I have seen the following argument about working moms far too many times to count: Well, women could sacrifice second cars and vacation homes to stay home with their children.
Feel free to scream now. Or, you know. I could do it for you.
The implication of course is that that there is this vast army of selfish working mothers out there, raking in the billions, putting their BMWs and their Hamptons houses first while their six nannies do the butt wiping and the late-night feedings. Oh, of course they're home in time to kiss the kids goodnight once in a while, perhaps on a layover between St. Barth's and Palm Springs. Really, isn't it enough just to know that they gave birth?
Oh, okay. They used surrogates so they wouldn't ruin their figures. But still.
(Screaming party? Again? Sure, feel free.)
Here are just a few reasons mothers work in 2012:
I was reminded of this all in a Facebook thread about Hilary Rosen's editorial about Ann Romney, (thanks Erin) which has pretty much eaten the political internet this week. In it, Rosen defends her point that a millionaire stay-at-home-mom may not be Romney's best surrogate to lead the discussion on the economic challenges of working parents. Rosen wrote:
I have no judgements about women who work outside the home vs. women who work in the home raising a family. I admire women who can stay home and raise their kids full-time. I even envy them sometimes. It is a wonderful luxury to have the choice. But let's stipulate that it is NOT a choice that most women have in America today.
And of course I agree.
We have a system (and let's be honest, one political party in particular) that talks a good game about valuing family, even while offering the most piddly, pathetic family and maternity benefits of any industrialized country, as well as the least vacation time. (Note to self: Investigate career opportunities in Denmark.)
Women in this country work more than all but seven countries, and put in more hours than any country besides Japan.
Clearly there are institutional issues we have to fix to give more mothers-and fathers-the choices that they want.
But here's the thing: the discussion can't end here.
It's easy to defend those women whose work is financially essential to the stability of their families, like the 9.9 million single-parent families headed by mothers. As Belinda Hankins put it, her child's "dead father didn't have any brothers who would be forced to marry me under biblical code so... what's my choice?"
But how about those mothers for whom working may not be a financial necessity, as some might define it?
Can we defend them, too?
Those women who, according to the most judgy among us, don't "need" to work -- yet do so despite having husbands that earn good salaries. Those who work and do have two cars and take nice vacations and put their children through private schools. I know women like this; they are not the caricature I described above. Not even close.
What I believe is that if we're going to talk about choices, we need to talk about choices for all mothers.
I am the primary earner in my family, and so indeed my career is financially essential. But that's not the only reason I work. And I do work. A lot.
For some of us it is about mental health. About personal fulfillment and the pursuit of happiness, which, I believe, we're still constitutionally entitled to even after we have spawned. It's about continuing hard-won 20-year careers, which would disappear into nothingness should we even take three years off, that supportive our system is of mothers re-entering the workforce.
It's about making sure, as our divorced mothers taught us, that we always have a means of self-sufficiency, should we ever find ourselves without those money-earnin' menfolk in our lives.
It's about being role models for our children as working mothers the way we see fit, the same way stay-at-home mothers are.
It's about the fact that some of us are great mothers, but would not make outstanding be-at-home-all-the-time mothers.
It's also about acknowledging that the "takes a village" approach of leaning on parents, grandparents, sisters and amazing caregivers, works for a lot of families, and indeed does yield children who are healthy, strong, happy, stable, resilient, and 100%, arguably loved to pieces.
Are any of these less valid rationales for working than the financial necessity?
For God's sake, people. We as a community of parents have to STFU about this Mommy Wars crap and start acknowledging that there are lots of models that work for lots of different families.
And maybe, just maybe... assume a little value.
It's not hard, really.
Assume that the majority of mothers are doing the best they can, making the choices they think are the most appropriate for their families. Assume that mothers are not looking to traumatize their children, or abandon them at the drop of a hat. Assume that even if you can cite one example of some neighbor or school parent who does X, Y and Z which is really really selfish, that she is the exception and not the rule. Assume that there are great moms who work out of the house, great moms who work full time with their children, great moms with help, and great moms with none.
Assume that if a mother is working, for any reason at all, it is valid. And her children may be fine.
Because when someone insinuates that I am putting my work before my children, I have to stand up and correct them.
For many mothers, I'd imagine working means we are putting our children first.
While we're at it, stop telling stay-at-home mothers that they're wasting their educations. I can think of pleeeeenty of people wasting their educations, and none of them are mothers.
This post originally appeared on Mom-101.
Follow Liz Gumbinner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@mom101
Ann Romney is frankly a very poor representative for homemakers in America. Very few people can relate to the issues of a wealthy wife and mother giving economic advice or hard work comparisons.
Some moms prefer to stay at home. Some moms prefer to work outside the home. Children tend to thrive in happy environments. Thus, there is a potential advantage to the children if mom works outside the home . . . if that makes the mom a happier mom.
Some moms who prefer to stay at home simply do not have that option. Working outside the home is not engaged in so as to buy that next Lexus or keep up with the Joneses, it is engaged in to put the next meal on the table or to keep a roof over the family’s heads. Children tend to thrive in environments in which their basic needs are met.
A working mom is not necessarily putting... http://tinyurl.com/ye2tyy4
The moms who genuinely have a choice to either work or stay home don't typically get involved in this kind of nonsense. Mommy wars are fought by those whose circumstances made the decision for them. The judgment you see coming from these women is fueled by the anxiety that comes from not feeling in control.
When all women really have choices and are genuinely in control of their own lives, there will be no need to create things that make us feel that way, and all nonsense will disappear.
Hang in there, Debbie. Sounds like you've got a lot going on, and I hope that little girl is okay.
The conclusion: Parent and family characteristics (family income, education level, two-parent family, mother's psychological adjustment, social/cognitive quality of the home environment) are more strongly linked to child development than any aspect of child care.
Now here are some questions for you: I am wondering why you assume that all working mothers have children in daycare? Or why you assume that all working mothers even have children of daycare age? Or why you assert that mothers who work out of the home do not take that responsibility seriously, full time?
I am also wondering why you believe that attacking other mothers with different choices than your own and personally deciding who should and shouldn't be a mom is a reasonable thing for one to do.
Many people help to raise the children of working mothers--not the least of whom are fathers.
People like you just bowl me over with answers for everything!
However as I wrote above, necessity isn't strictly financial. There are so many reasons women work and they're all valid. A commenter on my original blog post eloquently discussed that we're not raising our kids for a year or two, we're raising them for lives. And sometimes the trade-offs we make when they're toddlers means we have fewer of them when they're older.
I'm really thrilled by all the thoughtful comments on this post. Thank you so much for really interesting and diverse perspectives, some which demand more consideration.
Yes, there are women who have jobs/careers outside the home whose salaries are not absolutely needed to support their family right now. Many of these women have decided to go back to work because they are their husbands realize that the husband's job may well be cut in the next round of layoffs and that it's a tough job market out there which means, if the husband loses his job, it may be a very long time until he's employed again. In the interim, while they're both working and raising their children, they're being more cautious about the occasional extravagance and socking money away so they can be as prepared as possible for any future job loss.
I also feel the need to point out that some women (and their families) think that the fulfillment they get from external jobs makes them better wives and mothers because they feel they are better able to prioritize & keep things in perspective. If that makes them a happier and better mom, then they're doing what's best for their family.
Hillary Clinton knows about the poor because in college she got out there and did a lot of work in poor communities and finding out what real people needed. That's the difference between a wealthy person in la la land and a wealthy person who cares. BIG difference.
http://www.themommypsychologist.com/2012/04/12/mommy-wars-whose-job-is-more-difficult/