Strollerderby : SAHMs

How Much Would It Cost You to Take a Career Break?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:00:00 GMT

The New York Times (h/t Creative Class blog) has an interesting report on the financial penalties sustained in different fields by people who take some time out of the workforce. Apparently, although medicine has the most grueling training, once you get there, it's a lot easier on work/life balance than, say, finance, business consulting, or law. Or even academia.

Of course by "people who take time off for family" we still mean mostly (but not entirely) women (it used to be called the Mommy track, remember?), and I'm surprised that the research didn't explore whether women and men experienced different financial penalties when they do take time. (And I'm surprised that the Creative Class blog post didn't even acknowledge that gender is still a huge factor in this.)

It's also, perhaps, a little hard for me to get too worked up about the relatively lower salaries of highly paid MBAs and PhDs who've taken a few years off when there are so many other people for whom work-life balance means being able to get paid time off or support their family without taking on a second job. Ok, so perhaps that's a little too harsh. Work-family balance is important for everyone, for the kids, and because people who've been forced to work 70-hour weeks when their kids are young often have a I-did-it-so-you-should-too attitude toward their own subordinates, not to mention about efforts to improve work-life balance for everyone.

More by this author:

Back-to-School: Is It Always Cause for Celebration?

Jen Chaney — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:28:00 GMT

It's Labor Day. If your kids haven't already gone back to school, their first day is likely tomorrow. Which, if conventional wisdom can be believed, means moms and dads across America are celebrating. But is that really true?

We all remember that classic Staples commercial, where the father romps merrily through the school supply aisle to the tune of "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year." Indeed, for stay-at-home moms and dads, there probably is some relief that the kids won't be underfoot 24-7. But some moms and dads out there have to be a little sad at back-to-school time, right?

It means another summer has ended, that money must be spent on backpacks and No. 2 pencils, that all the fun times with the kids -- sculpting sandcastles at the beach, cheering at Saturday morning swim meets or seeing a matinee of "Wall*E" -- must now be replaced by making sure the homework gets done and changing over the family wardrobe from shorts to (shudder) sweaters.

I don't even have a kid of school-age, but I always feel a little depressed every time I see that first back-to-school ad. If nothing else, it's a stark reminder that time is marching on. And as someone famous once said, "The passing of time is monumentally sucky."

Okay, no one famous ever said that. But I think that statement is both true and enormously insightful. (Go ahead, Barack Obama. Feel free to borrow that one for your next big speech. I'll even let you take the credit.)

Parents of America, I ask you: Is back-to-school a time to rejoice, a time to weep, a time to do a little of both? Or is it a time to read posts like this one and wonder who the heck has time to write crap like this when there's so much to do to get ready for back-to-school, you stupid nitwit blogger? Share your thoughts -- and suggestions about where to purchase a reasonable pack of graph paper (do kids still use graph paper?) -- in the comments section below.

Judgment Day: Sending Sick Kids to School

Karen Murphy — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:03:00 GMT

My younger son has been sick all week. Croup. The middle-of-the-night sound of him hoarsely fighting for breath wakes one instantly to a state of full alert. We've been down this road seven times now (Down syndrome awarded him tiny respiratory passages that are overly susceptible to infection), so it, like everything else, was weathered with only a modicum of whining.

On my part, the whining. But my point: he brought this home from school (no one else in the house is sick), and therein lies my quandary. When do you keep a sick kid home and when do you send him off to school?

I can count on several fingers, toes, and other appendages how many things I culd have/would have accomplished this week had Eric been well enough to attend school. Lost work, lost sleep, lost sanity. Not that I haven't cherished every second with a boy who yells "No!" to every suggestion, but hello, I could have done a whole lot of things that I didn't. It goes without saying, and when a single-parent-who-worked-outside-of-the-home it was even worse. At least I can sit here and chat with you on my laptop, which is more than a lot of parents are abe to do when wth a sick child.

But when do you keep your kids home? And do some of us fudge a bit and send our kids to school when maybe we shouldn't?

I know as a kid I had to be at death's door to stay home, so that happened very seldom. I tend to err on the other side as a parent, though, since I'm home anyway. Not every parent has that luxury (??), but when my kids seem too uncomforable to sit at a desk all day or seem contagious, they stay home. No matter what. So I was surprised to read this list of keeping-sick-kids-home criteria that says it's okay to send kids with colds to school.

Ummm..hello? It is? I'm pretty sure it's an upper respiratory infection that's kept my kid home all week. I know kids have perpetual runny noses all wnter long, but...where do you draw the line? When is it a cold that will infect the class and when is it just...a cold?

I was hoping for something more definitive here, but it seems that except for the obvious (fevers, typhoid, TB, Hep B, etc) and the other obvious (vomiting, diarrhea, blah blah blah), there's a huge gray area between please-let-my-kid-be-well-enough-to-go-to-school and oh-fuck-another-personal-day-at-work-gone.

So where do you draw the line? When and for what do you say, "Should they stay or should they go?"

Photo: www.bbc.co.uk

Sure I'm A Sad Wad But I'd Much Rather Be A SAHD WAHD

makeitadouble — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:32:00 GMT

Every morning when I leave the house, I put on my fedora, tuck a newspaper under my arm, grab my briefcase the kiss my sons goodbye. Every morning my 5 year old pleads with me to stay home and not to go to work, hugging my leg and asking why I can’t work from the house. Every morning I back out of the driveway and honk the horn at my sons as they plaster their faces against the living room window and wave madly until I’m out of view.

I’m a working Dad, but here’s a newsflash: I’m not the only Dad whose heart breaks every morning when he has to leave his children for those 9-10 hours stretches that feel like an eternity. Want another newsflash or how about a just headline in the scrolling news ticker at the bottom of this blog? (It’s not there? You may need to upgrade your software) Dad’s aren’t the only one’s who work fulltime jobs and miss out on time with their children. Admittedly the SAHM/WAHM is still more common than the SAHD/WAHD, but it’s not like Working Moms are fictitious cultural myths like Bigfoot, The Loch Ness monster and Decaffeinated Coffee; which is why I hate when studies like this come out framed to only include fathers.

A Government-commissioned report in Great Britain found that fathers who work long hours miss out on spending a month a year with their children. So, you mean if I spend more time at work I’ll spend less time at home? This is groundbreaking stuff. But again, my problem with studies like this is that that do not take into account 1) Working mothers who are equally affected by the hours they spend at work 2) the lost time the family gets to spend together as a FAMILY and not just Dad’s lost time with the kids. I was dreamin' when I wrote this so forgive me if it goes astray, but it’s 2008 researchers, let’s stop conducting studies like it’s 1959.

Am I jealous of SAHM? I Am. Do I envy WAHM? I envy their Freedom. Does not being a SAHD make me Sad? It does. Would I rather be a WAHD? Some people tell me I’ve been one all my life, but I’d do just about anything to make it official. The question of choice and creating a work-life balance is an individual one that each family, father and mother has to work through, but let’s all stop pretending that Dad’s are the only ones who get choked up when they look at the pictures of their children on their desk at work. OK?

And this coming from a guy with only 11 months on his calendar.

Achtung! German Hausfraus are Actually Men

Madeline Holler — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:02:00 GMT

The big news in this report is supposed to be that way more fathers are becoming temporary stay-at-home dads in Germany than officials expected. By the third quarter of a new maternity leave incentive program -- which is intended to encourage more Germans to procreate and reverse their declining population -- nearly 10 percent of the applicants were fathers.

That's great, love to see it, equal time, blah, blah.

But what I'm sitting in a depressed puddle of my own ruggedly independent, red, white and blue urine about is the program. Get this:

Whichever parent takes advantage of it, they get a subsidy of up to a little more than $36,000 for a year. The parent taking the year off gets two-thirds of his or her salary for 12 months up to $2,600 per month. Another parent can take an additional two months also getting two-thirds pay. Tax free for both.

And I know someone's going to write in and say something to the effect that people have to be responsible for their own children, etc., and go head and make your case, whoever you are. But also keep reading, because you're going to love what one German guy who took advantage of the program said:

"The politicians act as if it's a huge gift, but actually it's not -- it's an improvement, but I think even more would stay at home if they could afford it," said Dommer, from Berlin.

Damn, culture shock! Here I felt grateful to cobble together vacation time, sick days and some shitty 50 percent pay for six weeks deal at my employer to get three months of maternity leave. And this German guy thinks up to nearly $37,000 in a year is not enough! God I love Europeans!

And sure, even the full 36,000 doesn't go so far in Germany, especially in the cities. And I can't help but wonder whether single parents even bother with this, or if there's something else out there to help support them. But you just know that after babyhood, there are all kinds of playgroups and childcare centers and Kindergartens and all that, probably pretty cheap, probably pretty good.

386,000 people signed up for the 1.4 billion Euro program, so officials have had to cook the books a little to come out on budget. Next year, they're allotting 4 billion Euros. I think Americans spend that much in a weekend of light-fighting with insurgents in Iraq.

Photo: Bilderbox

Career. Kids. Catsuits. In That Order.

Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:33:00 GMT

Now that Lil E's third birthday is quickly approaching and nearly every woman I know is pregnant or swaddling a brand new baby, the question about whether we are having more children has been coming up more and more often. We are in those limbo years between Oh My God! Another Baby? Already? Two in Diapers? Already? and If You're Going to Have More, You'd Better Get On It, Sister. My womb has sufficiently healed (See? I'm not as bitter as some folks think!) and I'm over a year out from weaning. And while my body's been doing all this recovering, so has my career. I am left with a strange and confusing combination of ovaries doing little flips when I see those new babies and a career swelling, filling me up and easing the financial worries we've had since the prenatal bills started rolling in. So what to do? Just go for it or just give it more time? And can I keep up with all my jobs with a new baby in a sling and a toddler wailing all the way to daycare?

All these questions, all these concerns, all these calculations made me feel a kindred sisterhood with Georgia Katsilianos after reading her piece on figuring out the whole shift from working mom to SAHM, all while having a second child. I'm working, she's at home with the kids. I have one child and she has two children. But I definitely get where she's coming from. Not only does she reflect on leaving her career to be a stay at home mom with honesty and humor, she's not afraid to admit that being outnumbered by children scares her or makes her question her identity, her abilities and her weight. But the best part is that she does it all while dreaming (See? You can get sleep after you become a mother. It's not as bad as we make it sound after all!) about saving the world and herself, all while wearing a catsuit. A catsuit! Brilliant.

Which makes me wonder, would a maternity catsuit be in bad taste? And is it any more appropriate if you work from home?

SAHDs Worth Less Than SAHMs

Karen Murphy — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:24:00 GMT

Um, sorry, stay-at-home dads. Apparently not only are you unmanly, but the work you do just doesn't cut it. In fact, according to a new stupid study by Salary.com, you deserve less phantom money than do the reviled-but-evidently-harder-working-than-you stay-at-home-moms.

See, the thing is, you're not working enough overtime. You're only putting in some 80 hours a week at this Dad Thing, while the stay-at-home moms put in more than 90. It could be that you're more efficient at your work, couldn't it? Why yes, and it also could be that you're watching too much Scott Baio. So you only don't get $128,755, while SAHMs don't get $138,000.

However, dads with jobs also deserve an additional $72,000 for the work they do around the house. That's a LOT of lawn-mowing.

I don't know why calculating your worth as a dad in terms of salary (that you'll never see) is useful, but if you want to do it, go ahead. And then give yourself a hug, for being you.

Internet Moms Use Technology to "Have it All"

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Thu, 24 May 2007 17:05:00 GMT

According to a recent CNN article, stay-at-home-moms are using the internet not only to connect with other parents while the kids are napping, but to run home-based business or work for companies that offer flex time, a concept the media dubs "having it all."

From running eBay businesses to doing customer support from home, women are changing the way they work in order to stay at home with their kids. They're ambitious women who have seen needs and filled them, taking charge of their own professional and parental destinies.

Babble's Editor-in-Chief Ada Calhoun talks about how her concept of time has changed now that she has a baby. She works from home two days a week and makes the most of it. She says she "has no time to waste," and she's spot-on. Any parent that works from home has two bosses: family life and work. Every second is devoted to one or the other.

As a counterpoint, also on Babble, Pamela Stone discusses the concept of "opting out" (the title of her new book). Highly-educated and trained women are giving up their jobs to stay home, often because they feel like they don't have any other alternative. I've heard many women of my generation talking about "being glad they have a choice to stay home," but that word, "choice," has always bothered me. Says Stone, " Women almost universally talked about their decision as a choice, and they talked about how fortunate they were to have a choice. And in some sense they're right, because they can afford to forgo their incomes. But when you step back, what they are really saying is, 'I'm fortunate to give up years of training. I'm fortunate to give up years of investment and success.'"

Stone is also a proponent of "flex-time," and wonders why companies allow talented women to "walk out the door" completely.

Where do you fit in? Are you sitting at home pondering the next great internet business? Or are you worried that taking time off for kids will leave you out of the game?

Angelina Jolie Takes a Break to Be a SAHM

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Wed, 23 May 2007 17:59:00 GMT

Angelina Jolie is taking a break from her job so that she can stay home with Brad and the kids and be a full time mom. When Jolie finishes shooting "Wanted" she is going to take some time off. She wants to let Pax get better adjusted to his new life.

It sounds completely reasonable. So why can't I stop rolling my eyes? Why to I love to hate Angelina Jolie? I stay at home with my kids. I respect other people who make the decision to stay at home to raise their children. I respect acting as an art form, so why do I just see Angelina going to the gym and screwing Brad Pitt while the nannies feed and bathe their children? I guess I am just a cynic.

Angelina Jolie is probably a lovely person. Why can't I take her seriously? Oh yes, I remember. It is that she used to wear a vial of Billy Bob Thornton's blood around her neck as jewelry. Yes.

Okay, I don't feel so bad about all that eye rolling now.

SAHMs are "Worth" $138,000 Annually. Like They'll Ever Get It.

Karen Murphy — Thu, 03 May 2007 11:34:00 GMT

Good news, moms! You all get a 3% raise this year! Because 3% of zero is, guess what? That's right, zero! Yep, this year all you SAHMs aren't getting a whopping $134,121 (national average - the national high was $191,983) salary for everything you do. There. Don't you feel better now about picking up all those crushed and ground-in Cheerios from the carpet this morning?

But hey, in case you were thinking differently, working moms haven't been left out of the new increase! Nope, all you moms who work, guess what? That's right, you're not getting $85,000 this year for the job you do after that other one you do, the one that actually pays real money. Where else can you work two jobs yet only get paid for one?

Salary.com broke down all the myriad jobs performed on a daily basis by moms and came up with 90-plus hours per week of work done in job titles like Housekeeper, Day Care Center Teacher, Cook, Computer Operator I, Laundry Machine Operator, Janitor, Facilities Manager, Chief Executive Officer, Van Driver, Psychologist. I think they forgot a few. What about Referee, Entertainer, and Personal Assistant? Or Art Teacher, Dishwasher, and Librarian?

I'm thinking of striking for better working conditions, since we're not getting paid anyway. Care to join me?

Stay at Home Mothers: a Fulfilling Life or a Slow Death?

Karen Murphy — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:56:00 GMT

Based on this excellent review by Kim Voynar at Cinematical of the film Little Children, I'm pretty sure I'm never going to watch this movie. At least not without a huge box of tissues by my side, because according to Kim's description of the film's main character, I so relate to the dilemma posed in the life of this stay-at-home mother that I would likely find watching the film hugely painful. Evidently the film and its character struck a major chord with Kim as well, because she wrote a poignant testament to the life of many stay-at-home mothers on her blog Catawampus.

Kim says: These days, here's what society preaches to women:

You can't be fulfilled unless you have a man and a child.
If you have a child, you should WANT to stay home with your baby, all day, every day.
Doing this will make you feel happy and fulfilled and complete in ways you never imagined.
When your kids are older, you can always go right back into your career.

Sound familiar? It does to me. I gave up a ten-year career, admittedly a shitty stress-filled one, but suddenly I found myself attempting to bridge the gap between being single-mom career girl and weeks later being a married woman-with-a-baby, having nothing more to do in the course of a day but care for a cranky demanding baby, eat a bag of potato chips, and have dinner on the table by 6 pm. Then another baby came, and another, and I tried to assure myself (while at the same time being incredibly and unfairly judgmental about mothers who chose to work outside the home) that I felt fulfilled wiping noses and butts and making up inane little songs and baking bread, but secretly, I knew there was something missing: me.

The divorce will likely be final later this year.

That's my story, but what about yours? It's my belief that some people are practically made to be parents, some aren't in the least, and the rest of us try to bridge the gap between one identity and another. I absolutely adore my children but I lost myself along the way. What do you do? Where do you fall? How do you deal with this dilemma, if it is one for you at all?

[Disclosure: Kim is married to our own Jay Allen]

Linda Hirshman Pisses Me Off Yet Again

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:01:00 GMT

This time Hirshman is saying that Stay-at-home-mom's have to ask their husbands how to vote! In her article on Washingtonpost.com she called "We've Come a Long Way, Maybe" she says that in her small poll of Washington D.C. SAHMs she learned that people vote like their fathers do, or read the Style section of the paper and ask their husbands what the rest of the news is and she insinuates that we don't care about or understand policy. Grrrrrrrrr. Hey Linda! I'm a SAHM. I live near D.C. I happen to have a college degree in political science. I also have the amazing abilities that including reading, watching the news and forming my own opinions.

I thought the Mommy Wars were over. Why is this woman out there trying to make other mothers look stupid? Is she still pissed because I don't work out of an office? Is this because I don't have to wear pantyhose? Choosing to stay home with your children does not make one apolitical or unthinking.

As with most of Linda Hirshman's writings, I find this offensive as a woman and as a mother. I'm guessing that the article was meant to illustrate that people won't vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman (which may or may not be true) but I think she just set the feminists back another couple of years.

(Thanks to this fabulous post by Pundit Mom where I first found out about this outrage.)