Same goes for men - you can't have it all. I made my choice. I'm a father first, second and third. That is what I AM. It's not what I do. My job, that is what I do. And if there's a conflict between the two, my job loses. This will have an impact on my career and I don't mind. That is a small price to pay. It's like bitching about the 5$ dollar price tag on the lottery ticket that won you 10 million.

This makes me ill and totally craps on the situations where women truly are simply not advanced for being women (and those are getting rare so far as I can see). When I start working as an RN in (planning on) 3 more years after staying home w/ the kids for (by then) 11, I will not expect to make the same money as someone who worked those 11 years. Nor will I expect to get as far in my career as they.

A friend of mine works in pharmaceutical sales. She makes a lot of money, has nice perks and plans on advancing up the ladder. She decided not to have kids because she wants to excel at one or the other and loves her life so much that she wants to excel at her career. Its not that I don't think she can have a good career with kids, but not the career she wants. She's being fair to her company and to herself and to those kids she didn't have who aren't being left home with the nanny waiting for Mommy to have time to read the bed time story before the nanny puts them to bed.

And if there's a conflict between the two, my job loses.

And the work you can't finish gets pawned off on the rest of the folks at work. Awesome.

Kristen, How sad about your friend.
Someday, the power, perks,& cash will be gone and your friend will be left with nothing.
Not even family.

However, I do know that there are many folks like her.And, I admire her for not bring children into the world she would just ignore anyways to further her career.
I would argue though, that demographics is destiny.
Should the pharmaceutical company she works for want to continue selling drugs into the next century, they had better insure that the populace of that future time can afford to purchase their nostrums. "Marching Morons" and all that.

Our society will disappear, if too many people make your friends choice. All the corporate drones seem to forget that somebody has to buy their product, or earn that taxes that fund the government that buys it.
No other way.

Cheers, Thomas

@Darth

Not always the case. I think Jesper is suggesting he's taken a job where the flexibility exists to complete tasks around such emergencies. When my son was younger and such things occurred, the work usually came home with me to be done later. Of course I've also worked the occassional 30 hour day to manage some work emergency so there's a bit of give and take there too.

Ah, this. Thomas, there is no shortage of people in the world, so this is not something you need to fret over.

As for the power, perks and cash: Assuming she doesn't blow it all on crack and whores, she can keep all of that until she dies.

Even family doesn't last forever. Ask anyone who moved thousands of miles away to get away from theirs.

I respect a person who knows what she wants and doesn't make other people suffer for it.

And the work you can't finish gets pawned off on the rest of the folks at work. Awesome. It's called taking vacation time. Which everyone has the ability to take in emergencies, children or not. I'm happy to have work "pawned off" on me if my coworker has a sick kid -- because he did the same for me when I had to take my sister to the hospital, when my grandmother died and when I needed to get my car fixed.

One of the very smart things my mom taught me was "You can have anything you want, you just can't have everything you want."

I don't think there's any danger of our society disappearing.

Yeah? Bull.

Who's doing all the reproducing in Western civilization? Third-world imports who share neither our culture nor our politics.

Demography is destiny. And when the muslims and mexicans are fighting it out over who runs America, what's left of Americans aren't going to have a say because they were too busy having a career to have a family.

And if you think the new people in charge are going to tax themselves to keep your cat ass-deep in friskies, you're out of your mind.

"This makes me ill and totally craps on the situations where women truly are simply not advanced for being women..."

No, momof4, they are being not being advanced in this or that career because they have made another career choice. They have decided to be stay at home parents. That is not the same as being a woman.

"When I start working as an RN in (planning on) 3 more years after staying home w/ the kids for (by then) 11, I will not expect to make the same money as someone who worked those 11 years. Nor will I expect to get as far in my career as they."

And what is unfair about that? They paid those dues and you didn't.

Why is anyone obligated to reward anyone for work they don't do - reward them with the same pay, the same opportunities - as the people who work longer and more? How is that be fair?

You may think it's unfair that men can have wives who raise their families for them, where women can't find husbands to do that. First, that's a pretty childish view of the way the universe works. Second, those men don't have families - their wives have the families; the men have the mortgages, and family law and family law courts have almost always seen it that way. And third, those women could indeed have house husbands to do all that for them, but so often the are "just nt attracted" to that kind of man. Doesn't excite them the way they want or whatever.

Jim, I think you just totally misinterpreted M4's comments.

I'm in a competitive grad program as part of my plan to become the first female executive in my organization. My cohort of eight is evenly divided between the sexes. Only one of the women has children, and they're grown. I am the only married woman in the program. All of the men are married or in LTRs and three have children.

I have no kids and a husband who doesn't mind if I work long hours, and who's perfectly willing and able to take care of meals, laundry, etc. (or hire someone to do so.) Not many men would feel that way, while women married to successful men are just supposed to suck it up.

Who's doing all the reproducing in Western civilization? Third-world imports who share neither our culture nor our politics.

Hear that Real 'Muricans (TM)? Better get to f**king.

I am also reminded tangentially of Russell Peters' "we're gonna hump you" bit for some reason:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfsVCqBYbgY

And, Jim, I don't think Momof4's comment means what you think it means. It's levelheaded, offers valuable insight into the topic at hand and certainly warrants a re-read from you.

So...the company was fair in it's hiring, after all it did hire these idiots...but then it discriminated against them by not promoting them???

The downside for women is just that there are fewer men like Gregg or Beth's husband, who will pick up the slack, or stay at home with the kids, whereas male executives can easily find a wife like that.

This may be changing somewhat, as there seems to be more SAH dads, or ones who will let their career take a backseat to their wive's careers.

My cousin is an atty in the Justice Dept. So is her husband, but she is the one who is higher up. They had 3 boys, all grown now. A journalist, physicist, and computer scientist. They all turned out really well.

When they were growing up, she went to work at 5 am, so she could be finished around 2 or 3 most days and see the kids in the afternoon. Her husband would be with them in the morning, get them off to school, etc. And he was most likely the one who left work if one was sick, or to attend the ball games.

It was a sacrifice, but somehow, they managed to have succesful careers and a family. If you want it bad enough, you can do it, but it's going to be tough without a good support system, which is what most women lack.

"Who's doing all the reproducing in Western civilization?"

Well, there's always the Duggars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting

News flash: Cultures change.

I'm sure all those English settlers were muttering, "Fuck those immigrants. We're all going to hell in a hand basket."

Ah, the Duggars. Bless them for keeping the frumper business booming in these hard economic times!

I also think that ambitious men view a supportive, home-based spouse as an asset - something they need to attain in order to rise up the ranks. Ambitious women are perhaps just beginning to realize this. The ones who still go after high-powered alpha males won't have the home/family support, and will usually end up giving up their own careers to suppport his.

More and more professional women seem to be choosing men with lesser careers now. The stigma is lifting, and this may certainly help them advance in the same way it has always helped males.

Do you really think that the male vice presidents are running when the school calls to say that little Paisley has just puked all over her desk? If you can show me that they are, then I apologize but I suspect if that were the case, it would have been documented in the lengthy complaint. My guess is that their wives/ex-wives/mothers-in-law or nannies are running to pick up Paisley.

Yes this. It gets on my nerves that when a woman faces a choice between work/family its seen as a misogynistic oppresively painful choice but when its men it suddenly be comes a prvilege and its presumed that he hasn't made any tough choices in life.

This often comes up in elections with candidates too. The attitude seems to be "oh he just dumped it all off on her".

People need to quit acting like making the tough choice between family and work just suddenly appeared when women started entering the workforce in greater numbers. Men have been doing it for ages, you can argue that they may have made the wrong choice, but you can't act like men don't care about their families.

"My dad worked late -- earning a living to support his family. My mother stayed home with us tending to our needs."

Yes, and that arrangment does make the choice more palatable than the one women usually have - leaving their children in the care of strangers.

Having a supportive spouse at home has been the big professional advantage that men have had. They rarely feel like they're abandoned their kids for their careers because their kids are home being well-cared for by their mothers...and that was traditionally the way it was, so there usually wasn't even an expectation on the child's part that it be any different. Growing up, I don't recall any kid ever making their dads feel guilty for going to work.

Thomas brings up The Marching Morons, but if you haven't read that story, try watching the intro to Idiocracy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU

Between that and Brian's point about the Third-World immigrants who don't integrate into the culture, and it's inevitable that what we think of as our culture will disappear. Probably within 20 years, if we don't take fairly drastic steps to prevent it.

Jim, you need to work on your fucking reading comprehension, dear.

More and more professional women seem to be choosing men with lesser careers now. The stigma is lifting, and this may certainly help them advance in the same way it has always helped males.

Posted by: lovelysoul at June 14, 2011 9:35 AM

When they reform divorce laws I might see that stigma being lifted and men interested in such an arrangement. Most women seem to resent being the breadwinner and it sours the relationship.

Amy:
"My dad worked late -- earning a living to support his family. My mother stayed home with us tending to our needs. "

Exactly. But in today's gender discourse its "the self sacrificing mom that gave up everything for her family" and "the selfish dad that dumped the kids on wife so he could do nothing all day".

lovelysoul:
" They rarely feel like they're abandoned their kids for their careers because their kids are home being well-cared for by their mothers...and that was traditionally the way it was, so there usually wasn't even an expectation on the child's part that it be any different. Growing up, I don't recall any kid ever making their dads feel guilty for going to work."

Is it that they don't feel it or, by the script of being a man, they weren't allowed to feel it? I think that question shows itself in times of divorce when dads who worked hard to support their kids and took the little time they could get are suddenly cut off from them altogether. There are plenty of dads who do feel hurt and loss when they are separated from their kids (and the kids feel it too).

But again thanks to today's gender discourse divorced dads are written off as only trying to get custody in hopes of not having to pay child support and women are the ones (out of the adults) that have ever gotten a raw deal on the family/work balance.

Hell, I'm single, no kids, and don't work all that hard (weird hours, lots of nights, weekends, travel, but it all averages out to 40 or so hours a week) and I can barely look after myself. I'm not surprised mothers have to choose. They shouldn't be either.

Of course, I have problems. Which is a very good reason not to have kids.

Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After.

I don't think I need to read this one! I know what they think, but people's opinion of my lifestyle and choices is of supreme unimportance to me.

"Is it that they don't feel it or, by the script of being a man, they weren't allowed to feel it? I think that question shows itself in times of divorce when dads who worked hard to support their kids and took the little time they could get are suddenly cut off from them altogether."

Well, divorce is a different dynamic. But, among married men, my impression is that most don't miss being at home for a lot of the mundane drudgery that is child care. Anybody who has stayed home with young children will tell you it's made up of many boring moments, scattered with some special ones, but it's mostly mashing up the peas, pretending to be highly interested in the latest lego model or scribble, and generally trying to keep them out of harm's way.

Fathers often get the fun time. The run to the door at the end of the day, with screams of "Daddy!". The weekend outings.

At least that's the way it was in my household, both growing up and raising kids. I kind of envied my ex's ability just to have fun with the kids, while I was stuck being the disciplinarian and handling the more mundane childrearing chores, which didn't make me as prized by them at times.

There seems to be a growing number of fathers who desire to be more hands on, which is great, and it may be the result of the number of divorces. But I also think many dads glamorize the day-to-day childrearing duties more than is warranted. Just because he's not wiping runny noses every day doesn't mean a dad can't have special time and build a wonderful bond with his children. In fact, often the time with dad is considered more special because it's more rare, and not taken for granted. Kids with working dads have always had fond memories of those moments and many idolized their dads.

"There seems to be a growing number of fathers who desire to be more hands on, which is great, and it may be the result of the number of divorces. But I also think many dads glamorize the day-to-day childrearing duties more than is warranted."

I also think it has something to do with the changing times how its becoming "okay" for men to be internal providers (as in inside the home). Like its becoming "okay" for women to be the external providers (as in outside the home).

And speaking of glorifying I think the same thing happens the other way when talking about women in the workplace. Might be why when people talk about women getting a foothold in the workplace they are usually talking about highend positions, high paying jobs, or seats of power. Not much about the hard work and grueling hours it takes to get there, much the "lower status" jobs.

Amy @ "Sorry, ladies, but you just can't have it all. Not out here in the real world"

Only a misogynist could say such a thing! Apparently you failed Goddess Worship 101. You need some re-education, me thinks.

"But I also think many dads glamorize the day-to-day childrearing duties more than is warranted."

My husband stayed home with our toddler for five months and nearly went crazy.

"My husband stayed home with our toddler for five months and nearly went crazy."

There were times when I almost went crazy, and I dreamed of doing it my whole life. But, some days, I had to just put them in the play yard and try to find anything else I could do to keep my brain from atrophying.

It takes a special kind of constitution. More women have it than men, probably due to hormones and years of evolution. Kids are genuinely better off with a caregiver who truly enjoys it, and that sometimes is neither parent...at least during certain stages. It got easier for me as they grew older and could communicate better.

"Sorry, ladies, but you just can't have it all. Not out here in the real world."

While I disagree completely with Jay R that this is a misogynistic statement (it in no way shows hatred toward or mistrust of women) I don't completely agree with the statement itself either.
If your definition of "having it all" is a high powered career and the ability to leave work whenever to deal with family crises, then yes, it's accurate.
In regards to your neighbor friend, and IMO, the ability to be able to stay home with kids, while still having a creative outlet, even if you can't dedicate as much time to it as you might wish, is the definition of having it all.
The point is that you can't dedicate yourself to everything, you do have to choose, but I don't believe that in choosing one over the other (kids vs career) You get any less enjoyment out of life, as long as your choices reflect what you actually want.
In my case, I want a family and would love the ability to stay home and raise them, either postponing or not having a career. I made sure to be honest about that when dating and choosing a husband. (That makes me sound a bit cold and calculating, and I want to clarify that I love my husband very much, I didn't just choose him for those qualities, but they did go into the overall decision.)
In Amy's case, she doesn't want children, and has stated that she was honest in her intentions about that with Gregg, and it's worked out for her. She's found a partner who shares her view. That is the best way to, "have it all," by working to get all that you want out of life, even if it isn't what someone else's definition of "all" is.

Maybe the six ladies filing the discrimination lawsuit against Bayer should be filing them against their husbands instead.

Also, brian, people in Western civilizations could not afford the things that make Western civilization as comfortable as it is, if they reproduced at the same rate as 3rd World countries. The only way we could keep up with their reproduction rates would be if we all lived to a 3rd World standard of living ourselves.

@PJ - Including immigrants, we're at 2.1 children per woman, which is dead on replacement.

All it would take is for American families to go back to the 2.5 kids average and the demographics suddenly work again. How many people do you know that have no kids, or stopped at one? How many people do you know that have 4 or more (which would make up for the ones who have none)?

The future belongs to those who show up for it. If we allow immigrants that do not assimilate and do not share our common values and culture, then our culture will be cast aside or destroyed entirely when we are outnumbered.

> All it would take is for American families to go
> back to the 2.5 kids average and the demographics
> suddenly work again. How many people do you know
> that have no kids, or stopped at one? How many
> people do you know that have 4 or more (which
> would make up for the ones who have none)?

> The future belongs to those who show up for it.
> If we allow immigrants that do not assimilate and
> do not share our common values and culture, then
> our culture will be cast aside or destroyed
> entirely when we are outnumbered.

How many kids do you have brian?

It takes a special kind of constitution. More women have it than men, probably due to hormones and years of evolution. Kids are genuinely better off with a caregiver who truly enjoys it, and that sometimes is neither parent

@lovelysoul lol I think I'm going to need to send my kids off to Swiss boarding school, wait til they're 18, and then get to know them. :)

If we allow immigrants that do not assimilate and do not share our common values and culture, then our culture will be cast aside or destroyed
entirely when we are outnumbered.

@Brian Nowhere I have EVER lived has what one might call "common values and culture." I am also not sure what "our" culture is. Or who "we" is.

Almost half of the workers in America make less than $25,000 a year. How many families can afford to feed 2.5 kids plus themselves on either one or two multiples of $25,000 a year? Don't forget that the workers are also trying to support the elderly.

"@lovelysoul lol I think I'm going to need to send my kids off to Swiss boarding school, wait til they're 18, and then get to know them. :)"

No need to do that. My point is that kids don't necessarily revere the parent who is there every day, wiping their snotty noses. Many kids have idolized working fathers because they weren't there everyday. The wonderful outings, fishing trips, and rare, special moments stand out. Plenty of kids in my generation totally idolized their dads...because of what they did and what they accomplished. They didn't need to be home every day to earn our love and respect. My dad worked on the Apollo mission. I completely admired him for that. He didn't need to be home every day playing Barbie with me to gain my respect.

@sofar - "I am also not sure what "our" culture is. Or who "we" is."

They didn't ask questions like that back in 1776.

*****The downside for women is just that there are fewer men like Gregg or Beth's husband, who will pick up the slack, or stay at home with the kids, whereas male executives can easily find a wife like that.*****

Then why are they marrying these men? And if they marry him with the impression he's going to do all that, and after the first kid comes he proves by his behavior it's not going to happen, why do they have any more? Some people love to create their own problems and then blame everyone else for the fallout.

"Fathers often get the fun time. The run to the door at the end of the day, with screams of "Daddy!". The weekend outings. "

My ex tried to sell me on that one. I said,"Not a chance in hell." I've got 50-50 custody(legal and physical) and wouldn't have it any other way. However, I'm self employed, work from home and have mad domestic skills. Still lookin for that high achieving woman who needs a stay home hubby while she persues her highly lucrative career and he generates income from home and watches the kids. Or, you know, vise versa. Not expecting one anytime soon.

How is it discrimination if top execs hired nannies?

"Jim, I think you just totally misinterpreted M4's comments. "

I think you're both totally right.

"Jim, you need to work on your fucking reading comprehension, dear. "

In my defense, momof4, I based my readiong on all your previous moaning about how SAHMs are under-appreciated.

"They didn't ask questions like that back in 1776."

Back in 1776 "culture" was only for people who could afford it.

" While I disagree completely with Jay R that this is a misogynistic statement...."

Irony-impaired, Jazzhands.

We're never going to convince people to have more kids (or have them when they weren't planning to) because it's good for demographics. People have kids or not for a variety of complex reasons. If we want more babies, we need to:

1) Ban birth control
2) Limit access to education, especially graduate-level education, for men and women.
3) Ban women from high-powered careers that require extensive education. No more female doctors, lawyers, engineers or scientists.
4) Provide federally sponsored child care for people who still need to work
5) Ban procedures that would make people sterile.
6) Make abortion a crime punishable by death.

I'm sure all of these things will make our lives much better.

/sarcasm

Do you appreciate the person who wipes your piss off your toilet at work, Jim? I bet not, I bet you've never thought a bit about them. SAHM's are underappreciated. Which changes none of my comments one whit on this or anything else.

"Back in 1776 "culture" was only for people who could afford it."

Also, they didn't have time back in 1776. No, back in 1776 they were too busy marching and singing songs like "Yankee Doodle Came to Terms".