First

Interesting piece today. I agree that expectations are shifting and non-linear careers are becoming more common, and that's a good thing for women (and men as well). However, I don't think this means the next generation won't still struggle with balance issues. I think it just raises a whole new set of issues.

Many of these portable careers pay less than their linear counterparts, although I think the flexibility is worth it in many cases. Personally, I'm grateful that my chosen career lends itself well to a work-at-home-part-time lifestyle, while still paying well.

But, when my daughter grows up, should I encourage her to consider these issues when selecting a field? Maybe so, maybe not, but this is an issue that won't go away as long as people keep having children and wanting both to spend time with them AND have satisfying work and the income it provides.

I'd hope that the parents among us would be encouraging their children to do more than consider their own needs as they grow up and then go out and discover their places in the world! To think that one's own needs are all that matter is so insular. Where are the dreamers among us? I certainly hope that some of today's children - daughters and sons - will be tomorrow's inventors, explorers, artists, etc. The world be a very dreary place were it not for those who choose to live for others as well as for themselves.

Third! Hoohaa!

"When my mother was my age, no American women were doing this high-level presto-chango."
- sandra day o'connor comes to mind

"Not bad for one stay-at-home mom shilling for a mother who put her husband's career first for 26 years." - Think of her what you will, she was the primary breadwinner for her family and a law firm partner... things you typically allow most women to count as career achievements of their own.

I second VAMom's post. I am grateful for all the options, but at the same time, I think it can be overwhelming for some people. Having too much choice isn't a good thing for a certain percentage of the population. Also, I think there's this idea that you can earn more by doing less, which most of the time is just a fantasy. (Look at the book published recently about working a 4-hour week, for example.)

This is interesting to me that all of the examples reflect women who left their jobs in order to achieve balance, instead of finding ways to balance in their current job while also raising their families. Is this the message-that women must leave their current role to achieve balance? I personnaly would like to see more family friendly policies in my current workplace so that I can maintain the career I have been working on for 15 years, however, I too have chosen to transfer to a job that is closer to home, less demanding and yes, less pay. This was a choice on my part that I am happy to make, but I would like to see more flexible workplaces so that parents have more options if they want to maintain their pre-children career.

Yes, options are great, but I regret having spent such a huge chunk of money on my education -- given that at the moment I prefer to work part-time. I can't really justify the exorbitant expense given that I don't currently earn that much.

When you think about your daughters and their futures, do you think about this piece of the puzzle? I understand that currently private college tuition, room and board can be around 40,000/year and my kids aren't even going for another ten years. I'm just wondering about the logic of spending nearly a quarter of a million dollars on education -- I don't want my daughters to feel like they HAVE to work full-time forever, because we spent so much money on their education.

Leslie's remarks about choices are nice, but what about the financial realities?
I know I'm not the only one who thinks about this . .

"I understand that currently private college tuition, room and board can be around 40,000/year and my kids aren't even going for another ten years."

This may be OT, Armchair, but there is no reason or need on God's green earth to pay that much for college. Ergo, your kids shouldn't have to think about that aspect when choosing a career.

do you have any sons? are your concerns about educational spending / pressure similar? (I realize the article was only about daughters)

Armchair Mom

"I'm just wondering about the logic of spending nearly a quarter of a million dollars on education -- I don't want my daughters to feel like they HAVE to work full-time forever, because we spent so much money on their education. "

And your sons?

It's weird that you predict your daughters will live their lives according to YOUR standard and that MONEY YOU SPENT is the bar!

It's true that more flexibility exists for women with advanced business degrees, but what about the rest of us? And if everyone leaves their job rather than fight management inflexibility, when will the workplace change?

To MDmom, Maybe they didn't want to work in their old career post-child. I have been in my career for 11 years and now that we are thinking of having a child, I want to work, but not like this. It has been a great run and I am grateful for the experience. I just want to concentrate on me for a while.

And to Armchair, I totally understand your concern. It is a lot of money for something you don't know if your daughter will use in full. But, maybe she will. I went to a private college and am sure that for a good portion of my working adult life that I will not be sprinting to the top. But, my education helped me to sprint over the past 11 years and as such, I've done well and saved a lot. Now, my husband and I can dream of takign a summer off and renting a beach house with our child. The career may only span a decade and a half, but it may be able to open up new dreams and possibilities.

"And if everyone leaves their job rather than fight management inflexibility, when will the workplace change?"

No, it won't. That's what everyone fights about when those women decide to stay home after having a baby.

"I'm just wondering about the logic of spending nearly a quarter of a million dollars on education -- I don't want my daughters to feel like they HAVE to work full-time forever, because we spent so much money on their education"

The way I see it, that money buys choices and open doors. Without a college degree, a person is confined for a lifetime to a certain subset of careers that don't require one. With a degree, more doors are open. Even is someone stays home for several years, I think that degree is still important. After all, the kids will be in school or out of the house eventually, and then even the most hardcore SAHP would probably want some kind of job.

On another note, I loved Nancy Drew when I was a kid (in the '80s), though I was a bigger fan of Trixie Belden. Neither seemed revolutionary to me in any way except that they were female heroines in a sea of books about boys. Frankly, I'm surprised to hear that "kids these days" aren't interested in Nancy. Maybe it's just those particular kids?

"And to Armchair, I totally understand your concern. It is a lot of money for something you don't know if your daughter will use in full"

There is no guarantee a son would use the expensive education in full! Sexism is alive and well!

I think a lot of us have done some version of that calculus that Armchair Mom mentioned: does the money we earn justify what we (or our parents) spent on our education? I did it the first few years I got out of college (and I really thought about it the years I was a SAHM). I guess my dad the accountant really drove that mentality of doing a cost-benefit analysis of every decision into our brains.

The good news is that you don't have to spend $40K a year on a college; not all state universities are CSS, and there are plenty of private colleges with tuition and room/board rates in the $25K range (still high, but much less intimidating), mostly in the South.

And IMHO, we should also be making this calculation when we help our sons choose the college where they will spend four years of time and a boatload of our money.

I LOVED Trixie Belden. To me it was definitely a better series than Nancy Drew.

educmom

"I think a lot of us have done some version of that calculus that Armchair Mom mentioned: does the money we earn justify what we (or our parents) spent on our education? "

Not when you grew up dirt poor, and were the first in the family to graduate from high school, much less college! Breaking the cycle of poverty and ignorance is worth the price!

Maybe Armchair Mom has no son(s) to worry about.

I loved the bobbsey twins.

I loved Trixie Belden books too! i recall several times being in stressful situations and thinking "what would Trixie do?" and then coming up with some off the wall comment that would make everyone laugh. Trixie just had more moxie than Nancy (say that five times fast!)

i wasn't into Nancy Drew that much because the writing just didn't do it for me. I guess kids these days are really into Harry Potter instead-- and that is something that boys and girls can get into and I think the writing is WAYY better than the Nancy books (so formulaic . . . ) I think it's great that the HArry books are a love that both boys and girls share-- not a boys club/girls club deal. the main character is a boy, but the author is a woman and the girls in the book are great characters.

I don't understand the comment about people fighting "when those women decide to stay home after havign a baby." Who is fighting what are they saying? Sorry, but I guess I need to get it spelled out.

On a related note, I'm feeling like my intellectual abilities are really slipping-- someone mentioned suffering from "placenta brain" during the late stage of pregnancy and now I'm wondering if there is any truth to it-- I forget things, say stupid things, etc.-- or maybe I'm just being extra critical of myself and hyper alert for any sign of weakness and vulnerability right now? could I hear some feedback that pregos are just as, if not even MORE sharp as the non pregos? Thanks!

I read Nancy Drew growing up, from my mother's old collection with the blue cloth covers with the little Nancy silhouette in the corner.

I think one explanation for her dropping popularity is related to the changes the publishers have made -- she doesn't zip around in a roadster, she talks in something closer to Valleyspeak, and I get the impression that she relies more on nerdy old Ned than she did in the old books.

The old Nancy is still revolutionary. We talk a lot about strong female characters, but in fact many of these so-called strong characters still look to others (sometimes friends, but often boys) for affirmation. Nancy was self-affirming and inner-directed, and had self-esteem (derived from her own actions) before self-esteem was a buzzword.

So I say Bring Back Nancy Drew!!

"The way I see it, that money buys choices and open doors. Without a college degree, a person is confined for a lifetime to a certain subset of careers that don't require one."

What is wrong with that? There are many hardworking people in this country supporting themselves and their families without a college degree.

Jen S:

When were the Nancy books published that you read? They were updated in the 1980s and again a few years back. I think the quality suffered when they were updated.

It's no surprise that Harry Potter has done well. They are good stories, well told, with a boy as the central character. Research has shown that while girls are happy to read books with male main characters, boys will not read books with female main characters, and the past decade or so has seen an explosion of books with affirmational female lead characters. It's suspected as at least one of the reasons that reading time (and subsequent reading achievement) has dropped among boys.

"What is wrong with that? There are many hardworking people in this country supporting themselves and their families without a college degree"

Cuz for me, there is more to life than earning money...

Interesting the parallel between what girls read in a generation and what they strive for. I shudder to think what awaits my daughter's generation since the 'Clique Books' and Traveling Pants series seem to be the order of the day for my tween. I encourage reading but I have a hard time finding value in those books and wonder at the subliminal (and obvious) messages they send to our daughters.

I was raised reading English books --Enid Blyton-- and, as described by my father, "class ridden little Noddy books" but apart from sexist and classist subtexts these stories emphasized honesty, service to others and courage (post war children's lit). I think those messages resonated with me and helped me set my personal goals. At least Harry Potter has some of these same values and he almost competes with the Clique.

Glad to hear from all the other Trixie Belden fans! Now there's a good blog topic - who are the strong fictional female characters who've impressed us over the years? As an adult, I was blown away by Sena Jeter Naslund's Ahab's Wife. Come to think of it, I'd have enjoyed Moby Dick a lot more the first time around if it had been told from the woman's point of view!

Well...Emma Woodhouse was a good negative example; who wanted to be like her?! I thought Jane Eyre was kind of an idiot for simpering over Rochester. Like many, many women, I admired Elizabeth Bennett. Even though she had to marry to support herself (her character is a product of the time), she was another strong, smart and self-motivated character.

Favorite character after the invention of the internal combustion engine is Dr. Kay Scarpetta -- although, as the series goes on, I've noticed that she gets stuck in 'women-in-jeopardy' situations a little too often. And I loved the book Revenge of the Middle-Aged Woman.

I'm pretty sure the Nancy Drew books I read were the originals-- they seemed very much set in the fifties! they all had those hairdos, your know?

I recall the fancy boat her attorney father used on the lake (Chiss-Craft?) See, I can't even now relate to her uper-middle class life . . . and I certainly couldn't back then! But I certainly enjoyed Trixie and also the Chronicles of NArnia and the Lord of the Rings.

To:Murphy

I loved Ahab's Wife. By the way, Sena Jeter Naslund is going to be one of the authors at the DC National Book Festival on September 29.

When I was a kid I loved Little Women by Louisa Alcott. This was about 4 girls with their mother while their father was at war. Jo and Amy, two of the girls, wanted to be a writer and an artist. I loved it that they wanted to be more than housewives even in the 1800s.

Another book I liked with a strong female character was Island of the Blue Dolphins by Scott O'Dell. In the early 1900s a tribe of indians was removed from the Channel islands of California and taken to the mainland to live. One young woman was left behind. The book is a fictionalized account about how she survivied the next 20 years. It is paticularly interesting that her tribe had strong tabus about male vs female jobs and she had to overcome these to survive.

It seems like there were a lot of books for children with strong female characters. Another I always liked was A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L'Engele.

Hi Quibbles -- Sandra Day O'Connor was a standout exception of her generation, which is why you thought of her so quickly. She is a particularly remarkable woman with many unusual gifts. It is women like her -- true feminist pioneers -- who have made financial independence and career flexibility possible for many other more average women like me.

And yes, Hillary Clinton was an important financial contributor to her family. My point was that she put her husband's career first for a long time, first by moving to Arkansas after graduating from Yale Law School, and then by being a tremendously supportive and forgiving spouse. It is good to see her taking the lead for a change. There are very few women who could put a spouse's career first for DECADES and then resume their own work at such a high level. Go Hillary!

VA Mom -- I think it is a tough call on how much to advise our children, esp. daughters, to consider work/family balance issues in terms of which field to study and career to prepare for. Pragmatism is good -- but too much can be deadly. (People who argue that women shouldn't go to grad school b/c they are just going to have babies come to mind.) Dreaming is good too!

Which brings me to Murphy's comments. I actually think women are TOO prone to thinking of others and dreaming of how to change the world. A little selfishness and practicality would do most women a lot of good. But I also have to point out that even if you are dedicated to a life serving others, as a woman you cannot fulfill THAT dream without some practical support, such as birth control, a flexible employer, and a supportive government.

I didn't read the Trixie Belden books. I liked mysteries, so I started reading Agatha Christie books when I was about 10 or 11 -- my mom was a huge fan, and they were all over the house. I liked the Lord of the Rings books also -- I actually wrote my high school senior term paper on them, since I had read them already.
I know what you mean about the hair, and the boat, and the lifestyle! It was certainly different, but I don't think I ever really picked up on it at the time.

Anybody read about Lily Bart in Edith Wharton's House of Mirth? A great profile of early 20th century New York society and a woman trapped in it.

"When I consider these women, it's hard to argue that our country has refused to accomodate women's work/family needs. Women have forced our society to change."
Posted by Leslie

Yeah -- at the élite, New York Times Sunday Styles bride, Ivy League educated level, women have forced our society to change. But for the vast majority of working class families, the capitalist bosses are laughing their heads off because they get two workers for the price of one. The husband has a job, not a career. The wife has a job, also not a career. And it takes both their incomes -- or rather, what's left of their incomes after the taxes they have to pay to support the war machine and social programs for the lazy, shiftless, non-working drones -- to support their family, whereas in the Fifties, while Joe McCarthy was conducting his witch hunts and Lynchings were still going on in the Southland, the rich paid 90% marginal income tax while a union member driving a delivery truck for a Pittsburgh newspaper could earn enough to support his wife and children decently. And this hasn't just happened here in North America. Nearly ten years ago, Anne Manne wrote an article for Australia's "Quadrant" magazine saying the same thing, namely, that it is the bosses who have reaped the most from the two-earner revolution, while so many of the workers' gains of 1890-1940 that the Unions struggled for have been rolled back. So yes, women with a number after their names (as in, "Leslie Steiner '87") have benefited from the change they wrought. But what about all the women without that number?

"The luck of my generation is that we got to be revolutionary. My girls get normal. I would hate for them to have to refight all my battles. But at the same time, I feel lucky to have been on the front lines." (Leslie)

Watch out! Your daughters may yet share your "luck." Just as the capitalist forces of economic reaction, beginning in the late 1960's, rolled back the workers' achievements of 1890-1950 by union-busting, offshoring and outsourcing, so the forces of social reaction are starting to roll back the Movement's achievements of 1960-2000. Back pay for years of sexist wage discrimination -- gone, thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court! Basic reproductive freedoms like third-trimester Intact Dilatation and Evacuation -- gone! And that's just our home-grown social reactionaries. Wait till you see what the Sharia-thumping Mullahs have in store for North American girls and ladies if they should ever come to power: Burka City. It'll take all of President H. Clinton's strength just to keep antifeminism at bay, let alone bring about such advances as free, universal, taxpayer-funded Child Care and six months' paid parental leave.

I like this post because Leslie is pointing out that the lives women want are theirs to claim NOW - not someday when the perfect work/family policies are enacted at every business or by our government. Yes, we have to continue the good fight for those too, but if we're willing to make the needed sacrifices we can create balanced and rewarding lives right now. Men too!

I think that our children will be handed the task of achieving true gender equality. We still have a long way to go to sweep away society's expectations of men as primary breadwinners and women as primary caretakers. This can be our children's legacy to complete. We can help them get started....

I'm only 29, so I think I see things differently than the older generations of working moms.

Sure, all recent generations grew up being told that we can do anything, but I think my peers grew up KNOWING that we can do anything. To the point where all of the choices can be a little...much. I'm not complaining about it at all, but I think we've seen a larger number of young moms becoming SAHMs because of the stress of said high-powered "I can do anything" type of careers.

Because being ABLE to do it all is not the same as being able to HAVE it all.

Those shattered glass ceilings have brought about many career opportunities and I will be forever grateful that I can walk into an interview without fear of being shut down because I'm a woman, or that I can give a presentation knowing that all in attendance are taking me seriously.

But those ceilings have simply created other barriers in our lives. We now get questioned when we leave that career to take care of our kids, we get whispers behind our backs when we leave when our child is puking in the nurse's office at school.
It's still very difficult.
I can get a number of great, high-profile jobs, but what does that all matter if it places me in a straight jacket type of life?

Matt in Aberdeen

Did you forget to take your meds today?

I think I partially agree with Matt.

I also think it's typical self-centered baby boomer (or older Xers) generation to assume that they were so revolutionary and that the world is some better, more magically equal place as a result. Well I don't know about that. Sure a lot of things got better for MOST people. But sexism and racism are still alive and well, just no longer accepted on TV, in major national newspapers, or in the public eye. Boomers had a lot of great ideals most of which never came to pass. They fought against the institution for only so long before they became they institution and adopted many of the same greedy, class-war attitudes.

My generation (Milennial), and perhaps the one that will follow, is much more cynical. Sure we see where society has gone wrong and we know what we would change if it were an ideal world. But we recognize money and power in this country will always be in the hands of a few, and that change happens slowly. Crediting boomers for being completely responsible for women's equality and reducing racism gives no credit to the GIs in WWII who served with other religions and other races and whose wives and girlfriends were at home working and supporting the war machine. Each generation has to do its part for slow change to happen someday and mine and the one that follows will still have plenty of revolution to make.

Edith Wharton and people trapped? Check out Ethan Frome!

Miles

"My generation (Milennial"

Huh?

Thanks, Equal. Good points.

Matt, some good points too. But careful -- it's a tired old anti-feminist argument that changes at the "elite" level are meaningless. Far from it. I agree 100% that lower income working women (and men, for that matter) face far more difficult work/family challenges. But deriding change at the tip of the iceberg doesn't do anyone any good. The well-educated financially stable women who worked our asses off to get those numbers after are names will make sure your doom and gloom scenarios don't become reality.

Good point, Leslie, that dreaming and pragmatism go hand in hand! I totally agree!

Speaking of fictional female characters, how Becky Sharp? Reese Witherspoon did a great job in the most recent film version of Vanity Fair! Interesting perspective on a woman trapped by the cultural barriers of her day.

my daughters don't want to read the clique books. they think the books are stupid. get to the library and get your daughters some better books. (and your sons) look at the fairfax county summer reading list, or the flint hill prep reading list, which you can find online, or ask an English teacher!

Am I the only one who thinks it's important to go to college for your own personal knowledge and not soley to land a well-paying career? If you can do both, great. But even if my children never have to work a day in their lives, I would insist they go to college and better themselves!

It'll take all of President H. Clinton's

________________________________________________________________

I'm glad that you have already elected Billary!

Wow, Matt, do you really believe that (or was that someone else?)? That life was so blissful years ago? That the world is so horrible? Today, women have more choices, which actually gives men more choices - i.e., because a woman can earn more and has more opportunity, the husband might be able to stay at home with the kids, not feel obligated to take that high powered job where he'd never see the kids, or whatever. The fact that women have choices enables everyone else to have choices.

I think more choices are good for everyone. Yes, it can make things more stressful, but it ends up being better (see: my aunt, who graduated with a master's degree in chemistry but was still only able to get a job as a secretary).

Also, back in the 50s, where you are thinking such wonderful things, that's really the ONLY time in history that women didn't 'work.' Really. The country was prosperous and growing and the opportunity to not work existed. Before that, women worked pretty hard - either in factories, or the fact that they made everything from scratch (food, clothing, helping to build the house). So think before you speak. There was really no time in history that both mom and dad didn't work - and many times, that wasn't enough, as more than one generation lived together and they all helped out however they could.

Do you also really think stifling people's ability to earn more money is a *good* thing? Think about how many people think average, normal lives are in need of a cell phone, washer dryer, air conditioning, cable TV - I could go on. But really, you could be perfectly fine with only one bathroom in your house, and none of the other 'necessities.' But everyone doing better means everyone doing better. Would you rather be in Russia today, where everyone hopes of a government job (see, Stephen Pearlstein's column, today)? Do you think that's a productive way for a society to achieve anything? Can they live off their oil and no entrepreneurship forever? I don't begrudge anyone who earns money the money they earn. I think socialism only breeds complacency. And then where are you? Someone has to do better than others - I'd rather an open society such as ours, rather than the USSR of former years where they pretended everyone was equal. Okay, so maybe they were (ha, ha), but some were more 'equal' than others.

Miles

"My generation (Milennial"

Huh?

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 09:40 AM

Seriously? Millenial generation...or generation Y if you will, whatever you'd like to call it.

"Am I the only one who thinks it's important to go to college for your own personal knowledge and not soley to land a well-paying career?"

I went to college mostly for free beer and sorority babes.

RE: SAHMbacktowork's comments

I'm an Xer too but it's not the choices that overwhelm me. It's the expectation that we will all do amazing things with those choices and soar as high as we can. It took me a few years of guilt and low self confidence to be OK with not aiming for the top (I don't have that kind of leadership ability, and I'm not willing to make those kinds of compromises). We're expected to have sky-high ambitions but I and my friends are basically all thinking, "well, isn't it OK to shoot lower if you're happy with it?"

As far as books, I too read the old-school Nancy Drews and liked them but I wouldn't say I got any kind of real meaning from them. I liked Laura Ingalls Wilder's books too, and the Cam Jansen series (kind of a female Encyclopedia Brown). My favorite "feminist" book growing up was "Julie of the Wolves" -- a Native Alaskan girl who runs away from an arranged marriage and a mean dad, and learns how to survive on her own in the wild with a pack of wolves. Totally raised my consciousness.

Miles,

Watch your generalizations about groups of people. I am a baby boomer. We are not all self-centered. The baby boomers are the group who protested for Civil Rights, against the Viet Nam war, for legal abortion and birth control.

Leslie,

Your generation is not the only one to be revolutionary. Don't forget those who fought for the right of women to vote, the right for women to work in traditional men's jobs under the glass ceiling (factories, construction), child-labor laws, etc. Breaking the glass ceiling isn't the only good cause in this world. And i don't know that we should be so proud that women can now have the same 80-hour weeks, travel away from family, stress of financial responsibility for the family that men have always had. While there should be no restrictions on women doing anything they want careerwise, the proliferation of two-income families has led to inflation of "life costs" such as the extremely high housing expense. When two income families could afford to buy more expensive housing, that just drove up the cost of the housing which effectively makes it almost impossible for the average American family to afford a home with only one worker. The high performing Wharton types who marry each other can afford to live in this country on one salary (albeit, not necessarily in the manner they wish), but the average American family can't. for us, there is effectively no real choice to SAH or have a career/job or switch between the two.

don't begrudge anyone who earns money the money they earn. I think socialism only breeds complacency. And then where are you? Someone has to do better than others - I'd rather an open society such as ours, rather than the USSR of former years where they pretended everyone was equal. Okay, so maybe they were (ha, ha), but some were more 'equal' than others.

Posted by: atlmom | July 11, 2007 09:49 AM

Pretend everyone is equal, or that we all have an equal chance. That's exactly what we do in America. That's the American dream; that everyone can own their own home, have 2.5 children, and survive off of one income. If lower middle class knew the truth - that they'll be lucky if they can even stay middle class their whole lives and have maybe a .005% chance at getting into the upper class - we'd have a social revolution.

Miles

"That's the American dream; that everyone can own their own home, have 2.5 children, and survive off of one income"

Not where I come from!

I'm 25, and I loved the old Nancy Drews (the blue books) and Trixie Belden. But the updated Nancy Drews? I read one once and I wouldn't read anymore of them. They really became trash in the later updates. Then I moved on to the Sweet Valley High and Babysitter's Club books. :)

"Wow, Matt, do you really believe that (or was that someone else?)? That life was so blissful years ago?"
. . .
"Also, back in the 50s, where you are thinking such wonderful things,"

Posted by: atlmom | July 11, 2007 09:49 AM

Among other things, I wrote:

". . . whereas in the Fifties, while Joe McCarthy was conducting his witch hunts and Lynchings were still going on in the Southland, . . ."

This doesn't sound like I think the Fifties were "blissful" or filled with "wonderful things." However, the immediate post-WWII era was the time when North American working people were reaping the fruits of decades of Union activism, culminating in the Wagner Act, while not having to pay the price of a twelve-million-man military establishment.

Why couldn't we have made the advancements that the Movement brought, and abolished the McCarthy witch hunts and the Lynchings, and still kept the good things from the postwar era, such as a family-supporting wage for ordinary workers, a social environment where nearly all children grew up with two married parents, and a low rate of dope addiction? When did the Movement's lofty goals get hijacked by Nihilists and "Tune in, Turn on, Drop out" types, paralyzing it while the Bosses moved everything to Mexico, India, and yes, Red China?

I would like to see a revolution in this country leading to affordable health care for all.

I would like to see a revolution in this country leading to affordable college education for all (Not another loan program that keeps lower income children away because they are terrified of ever being able to pay it back.)

In the 70's, and maybe even into the 80's, it was possible to obtain an entry-level position in a company and advance to a decent middle class life with a high school education. Now, you can't even start in those jobs without a degree. Education is a never a bad thing, but there are honestly jobs that require the education that don't really need the education. On the job training is really all that is needed. So in 30 years we have "progressed" from a nation that provided free public education (12 years) that enabled our citizens to get a job with advancement possibilities to a nation that provides free public education (12 years) that enables our citizens to pay for 2 or more years of college to get a job where they may advance only if they have 4 or more years of non-free education. If education is really seen as vital to the future of our country, there should be a better effort to make it affordable for all.

NY lurker: I totally agree. At my company (as with most) we have to figure out a 'development plan.' I told my boss: well, what if I'm where I want to be? I have a good (great) job, great benefits, and I'm not exactly sure that I want to move up. I might, I might not, but do I really have to always strive for 'more?' Or can I just be happy with what I have?

Miles: So go start one. Stop complaining. My great grandparents came over on the boat, never learned English. My grandmother started working at 8 because there were many many mouths to feed. My mother grew up without a father in a one bedroom apartment (with mom and sis). My father in law grew up above his dad's store and they had nothing. Literally, nothing. He has worked hard, going to school, and grad school, and getting where he wanted to be. My mom in law definitely didn't grow up in poverty, but her sisters dropped out of college to get married. While my MIL did the same thing, she went back to school - she worked full time, had three kids, and went to school in the evenings to get a PhD. I think that's working hard, what do you think?

There is definitely mobility in this country if you work hard for it. It's just that people seem to see what others have and seem to think they are entitled to it without working for it. Yeah, it's tough - life is tough. While some people inherit their money, many just go out and earn it. Really. They work hard, and they deal with an oppressive tax system, they deal with others wanting to take it from them, they deal with envy, etc, but they keep working hard because they know that's what they're supposed to do. And they know the rewards around the corner for doing that.

Miles

"have maybe a .005% chance at getting into the upper class - we'd have a social revolution."

What is the upper class?

I read my sister's Nancy Drew books,
she had them in the 1940's.
We cannot, all of us, get the education we would like to have had. Economic situations might require children to get their college degree on student loans. After raising two children alone after
their father's death, their ages at the time were 11 and 15. They had to pretty much get their college themselves. My working paid for home, food, utilities, etc.. One is resentful she has to repay loans, the other is not. Children expect a lot of us. We try to do the best we can,
but I have stopped beating myself up over the things they would like to have had that I could not afford. I supported them in the style to which they had become accustomed prior to their father's death, but there were no additional frills. I see a lot of children who were not afforded that much. Mine should consider themselves rather fortunate.

Today, women have more choices, which actually gives men more choices - i.e., because a woman can earn more and has more opportunity, the husband might be able to stay at home with the kids, not feel obligated to take that high powered job where he'd never see the kids, or whatever. The fact that women have choices enables everyone else to have choices.

Posted by: atlmom | July 11, 2007 09:49 AM

This "men have more choices becuase women do", is basically the same thing as the trickle down economics of the 80s, garbage. I don't know about men younger than me (born in the 60s), but women having more choices hasn't given me or any of the men I know more choices. We are still expected to do all the the things we were in the "old days" in addition to all the new things that have also become our responsibility. It's really nice that you gals give us the occational mention (and men too), but really, please don't bother, it is a hollow sentiment that we don't need.

For what benefit? I still see my kid only 3 hours a day, my pay is less because I have been forced to daddy track myself and both me and my wife never seem to have a minute to ourselves. My wife has a career, but just like the women here, she complains of a lack of balance.

"We are still expected to do all the the things we were in the "old days" in addition to all the new things that have also become our responsibility."

Such as?

I'm a longtime lurker and was moved today to write...
Relativelynewtoblog - I guess I always thought that the important thing was to encourage reading in ALL forms and to instill that love. Sure, my mom hated when I read "trash" like the Babysitter's Club, or even Stephen King, but those books instilled curiosity which led me to read Vanity Fair, House of Mirth, Lolita, Valley of the Dolls, Anna Karenina, etc.
Jen S. - I'm in my third trimester and coffee REALLY helps my "placenta brain"!

Miles: So go start one. Stop complaining. My great grandparents came over on the boat, never learned English. My grandmother started working at 8 because there were many many mouths to feed. My mother grew up without a father in a one bedroom apartment (with mom and sis). My father in law grew up above his dad's store and they had nothing. Literally, nothing. He has worked hard, going to school, and grad school, and getting where he wanted to be. My mom in law definitely didn't grow up in poverty, but her sisters dropped out of college to get married. While my MIL did the same thing, she went back to school - she worked full time, had three kids, and went to school in the evenings to get a PhD. I think that's working hard, what do you think?

Posted by: atlmom | July 11, 2007 10:19 AM

I thought complaining was what this blog was all about. And seriously, we're talking about today. Not 30 years ago when your parents, grandparents or whoever in your family "made it." I love how people tell anecdotal stories about how totally awesome their parents/grandparents were, or how they worked really hard, as if that has any bearing on how hard YOU worked to get where you are. Sounds like (as I was already talking about) Americans used to be able to work themselves to greater economic benefit. Sounds like you and your husband already had middle class benefits by the time you grew up if your parents/grandparents had already "succeeded" as you saw it therefore that has no bearing on the current generation having any kind of mobility.

Are you ready for me?

Funny how these older women love to cackle about when they were "on the front lines". Can you imagine how boring and irrelevant you sound to a 20 something year old? In 1967 do you think any of them cared for what happened in 1927? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Megan's Mama, I am very tempted to go down the route!! Never been into caffeine before but on your advice, I'll give it a shot ((make that an espresso!)

Then again, I'm already needing to go pee way more than I used to-- add caffeine to the mix and I'll be jogging back and forth to the bathroom constantly! Oh well-- it's all a question of balance, right? And that jogging just may help with the swollen ankles.

Are you ready for me?

A few more posts by Miles should do it!

Miles

"Sounds like you and your husband already had middle class benefits by the time you grew up if your parents/grandparents had already "succeeded" as you saw it"

What are the "middle class benefits"

"We are still expected to do all the the things we were in the "old days" in addition to all the new things that have also become our responsibility."

Still waiting for you to tell us what your new responsibilities entail.

So complain. That'll help.

And I did not have near what my husband had- but that's a diff story. Anyway, I had a father who kept saying- y r u going back to school? Just get a job. Well, my great college degree allowed me to get a job waiting tables and I wanted something more so I went back to school. Because I wanted more choices.

And things are not 'free' just because *you* don't pay for them.

Anyone remember the Dana girls? Also by "Carolyn Keene". I liked them better than Nancy Drew

Not that any of it stuck with me like Julie of the Wolves or Witch of Blackbird Pond.

"I would like to see a revolution in this country leading to affordable college education for all (Not another loan program that keeps lower income children away because they are terrified of ever being able to pay it back.)

". . . So in 30 years we have "progressed" from a nation that provided free public education (12 years) that enabled our citizens to get a job with advancement possibilities to a nation that provides free public education (12 years) that enables our citizens to pay for 2 or more years of college to get a job where they may advance only if they have 4 or more years of non-free education. If education is really seen as vital to the future of our country, there should be a better effort to make it affordable for all."

Posted by: a mom | July 11, 2007 10:18 AM

A free, four-year college education? You mean, like the free education my father got at the City College of New York? Or my classmates' math students got at Queens College?

New York City had free, four-year colleges, and free public hospitals for those who could not afford private ones, ninety years ago. And the City did it without Federal aid, too.

The colleges are no longer free, thanks to liberal Mayor John Lindsay. So, "a mom's" call for affordable education sounds like a radical new idea to those who don't remember when we had just that.

I don't understand having ficticious characters as your role models. Those 'people' were invented by someone else. My two favorite heroines were Clara Barton and Eleanor Roosevelt. Helen Keller came in a close third. I doubt any of us can come close to their accomplishments.

"We are still expected to do all the the things we were in the "old days" in addition to all the new things that have also become our responsibility."

Such as?

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 10:31 AM

All the things that used be part of the SAH job; cooking, cleaning, kid drop off etc.

Don't get me wrong, I have a daughter and I know these changes will give her more opportunities, she will have more choices etc, but my point was don't try to tell men that this will benefit us too. In the long run it may, but in the short term there are no benefits to men.

We are still expected to be the primary earner, whether or not this is true in any particular case, doesn't matter, the expectation is still there (it is the foundation for womens choices). We are also still the secondary parent, no matter what anybody says.

"While some people inherit their money, many just go out and earn it. Really. They work hard, and they deal with an oppressive tax system, they deal with others wanting to take it from them, they deal with envy, etc, but they keep working hard because they know that's what they're supposed to do."

Posted by: atlmom | July 11, 2007 10:19 AM

"Others wanting to take it from them"? Get ready for President Hillary Clinton. Even before getting nominated and elected, Mrs. Clinton is telling the American people that she is going to take things from them for the public good. Just wait until she becomes President!

"I'm just wondering about the logic of spending nearly a quarter of a million dollars on education -- I don't want my daughters to feel like they HAVE to work full-time forever, because we spent so much money on their education. "

I'm flabbergasted that there's any question about the logic of educating girls in 2007. If the expectation is that educating girls might not be a good investment for parents (or for girls, themselves), why the heck would investing training and mentoring time in female employees be a good investment for an employer? And Leslie thinks we've come so far.

Others wanting to take it from them"? Get ready for President Hillary Clinton. Even before getting nominated and elected, Mrs. Clinton is telling the American people that she is going to take things from them for the public good. Just wait until she becomes President!

Hillary has a new tax plan in two parts:
1. enter your income
2. send it in

All the things that used be part of the SAH job; cooking, cleaning, kid drop off etc.

Don't get me wrong, I have a daughter and I know these changes will give her more opportunities, she will have more choices etc, but my point was don't try to tell men that this will benefit us too. In the long run it may, but in the short term there are no benefits to men.

We are still expected to be the primary earner, whether or not this is true in any particular case, doesn't matter, the expectation is still there (it is the foundation for womens choices). We are also still the secondary parent, no matter what anybody says.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 11:08 AM

It's called parenting, and it comes with the territory irregardless of gender.

You're only the primary earner because that is your expectation.

Ditto for believing that you are a "secondary" parent. You want to be respected as the primary one? Then insist upon being treated like the primary/co-parent that you are.

Those are your monkeys to get off of your back. Not your wife's, not your parents, not anybody else's.

I'm just wondering about the logic of spending nearly a quarter of a million dollars on education -- I don't want my daughters to feel like they HAVE to work full-time forever, because we spent so much money on their education. "

Why shouldn't daughters feel they have to work full time forever? That what sons are raised to feel. Who will support them when they are not working?

"We are still expected to be the primary earner, whether or not this is true in any particular case, doesn't matter, the expectation is still there (it is the foundation for womens choices). We are also still the secondary parent, no matter what anybody says."

To put it another way, 20% of women think that it is a 'bad thing for society' for men to be SAHDs according to the most recent Pew survey.

See:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/Marriage.pdf

Why shouldn't daughters feel they have to work full time forever?

*clap clap clap*

That's how I was raised, and quite frankly, I prefer it.

That is also how all the kids in the family are being raised. Support yourself. Don't expect anyone (read: spouse) to do it for you.

My two favorite heroines were Clara Barton and Eleanor Roosevelt. Helen Keller came in a close third. I doubt any of us can come close to their accomplishments.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 11:08 AM

I doubt you've thought through the absurdity of this statement.

Being a good nurse and starting a non-profit org? too many to count - there's nothing unique about Clara Barton.

Marrying a powerful man and using that forum for good? We may see it again in Jeri Kehn, but Melinda Gates has already done as much as Eleanor Roosevelt every dreamed of.

Overcoming multiple disabilities? Go visit Walter Reed and talk to our returning female vets.

"You're only the primary earner because that is your expectation."

Nope, it is my wife's expectation too!

I always thought Anne Sullivan was given short-shrift, historically.

"irregardless"

Do not use this!!! Use 'regardless.'

I spent a lot of time reading as a child/teenager, and many of these books had girls/women as their main characters. Some of my favorites:

The Little House on the Prairie series: Laura Ingalls was the main character, a strong pioneer girl who got an education, became a school teacher, and eventually married and had a child. Lots of obstacles to overcome. The series had great spirit.

Nancy Drew - The original series. To me, Nancy more resembled an adult than a teen. Resourcesful, practical, independent, smart.

Anne of Green Gables series - an orphan with a fantastic imagination, a sharp brain, and a good heart overcomes myriad hardships, gets a family, makes friends, gets an education, and has an interesting and fulfilling life. Another pioneer for women's rights and possibilities.

Little Women - Another group of girls that break the molds for their times. Jo is a rebel and a writer. This one was my special favorite.

A Little Princess - The title of this one is deceiving. Sara Crewe is strong, stubborn, smart, and optimistic. She survives the death of her father, and a period of forced child labor in England during the Industrial Revolution. She is nobody's victim.

Jane Eyre - Another strong woman. She is orphaned at an early age, becomes a teacher, and advertises (unheard of back then) to get the position of a governess. She does fall in love with Rochester, but resists his attempts to make her his mistress, leaves him, and only goes back to him on her own terms. When the story ends, they are equals, and he no longer holds the upper hand.

"You're only the primary earner because that is your expectation."

Nope, it is my wife's expectation too!

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 11:23 AM

Then tell her otherwise. Negotiate. If you want things to be different, do something about it. Find another job?

All this "cycling in and out" of the workforce is all well and good, and it's nice that women are free to do this, but let's not lose sight of the fact that they're able to do it because someone else (their spouse) is supporting them. None of the women Leslie describes could have done what they did without a spouse laboring to provide for them and subsidize their lifestyle choices. Is this really freedom?

And secondly, what's with all the class bashing? Yes, not everyone can afford to go to college, send their kids to private school, and make six figures. But a lot of people (especially readers of the Post) can. And so what? That doesn't make them bad people. Just because not everyone can relate to a certain issue doesn't make it unworthy of discussion! And it doesn't mean that poverty and injustice are unimportant. But Geez! Enough with the class warfare!

"Why shouldn't daughters feel they have to work full time forever?"

Umm, because we're raising them to have *choices*, one of which is staying home raising children?

I wonder about the logic, too. We cannot pay for our children's education in full. We question having them in student loan debt and having to work to pay off those obligations, thereby limiting their choices to jobs/careers that pay enough and limiting their options to stay home with children if (when) they arrive because their financial obligations will be higher than if they didn't have loans.

Be honest people, how many here would be perfectly fine with paying for 4 years or more of college for your children only to have them work as a manicurist or housecleaner because that is what they really enjoy? After all, education in and of itself it important regardless of whether or not they use it toward a specific career.

It's called parenting, and it comes with the territory irregardless of gender.

You're only the primary earner because that is your expectation.

Ditto for believing that you are a "secondary" parent. You want to be respected as the primary one? Then insist upon being treated like the primary/co-parent that you are.

Those are your monkeys to get off of your back. Not your wife's, not your parents, not anybody else's.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 11:16 AM

No $h!t it is called parenting, I do it every day. In my life I feel like a co-parent, but I know the world looks at me a the secondary one.

I am not complaining about my personal life, I am talking about society at a higher level. Earning money to support the family is still the most important task a parent has. Because without money, there is no family to support.

If you honestly believe that society does not expect men to be the primary wage earner, you are delusional. Men only get to opt out of this when they have a woman who chooses to opt in.

Again, my point is that none of this balance stuff we talk about has much of an affect on men. The choices all still belong to the women.

Seriously, ask every man you know wheter he expects to work full time untl he retires. I will wager, 90% or more will say yes.

After all, education in and of itself it important regardless of whether or not they use it toward a specific career.

No not really, spending 75-100k to get a 25k job is stupid

Eleanor Roosevelt had to do something. She was way tooooooooooo ugly to be a SAHM.

"After all, education in and of itself it important regardless of whether or not they use it toward a specific career.

No not really, spending 75-100k to get a 25k job is stupid"

And that was exactly my point. I think it is completely understandable for any parent to question the need to spend huge amounts of money on college for the children. For many, the answer will still be yes, but for others, it doesn't make sense.

"Nancy Drew - The original series. To me, Nancy more resembled an adult than a teen. Resourceful, practical, independent, smart."

The other thing that was key to Nancy Drew, and which the current movie gets right, is that her boyfriend was nice to have around, but not key to any of her decisions. Nancy was going to do what she was going to do when she was going to do it. If her boyfriend was available when she had free time, she saw him. If she didn't see him for several weeks because she was solving a mystery, she didn't lose a moment's sleep agonizing over missing him. You knew Nancy wasn't going to defer admission to Yale in order to stay geographically convenient to Ned. A better role model is hard to find.

to duh: if we aren't raising our sons to have the same choices as our daughters, one of which is staying home raising children, then we are continuing to be as sexist as ever our parents' and grandparents' generations. Nothing's changed. This attitude is represented in med schools and law schools where male students accuse females of taking up a space that could have gone to a guy supporting a family. Nice to think we're turning out more of these guys and not fewer. Not.

"Eleanor Roosevelt had to do something. She was way tooooooooooo ugly to be a SAHM. "

Most SAHMs are real dawgs. Arf!

'"Why shouldn't daughters feel they have to work full time forever?"

Umm, because we're raising them to have *choices*, one of which is staying home raising children?'

So why isn't it a choice that your sons can stay home and raise his children? I view it as within the realm of possibility for my son.

Why the assumption that staying at home means staying at home forever, rather than for a limited period of time?

And no, if a child knows that deep down, they wish to be a manicurist, or hair stylist, then I want them to be honest enough to tell us BEFORE the discussion about how to pay for college is upon us. Any time before anyone signs on the dotted line will be fine, thanks.

But I also envision a mix of we contribute and the child takes out loans (I dream of scholarships, but I'm too pragmatic to pin any real hopes upon them). Assuming the kids go, of course.

"If you honestly believe that society does not expect men to be the primary wage earner, you are delusional. Men only get to opt out of this when they have a woman who chooses to opt in."

I'm female and I agree with this completely. Men only get to be SAH if they lose their jobs or if the woman oks it. Even if the woman oks it, a large segment of society sees the man as being a lazy slug and/or a mooch.

I was answering a question about daughters. It is presumptuous of you to assume that I would think differently of sons.

"If you honestly believe that society does not expect men to be the primary wage earner, you are delusional. Men only get to opt out of this when they have a woman who chooses to opt in."

I'm female and I agree with this completely. Men only get to be SAH if they lose their jobs or if the woman oks it. Even if the woman oks it, a large segment of society sees the man as being a lazy slug and/or a mooch.

Posted by: lurker | July 11, 2007 11:40 AM

It's tough, isn't it? And why are you so caught up in what "everyone else" is saying, thinking or doing? Aren't adults supposed to outgrow this sort of herd mentality?

But if you want sympathy, do it in high heels and pantyhose!

Leslie, I think about this as well. I've had to fight many battles as I worked my way up in the extremely male-dominated careers of consulting, business, venture capital and while I don't wish this on my daughter, I do think that having to fight for something is an extremely important component that makes life (and career) exciting and great. I also related to this on a different level - I am an immigrant to this country and have, along with my parents, come from nothing - we started out living on welfare and foodstamps. I would never want my daughter to go through what we did, but at the same time, I worry about her life being too easy because we can provide many things for her now.

Nataly from www.workitmom.com

Again, my point is that none of this balance stuff we talk about has much of an affect on men. The choices all still belong to the women.

Seriously, ask every man you know wheter he expects to work full time untl he retires. I will wager, 90% or more will say yes.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 11:32 AM

The choices belong only to some women, not most. You have a very narrow view of the world if you think most women have an option of stopping work.

Most of us don't contemplate retirement, either. At least not those under 40.

No not really, spending 75-100k to get a 25k job is stupid

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 11:32 AM

Finally, someone bought the Magic 8 Ball that works!

"Why shouldn't daughters feel they have to work full time forever?"

Umm, because we're raising them to have *choices*, one of which is staying home raising children?

Posted by: duh | July 11, 2007 11:29 AM

Which goes towards proving my point that men are stil expected to be the primary earners. How can you expect a person to feel responsible for the financial stabilty of a family they aren't even required to be financially resposible for themselves?

Again, this is my point, this balance and choices and all (at the societal level) is of no benefit to men. When we start telling little boys that they can be stay at home parents too, maybe I'll listen, but right now nothing has really changed for better for men.

Forgot to sign my post (11:46)

"If you honestly believe that society does not expect men to be the primary wage earner, you are delusional."

Really weird. Does society have that much influence over individuals anymore? Does anyone really care about societal expectations in their MARRIAGES?

This sounds more like a MAN thing.

I was answering a question about daughters. It is presumptuous of you to assume that I would think differently of sons.

Posted by: duh? | July 11, 2007 11:43 AM

duh - if that's not what you think, then disagree. Don't ramble on uselessly about presumptions. When someone makes a statement only about one gender, it's reasonable to take their statements as they make 'em. Got a point?

Megan's Mama -- yeah, go for the coffee! It was my lifeline for many, many years as a parent with three kids under 10.

To the bozo ingrate who wrote:

"Men have more choices becuase women do", is basically the same thing as the trickle down economics of the 80s, garbage...women having more choices hasn't given me or any of the men I know more choices...I still see my kid only 3 hours a day, my pay is less because I have been forced to daddy track myself and both me and my wife never seem to have a minute to ourselves... Posted by: | July 11, 2007 10:25 AM

You really have no perspective. You probably spend 3-6XX as much time PER DAY with your children as your own father. This is one of the many, many benefits of the fact that your wife works. You've "been forced" to Daddy Track yourself? Come on! That's another choice your dad's generation never had. Make a gratitude list and get on with your life.

"And no, if a child knows that deep down, they wish to be a manicurist, or hair stylist, then I want them to be honest enough to tell us BEFORE the discussion about how to pay for college is upon us. Any time before anyone signs on the dotted line will be fine, thanks."

Well, sometimes the 16-17 year old children don't have their crystal balls polished and they don't know what they wanted to do. My niece graduated from college and worked in an investment firm for 2-3 years before quitting because she absolutely hated the work. Then she went to work at a store in a mall where she has been for the past ten years. My BIL used to brag about her when she was in the investment firm, but he never even mentioned her career change until asked how she was doing at ACME investment firm. Even now, ten years later, he rarely mentions her work life unless specifically asked.

DC -- Absolutely correct that these women (except for Hillary Clinton) had flexibility because their spouses worked too. And this cuts both ways -- their husbands have flexibility too, and are expected to play a large role in daily childcare and household management.

"And no, if a child knows that deep down, they wish to be a manicurist, or hair stylist, then I want them to be honest enough to tell us BEFORE the discussion about how to pay for college is upon us. Any time before anyone signs on the dotted line will be fine, thanks."

Well, sometimes the 16-17 year old children don't have their crystal balls polished and they don't know what they wanted to do. My niece graduated from college and worked in an investment firm for 2-3 years before quitting because she absolutely hated the work. Then she went to work at a store in a mall where she has been for the past ten years. My BIL used to brag about her when she was in the investment firm, but he never even mentioned her career change until asked how she was doing at ACME investment firm. Even now, ten years later, he rarely mentions her work life unless specifically asked.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 11:50 AM

Sad that he can't be proud of his own daughter. I'm *merely* a secretary, yes with a college degree, and my parents are both very proud of me and my work. They should be pleased their daughter found something she enjoys and is passionate about.

And no, if a child knows that deep down, they wish to be a manicurist, or hair stylist, then I want them to be honest enough to tell us BEFORE the discussion about how to pay for college is upon us. Any time before anyone signs on the dotted line will be fine, thanks.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 11:39 AM

Answer 1: Most kids, at 17, don't know deep down what they want to be when they grow up. They have an answer when you ask them, but that answer changes 8 times by the time they are 22. Heck, they change their majors that many times. They're not being dishonest because they have an epiphany over spring break after you've spent $50K.

Answer 2: Read yesterday's blog. How many of these parents would, if their daughters came to them in their senior year of high school and disclosed that they really want to be a stylist or manicurist, "mourn" the death of their dreams that Jennifer will be a Ph.D. earning, Nobel prize winning, happily married, heterosexual mother of 2? The kids who know they want to be manucurists don't want to go through the drama of watching their parents' (over)reaction to this disclosure, so they go along and graduate with a 3.0 average from some mid-level college. By the time they graduate, they've become more able to tolerate the parental drama and then mom and dad wail about how they wouldn't have invested the $$ in college if they'd known . . . . So Jennifer provides Answer 1, above: "I didn't know back then or I would have told you."

My BIL used to brag about her when she was in the investment firm, but he never even mentioned her career change until asked how she was doing at ACME investment firm"

Same story in my family. SIL bragged about her son for YEARS. Now she never mentions him. It's as if he doesn't exist. Sad.

I only have sons. I never comment on what we should do for daughters. LOL.

It's the bragging about grown children's accomplishments that should cease. Really. It's annoying.

I expected to get bashed for my, er, provocative question -- and I did. surprise, surprise.

I'm not really that sexist. It's just that I have a Ph.D. and am currently an adjunct professor (because it works part-time), so I'm not exactly rolling in the dough. Not sure if I'd advise my daughters (or my son) to do the same thing.

I do have a son but he's always been really cutthroat and ambitious -- so I'm pretty sure that when he talks about grad school and the like he'll probably stick with it. On the other hand, of my two daughters, one wants to be a teacher, which I think is great. But my husband has more or less said that since that isn't a particularly high-paying career, maybe she should think about a state school. I wonder about the cycle that we're setting up, though -- girls going into less prestigious, lower paying professions and as a result, going to less prestigious schools which just maybe open fewer doors . .

Eleanor Clift is ugly also!

I was unclear, the magic 8 ball comment was mine.

Sometimes I see my BIL as a cartoon with words in a bubble - "I didn't spend all that money for her to go work in a mall."

Sometimes I see my BIL as a cartoon with words in a bubble - "I didn't spend all that money for her to go work in a mall."

I don't blame him a bit. He's dissapointed and poorer for it.

I wonder about the cycle that we're setting up, though -- girls going into less prestigious, lower paying professions and as a result, going to less prestigious schools which just maybe open fewer doors . .

Posted by: Armchair Mom | July 11, 2007 12:00 PM

Welcome to nursing.

"It's the bragging about grown children's accomplishments that should cease. Really. It's annoying."

And so is the bragging about Timmy's pre-school graduation ceremony awards! And bringing the awards and 1,000 photos to the office so everyone can gawk awkwardly!

I'm one of those people who thinks that a college degree is useful even if you never have a high powered career. I got so much out of my liberal arts bachelor's degree. I learned to enjoy literature, history, anthropology, languages, art, and even some music. I learned to write, which I think is useful no matter what you end up doing. I even got a basic foundation on math and science. All these things form the basis of an educational foundation that continues to enrich my life today. And I have to say that the most important part of this education was learning to think critically. So I would not flinch at sending my kids to college, even if I knew they wanted to be hair stylists or manicurists or even welders and plumbers. I would encourage them to pursue a degree, along with the technical training they required for a particular trade. I don't think that a college degree can ever be wasted, no matter what you end up doing with your life.

I don't see what kind of choices us normal women have. In my field (software development) one either works 50 hrs/week, or one doesn't work. We need my paycheck to stay afloat. I am job hunting right now - there is nothing out there with any flexibility at all. So much for choice. The losers of course are my kids, who end up spending hours each afternoon in the crappy afterschool program run by our school district. I get to see my kids on weekends and between 7 and 9pm at night. Wonderful. BTW, my husband is also a software developer, and he works mandatory 10 hour days, and is on-call at night.

This attitude is represented in med schools and law schools where male students accuse females of taking up a space that could have gone to a guy supporting a family. Nice to think we're turning out more of these guys and not fewer. Not.

Posted by: Megan's Neighbor | July 11, 2007 11:37 AM

Why do you demean the male student for an attitude that is born out of reality? While you never know which student will go on to not use thier law/medical degree, you can pretty much be statically correct in assuming it will be a woman.

This attitude is there because women are given choices that men are not. And whether you like ot or not, one of those choices available is to not use that degree and be a SAHM. Because you haven't made that choice, doesn't mean others won't

Forgive us for living in the real world as opposed to the world as you (not you in particular, the generic you) would like it to be.

You really have no perspective. You probably spend 3-6XX as much time PER DAY with your children as your own father. This is one of the many, many benefits of the fact that your wife works. You've "been forced" to Daddy Track yourself? Come on! That's another choice your dad's generation never had. Make a gratitude list and get on with your life.

Posted by: Leslie | July 11, 2007 11:48 AM

I'm printing this out and hanging it on our refrigerator.

you can pretty much be statically correct in assuming it will be a woman.

Statistics are not immutable.

Not that long ago, it was statistically correct that 99% of all licensed doctors and lawyers would be male, for example.

"Why do you demean the male student for an attitude that is born out of reality? While you never know which student will go on to not use thier law/medical degree, you can pretty much be statically correct in assuming it will be a woman."

Shoot -- I'll encourge my sons scope out the chicks at Med Schools. Marry one of them, be a SAHD, and live in comfort.

To the bozo ingrate who wrote:

"Men have more choices becuase women do", is basically the same thing as the trickle down economics of the 80s, garbage...women having more choices hasn't given me or any of the men I know more choices...I still see my kid only 3 hours a day, my pay is less because I have been forced to daddy track myself and both me and my wife never seem to have a minute to ourselves... Posted by: | July 11, 2007 10:25 AM

You really have no perspective. You probably spend 3-6XX as much time PER DAY with your children as your own father. This is one of the many, many benefits of the fact that your wife works. You've "been forced" to Daddy Track yourself? Come on! That's another choice your dad's generation never had. Make a gratitude list and get on with your life.

Posted by: Leslie | July 11, 2007 11:48 AM

I'm the bozo ingrate, nice way to talk to your constituents (sp). You would treat me different if I were a woman.

My father spent just a s much, if not more time with us as I do, and his time wasn't split between me and doing chores after work.

What do you know about my family and life? Tell me again what I havwe gained?

----------------------
Really weird. Does society have that much influence over individuals anymore? Does anyone really care about societal expectations in their MARRIAGES?

This sounds more like a MAN thing.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 11:47 AM

When women here complian about balance and other societal issues, no one says; "It must be a w WOMAN thing, why is that?

You really have no perspective. You probably spend 3-6XX as much time PER DAY with your children as your own father. This is one of the many, many benefits of the fact that your wife works. You've "been forced" to Daddy Track yourself? Come on! That's another choice your dad's generation never had. Make a gratitude list and get on with your life.

Posted by: Leslie | July 11, 2007 11:48 AM

I'm printing this out and hanging it on our refrigerator.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 12:12 PM

Why?

"You really have no perspective. You probably spend 3-6XX as much time PER DAY with your children as your own father. "

This varies so greatly...

You really have no perspective. You probably spend 3-6XX as much time PER DAY with your children as your own father. This is one of the many, many benefits of the fact that your wife works. You've "been forced" to Daddy Track yourself? Come on! That's another choice your dad's generation never had. Make a gratitude list and get on with your life.

Posted by: Leslie | July 11, 2007 11:48 AM

I'm printing this out and hanging it on our refrigerator.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 12:12 PM

ROFL!!! Good one!

You really have no perspective. You probably spend 3-6XX as much time PER DAY with your children as your own father. This is one of the many, many benefits of the fact that your wife works. You've "been forced" to Daddy Track yourself? Come on! That's another choice your dad's generation never had. Make a gratitude list and get on with your life.

Posted by: Leslie | July 11, 2007 11:48 AM

I'm printing this out and hanging it on our refrigerator.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 12:12 PM

Why?

Posted by: devils advocate |

It's not always about you, you know.

"Emma Woodhouse was a good negative example; who wanted to be like her?!"

I disagree. Emma was intelligent, beautiful, thoughtful to her family and talented. She was also overconfident of her own abilities, but she was 21 and by the end of the book had learned the error of trying to manipulate people to her ends.

Elizabeth Bennett and Eleanor (Sense and Sensibility) had less to learn during the course of the book, but the topics were different. Emma was about being a person who can learn from her mistakes.

Make a gratitude list and get on with your life.

Posted by: Leslie | July 11, 2007 11:48 AM

Leslie, please list what you think these many, many, benefits are? Because I am just bozo ingrate man who can't see them.

Make a gratitude list and get on with your life.

Posted by: Leslie | July 11, 2007 11:48 AM

Leslie, please list what you think these many, many, benefits are? Because I am just bozo ingrate man who can't see them.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 12:32 PM

Ask your wife.

Posted by: Leslie | July 11, 2007 11:48 AM

I'm printing this out and hanging it on our refrigerator.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 12:12 PM

Why?

Posted by: devils advocate |

It's not always about you, you know.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 12:30 PM

I know it is not always about me, I am a man, it is rarely about me on this blog.

It was a serious question though. Do you see it as true for you?

Make a gratitude list and get on with your life.

Posted by: Leslie | July 11, 2007 11:48 AM

Leslie, please list what you think these many, many, benefits are? Because I am just bozo ingrate man who can't see them.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 12:32 PM

Ask your wife.

Posted by: | July 11, 2007 12:36 PM

In other words, you don't know either?

It was a serious question though. Do you see it as true for you?

Posted by: devils advocate | July 11, 2007 12:37 PM

Yes. I see more of my children than my father saw of his. My mother may have been a SAHM, but my father preferred to be at work or on the golf course, rather than have much to do with us. My wife outearns me and pays the lions share of the bills, and also provides for the extras that we feel are good for our children. Her job provides us with great health care, we both put money aside for our retirement via our 401Ks, and she even handles most of the indoor and outdoor chores. Not to mention the investments. She even handles automobile maintenance. I'm damned lucky and I'm smart