A couple of years ago I found myself getting furious every time I read
an article about women who quit their careers to become full-time mothers.
The media treated this decision as if it were no more than a lifestyle
choice – a magic solution to the stress of the dreaded juggling act, a
quick fix that would free women from the demands of work so they could
devote all their time to their precious children and perfect homes.
But nobody ever talked about how dangerous this choice can be. The media
rarely mentioned the scary financial risks of depending on a spouse for
support. Equally neglected was the other side of the opting-out story, which
is opting back in. Although most women leave the workforce intending to
return to it later on, few realise how circumscribed their chances of
reentry will be, or what a steep financial price they will pay for their
time out.
This information gap is so dramatic that women often make these crucial life
choices in virtual ignorance of the long-term consequences. But the
unfortunate truth is that most of these women will be blind-sided by painful
challenges in the years to come. Half of them will get divorced; others will
have to cope with a spouse’s illness, incapacitation or premature death.
Then there’s unemployment: many men lose their jobs at some point, which can
have a catastrophic effect when the husband is a family’s only breadwinner.
When you add up all the risks, it becomes clear that most women who relinquish
their financial independence by quitting work will eventually find
themselves on the wrong side of the odds. The consequences for them and
their children are enormous.
The rewards of working are equally enormous, yet somehow they are omitted from
the public discussion. Although women sacrifice innumerable benefits when
they give up their careers, you would never know it from the rosy retro
portrayals of domestic bliss that you find in the press.
Frustrated about this sorry state of affairs, I decided to write a book that
would gather in one place the financial, legal, demographic, psychological,
medical, sociological, child-rearing, workforce and other information that
women need to make life choices that protect their interests and those of
their families. The result was The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too
Much?
The feminine mistake in the 21st century is to build your adult life around
the notion that it’s safe to give up your financial autonomy and depend on
someone else to support you. Women generally do so with the best of
intentions, and typically insist that their contributions to the family unit
are as valuable as those of their husbands.
But stay-at-home wives don’t get paid for their contributions and, as one
expert whom I quote in my book puts it, marriage is not an equal economic
partnership because women assume nearly all of the economic risk. If a
couple divorce, the breadwinner walks away with the family’s major asset,
which is his career. His stay-at-home wife will have a hard time finding a
job and earning an adequate income. As a result, women’s standard of living
plummets when their marriages are disrupted, whereas men’s standard of
living often rises. And divorce is only one of many risks. “I finished
reading your book at a soccer game, where I was sitting with four women,”
one suburban mother told me. “Two of us are divorced; our husbands left us
for younger women. One of us was widowed; her husband dropped dead last year
at the age of 49. Only one of us is still married. Then I went home and ran
into my neighbour, whose husband has just announced that he’s leaving her
because he’s in love with someone else. My neighbour has a law degree but
hasn’t worked in 18 years and has no idea how to get a job. I tell you, it’s
carnage out here.”
That mother had also had a stellar career which she put on the back burner
when her children were small. After her husband decamped she was unable to
get another full-time job. He has failed to keep up his child-support
payments and she worries constantly about making ends meet. The only job she
has been able to get is a part-time assignment with no benefits that pays a
tenth of what she was making when she scaled back her career in the early
1990s. Now in her fifties, she lies awake at night wondering how she will
support herself in the coming decades, not to mention how to pay for her
children’s college education.
She has lots of company. I couldn’t count the number of women I’ve interviewed
who lived affluent lives while they were married, only to find themselves in
dire financial straits when their husbands were removed from the picture.
Many had to sell their homes and uproot their children to survive. Is it
really worth it to be home when your second child loses his fourth tooth if
something happens to your spouse and you end up losing the home entirely?
Your children lose their rooms, their local area, their friends and their
school. For them, the cost of having a stay-at-home mum is high indeed.
Even if your husband is a wonderful guy who meets all his obligations, he can
fall sick or die. Recently I was interviewed for a magazine by a younger
woman who asked me questions for an hour and then, at the end of our
conversation, told me what had happened to her. She had two small children
when her 34-year-old husband developed a persistent backache. Although he
had never smoked, tests revealed that he was suffering from inoperable lung
cancer, which was diagnosed in June. He was dead by November. His wife was
left to raise and support their children by herself.
Hearing such stories, stay-at-home wives typically protest “But that
won’t happen to me”. They are convinced that they are immune to the
misfortunes and heartbreaks that afflict others. Given the high stakes, I
often wonder at their willingness to take such risks. These are women who
wouldn’t dream of raising children without baby-proofing their homes and
researching the safest buggy to buy, yet they stake their children’s futures
on odds that would daunt the most hardened gambler.
When I started writing The Feminine Mistake I never imagined that I,
too, would become a cautionary tale for the book. My husband and I have been
married for nearly 20 years but I have worked full-time throughout my adult
life. Yet a year ago the major financial investor at the magazine where my
husband was an editor closed the place down, with no warning. It took my
husband nearly six months to find another appropriate full-time job. During
that time we were both very grateful that I was able to support our family
without compromising our children’s education or jeopardising our home.
Because of my income, what could have been a very painful upheaval turned
out to be little more than a temporary inconvenience.
Divorce, widowhood and unemployment obviously fall into the bad-news category.
But many women are as ill-informed about the good news as they are about the
bad.
For more than three decades the standard media story about working mothers has
harped on the stress of the juggling act. It can certainly be difficult to
balance work and family, but it’s also true that women who make the effort
to find meaningful work and build thriving careers enjoy a huge array of
benefits.
Although women are raised not to brag about how successful they are or how
much money they make, the truth is that being successful is a lot of fun,
and using your financial resources to enhance your children’s lives is
extremely gratifying. Money gives you leverage in your marriage, power in
the outside world and a range of options that dependent wives can only envy.
In fact, social scientists have found that working women are not only
happier than stay-at-home mothers, they are healthier, too. A study at
University College London found that women with full-time jobs as well as
families were likely to enjoy better health than full-time homemakers. They
were also less likely to suffer from obesity.
Contrary to all those tiresome stereotypes about the stress of the juggling
act, it turns out that combining work with family is actually good for women –
and it gets better as they get older. Women often quit their jobs because
they are earning little more than they would have to pay in childcare fees,
so they think that continuing to work would be pointless.But this
spectacularly misguided analysis fails to take into account how much your
domestic and professional circumstances will change over time.
When your children are little, your childcare needs are at their peak and your
income is just starting to build. By the time your children reach school
age, however, they are out of the house for most of the day and your
childcare needs are greatly reduced. As time goes on your income continues
to rise and your childcare costs dwindle away to nothing. By the time your
children are teenagers you are earning a lot more money and the investment
that you have made in your career is delivering big dividends.
The working women whom I interviewed often felt overwhelmed when their
children were young, whereas the stay-at-home mothers were deeply involved
in their children’s lives and felt very much needed. By the time their
children were teenagers, however, the stay-at-home mothers often feel lost,
confused and frightened. They don’t know what to do with themselves, they
can’t find decent jobs and to many the future seems bleak. In contrast, the
working mothers have flourishing careers and their futures look bright.
By then, even the most dedicated stay-at-home mothers have realised that
full-time motherhood doesn’t last that long, particularly when considered in
the context of an entire adult lifetime. “Motherhood is a temp job,” said
one legal scholar whom I interviewed.
If you have a couple of children two or three years apart, the really
intensive period of hands-on mothering lasts for 15 years or less. In my
book I call this “The Fifteen-Year Paradigm”.
Is it really wise to sacrifice your best interests over the course of five or
six decades to relieve the temporary inconvenience of juggling for a while
when your children are young? Many stay-at-home mothers justify their choice
by claiming that it’s better for their children – but this, too,
is a myth. Social scientists have been studying the children of working and
stay-at-home mothers for 40 years and “it always comes out a wash”, as one
sociologist puts it. The children of working mothers turn out just fine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that the children of full-time mums fare any
better. What really matters to children is your consistent emotional
availability, not whether you were sitting at home or in an office while
they were at school all day.
In reporting such realities, my purpose is not to condemn stay-at-home
motherhood. I have simply tried to document the long-term effects of that
choice, because up until now we have been given only half the story. If
women really understand the dangers and still want to gamble on the odds,
that’s their prerogative. But I’m not willing to take such risks with my
future, let alone that of my children.
Besides, nobody ever questions whether men can have careers in addition to
being parents. Why should women have to choose one over the other?
Freud and the developmental psychologist Erik Erikson both defined work and
love as the two essential components of a mature, healthy adult life.
There’s no good reason why women should settle for less.
The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much? by Leslie Bennetts
is published in the US tomorrow by Hyperion/Voice, $24.95
Was giving up your job to look after your family a mistake? Send us
your feedback using the form below
I think that being a full time mum (whatever that means) is not really a choice. I would suggest that in many situations it is merely a lack of self belief or lack of self fulfilment disguised as a life choice. With so many options and opportunities open to us as individuals– is this really the best use of the life, creativity, education and potential you have within you? If you could do anything – anything at all, with no limitations and no possible chance of failing – would you still choose to stay at home cleaning up after kids (and often men), cooking, watching mind numbing daytime TV and waiting for the school bell? It's a fallacy that children benefit from having a mum at home who has no other life purpose. What a waste of potential. I run a successful business, have many hobbies, two wonderful fulfliled and ambitious children and a gorgeous husband. My children benefit much more from my positivity and demonstration of making the most of life and the potential within.
Helen, Beverley,
it strikes me that some people just want to feel better about themselves for making the decisions they do. I am at a point in my life where i work, unfulfillingly, part time (28 hours) and my daughter (now 3) says to me nearly every day 'why do youhave to go to work mummy?' Given that the net profit to our family is a little under £200 a month, I am constantly tired, stressed out and feel pulled in all manner of directions, I struggle to answer her. My choice is to give up working for someone else, use my skills to work fewer hours, from home, and spend the rest of my time nurturing my family, growing our own food, cutting back on consumerist ideals and spending more time with a daughter I am only just getting to know.
Live for what you want and believe in how things are today. Don't waste your time planning what to do just in case you encounter an unpredictable disaster.
Alex, Leeds,
Perhaps a controversial view: in today's world, I find women who choose to give up work for years just lucky and their husbands slightly naive. I do not pity them in case they hit financial difficulties eventually as they've had it easy for a number of years. Let's not kid ourselves. It is a luxury to be fully supported by a spouse and not have to go out to earn a living every day. I (the wife) have been working full time for 10 years and bring home more money than my husband. I am currently on maternity leave, planning to go back after 9 months, initially part-time. I would simply never expect for someone else to provide for all my financial needs whilst I enjoy coffee mornings with other "lucky wives" for 15 or more years. I also know women who suddenly got a rude awakening after many years of staying at home and I say, you should have known better. Equality must mean just that: women and men participating equally in both financial terms and in looking after their offspring.
Pauline, London,
Leslie Bennetts’ definition of ‘work’ I find too narrow in a society where there are as many choices - or lack of - as there are individuals within it. It’s unhelpful to think of work linked to mental health only as it relates specifically to economic activity and gain. Perhaps the wider notion of work as ’meaningful activity’ is more forgiving and allows for the inclusion of other equally important dimensions (eg emotional, intellectual and spiritual).
At some point I will return to my world of work, but for now my daughter is my world, both work and play. It is a labour of love, and the hardest ’work’ I have ever undertaken. However, I honestly believe that I am the best person for the job. I do not doubt that the same certainty is true for Leslie Bennetts and has led to the writing of her book. This does not mean, however, that she is qualified to make judgements on the choices of others. And we all find the research we seek to support our choices, and disregard the rest.
Joanne, Manchester, UK,
Work can also be unpaid and valued. I have found that volunteering has opened a world of opportunities, skills and learning to me that I hope have enhanced my ability. I am now on the cusp of returning to work after 14 years out of the paid 'work force' and I am able to return confidently into a different domain. Working as a volunteer is undervalued and discounted, yet my children (3 daughters) have seen me achieve and even been able to come to 'work' with me where they are not in the way but offered learning experiences themselves. I hope they have slowly learnt the value of work and that the return is not always financial. One income has to be a choice, but one we made knowing that this was a team effort, at times a rotten and hard one. Having said that I would have loved to have felt valued by society for not being 'just a mother' .... I hope my daughters can find a happy middle ground in the future, one where whatever they do or chose is valued.
S, Perth, WA
"Besides, nobody ever questions whether men can have careers in addition to being parents. Why should women have to choose one over the other?" "Have to choose"!!. As far as I am concerned this choice is a goddamned luxury. As many a working mother will know, what kind of a parent can one be when chained to one's desk? This whole debate turns on professional/parent being mutually exclusive and the assumption that men can be both whilst a women cannot implies a deep insult to the parenting value of fathers.
One more thing - the courts in England bend over backwards to accomodate divorcing (and frankly often undeserving) women. The whole "men soaring/women facing financial ruin" scenario really no longer holds true.
Guy, London,
Great article and I look forward to reading the book.
When I mentioned it to my husband, he said that he really enjoys being in our generation (two working parents sharing the childcare equally), as opposed to his grandmother's (traditional model with frustrated SAHMs) or his parents (non-traditional Mum / traditional Dad).
Sure, we're both equally knackered most of the time, but the benefits to our daughter of the time she spends with Daddy (more than either of us got with our fathers), the pleasure he gets from spending time with her and my financial contribution and professional fulfillment all far outweigh the exhaustion and stress of juggling. And as Leslie says, soon the kid'll be a teenager not a toddler and won't want us around anyway...
Rebecca, Seattle, USA
My friend Katie has her MA in Education with 10 years of teaching experience. She is currently going through a divorce, she has two children 8 and 4 and has been out of the work field for over eight years. Her ex-husband recently lost his job and is unable to pay child support. Katie is having trouble finding a job since she has been out of the teaching field for so long. She stayed home with her kids because she thought it would be beneficial to them. Now she has no money for food or for the doctors and is in the process of losing her home. Our culture hammers home the message that women are failing their children if they don't stay home. This is impractical idealism.
Mia, Lockport, NY/USA
My mother-in-law was left with four children under the age of 12 when her husband died. They struggled for years (life insurance rarely pays out enough to cover years). She had worked prior to having children, but found it difficult to get back into the workforce. I now work part-time, and feel it is the right solution for me. I cannot understand why so many stay-at-home mothers are so vicious towards working mothers. The decision to work in my case has nothing to do with affording expensive holidays or a second car - you have to be prepared for every eventuality, and sometimes life does not turn out as you expect. This situtation will not change until women are paid to stay at home and look after their children.
annie, glasgow,
Has no-one heard of life insurance?
Regardless of whether a family lives on one income or two, the loss of a breadwinner through early death is going to cause hardship and lifestyle adjustment.
Get insurance!
Anne, Yonkers, NY
Different studies claim that children of working mums are happier/more disadvantaged, according to which ones you read. Testimonies of grown up children have unremitting praise both for stay at home and working mothers. Most parents try to do their best whatever the circumstances.
Perhaps the tension generated by this article is because we don't want to face an unpalatable truth, that not all men earn enough to support an entire family indefinitely, and of those that do, it is entirely possible that some may choose to leave and the family will find themselves without a main breadwinner. To be 40 or 50 something, alone, de-skilled and broke is a nightmare for the woman, and not good for the children. Taking a shorter career break or going back part-time at least keeps your hand in and you can build on it slowly, prioritising your family.
JP, London,
My mum was a full-time mum for 16 years, returning to work only when I started secondary school. She went back part-time though as the home and kids were still her primary responsibility. She was not after a career, just a little extra income.
My partner's mum, on the other hand, worked full-time after minimum maternity leave and worked her way up the career ladder to a very important position. The result of this high-powered job was early retirement due to medical reasons - her job was very stressful and had a massive impact on her health. What price success if you do not have your health?
Personally, although my family could have been much better off financially, I am glad that my mum was always there for us, attended every school play, took us to every doctor's appointment and provided a warm, comfortable home for us. Also,my father would not be in the successful position he is in now had she not dedicated so much time and energy to him and his career.
Ella, London,
As a single woman, this is pretty much putting me off marriage and children.
My mother, a teacher, didn't work for 16 years and spent the time raising my brothers and myself. My father was made redundant, so when I was 9, she returned to work full-time. To be honest, I didn't really notice any difference. Now in her sixties, she's still working, and despite problems with children (and parents) whose behaviour is appalling, she really enjoys it. Compared to friends of her's who never went back to work, my mom is a lot more active and fulfilled.
LB, London,
Given that many women, myself included, can't afford to give up our careers even if we wanted to, shouldn't we move this debate foward to discuss how to bring about a change to the structure of work to allow working mums (and dads) more time with their children and greater flexibility in general. Maybe this whole issue would not be so polarised if we lived in a society that made it far less difficult and compromising for women to have a career and a family.
Penny, London,
So "women sacrifice innumerable benefits when they give up their careers". Just think what is being sacrificed by the woman who continues working.
Maybe it was idle of me, but I felt lucky to find a husband who was willing to support me. When eventually financial pressure forced me to find a job again, it was like going into prison. I had been the manager of my own organisation, the home, running it in my own way. Of course we were short of money. But my household was MY world, all mine. I was not compelled to leave it early every morning and spend a fixed number of hours in a place not of my choice, doing work not under my control. Freedom and control are the key elements in the profession of homemaking.
There is no grand career ladder for most women, nor men. We are in mundane jobs. I always pitied men who grow up knowing they will have no respite from earning a living until old age. Girls can at least hope for a few years at some time released from this servitude.
Madeline Macdonald , Knebworth, England
I felt very indignant on reading this article while away with my family. I have 3 daughter in laws - 2 of whom have adopted to be stay-at-home Mums (they have not given up 'work') and one has kept her career. I would make no judgement on any of their decisions. Everyone should feel free to make their choice and should not have to defend it. I hope the book makes a more balanced view but the article certainly didn't. It seems that we have become such a risk-averse society where we trust no-one and are taking actions 'just in case' the worst happens. I feel everyone would be a lot happier living in the present and enjoying life as it is, not how it should be or worrying about how it might be. Children benefit from love, time and understanding which can be provided by full-time Mums or working Mums. Let everyone feel free to make their own decisions whithout articles or books making them feel guilty.
Pam Knight, York,
It is a fact of life that some of us have to return to work in order to pay the mortgage. We are not all "blessed" with high-earning husbands, and this should not be a criteria for having children, as some seem to be suggesting. Nearly all of my friends with young children (including me) have returned to work part-time in order to try and solve a difficult balancing act between mothering and providing economically - this was not a choice, but just reality.
Maybe we should stop discussing which is "right" - we'll never answer that one - and start working together to provide a better future for all our children.
May, London, UK
Yes, if viewed purely from an economic stance. However, some of her claims are limited - if the husband leaves, the wife can return to work; you can insure against sickness/death. Anyway, even if both partners work full time, divorce, death or severe illness of either partner is going to effect the economic stability of the family unit adversely. The point not addressed is the benefit to the entire family of having a dedicated carer, able to deal with illness, school holidays, support at school and after, to say nothing of caring for pre-school infants.
Also, since when did taking a career break for a few years whilst the children are young prohibit a return to work ? Yes, it may be difficult if the mother has had 10+ years out of work, but not if the gap is 5 years or less ? There may be a dimunition of status, but this is unlikely to be markedly more than a mother who has worked part time during the same period.
julie, Exeter, Devon
Once again, an article with men as disposable items, not to be trusted or relied upon and replaced if needed! This article is really about power in relationships and how many women refuse to compromise for the needs of a family or marriage. Ironically it is this preperation for flight that brings about the insecurity that causes a breakup! I suspect financial security is not the authors main worry but issues of respect. An offer of a million pounds upon marriage would not stop her seeking a career because she requires external validation that she is a worthwhile independant women! Its a common modern weakness that overrides commitment to a family.....
Richard Davis, Epsom,
Yet another attempt to polarize women into two camps of either the glamorous "working mum" (who has it all of course; when the reality is that many women are in boring jobs and still fighting inequality in the workplace) and the poor put upon unequal "stay at home mum".
We are all grown-ups and have to make our own choices and follow our own gut instincts.
I cannot really put into polite language what I really think about this author and her outmoded "feminist" viewpoint.
I am a graduate who followed a "career" in my twenties - did it fulfil me emotionally or financially - NO.
I became a mother at the age of 34 and now have two children aged 4 and 2. I do not regret in the slightest giving up materialistic comforts in comparison to the spiritual and emotional fulfillment I now feel at being a hard-working full-time mother of the next generation. As one of the other respondents has said what price do you put on emotionally balanced and happy children.
Fiona, Stratford upon Avon, United Kingdom
I find Leslie Bennetts chilling. It is not just that a neat, if limited, family of two children is to be shoehaorned into 15 years of a moneymaking career. It is that her vision of marriage has been reduced to a self-serving partnership and a very fragile one at that. The children may go to the best schools and universities, but where are they going to learn that it is in giving to others that we receive ourselves? How are they to pick up the meaning of life itself?
Man is made up of mind, body and spirit. In an age when the health of mind and body are so talked of, we seem to have forgotten that the spirit unexercised atrophies. As a result our whole society is suffering. For many people this Good Friday will sadly mean no more than a good day out.
Louise Kirk, Buxton, UK
What utter tripe !!!!!
Bev, Manchester, England
Surely, after recent evidence has claimed that 'mothers'are the most discriminated against group in the work place (endorsed by Trevor Phillips - Equal ops Czar) we should recognise that this is not just about personal choice but also about power and economics. As a society we should be looking to support families and children to make the best choice for their own circumstances. This must include a means of valuing stay at home parents and being creative about access to training and re-entering the job market. Most are not simply vegetating they are aquiring useful skills that can be translated into workplace opportunities. More could be done by various bodies (including employers) to ensurie that women get a fair deal in the work place in terms of pay, training and opportunities including mothers who are working full time but also those working part time or flexibly who, let's face it, often experience massive discrimination in terms of pay & promotion.
Kate Mitchinson, Shropshire,
Why do we feel the need to judge mothers whether they are stay at home mums or working mums? We all make choices and these are influenced by a number of factors, many out of our control. Some women need to work both financially and for their emotional well being others feel that staying at home is right for both themslves and their family. I am a stay at home mum and it was a decision we took before the birth of my first son as my husband worked away month and month, the birth of my handicapped second son reinforced this decision as working would have been impossible. I enjoy being at home and don't feel that I have given anything up as it was my choice. The author suggests that we should consider that we might divorce or become widows and be forced out to work, and yes that could happen and you should prepare for this as best you can, but should this dictate your life decisions if you feel staying at home is the right path for you?
Gayle, Copenhagen, Denmark
Women initiate about 70% of all divorces, and when they do divorce are far more likely to get the kids, child support, maintenance payments, the marital home and the overwhelming sympathy of a judge.
See the Parlour case, the McCartney divorce and F4J for reality on the topic as opposed to feminist whinging.
To parse the "risks" of being a SAHM as detrimental to the woman in a relationship is ludicrous and a position ignorant of reality. Men today know more than their forebears - we look for wives who make ample salaries - why risk losing everything in Family Court?
Enjoy your equality, ladies!
Parson Jim, San Diego, CA, USA
I couldn't disagree more. If you want a career don't have children. I don't think it's acceptable to use children as a fashion statement, farming them off to a child kennels whilst their still in nappies. That is not to say women who have children should't work, but ultimately they (or their spouse) should have their focus on the children.
When I have children, strange as it may seem, I want to look after them.
Rowena, London,
Giving up my job to look after my three children was not a mistake- for them. Divorce following, Leslie Bennets' comments were spot on. My seemingly wealthy and promising lifestyle has been swapped for that of a student; I prepare for my law finals - If I can beat my younger, unmarried contemporaries I tell myself that I am an employer's dream; my child bearing days are over... the best is yet to come. And yet the prospect of 24k p.a plus three children compares so unfarouably with his meteoric rise to 200k plus...plus.. I am educating my daughter to benefit from my belatedly acquired feminism... never becoem a stay at home mum; better still never have children and to never marry. But by then, employers permitting, I'll be advising her on her prenup and cohabitation contracts .....
Carolyn Rhodes, Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim
Both my wife and I have good careers and so when we had kids, both of us dropped to 4 days/week (differnet day each) to allow us to mix 'stay at home time' with our careers. We did this precisely for the reasons in the article - the long term career benefits for my wife in another 10-15 years will be huge. Had she left her job (in IT) it was fairly obvious she would find it almost impossible to 'jump back in'. The industry moves too fast.
It's only recent changs in legislation which allowed us both to push our employers for part time hours. This was crucial. Childcare costs do take a large chunk of our earnings, but it's short term pain for long term gain.
And our kids really enjoy their days in nursery, but they also love their days with us - a fantastic mix.
Phil Bellamy, High Wycombe, Bucks
I am a SAHM and chose to do this for a number of reasons. I was bought up by my sahm and she was a child minder. I saw plenty of mums leaving their children to go to work, and coming home to find they missed out on a big milestone in their childs life...first word, first step etc. I did not want to miss out on anything. Another reason was because the feeble wage i was earning wouldnt even have covered childcare costs.
I am totally enjoying being with my son full time and dont regret making the decision to do so.
I do not claim any benefits from the government, so i cannot see why people say sahm should regret what they are doing. I have never had a problem getting a job, and although i understand i will have been out of work for a while, when i do go back to looking, i am sure i will not find it hard to get back into the working world, after all there are plenty of jobs available.
karen, rainham kent, uk
Whatever your perspective on earning money outside of the home when your children are young, there is one vital unchanging fact; the relationship that a full time mother has with her child is fundamentally different from that of a mother and child who only ever see each other on evenings (if the child is still awake by the time she returns) and weekends. The second unchanging fact is that children whether they are 3 months or 13 years old need one consistent caregiver with whom they have a lifelong, physically affectionate relationship, whom they love and on whom they can rely. They need this to develop the capacity for trust and empathy which is not only the basis for good learning but also of good social interaction and of a happy life.
Karen Rodgers, Cambridge, UK
Both Leslie Bennetts' article and the posted comments talk frequently about the "choice" mothers make in deciding whether to continue working or become full-time mothers. Many mothers I know don't have such a choice; they work due to (genuine) financial necessity. (And yes, many are lucky enough to quite enjoy doing so, albeit part-time.)
Julia, Bucks, UK
Everyone simply wishes to find justification for their own decisions so I suggest they concentrate on their own lives and leave others to do the same. There is no such thing as an impartial view. I trust that the author of the book will make a lot of money from the subject matter .
cynical , newcastle, England
Theres more to life than money- I happen to feel as a mother of 2 small children that my role is to raise the next generation-what could be more important than that? and I should know I use to be a solicitor! Surely its every womans right to choose-isn't that the whole point without being judged by society ? I will go back to work in a few years and have every confidence in what I am doing!
gill, halifax, uk
What is upsetting about this whole debate is the judgement of those who feel morally superior for staying at home when compared to those who go out to work. What about live and let live. Women who go out to work love their children no less than those that stay at home. They make their decisions for their own reasons, and spend many years trying to justify them to those who take the moral high ground about this whole issue.
I have 3 wonderful children, some who were in full time childcare. I am close to them all, and vice versa.
A more important factor is two loving supportive parents - supportive and generous to each other, who are able to work together to make their children's lives happy.
Joanne, Midlands, UK
Its not realistic to base your life on what ifs...
is it such a bad thing for the man to be the breadwinner because you never know he could leave you or become ill.
maybe this is where the problems occur for women, were trying to remove ourselves from our proper roles in life. Being told how could we possibly be happy staying at home with children doing housework? i admit its a thankless job, but better than being in
a job you hate.
Should we be stressing ourselves out at a job and still coming home to look after children and do housework then.
I can decide for myself whats right for me thank-you miss feminist.
i like how the author has played on Betty Friedan's 'feminine mystique'. Do books like this really help women, or make us feel guilty about what comes naturally.
Im all for indepedence, but your child should be the priority.
I really think that it is off that women are in labor one day and back to work the next.
el, san francisco, ca
While I agree that the risk of staying at home is often swept under the carpet, and found this a very interesting article, I have to disagree with one aspect; that motherhood is a "temp job". My mother left work when her first child was born, and although both myself and my older sister left home years ago (we are now in our twenties) my mother still works extremely hard to care for her entire family. From organising my father's life and making sure he is healthy and cared for (not easy, when he is in a different country each week) to keeping the entire family in touch, informed and always acting as a friend, PA and confidante for all of us. She is one of the few examples of a true mother, and if others were like her, we would not have the society we do now. No mother should feel that she can leave a child as soon as it can feed and bathe itself - a mother is so much more than that!
Marianne , London,
Finally a voice of reason! I am so sick of 'full-time' mums who are mostly just lazy and disregard an intelligent stimulation of the career. My mum is a wonderful example as she always worked. My dad had lost his job twice and then he left. If it was not for my mum, me and my brother would have never had a chance of a successful secure life. That instilled a hardworking ethic in us and now, at 24, I am able to not only help my mum financially but also pay the extremely high nursery fees.
My partner’s mum, on the other hand, did not build her career or worked full time when her children were growing up and when her husband divorced her she was left with nothing! It affected the rest of my partner’s life - poor living, no hard-working example, no education and at 4 years older than me he earns much less than me. His mother has no one but herself to blame as she approached marriage as a job and now is still really struggling as once the marriage was over it was too late for a career!
Jane, London,
I can only testify from personal experience that Leslie is right: my father died when I was young and the only reason why our family didn't suffer financially is because my mum had a professional job. It was hard for her working full-time and raising two children, but things would have been much tougher if we had to survive on a tiny pension. I would never ever trust anybody with my life - and that's what a faith in a husband is. If he leaves or dies, what would I do? Also, why are all these women investing years into good education just to become houswives? I went into nursery when I was 6 months old and there is nothing wrong with me. I lived in a loving caring family, I never suffered. Socialising with other children did me a lot of good.
Isabella Anna, Bristol ,
I am a professional engineer. When my children were young I took two years out to be at home with them. If I had taken any longer I could not have re-entered the work place as an engineer because my skills would have been out of date. As it was I had to take on the salary of a new graduate and my 7 years of experience counted for nothing.
They are now in their teens and I am reaping the rewards. So are they. I have an good employer so I am there if they need me but my salary provides the whole family with a comfortable standard of living.
Kate, Southampton, UK
As a 25 year old young woman who plans to have a family at some point with my long term partner, the very concept of chosing between work and children is not a consideration.
Having a career is vital not only for financial reasons, but for well-being and self-respect.
Having grown up with a stay-at-home mother who chose never to return to work, I cannot begin to describe how both of our lives have been disadvantaged. My mother lost employment and social skills, and i was suffocated by her attentions as she lacked any alternative purpose in her life. Now going through a divorce with my father, I can see first hand how her decision to place her daughter above any career she may have had is so very damaging.
While I cannot speak as a mother, I can speak as an independent and intelligent woman who knows that depending on someone else at the expense of your own needs will always end in tears.
Amy, London, UK
I'm a working mother of two primary school age children, and far from building my career during this period I have been going backwards. The unwillingness of employers to offer the flexibility that parents need (or anyone with caring responsibilities) in all but the most menial of jobs has meant that I have had to take jobs with progressively less responsibility and thus less money. Far from things getting easier as the children get older and our childcare costs diminishing we seem to be heading towards financial melt down. Since the birth of our son in 1998 I have gone from a management job with a salary of £35,000 to an administrative level post with a salary of £21,000. Childcare is cheaper now but the difference seems to disappear in paying for school lunches, out of school activities, and additional tuition . Ironically our financial situation has been largely brought on by the huge amount of spousal maintenance which my husband had to pay for his ex who was a stay home mum. grrr
Sam, Sheffield, UK
I could never have given up work. Apart from it being politically and morally wrong it would have been financial suicide. Now the other side of divorce myself, after 19 years married, I see so many women left penniless. I have dinner with men happiyy telling me where the money is hidden abroad or men who choose to give up work after divorce to avoid responsibilities or move abroad so they can't be pursued. Then children rightly blame their mothers for taking such a stupid decision as to give up work. In a sense perhaps you jeopardise your children if you stop work. It is in their interests you continue. My 5 children have always been very happy I have worked full time. I don't know housewives can cope with the dependence on men anyway, the giving of sexual and other services in return for being kept. Weird anyone does it in 2007!
Susan, London,
Perhaps the moral of this tale is that women should be paid to stay at home looking after the children. That way they would have an income, feel valued, the children would have the best of care, they wouldn't be so dependent on their partners.
Susan Morrison, Glasgow, Scotland
This is not about the stay at home mum versus the working mum. This is about all women taking responsibility for their financial futures so they are not financially vulnerable when made redundant or left for a younger model by their husbands. Taking control of your finances and understanding how wealth is created and retained makes the best possible use of an individual's time.
Pam Kennett, London, UK
Children are better off being raised by a full-time parent, and any women who shoves her children in daycare centres for most of their waking hours just so she can play career girl is incredibly selfish.
And there is no point in women complaining that they have to choose between a career and a family, at least you get a choice; us men have no choice but to have a career, because let's face it, few women will be prepared to be the primary breadwinner. Plus few of us men have careers anyway; most of us just have plain boring jobs that are nothing but a means to an end.
Duncan, England,
Very young children need consistant loving care from a responsive adult. Research shows that when babies and infants spend long hours in group day care they have raised levels of cortisol, the stress hormone, parents need to spend considerable time responding to their infant on their return home, to lower the level of cortisol.
Having children is not a right but a responsiblity, if couples make the decision to have a child they must consider what is best for them. This is not simpleythe best cot, pushchair or car seat but also the best in terms of emotional care.
Making the choice to provide the best emotional care for your baby by providing the consistant loving care they need should not and is not a decision about should I have or not have a career.
At 58 I have just retired from a stimulating, demanding career I am financialy secure. I am a widow but when my first child was born I gave up working to care for him and my daughter born 2 years later.
Lydia Keyte, Uxbridge,
I agreed with this completely until I got to the paragraph about childcare. I'm not sure what the nationality of the author is, but in the UK the first five years are a doddle, as there are endless nurseries open 51 weeks a year. It is the school years that are a nightmare, with holidays that extend well beyond the annual leave of most people - even if parents take them separately. Holiday clubs of various types exist, but are expensive and don't run for the full day so if someone needs to take them for a 10am start and 4pm finish, they do not have a full-time job or a commute. And you need after-school help in term-time. My solution, briefly, was to have an au pair to help, but the Home Office is useless and by the time she is happy and settled and done one long summer break, her 12 month max visa has expired.
Jan E, Lindfield, West Sussex
If "Consistant emotional availability" is what matters, how does the absent working mother convey this "availability" to the developing baby or child? This is not logically possible if the mother is literally absent from the child's life for those crucial formative years? By this I mean from babyhood through to school age. Also, it's interesting that the author has apparently gathered the views of so many different women in so many different circumstances and I'm sure the research she cites has validity. I think it is more interesting that the focus stays on how the mothers feel and how they feel society views them: but why aren't any children asked how they feel about missing mum? Would their emotive answers be to painful to hear? Well never mind that, at least their mums will be able help pay for their psychotherapy in years to come....
Nancy Wright, Uxbridge,
and I take it Melissa and Julia that neither of your partners dropped dead or ran off with a younger woman? The author really is determined to use scare mongering tactics "Even if your husband is a wonderful guy who meets all his obligations, he can fall sick or die". What we really need is a sensible discussion of the risks, not a blatant attempt to play on our worst fears.
Karen, Bristol, UK
This article is spot on. I'm so grateful that my mom continued to work after I was born. She was a professor of nursing, and I've always been so proud of her achievements, she's definitely my hero. But more than that, my own father died of cancer when I was 5. The fact that my mom had earned an income that could support the family was literally the difference between a happy childhood and a poverty-stricken one.
Yvonne, Dublin,
Yet again, The Times publishes an article about working/non-working mothers that makes sweeping generalisations about both sides of the argument. I have stayed at home for 10 years with my two boys aged 10 and 6 and have not regretted it for a minute. I have a degree and had a career in marketing which I have now picked up again part-time. I agree I am not on the same pay scale as when I left but what price do you put on happy kids?
Melissa, Bucks, UK
I too had a law degree and a good career. I choose to stay home with our 2 kids, now 12 and 14. I have found it deeply satisfying, and look forward to returning to work knowing I really got to enjoy seeing them grow into great young adults. It is a financial sacrifice, but I won't trade a minute of it! We did have to use our savings when my husband was unemployed, but we were prepared for that circumstance and got through it.
Julia Wright, Bozeman, Montana, USA
I agree that when your children become teenagers they need you less and it would be good to be able to work then. However there are still school holidays and illnesses to think about.I think that if women are left to struggle with their families on their own after a divorce then that doesn't say much about those particular men. They are still the childrens fathers .. I gave up work when my son was born fourteen years ago {my daughter is twelve} it is only now that I feel that I would like to find something to do but not at the expense of family i.e emotional availability.Teenage years can be difficult for children they have exam pressures to come etc. and I can't imagine being there for them in quite the same way after a gruelling twelve hour day at the office.I also worked fourteen years before children and it's been good to only concentrate on them for the yrs they've been growing up . Maybe mothers should be paid for staying at home? It is after all an important job.
Sandra Wilson, Watford, uk
I gave up work because I would have had to negotiate a part time place and to be honest I didn't want to. Seven years later I have just been dumped, with a house and two children. I will survive because I am a strong person, but many don't which is a tragedy all round.
If a friend hadn't offered me a part time job last year I would be stuffed. I have a degree and a major bugbear of my husband's was that I didn't get a highfalutin job with lots of money! But how can you when he works twelve hour days and the children really do need you?
So I have given this as one of my reasons for unreasonable behavior in the divorce paper, which he should receive this morning.
Thank you for balancing the media image with the true picture for many women.
Julie, Lincolnshire,