement was largely about grabbing a fair share of power -- making equal money, standing at the helm in the macho realms of business and government and law. It was about running the world.
END QUOTE
Bullshit. The women with that view were just penis envyers. The real womens movement was about options. To have the option of going for the corporate top spot. To have the option to stay home with babies and puppies. To have the option to try any damn thing she wants. :p

It's pitched as an imperative rather than an option.

Women who do NOT take the high achiever, "I can do it all" track are often ridiculed by those women who have ... "well, you're JUST a mom." They are made to feel inferior, largely by women who are trying to assuage their own guilt over not taking the mommy track over the corporate track.

That is right on the money. Of course, Dads should have the same options.

What bugged me about the article:

1. No attempt was made to convey the views of the women's husbands, or any other father for that matter. What are these men, paychecks that walk around? This reason alone makes it very hard for me to take the article seriously.

2. All the women involved are dealing with very "high power" careers--they're all MBAs or law school grads from the ivy league. So fine, it's not practical to be a mom and senior partner in a prestigious Manhattan law firm. What about more modest (economically at least) careers--what about the mother who's an accountant at a bank, or the manager of a Sears store? Do they have the same problems or is this a "class" thing? They tried to be a partner in a big law firm and found they had to work insane hours, and this is news? What's next, doctors who are shocked, SHOCKED! that they sometimes get phone calls in the middle of the night?

3. The photography all involves harsh direct lighting. This makes the women look very washed out and pale. They don't look like confident, in-control women, they look like deer in headlights. I wonder what the intention was on the part of the photographer and the editors.

Well - you guys have hit on a hot button for me. Why are articles about daycare and careers always about women working? It's possible for a woman to have a career without putting her kids in daycare. Dad can just as easily stay home.
I do think more is typically expected of the stay-at-home Dad. (Building a house for example) but that's a different topic.
And sometimes I wish I had been the one at home, but this is just the way it worked out and I'm really glad my kids were home with their Dad.

I have to admit I didn't read the article. Also I don't have time to edit my post and make sure it's written the way I want - gotta get to work.

Ha,ha,ha. ain't it the truth.
I know a couple that did the wife=breadwinner, husband=homemaker. He had a heart attack and died at a young age. I'm not sure most men are tough enough to be a child rearer/homemaker. :D