working fulltime | Imamother

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Working Women

Working fulltime

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

↑ Barbara ↓

Fri, Jun 04 2010, 11:13 am

gold21 wrote:

Also barbara, bear in mind that I am referring to mothers at home with their little ones, not mothers at home while all the kids attend school: so where does homeschooling come into the equation? I definitely am in favor of mothers working when their kids are grown, but when the kids are young, well, I simply dont see how you could not be in favor of Mommy being home with them...

Because if its horrible and terrible and evil to have a 2 year old with a babysitter, and that amounts to having your kid raised by someone else and abrogating your parenting duties, as many people claim, then why isn't it the same when your child is 3? Or 8? Or 12? Why is calling it *school* vs *daycare* so magical?

↑ gold21 ↓

Fri, Jun 04 2010, 11:18 am

ok barbara... so we both believe that being a stay at home mom is an extremely valuable occupation that is not about obsessing over housework or being a helicopter mom, and that being a working mom does not detract from one's ability to be an awesome mom, and moreover, can often make a woman even more awesome as a mom. correct?

↑ gold21 ↓

Fri, Jun 04 2010, 11:21 am

Barbara, please say your last post was not serious. I cant agree with you if you truly see no value in a mother being with her baby when he is so young and so vulnerable and he cannot express himself and its hard to read his signals, etc. I dont think everyone has to be a stay at home mother, not at all, but its a shame that you see no value in it...

↑ louche

Fri, Jun 04 2010, 11:23 am

gold21 wrote:

well, I simply dont see how you could not be in favor of Mommy being home with them...

In principle, sure, but in priciple doesn't mean for everyone bar none. There are people who for whatever reason cannot and should not be sahps. People who would become depressed or physically ill. people with little patience who would become abusive if forced to be with their kids 24/7. people who would be so frustrated that they would take it out on their spouses.

↑ Barbara

Fri, Jun 04 2010, 11:37 am

gold21 wrote:

Please stop reading things into my comments that obviously and clearly aren't there.

Sure, there's value in a mom staying home. With a baby. A toddler. A tween. A teen.

But I get sick and tired of people saying that if a woman DOESN'T stay home, she's abdicating her parenting responsibilities. (And no, YOU didn't say that, but its said all the time.) Well, if a woman can only parent if she's home 24/7 with the kids, then she needs to home school.

↑ amother ↓

Fri, Jun 04 2010, 11:50 am

gold21 wrote:

I was very bad at reading my preverbal children's signals. It took my mother to tell me that one child was singing when I thought he was complaining. It took my mother-in-law to give me the secret to telling my identical twins apart. I never could tell the difference between the cry that meant I'm bored and the ones that meant I'm hungry or dirty or need a nap. My excellent babysitter had way more patience for their shtick than I did and pointed out to me many things about them that I wouldn't have noticed. I';m just not that observant a person and don't notice things unless I'm hit over the head.

Children whose mother has the personality to be a sahm may be better off if they have a sahm, but surely not everyone has the personality to be a good sahm. There are babysitters who make better mothers than the mothers.

↑ Fox ↓

Fri, Jun 04 2010, 2:04 pm

amother wrote:

Children whose mother has the personality to be a sahm may be better off if they have a sahm, but surely not everyone has the personality to be a good sahm. There are babysitters who make better mothers than the mothers.

And not everyone is at her best with babies and toddlers. I worked part-time hours during those years, but it was a struggle. I have absolutely no great love for toddlers -- even my own taxed my patience severely. But I'm great with teenagers! I notice many of the women who do well with toddlers become very stressed by teenage shtick. It's a cliche, but it really does take a village!

However, I see so many helicopter parents among my friends and acquaintances who don't work outside the home. I'm not sure where the cause-effect relationship is located, but it does not bolster the cause of the SAHM.

Truly, though, there is no need for extremes. The choices are not (a) be a cold, calculating career woman who relegates her family to 4th in her life; or (b) be a SAHM mother who smothers her kids and ends up talking like a Dr. Seuss book. Whenever researchers do studies of basic barometers of well-being among mothers, the healthiest are always those who work part-time. There are definite benefits to developing a role outside the home -- but most of us find full-time work combined with homemaking creates too full a platter. Obviously, some professions and jobs lend themselves to part-time work more than others, and this is definitely something I advise people to think about when choosing a career. But "work" is not a dirty word, and kids with a good, stable caregiver do just fine.

↑ smilingmom

Fri, Jun 04 2010, 2:49 pm

I took college bio, genetics and organic chemistry, but I must have been partying when they taught the difference between men & women.

Why are some posters shocked and incredulous that a fulltime working (or learning) father can take care of household responsibilities but take it for granted that a mother can do the same?

BTW, learning is a full time job for my DH, albeit, one without any stipend or salary.

↑ Tablepoetry ↓

Sat, Jun 05 2010, 11:59 am

Barbara wrote:

GetReal wrote:

gold21 wrote:

to the amother who mentioned that staying at home today doesnt require the effort that was necessary a few generations ago, and therefore being a sahm can lead a woman to become idle (whatever thats supposed to mean): staying at home is about your KIDS, not about your HOUSEWORK.

So why are there so many questions about how one cooks and cleans if one works?

The point, however, is that the paradigm of mom staying home and doing arts and crafts with the kids only dates from the late 20th century. Before that, caring for the home was a lot more difficult. I clean the rugs by pushing an electric vacuum, not be pulling it off the floor, hanging it outside, and beating it with a rug beater. I do laundry by sorting it and placing it in an electric machine with detergent that I bought in the store, not by scrubbing it on a washboard then running it through a ringer to extract the water. Etc etc etc. I'd venture a guess that most women who work FULL time have more leisure time to spend with their kids than women who did not work outside the home did in 1910.

I'm not sure the average homemaker has more leisure time than 50 or 100 yrs ago. It's true that there are electronic appliances galore to make life easier. But alongside that, societal standards have changed and made things harder. Today people change their clothes every single day. 100 years ago the average person probably washed their clothes once a month. People did not bathe every day. Nor did they scrub their (outdoor) toilets every other day. Etc, etc.
Also, it was much more commn for the middle class to have serious household help.

But I agree absolutely that the concept of a mother devoting her life to crafts with the kids or even to schooling them is new.

↑ Tablepoetry ↓

Sat, Jun 05 2010, 12:19 pm

smilingmom wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if both spouses are working full time they should be splitting the household duties 50/50. The whole 'women are more suited to domestic duty' attitude doesn't wash if women are also going to be taking on the breadwinner's task.
A woman who works part time, the husband should take on partial household duties, proportionally. It's only fair.

↑ ora_43 ↓

Sat, Jun 05 2010, 1:04 pm

Fox wrote:

Here's my take on both these questions: I think it's perfectly fine for a mother to cut back her work hours or even take a few years off when her children are young and need constant supervision.

I hope you also think it's fine for people to do what they need to do in order to be home for their older kids if possible (ie home in the afternoon, when the kids are off school). I think that's as important as being home with younger kids, maybe even more so.

Quote:

But I know many, many women whose children are at school all day -- and yet they're still "SAHMs". I can certainly understand the appeal; I would love to be able to make wonderful meals; set the table; keep on top of housework, etc. But frankly, I don't want my DDs to marry someone who's been raised in that environment.

But that doesn't answer my question. My question was, "Why deliberately have a worse lifestyle just to keep expectations low?"

If a family can afford to have the mother stay home and make wonderful meals and keep a clean house - why on earth should they send her out to work instead, just so nobody gets used to having a clean home or tasty meals? To me that's like saying, I wouldn't want my kid to marry someone who went out to eat in restaurants, because maybe they won't be able to afford to do that once they're married.

Or, I wouldn't want them to marry someone whose working mother had cleaning help, because then that man might have high standards when it comes to what constitutes a clean home. Where do you draw the line?

Quote:

And, yes, I do believe that many of these women become inappropriately idle. Some become shopaholics; others immerse themselves in some lifestyle-oriented hobby; others become commercial connoisseurs, traversing the region to find the perfect napkin rings or pillows in just the right shade of taupe. Of course, some women turn to chesed in this situation, but their lack of experience often results in mistakes or poor judgment, and they're not really accustomed to answering to others in a chain of command. Ultimately, they feel useless, so they begin to badger their grown children and grandchildren, plan unrealistically grandiose family events, and generally cause eye-rolling wherever they go.

Is this a characterization of every women who doesn't work outside the home in a signficant way? No. But I see it entirely too often to consider it simply anecdotal.

How is working when you don't need to any better than getting involved in a hobby? IMO, working when you don't need to is like having a hobby that you didn't choose and possibly don't even like. (Unless you are in a field you love, and you absolutely can't do your job on a volunteer basis.) And if you're going to have a hobby - why not ditch the paid hobby where others make the decisions for you, and take up a pro-bono hobby where you're calling the shots?

Personally I haven't seen what you have re: stay at home parents. I only know a few at-home parents of older kids, but the ones I know are doing some really cool things. They might not be "productive" in the standard sense of the word (no company or boss is benefiting from their labor), but they're happy, and they tend to find ways to do things for their families and friends and neighbors as well.

Barbara wrote:

I'd venture a guess that most women who work FULL time have more leisure time to spend with their kids than women who did not work outside the home did in 1910.

Women living before 1910 probably wouldn't have understood the concept of "leisure time" at all. The whole thing of seeing childhood as a wonderful, carefree time to learn and explore as opposed to a dangerous time in which to learn to pull your own weight and hopefully not die is a fairly modern concept.

Mothers living a century ago probably lived a lot like mothers in third world countries today - ie, spending a lot of time with the kids, not what Americans would call "quality time," but then again they probably would have thought that our idea of "quality time" is nuts.

↑ Tablepoetry ↓

Sat, Jun 05 2010, 1:46 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Quote:

I agree. I don't understand the concept of working for the sake of working. I agree it's probably not healthy to be too idle, but most women I know who don't work do a great job of keeping themselves busy.

I see nothing wrong with a woman staying home even if her kids are at school all day. What's wrong with her having time to clean the house and make a fresh supper? What's wrong with her having time to read a book? What's wrong with her kids being able to see her read that book? Why does everyone have to be part of the rat race? What's wrong with doing things at a saner pace? And honestly, if she's a frum woman with more than 2.5 children, chances are she spends every afternoon and evening running around, taking her kids to doctors/private tutors/ birthday parties/ shopping for xyz/speech therapist, or stays home and helps them with homework. Chances are her afternoons and evening are superbusy even if the kids are at school all day. Why do her mornings also have to be hectic?

Anyway, I'm not saying it's better to work or stay home. Most people I know can't even dream of staying home. I just think that if a woman can afford to stay home, there is no inherent value to her going out to work, unless that's where she finds fulfillment.
(I do think, btw, that men find it harder to find value in their lives if they don't work. They seem to get listless).

↑ gold21 ↓

Sat, Jun 05 2010, 7:06 pm

smilingmom, who is incredulous that your husband does housework? I sure am not! I definitely agree with you that men should pitch in with the housework... when my husband was in kollel and I worked full time, I did almost no housework, he did 75 percent of the housework, and the last 25 percent just never happened... its not so uncommon for kollel husbands to take on a lot of the housework... I am merely pointing out that if someone else's husband has to be up at 5:45 am because he has to be at work at 8 am after traveling by subway for an hour, and works through his lunch break so he can leave at 6:30 and be home at 7:30, and only then does he have a chance to learn for an hour, and he has to be in bed by 11:30 so he can get 6 hours of sleep before its wake-up time.... well thats quite a different situation than your own..... no, my husband does not have that schedule B"H!! but im sure there are some that might. I am very very much in favor of men doing housework, and even more so when their wives work. Even stay at home moms need help with the housework and the kids! I rely on my husband for quite a few things although I currently do not work out of the home. I am just pointing out that men have different schedules, so the fact that your husband can have homemade smoothies ready for you when you get home from work does not mean every man is able to do so.

↑ Fox ↓

Sat, Jun 05 2010, 8:15 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Having a SAHM is like any other luxury; as long as the people involved understand that the majority of the world does not have that option, all is well. Unfortunately, many people, especially children growing up in that atmosphere, lose sight of that.

For example, when I was growing up, my family took a vacation to the Caribbean every year without fail. My parents could afford it, and it was important to them. Kol hakovod! But they made sure that everyone understood that this was not "normal" for the vast majority of families; this was a special lifestyle luxury that they chose to make a priority, and they wouldn't do it if it became too financially difficult.

My DH, on the other hand, grew up never seeing his mother work outside the home. He and his brothers had "jobs," but the day-to-day functioning of the household was provided by his mother. And unfortunately, his parents never communicated that this was a luxury they were choosing to afford -- that the rest of the world can't necessarily make this choice. So he now has a concept of "normal" that is completely out of sync with the way most people live, and he is completely unprepared to deal with the reality of needing (yes, needing) two incomes.

Would I completely reject any shidduch for my daughters where the mother didn't work outside the home? Probably not, because I don't believe in those kinds of litmus tests. But I would certainly try to ascertain how the family viewed her full-time homemaking. I would be very, very concerned if they presented a SAHM as the norm.

ora_43 wrote:

Because I think it's a real, serious danger. It is dangerous because the people often lose sight of how most people have to live; they become self-absorbed and insensitive to the fact that the vast majority of people in the world have to work in order to eat. They insulate themselves from all the unpleasant parts of the work environment.

I often provide help for people in polishing their resumes or preparing other job search materials, and so lots of questions come my way from people who want to get back into the job market or people who want to change careers. The most questions come from men who feel pressured financially and want their wives to return to work, but the wives enjoy potchkeing around the house and "being there" for everyone. The second-largest type of questions come from women who need to return to work, but are no longer qualified for anything and have forgotten how to interact effectively in a professional environment.

While it's nice to assume that SAH folks are doing tons of chesed after their children are older, no one in the non-profit world seems to find that to be the case. In fact, I spoke recently to the executive director of a day school who says he doesn't even bother calling the SAHMs to volunteer for anything. Admittedly, he's a bit cynical, but he claims that the working mothers are far more willing to find a way to participate -- that the SAHMs have endless excuses why they can't participate.

Tablepoetry wrote:

I don't understand the concept of working for the sake of working. I agree it's probably not healthy to be too idle, but most women I know who don't work do a great job of keeping themselves busy.

A saner pace of life is great -- if and only if you understand that most people in the world don't have that choice. And not just because they're jetting to Bermuda regularly.

And "if you can afford it" is a big issue. I talk to a lot of men who don't feel they can afford it, but they try to because their wives don't want to work. Meanwhile, the wives are deluding themselves that this is a family decision.

Truthfully, if I didn't need the money, I would force myself to work part-time for the express purpose of keeping my perspective. I would either work for an organization for a minimal salary and/or donate my salary to chesed. Frankly, there are plenty of Jewish causes that would benefit more from receiving that money than from my half-hearted attempts to "do" myself. And would I really make chesed a full-time job? No. I'd probably do about the same amount of chesed I do now. I'd just do it with a cleaner house.

So the bottom line remains: if a family enjoys the benefits of a SAHM and everyone understands that a choice is being made, and that the choice may have to change if financial circumstances change, then kol hakovod. But if the employed partner is being guilted into the arrangement or the SAH parent is contributing less, then I have a problem with that. I also have a problem when SAH parents become insensitive to the economic realities around them. Obviously, it is their right to do any or all of that, but just as working mothers have to be very careful and cautious in balancing their work and family life, I believe SAHMs have to exercise the same degree of caution in not becoming lazy and developing attitudes of entitlement. Unfortunately, I see a lot more threads about balancing work and family than I see about maintaining the proper attitude if one is a SAHM.

Tova ↓

Sat, Jun 05 2010, 9:04 pm

Fox, I disagree strongly with you that SAHM'ing is a luxury. It is a value. [I am work, by the way.] Nothing to do with what the majority of women do (debatable anyways, if you are looking at the world at large).

My husband is in kollel, b"H. Is that a luxury too? No - it is a value, a priority, and we daven for continued siyatta dishmaya in making it work.

I think it is important for people to have passions and convictions. I would be impressed by any SAH who values with a passion being at home w/ her kids. I would imagine a future son-in-law of yours growing up in such a home would only be the better for it. I don't for the life of me see how growing up in a home where housework is always up to date = having high standards for your wife. [Don't many/most boys spend a lot of teenage time away in yeshiva?] If people always did things the way they were at home, we would never have baalei teshuva. Or my husband and countless others wouldn't be in kollel. As ora was saying, should I not perfect my potato kugel recipe because my future DIL's kugel may not measure up?

We should live life according to ideal as much as possible. If the ideal works out practically, mah tov u'mah naim.

And if our children find that practically they cannot do things according to the ideal, well - I trust they will work that out between themselves (homemaking skills, kovea ittim l'Torah etc.)

↑ Mrs Bissli

Sat, Jun 05 2010, 9:04 pm

louche wrote:

gold21 wrote:

well, I simply dont see how you could not be in favor of Mommy being home with them...

Wow--what great reasons to choose working full time, so that one doesn't abuse the kids or the spouses?!
What about a bit more reason for not being a SAHP? Such as trying to put bread on the table if the other spouse is not earning enough, or really seeing a value in contributing to the society via paid works (teachers, doctors?), or plain just rational logic that the combined economic benefit for the house is greater if both spouses work and hire professionals (house cleaners, housekeepers, nannies) to delegate?

↑ Tablepoetry ↓

Sat, Jun 05 2010, 10:14 pm

I understand what you're saying Fox. And although I agree that women shouldn't feel 'entitled' to stay at home, I also think women of young children/of large families/of children with special needs, etc., shouldn't be 'expected' to work full time. Because let's face it, research has shown that in most families the woman does most of the domestic labour, whether she works or not (of course today men 'help' a lot more, but research shows women still do the bulk of it). And it's just not fair to expect women to work two jobs when men have only one.
I understand what you're saying about staying at home being a luxury for most of the world. But so is indoor plumbing and refridgeration. Just because most of the world lives at a certain standard doesn't mean we don't need to try for better.

I might as well avoid shidduchim for my daughter where the chatan's mother worked full time. After all, maybe she set an unattainable standard of superwomanhood; maybe she combined her work and home duties so well that my daughter will never be able to live up to it. Maybe the chatan will 'expect' my daughter to work no matter what. There's no end to it.

↑ Fox ↓

Sun, Jun 06 2010, 2:19 pm

Tablepoetry wrote:

There's no end to it.

I agree, and that's why I "never say never." But I would definitely consider it worth serious investigation.

Tova wrote:

I disagree strongly with you that SAHM'ing is a luxury. It is a value.

Okay, so is an annual trip to the Caribbean a luxury or a value? This seems to me to be a case of "When we do it, it's a value; when people make different choices, those are luxuries."

I have absolutely no quarrel with any SAHP who genuinely works at the job. But there have to be two conditions in my mind: (1) Everyone has to understand that this is a choice being made with regard to resource allocation, not simply a given; and (2) The SAHP has to take his/her role seriously and not slack off.

Personally, I can count one single SAHM who meets both those conditions.

Sherri

Sun, Jun 06 2010, 3:10 pm

(How many people would say that a trip to the Caribbean is a value? Confused

)

↑ Tova ↓

Sun, Jun 06 2010, 5:42 pm

Fox wrote:

This seems to me to be a case of "When we do it, it's a value; when people make different choices, those are luxuries."

No, I am more intellectual honest than that.

I think SAHM is a wonderful value. I personally work out of the home (part day) so my kids go to babysitters.

Page 5 of 7

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next