And your point?

While it is awesome that parents are spending more time with their children, I wonder if the lack of personal and couple time will have a back lash. In the long run, I think it is unhealthy for us to have a lack of down time. Even if it is just because we work so much. It is important for the healthy growth of children and adults to have some free time for ourselves and for our relationships. But I am totally guilty of this. I find some days, my only down time is my metro commute.

I don't see much difference between the time I spend with my kids and the time I spent with my parents. I also don't think I work harder than my mother - who didn't have half the modern conveniences I do. My mom worked her butt off inside and outside the home and still spent tons of time with us, so I consider myself lucky that I have it so easy. I often wonder when my mother slept.

And to answer Leslie's question, it is a good thing to spend more time with your kids - but more money? Not really.

I found the study to be a little implausible. I mean, stay-at-home moms in the 50s spent only 10 hours on childcare? Who was watching the children the rest of the time? Obviously, they played outside a fair amount, but babies were presumably constantly supervised by their parents. I think it's because of the double-counting-- if I'm cooking dinner while talking to my daughter as she draws with crayons on the counter, this is presumably billed as "housework" not "childcare."

I'm stuck on trying to figure out how a stay at home mother can possibly log 52 hours of work a week.

If parents want to add up the hours they spend stuck in traffic with their kid strapped in the back enroute to yet another organized activity as they cuss at another careless maneuver by a cell phone toting, SUV driving idiot as quality time with their kids, It's no mystery to me why today's parents are reportably scoring substancially higher numbers in this particular area.

always question statistics!

Leslie, why the assumption that stay at home moms watch Desperate Housewives? I've never looked at that garbage.

define 'time with children' please. Is that actively engaged in one on one communication, or in the same room/car, or in the same house doing different things?

This study is good news and bad news. The good news it that fathers are more involved than their own fathers - in both childraising and housework (but I think we all knew this, and we still have a long way to go to achieve equality between fathers and mothers). The bad news is that our lives are way out of balance, and we don't have any time to recharge and renew ourselves. Burnout doesn't lead to a happy life, a good parent, or a good worker. I, too, question the exact meaning of these high-level statistics, but think that the biggest message is about a cry for help in the balance department. It seems we might have traded balance for money - not a good deal in my opinion, and probably not the best thing to model for our children either.

Finally!! Someone came out with an actual study that shows that working mothers work more hours than stay-at-home mothers.

Someone ought to send that to Dr. being a stay-at-home-mother-is-equlivalent-to-two-full-time-jobs Phil.

Jayne...it is more like 70 to 80 hours. (People think because you're at home, you have no 'work' to do. Ha!) Just because there's no corporate check doesn't mean it's not work.

I can believe that SAHMs log in over 50 hours of work. However, the fact is that working mothers need to do the same things - we just have less time. So we cook less, outsource housework when we can, put pressure on our husbands to do their fair share while trying to spend as much time as we can with our kids. Result - we are one harried bunch!

Really, LiT? Can you specify what's being done that qualifies as "work" for 52 hours a week if an employed mother "only" works 71 hours a week. I'd love to hear how those 52 hours are filled with "work."

'Leslie, why the assumption that stay at home moms watch Desperate Housewives? I've never looked at that garbage.'

How do you know it's garbage if you've never looked at it?

It's one of only 3 shows that I watch. It's hysterical and great escapism.

Child care is work, in and of itself. 12 hour days (minimum..assuming all children are on the same schedule), seven days a week. No vacation, no Monday holiday bill.
Homes with children in them get messier (houses with children in daycare only get dusty) walls/furniture can take a beating, bathrooms...ha! don't even get me started with what can happen in there! General home maintenance is higher (both in more to do, and more expensive). Children can create an awful lot of work.
Then there's the teaching. Your children get some type of instruction in daycare, no? An art project or two each week? That happens here too.
Don't get why only is in quotes; will go back and re-read.

LiT, according to your theories, working mothers must work 112 hours a week (I alloted 8 hours a day for sleep, which is probably far too generous.) Hope you don't hurt yourself straining to call every moment spent with your child "work."

There is something fundamentally disheartening about referring to time spent with your children as work.

"And the amount of child care and housework performed by fathers has sharply increased."

Really? What about the huge population of single-parent families? How about mentioning divorce rates in this study, or children born out of wedlock, where often, if not most times, the father is a complete no-show. Sure, fathers of white, upper-middle class families may be spending time with their families, but to call that a trend in America is erroneous.

It seems the survey is attempting to quantify something that cannot be measured in emperical data. People have asked: What does "time spent with kids mean?" it can't be measured in hours and data tables.

Can we skip the "who does more" debate today? We all work hard at what we do and made the decisions we made in the best interests of our families. SAHM's work hard all day with their kids, that is a fact. But WOHM's still have to come home after a full day and do a good deal of work. Maybe that is not a full day's work, but it sure feels like it after 40+ hours out of home. They may have more resources to outsource some of that work, but there is a lot of time pressure. What really suffers is the time you can spend on yourself and on your relationship with your spouse; at least that is what I have seen with the couples in our circle of friends. SOme of my SAHM friends admit that not working takes some of that pressure off.

"Homes with children in them get messier (houses with children in daycare only get dusty)"

I wasn't aware that children spent 24 hrs a day, seven days a week in daycare - that must cost a fortune! :)

Re: LiT's comments

It turns my stomach how a few SAHMs go on and on about how much "work" they have to do compared to working moms. Please. Do you think working moms don't also have to clean a messy house, care for children every moment that we're not in the office, cook dinner, pay the bills, do the laundry, etc.? When I get a vacation, I still have to care for the kids, cook, clean, etc. Who do you think does these things for working parents -- magic elves? Get over yourself already.

All responsible adults -- even those w/o children, remember! -- have to figure out a way to get their home clean, their bills paid, their clothes washed, and their meals cooked. Let's not pretend that just because you do these things as a SAHM you're in line for some kind of special award. You're not.

LiT-

This is exactly why we have the "Mommy Wars".

Taking your child to playgroup and socializing with your friends while you're there is not "work." Watching them play soccer, take swimming lessons, or do ballet while you read the paper or chat with other moms is not "work." Blogging or reading or watching television while they nap or watch Sesame Street or play is not "work."

I've been a SAHM for 6 1/2 years and I work soooooo much less volume-wise than I did for the 8 years I was a WOHP. And I do a ton of volunteer work - far more than any of my SAHM friends do. I'm not saying that it's not difficult work, but it just angers me when people perpetuate the myth that SAHM work more hours than a WOHP does, or that you actually *work* 70 hours a week.

Have another cup of coffee Jayne. I'll bet your childcare provider considers it work -- hard work at that.

I'm not following your math...your kids stay up until 1am? We all have things that can only be done once the kids are asleep. And you're right -- eight hours of sleep is an ideal. If I slept that long, my family would think I had lapsed into a coma.

Jayne..if your envious of a SAHM's time at home, don't be. We are envious of your adult conversations, your clothes, your ability to go to the bathroom alone, the list goes on and on. But working outside the home is not an option for everyone.

Time for me to go toss myself onto the sofa and pop bon-bons. Have a great day all.

Those of you who take care of children should consider your time with them as mostly play with a little work.

Or you are doing it all wrong...

LiT said "houses with children in daycare only get dusty"

You'd be amazed by the amount of mess a child in daycare all day can create in the hours after he/she gets home from school before bedtime.

SAHMs do work all the time. They constantly care for children, clean, chauffer, cook, and do all of the other household errands. Yes, working moms have to do that too and I'm sure it's difficult to strike a balance.

But working moms do hire out help quite a lot more than most SAHMs -- either by employing a cleaning person, eating out or take-away many nights a week, etc. If you hire out a cleaner to do the kitchen, floors, bathrooms, etc. and you and your family are really only in the house during the week to sleep and to eat that take-away dinner, then you really have a lot less cleaning to do than a SAHM who is in the house with kids all day every day. Kids are like Tazmanian devils -- they whip through each room leaving behind a path of toys, spills, and other "destruction". It's a losing battle trying to keep the house straight when you have three children home all day. So the argument that working parents have to clean "just as much" as SAH parents isn't exactly true.

It doesn't mean working parents are getting a free ride, because they are doing other things. It just underscores that you really can't compare the two situations. It's apples and oranges, and people who constantly gripe that the other side has it easier need to step back, accept your decision to either SAH or work, and try to enjoy the life that you do have.

I have always found that the "gripers" -- stay-at-home and working -- are the lucky ones who have the ability to make a choice to either live on one income or to have two incomes and enjoy a more comfortable life. Usually the ones who truly have no choice but to work are too busy working and caring for their families to navel gaze and ponder the hours someone else spends (or doesn't spend) working.

"We are envious of your adult conversations, your clothes, your ability to go to the bathroom alone, the list goes on and on. "

Ummmm....please don't speak for all of us. I have plenty of adult conversations with my husband, friends and acquaintances; I wear exactly what I want instead of a corporate "uniform", I go to the bathroom alone because my children know common courtesy.

SAHMs will never receive the respect we deserve because of SAH martyrs who insist on continuing to talk about things like working two full time jobs. Nobody respects a martyr.

momof4 -

CLAP CLAP CLAP

Puleez....I can't believe that anyone would even begin to think that SAHM work 50 hours a week. Give me a break. I think saying things like this only diminishes SAHMs. The fact remains that if you don't have a job outside the home, life is easier, more relaxed. And the messiest houses I've seen have been with SAHM so what are they doing with their time? After dropping the kids off at school, they're at starbucks, tennis, the gym, helping out at school or they go back to bed. Tough life.

What is needed is to stop pandering to the SAHM crowd and to talk about real issues that affect 70-80% of mothers---the ones who work outside the home. Coordinating work with children is exceedingly difficult, but worth the effort both for the health of the parents but the children as well. I'm thankful that my children know that they can be anything they want to in this world and that they are capable of supporting themselves one day--all because both parents have been that example.

How old are your kids? As a parent of younger kids (20 months and 4 years), I can see how the workload changes as the kids get older and I gain more experience.

What would be old hat to you could be overwhelming for someone just learning how to deal with more than one kid.

My second daughter brought me great joy and a seemingly neverending case of sciatica (and a huge ibuprofen habit). Having both made parenting seem more than twice as hard than having one child.

Now that I am better, and she is older, it all seems so much easier. (good thing since she is the stronger willed of the two.)

I think it needs to be clarified that only the more affluent SAHPs have "help" be it a cleaning service or takeout - as the product of a single working household, I can assure you that the cleaning service was us kids and we hardly ever had take out - getting Chinese was a HUGE treat (which may explain why I feel the need to order about once a week now that I am an adult!)

Sorry-I realize that this blog is generally made up of the more "affluent", but I had to put that out there.

p.s. just to clarify - I am not making a judgment of the make up of the blog, just an observation is all.

Could someone please get Jayne some Valium or something? She really seems to be kind of angry and hostile . . .

I agree with "quesiton for momof4." The age of the kids makes a huge difference. By the time momof4 became a SAHM she had an 8-year-old (regardless of what the ages of the other kids were, having an 8-year-old around can be a big help).

Personally, I was a SAHM for 3 years and it was by far the hardest I've ever worked in my life. It not only depends on the ages of the kids, but the personalities of the kids and what kind of support system you have (or don't have).

Apples and Oranges: I was going to use the term "whiners" on SAHM's and working moms that bicker about who does more. It is all na-nanny boo-booism. The working and SAH moms in my neighborhood actually support each other - trade favors with watching kids, driving to sports, etc. Are the women griping (on both sides) in the city? Do you have friends and neighbors on both sides of the aisle? If you go it alone without a network or husband to help it is much harder - is this the problem?

I think we all know women that SAH and have it easy or hard, same with working moms. It is not all or nothing for either - geez!

To apples and oranges:

I know plenty of SAHMs who have help with housecleaning and get takeout. Just because someone is working it doesn't mean they can afford these extra things to make life easier and just because someone is a SAHM doesn't mean they can't afford help. Do you have statistics on how working mothers get this kind of help "quite a bit more" as you posted?

Parents may want to consider re-reading Twain, or even playing the books on tape in long car rides to help improve the quality of life and the sharing of duties around the house.

Along similar line to Fo4, blurring the lines between work and play can make life a whole lot more enjoyable and the drudgery of laundry, folding laundry, clearing dishes, doing dishes, cooking vaccuuming, weeding, painting etc are always more amusing, although a tad less efficient when done by me and the troops.

For example, the evening ticket to television is only whilst folding laundry. DS happy to fold for the forbidden fruit of the "blue light" mid week." The three year old is a heckuva folder too!

Latex paint is easy to clean, and the kids will always remember THEY painted that wall, door whatever. Older DD hates folding, but good with a paintbrush and roller.

Use a little Tom Sawyer and you'll find alot of fences get whitewashed and more smiles than complaints in re breach of child labor laws at home.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Hi honey, I'm home!!!!!

>

Are you kidding me? Just to sleep and eat that "take-away dinner"? So that means bathrooms magically stay clean, floors don't accumulate dust, dirt, dog hair and crumbs, laundry whips itself into tidy folded piles, dishwashers don't need unloading, and somehow bedsheets get changed? Oh, and kids' toys never accumulate, art supplies never drip on the floor, and somehow there's always a fresh bath towel? And the recycling walks itself to the curb? Even with a twice-monthly cleaning lady, these daily activities MUST get done. You make it sound like a working mother and her kids live in a hotel where they're only there to sleep. I've got news for you: we do actually LIVE in our homes, even if we work and our kids are gone much of the day.

"But working moms do hire out help quite a lot more than most SAHMs -- either by employing a cleaning person, eating out or take-away many nights a week, etc. If you hire out a cleaner to do the kitchen, floors, bathrooms, etc. and you and your family are really only in the house during the week to sleep and to eat that take-away dinner, then you really have a lot less cleaning to do than a SAHM who is in the house with kids all day every day. "

Hey apples and oranges, can you tell me where to sign up for this lifestyle? And who will be paying for it? I'm a working mother, and I don't have a housecleaner, haven't ordered takeout in over a year, and my kids are home making a mess most of the day every day.

I'm sorry to have to say it, but you are an idiot in serious need of a reality check if you think the easy life you described is typical of working families.

to 10:09:

My children are 4, 6, 12, & 14. I was a WOHP until my 6 year old was born.

Yes, I have more experience than a parent who has a toddler and a baby. But so what? It didn't take me 5 years to learn how to parent/balance when I WOH - when I had far less time to get everything done - why should it take someone 5 years to learn how to parent/balance when they SAH from the beginning?

I'm not diminishing the effects of post partum depression, complications from pregnancy & childbirth, and the overwhelming responsibility of caring for a newborn. But that's not what we're talking about here, I don't think. We're talking talking about whether or not, in general, a SAH really "works" every second she's awake. I am fully immersed in the SAH world and I can tell you first hand that it's not even *close* to being true. Even for those who don't drop their kids off at school and go to Starbucks or the gym (which, btw, I have never done. When I go out for coffee or walking (my version of the gym) my youngest child comes with me....should I put that on my time card?)

As far as WOHPs having outside help - I agree that the vast majority of the people in this situation are affluent, although I do know a single middle class mom who considers her housekeeping service that comes once every two weeks her "luxury". Some women get their nails done, she gets her house cleaned. I know that I had absolutely no outside "help" when I worked - I carried my lunch to work, cleaned my own house, cooked from scratch just as much as I do now, etc.

I totally agree with Fo4. I'm familiar with the idea that spending time with your kids is "work," and I really really hate it.

Ok so you all think that you change sheets, scrub the toilets, and clean toys all day long 7 days a week? Give me a break. You can do that in a few hours a week (unless you live in a 10,000 sq foot house with 20 bathrooms and then I'd assume you could afford a housekeeper). Quit complaining! My SAH friends freely admit their lives are pretty laid back compared to when they worked AND had to do the housework. It is my opinion that SAHM tend to be less ambitious, less industrious and I don't mean this in a bad way. Not everyone wants to have a career, not everyone wants to be CEO or president of the US. People do as much as they can tolerate and afford.

And if any of you think having babies and toddlers is hard, wait until the schoolage and teenage years when they start having tons of home work and activities to go to. The early years are the easiest.

"regardless of what the ages of the other kids were, having an 8-year-old around can be a big help"

Having an 8 year around when you have a newborn also means that you have to continue to do 8 year old stuff - take them to and from school, go to soccer practice and games, go to swimming lessons, help them with homework, go on field trips, go to school programs, help their teacher because she has 28 kids in her class..... - while caring for your newborn. The "assistance" of an 8 year old is FAR outweighed by the responsibility of having an 8 year old.

Should I have said, "All work and no play makes Jacqueline a dull girl?"

Everybody take a step back from the cliff please.

The sun'll come out tomorrow, bet yer bottom dollar that tomorrow...

If the discussion is supposed to be about balance and how we spend our time, how about more responses along the lines of Father of 4 and Father of 3? How do you make your kids team players in your family and enhance your family time? Wouldn't that be more productive?

I'm always kind of curious about seemingly disparaging comments made about SAHM "They're...at the gym...tough live" (from the unnamed 10:05 poster today, though I've seen comments like that many times on this chat) as if going to the gym is some sort of indulgence. Daily exercise isn't a luxury at all - not any more than taking a couple of minutes to brush your teeth or getting your yearly pap test!!! Obviously, some (a lot) of folks just don't have the financial option of not working, or working less hours, in order to spend more time exercising (or maybe would have to substitute walking outside rather than a gym membership)....but many people do have the options. The balance isn't just between work and family - personal health is in there too. If the family is so busy and stressed out that the parents (working or not) don't have time to exercise, I think that it's time for the family to take a really good hard look at their priorities and see what sacrifices that they can make in order to fit that in. I've seen the benefits of daily life long exercise, and I think that it's just as important as contributing money to a retirement account or paying off a mortgage.

Ms. L, I agree with your perspective. I found being a SAHM with an infant to be very draining, and comments like "After dropping the kids off at school, they're at starbucks" drive me nuts, because they totally ignore the fact that not all kids are in school. Being home alone with an infant was very difficult in certain ways.

Being a WOHM now, there are things about it that are much easier and things that are much harder. It's just different.

Situations vary, peoples' strengths vary, and kids vary. I figure the vast majority of us are working hard at whatever we do and doing the best we can, so why worry so much about how many hours some study says the other person works?

Right on, 10:26 am poster. As a single mom who works full time, commutes about 3 hours per day, parents my kids, and yes, does clean my house on top of it all, I look at my (married) stay-at-home mom friends' schedules and want to scream. They complain about having to go to Target to buy paper towels and nearly missing their tennis lessons -- this is no joke. They carpool on school dropoffs so they can stay in their bathrobes another hour some days -- again, no joke. They have weekly cleaning ladies and order their groceries to be delivered via PeaPod (we live in the NYC metro area...not sure if you have that near DC). What do they do all day? Well, before my marriage fell apart and I had to return to work, I used to get invited to their coffee klatches and idyllic picnics with the kids in the park. THAT'S what they do. And no, it is NOT work. Sorry, but cleaning up the breakfast dishes so you can get out the door to tennis or bellydancing lessons while the kids are at school (again, no joke about the bellydancing) isn't anything compared to the workload I shoulder at the end of my long day. Do I sound bitter? You bet. I just thank my lucky stars I'm a relatively lucky college-educated and white-collar single mom who can afford a biweekly cleaning lady to take the edge off. It's funny -- my SAHM friends chide me all the time--- "What do you mean, you've never seen 'Grey's Anatomy'? Why didn't you read this month's book club book...it was SO good!' and they have absolutely no clue. That study really finally confirmed it all for me. Oh, and by the way: I have been both SAHM and working mom. There is simply no way a SAHM mom does anywhere near the amount of work her working counterpart does. No contest.

I think part of the reason SAHMs are defensive about how much work they do is because their roles in society are not valued and suggesting that they spend most of their time getting coffee, playing tennis, etc., just demonstrates this perception. Being a SAHM is an important job... it may mean that you are less busy on average than a working mom, but I doubt it feels that way for the SAHM and we shouldn't belittle that. Being a mom is hard work and important work and if a SAHM is working 80 hours a week to take care of her family the way she thinks they need to be taken care of, why would anyone suggest she is untruthful? And whether you think of being with your child as work or not, it still counts as work... there are certainly people out there who love their professional careers and would probably do it whether they get paid or not (writers, scientists, etc.) and we don't try to tell them it isn't work.

Sorry for the change of subject but did you guys see the washpost article today about French families? Here are some excerpts...

Under French law, a woman can opt not to work or to work part time until her child is 3 years old -- and her full-time job will be guaranteed when she returns.

Barbeyrac catches the 5:09 p.m. train home, walks to the government-subsidized day-care center where her 2 1/2 -year-old twins have spent the day ($670 a month for both), then picks up Ines, 8, and Feh, 6, at the after-school program that ends at 6 p.m. ($75 a month for the two).

Maybe instead of arguing with each other abou this and that, you guys can start demanding more family friendly laws from the government ;)

More excerpts from that washington post article.

"French society encourages mothers to work," Staub said. "The way work hours and vacation time are organized also helps families a lot. I have 36 days of paid holidays per year -- it's great to spend time with your children."

"In the summer, French families can send their children to generous summer camp programs. Government recreation centers in virtually every French village and urban neighborhood offer a full day of activities, including trips to museums, farms and swimming pools -- along with snacks and three-course lunch -- for fees ranging from about 65 cents to $12 a day, based on family income."

"We all work hard at what we do and made the decisions we made in the best interests of our families."

Two huge, unsubstantiated assumptions!

To use a Desperate Housewives reference - Any SAHM who works as hard as you imply must be like Bree ;).

...in the 50's, families had multiple children. the babies were put in playpens with toys. the mothers didn't spend as much time interacting with the kids. As the kids got older, the older ones looked after the younger. They played outside without constant adult supervision. Houses generally were smaller - less to clean. Less modern conveniences created more more work in some areas, but less things create less in some ways. E.g., one stove to clean, not stove plus microwave plus GF grill, etc.

So, I agree that parents are now spending more time with their children than earlier generations. let's stop arguing about SAH vs WOH.

"But working outside the home is not an option for everyone."

Now here's an interesting twist.

France (and some other European countries) is trying to increase its birth rate - the US doesn't have that problem

I read the article yesterday. While I am encouraged by the increase in fathers' time with the kids and housework, I couldn't help but notice that women still do the majority of both. In my opinion, there will not be balance until the fathers' column looks like the mothers' column. I hope that these numbers point to a continuing trend.

And as far as taking care of kids being work, I'll throw in my two cents.

I worked with children for several years. It was hard work, and I got paid dirt. I did all of the un-fun stuff (changed diapers, cleaned up vomit and worse, cooked food, and generally disinfected). I have no kids of my own, but I can imagine that even when they are your own kids, that's still un-fun, and it's still work. Playing with the kids is a different story.

My husband and I argue about whose turn it is to take the dogs to the park. Even though we love our dogs and the park is essentially play time, it is work in the sense that we have to make sure neither get into a fight, make sure they're not jumping on people, and be vigilant for "scooping" opportunities. We take them there because it socializes them, not because it's fun for us. In a perfect world, all the things your babies need would be loads of fun, but then again, in a perfect world, all they would need to grow would be kisses from us!

No statistics, just observations over the past nine years. And in my observations, I have seen working moms eating out more (whether it's McDonald's drive-through or something else) and hiring cleaners more often. And the moms I know who work don't have as much cleaning to do because they aren't home nearly as much to make the mess. I'm not saying working parents live in "hotels", but I am saying that SAHMs of young children have more messes to deal with each day. If you work and your children are at home most of the day, then I have to assume they are old enough to stay home by themselves and old enough to clean up their own messes before you get home.

I know there are SAHMs who do hire out cleaning help and eat out quite a lot, but the "gripers'" problems with these women has nothing to do with the amount of work they do compared to WOH moms -- it's that they are, in general, more affluent. The gripers would find a way to complain about people more affluent than them -- whether they worked or not.

"there are certainly people out there who love their professional careers and would probably do it whether they get paid or not (writers, scientists, etc.) and we don't try to tell them it isn't work."

Maybe not, but frequently they themselves do not characterize it as work. They're very aware of how lucky they are to get paid for something they'd feel driven to do for free if necessary.

Stephen King is very up front about the fact that he's got a marketable obsession and that it would actually be more work and more difficult for him to refrain from writing.

Yeah, the only catch is you have to live in France :)

This article describes the life of our family -- two working adults with two small children. And while I don't mind watching less TV and catching up with my reading on a Metro ride to and from work, what I really miss is the couple time. We literally have none. True, it's possible to juggle, multitask, stagger activities, and so on, but at what cost to a marriage.......

I have been SAH and WOH parent. As much as I love my kids, it was harder for ME personally to cope when they were smaller and I was home all day. It was less stressful in some ways, i.e. no commute, no strict timetable, and harder in others: rarely could I focus on any one thing and finish it. That became a huge luxury. I also felt exhausted a large part of the time, because I was always 'on'. There were a few other issues that complicated things. I was also SO jealous of my husbands commute (an hour by metro) because he could read a book. The house was a never ending chore, it seemed. Sometimes I feel like I spent too much time with them. Now they are in school fulltime, I work part-time and am much more balanced. When I was a SAHM, I felt a lot like Hope on thirtysomething--that I was largely wasting my education (of course I wasn't, but I FELT that way), I wasn't earning money, having a career. I also was a rarity in my n ( and to be fair, it probably went both ways). We sacrificed some things to have me stay home fulltime--one car,no gym member ship-- you know the deal. It was a long time before I could eat out without calculating how much I could have made that meal for at home! I wish someone had told me (can't see the forest for the trees syndrome) that it was all temporary and that there would come a time when I could read a book guilt (and interruption) free, work a little and have some fulfillment that way. There were days I felt trapped and angry, but they were outnumbered by a wide margin by the days I felt blessed and happy. I confess, I didn't relate well to the woh moms at times, especially those who had babies (and choices). Working, for me at this time, is easier that staying home fulltime would be. Of course, this is not to compare my experience with anyone else's. I know lots of mom's who handle parenthood better than I did initially. But finally, to answer PWM's question, how do you make your kids team players and enhance family time? Housework. They have chores, 15 minutes a day. If they don't do their particular chore, it impacts them and the family. If they leave for school and the dishwasher isn't emptied, dishes (breakfast, after school snack) stack up. Dinner is harder to make because the kitchen is messier. That puts the cook in a grumpy mood, because now there is more work to be done before they start cooking! Also, a little maintainance now (15 min a day) is much easier to swallow than three hours Saturday morning. So they own it. Also, we do some of those 15 minute projects together--clean out and reorganize the game closet and the like. Then they don't feel overwhelmed and abandoned. We also eat dinner together every night. We have shared hobbies--scrapbooking, photography, sports and yes, video games. My husband and kids share this hobby. They talk about tricks for playing, trading in games, the next new game, etc. So they have conversations that are about things other than school and chores and get your elbows off the table.

Whoa, it's "Battle of the Martyrs" day at the blog.

FWIW, being able to choose to be a SAHM is a LUXURY (not just for me-- for my dh too, at least if I'll get my can off the sofa and deal with the laundry so he doesn't have to).

I've never been a WOHM, but I KNOW that most of the WOHMs I know work harder than I do, and their kids are great.

I'm glad I wasn't asked to participate in the childcare poll-- since my baby is going through a phase where he wants to be held every waking second, it would be hard for me quantify how much time I spend caring for him. Would it be`all the time I'm holding him, or just the time I'm actively doing something for him?

Have fun today-- I'm off to find my kitchen island under all the clutter.

to wow: The French economy is shrinking because everyone receives these great government perks but no one seems to be actually doing any work. Last year they raised the work week from 35 hours per week to 40 because of the lagging economy. France relies on tourism, but still shows disdain for those (particularly Americans) that support them.

Not sure what France leads the world in - wine exporting? Bad attitudes? I am not a big fan of relying on government handouts to support my family and lifestyle - good old fashion work is just fine with me - just don't tax me to death.

"Sorry-I realize that this blog is generally made up of the more "affluent", but I had to put that out there."

Betty --

Why apologize? This blog is for everyone, no matter their rung on the socioeconomic ladder. Just because the gripes and moans of the affluent take up so much space, that doesn't mean that you and I shouldn't be posting here.

"Even though we love our dogs and the park is essentially play time, it is work in the sense that we have to make sure neither get into a fight, make sure they're not jumping on people, and be vigilant for "scooping" opportunities."

We've got three, and love them desperately. Picking up dog crap isn't something I'd choose to do for fun, and it's not something I'd do for someone else's dog, but I don't mind doing it for mine. The not minding is what prevents it from being work. I love them and want to do things for them; I can only imagine that if one is a good parent, that love and desire is magnified a thousandfold. Which is why it makes me sad when people talk about how much work it is to be with their kids; if you honestly feel like it's work, then hire someone to watch them.

The gripers would find a way to complain about people more affluent than them -- whether they worked or not.

Seems to me the gripers will find a way to complain about other people, period. The people engaged in arguing on this board and in life over who works harder are essentially unable to not look at others with jealousy and criticism in their hearts. It seems we need an elementary school teacher to tell everyone to stay focused on what they are doing and not worry about what their neighbors are doing.

Lizzie, it's good to hear from another Stephen King fan.

He's often asked if he takes days off. He usually lies and says that he takes days off, the truth is that he works pretty much every day, at least for a couple hours.

Maybe that's why I'm not writing the Great American Novel--too many vacations!

"Could someone please get Jayne some Valium or something? She really seems to be kind of angry and hostile . . ."

Geez, talk about angry and hostile. Jayne hasn't said anything even remotely deserving of this comment.

Here is a trick that I find pretty effective especially when I'm kicking back in the Master's Chair sipping a beer and dreaming up another scheme on how I can get my annoying son to help out to improve my overwhelming and incredibly difficult life:

Me: In order to keep the roof I've labored so hard and so long for, I need a few chores done to keep it over our heads. Do you want the *hard* job, or do you prefer to whimp out and take the *easy* job.

Son: Ok, dad, this time I'll do the *hard* job if you give me a sip of your beer.

Me: Are you sure? It's real man's work and a real dirty job.

Son: I know, I know, I'll take out the trash.

Me: Make sure you get the trash out of the bathroom and remember it's trash day tomorrow, so it all goes out to the curb.

[Burp]

Shameless, I know, but anything to maintain family harmony.

"Lizzie, it's good to hear from another Stephen King fan."

God, I love him so. My husband's brother went to school with Joe King, and there is a character named after my husband in one of his books. I remember reading the character's name and thinking, "Man, that's a dumb name. Where does he get these stupid names?" Ha ha. Joke's on me.

"...as if going to the gym is some sort of indulgence. Daily exercise isn't a luxury at all - not any more than taking a couple of minutes to brush your teeth or getting your yearly pap test!!!"

No, daily exercise isn't a luxury. But a gym membership is.

Oops, I forgot to mention that the "trick" is fooling the boy into thinking he has a choice in what his chore is. whether he chose the easy or hard job, he's will still end up taking out the trash. Everybody loves choices.

11:13, I can definitely relate.

It seems to me that the question of whether you refer to spending time with your kids as "work" sort of misses the point. I don't, and never have, characterized it as "work" exactly, but it can be tiring and challenging in its own way for me and a lot of people. I think some people refer to it as work simply to indicate that it can be difficult and that it is what they are supposed to be doing all day, and so is in a sense their job. It doesn't mean that they don't enjoy it or value it or that they necessarily think its the same as working in a traditional paid job (though I realize that some do).

Ahh, to be immortalized in a Stephen King novel. I could die happy.

The way my husband stole me from another man was by showing me his collection of all of Stephen King's books in hardcover. The way to this woman's heart is through her, uh, eyes?

"Geez, talk about angry and hostile. Jayne hasn't said anything even remotely deserving of this comment."

WHAT? She said SAHM's "turn her stomach". This blog is sooooooooo about WOHM's justifying their choices by putting SAHM's down. (There are a few SAHM's that soldier on and an even fewer # of SAHM defenders - like Fo4.) Some days the veneer is a little thicker than others, but on days like today you can see what's underneath. If Jayne was saying these harsh things about WOHM's the ENTIRE blog would be lambasting her. I'm out...

"Sad," it seems like you might be lumping me with the "gripers." Absolutely. SURE I gripe. I definitely gripe. OK, so life is not fair, and sometimes marriages fail. And I do recognize that I am lucky --- my kids and I are healthy, we are not poor, etc. But yes, I do gripe, because I am sick and tired of SAHMs complaining about how hard they have it. It's not that hard, people! I don't view spending time with my kids as work, either. So why do the SAHMs act so miserable?

amnesiac, actually the thing that jumped out of your first post to me was that I don't understand why you call those people friends or continue to hang out with them. They obviously just make you bitter and don't seem to have any real empathy towards you. Maybe you should cut ties and get some friends whose situations are more like yours, then you can focus on the good things in your life and not be distracted by what the people you find so frustrating say and do.

Fof4, mine does it for Dr. Pepper, but same deal - I love having a kid who can take out the trash for me! She whines a bit about also having to feed the dogs and cat, but when it's a choice betwen that and having to vaccum the house and fold the laundry, she's happy to be ouside hauling the trash can to the street. Can't wait for her to start volunteering to cook dinner, too - then maybe I'll finally get the house clean!

Sad, funny you should say that. Over the past four years since my divorce I have indeed distanced myself from some people for that very reason. But going through a divorce and losing many things (a husband, a certain standard of living, a house) makes you not want to purposely lose other things, such as friends. It's too much loss all at once. So you hang onto friendships hoping things will work out. But as time goes by, you realize you are growing apart because yes, you are tired of that friend complaining about things when she obviously can't relate to what I am doing. I happen to live in a fairly affluent suburb of NYC, and was lucky enough to stay in it after my divorce (but only by going back to work and combining my income with the support I get from my ex). I did that so my kids could stay in the area in which they have grown up and so they can attend excellent public schools. The drawback is, of course, that I am in a social group made largely up of these very entitled SAHMs. I welcome reality checks that consist of working moms who know how hard it is. The irony is, of course, that we're all working too hard to get to know each other.

Why does this discussion have to be a spitting contest on who does the most work? Is the parent who "works" the most then crowned the best parent? Clearly, there are times during the day when a SAHP is off the clock, and the same goes for the WOHP. I am more interested in how they calculated these figures. Commuting time -- is that considered work? Driving the kids to school? Going to Target? I would vote that the Target visit with kids is definitely work! I enjoy cooking dinner so I spend more time at it the average person -- does that count as work or leisure?

I've done both and I wouldn't say one is harder than the other. They are just hard in very different ways and I think this results in using your time in different ways. When I was WOH, I spent a lot less time cleaning the house. We did "triage" cleaning: dishwashing,laundry, really gross messes on the floor, and some basic routine hygeine stuff like toilets and bathtubs. Now I actually try to keep the place tidy, make the beds every day, and cook a real supper (with veggies!). "Triage Cleaning" freed up time for things like chasing my toddler around the house trying to get him dressed, fed, toothbrushed, lunch packed etc by 7:45 am every day. Now that I'm SAH, he gets dressed whenever, but he spends a lot more time doing things like painting, playdoh, etc, that generate mess that I then have to sweep or mop up. Now, we generate three times as many bags of trash per week as when I WOH.

I would say that there's less time to oneself when WOH, because you have to cram household work into the ends of the day, and because readying kids for daycare adds work that is absent when SAH. But I think the standards are different and thus time spent on housework is different. Maybe other WOH do more housework than I did when WOH, but I don't see how they could do as much as I do now that I am SAH. I think SAH have less control of their time, because it is dependent on their kids' needs. When you're home with kids, especially little ones, your potty break/lunch/cup of coffee or whatever, may have to wait until you've managed the cookie-tantrum, the no-tv-tantrum, the picking-up-little-brother-by-his-feet tantrum, the climbing-the-kitchen-counters-to-get-to-the-marshmallows tantrum, and the baby's exploding diaper; it may be an hour before you get to go potty! I think such scheduling problems add to SAH mom's feelings that they have no time. Little kids just need constant supervision. I also think managing small children is mentally very challenging: they are not built for cooperation and they need a lot of help to do basic tasks that older people take for granted. I think when SAH there's very little time to complete any train of thought, because except on rare occasions it tends to be broken into 5 minute intervals, and this produces a feeling of not having "time to oneself".
I hear my munchkins calling me! Bye!

It is so stupid to say that about Jayne. She didn't say anything hostile. If you don't agree, refute her argument, but don't say she is angry. That is the dumbest thing people do on this blog.

You are ANGRY! Good comeback!

Cooking is fun. cleaning up afterwards is work.

very true, amnesiac, and I really sympathize with you on that point. I hope that things get better and you find some other WOH moms that you can find time to do things with.

thanks, Sad. That's one reason I read this blog (up to now always as a lurker), even though I live in the NYC area and it's mainly read by people in the DC area. There are relatively few places to get intelligent, reasoned opinions/fellowship on this situation. Most of the divorce support groups I found consisted of older women with kids out of high school, not women in their 30s. So finding support was/is difficult. I am still the only divorced woman in my social circle. I guess that's good, but it is lonesome. Thank you for your kind comments.

"I welcome reality checks that consist of working moms who know how hard it is. The irony is, of course, that we're all working too hard to get to know each other."

Amnesiac, I can really sympathize on this point. I have some fantastic friends who are SAHM (not at all entitled like the people you describe), but as I have moved back to working I've found it difficult to relate, particularly because they are able to focus so much time on parenting and child development issues and research and follow a particular style of parenting and so on - things for us are a lot more haphazard in that regard and we just kind of take it as it comes. It's been a real pleasure to get to know some other families that are more like ours, and we're slowly finding ways to spend time together. One of the best things has been getting comfortable enough with a family on our street that we can just order takeout together or have them over for a very thrown-together dinner, with no need to clean up first or plan something special - it takes no extra time for us but provides a great outlet for the kids and the adults.

I've been thinking about the notion that SAH moms in the 60s spent the same amount of time with their children as working moms do today, and I can easily see how it's possible. First of all, once you're in school, that's a big chunk of your day, so whether mom works or not, you won't be spending those hours with her.

At that time our extended family all lived in driving distance, so you might get dropped off at Grandma's or Auntie's for the weekend quite often. I think that extended-family closeness was more common back then than it is now, so that might be another reason why parents today spend more time with their kids -- fewer options for getting rid of them! (I joke because I love, people. I love my kids, I promise.)

Also, I think back then there was not such a social stigma on letting your kids play unsupervised outside, compared to now. I remember hanging out all around the neighborhood with my friends from a very young age, with no one's mom in sight, even though many of them were SAH. Back then it was "go wherever you want, just be back by 6:00." Now, that's not so common. There's always someone's mother keeping an eye out the window and rules about how far away you can wander.

My own mother worked some of the time and stayed home some of the time. But I don't really recall any difference in the amount of time she spent with me. I spent most of my time either in school or with my friends instead.

amnesiac, by the way, I hope that last post didn't sound like I was saying our situations are the same and you should do what we are doing, I can see that your situation has a lot of particular challenges that I'm not facing. Just that one bit jumped out as something we're working on too.

Megan, no, I didn't see it that way. I know what you're saying. My best friend is the one person who I knew pre-divorce who also now empathizes and who also works (granted, as a teacher in our town, so she's fortunate to get summers off and gets out of work at 3pm with a 5-minute commute, so she acknowledges that she has me beat with my 1.5-hour each-way commute). She and I do relate well to the craziness of it all -- of parenting, of working outside the home, etc. We have done the whole pizza night/let-the-kids-run-wild-in-the-basement thing on a few occasions, and it feels great. She understands my feelings about these things better than just about anyone. I think some of it comes from her background --- she went to an elite private college but grew up in a working-class family, and never attained that annoying sense of entitlement that so many people in our area somehow did. I'm not talking about super-rich people, either, by the way--- just upper middle-class people who ACT like they're on "Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous" half the time.

No two kids are the same, no two couples are the same, no two jobs are the same. Being a SAHP of two toddlers is different from being a SAHP of a high school student, which is different from being a SAHP of a special needs child.
Most of us are making decisions based on our own unique situation, not those of our neighbors.

Last night, a local (elderly,
unmarried, male, and child-free)
radio talk show host brought this
study to the fore. His angle was
that if parents are spending as much time or more than those in the 1950s, why are kids so deprived/underachieving at this time? Some callers thought it was the "helicopter parenting" that led us to believe kids aren't doing as well; kids in the 50s weren't hovered over/smothered by parents -- who today have more $$$ and may be trying to make-up
for time away from home by focusing on kids. Others said the media was at fault for focusing on this apparent underachieving/problem child phenom. One said kids were just as difficult in the 50s, but the media/parents didn't focus on it. A strong middle class at that time and everyone having a place and role and apparently knowing they should keep their place glossed over what eventually blew up in the 1960s. A lot has changed. The genie is out of the bottle. Women are not "knowing their place" and that has changed the dynamic -- of everything. Some on the right still wish everyone "knew their place" but we've already reached a new place in time and society. Witness, too, the other recent study on married people being a slight but distinct minority. The kicker on one story I read on that was "The Ozzie and Harriet era is dead."
Indeed, it is. In many ways.

Father og 4, I definitely agree! That's why I do the cooking and my husband does the dishes. He thinks he's getting off easy!

Father of 4, I definitely agree! That's why I do the cooking and my husband does the dishes. He thinks he's getting off easy!

A day in my life starting with getting to the metro station...

I leave the house to start my two mile walk to the metro (can't afford a gym and I'm short on time, so I fit exercise in where I can). Ride the metro to work and walk the 1/2 mile to my building.

My daughter calls me at 2:30ish to let me know she is on her way home (about a mile -- we live "too close" for the bus route.)
3:30, 4:00ish... I get a call, "Mom, I don't understand XYZ on homework."...spend a few minutes helping her and hang up. I'll get another call or two in the next 2 hours.

Take the metro home and get home around 7:00 (yes, I walk home from the metro too.) I walk in the door and immediately start to cook dinner as I am bombarded with, "Mom, can you check this?"

9:30 - If I am lucky, homework is done and she is getting to bed. If I haven't done so already, I get out of my work clothes. I clean the kitchen, tidy up around the house, catch up on the news, pick out something to wear the next day, and around midnight to 1:00, I go to bed.

My alarm goes off at 5:30 in the morning. She wakes up at 5:45. We finish up any homework that is left over from the night before. And check the work that is already done. As she is getting ready, I pack her lunch. 7:15 - I drop her off at school, come home to park the car and head out myself on my two mile treck.

Am I jealous of my SAHP friends? Absolutely. Do I hold grudges against them, nah. It gives me hope that one day maybe I will have the luxury of choosing to to stay at home. Do I think I work harder than them? Perhaps some of them...but not all of them... but it really depends on what they do with their time at home. I know that I want to be a SAHM, but I can't afford to (single mom, no support). I also know that I would be just as busy as I am now, if I was a SAHM -- if I wasn't working for an income, I would definately be vounteering my time - and my life would be just as hectic.

We all "work". That work can be defined as for income or not. Some of us are better at staying home and some are better working outside. It's a balance remember? You can't say that all WOHP work harder and all SAHP live in the lap of luxury. We all have to do what fits our own lives. Why begrudge the people who are lucky enough to have a choice to stay at home?

And as far as spending more time with our kids -- quality not quantity. A quote from the NYTimes article is, ""I cook less," Ms. Curtis said. "I exercise less. And I do a lot of multitasking. When my son is at soccer practice, I sit on the sidelines grading papers. I have no time for personal relaxation."" ...ummm, how is it considered spending time with your children when you are grading papers? Wouldn't that be the same as me taking personal phone calls while in a meeting? Well maybe not that extreme... I understand multitasking... but what happens when your kids makes the winning goal, but you only look up from grading papers in time to see the high fives? I commend her for doing two things at once, but in my eyes spending time means exclusively spending time with your child or children.

That being said, I think that if we really want to look at the "time spent" with our children, we have to look at alot more than just time. I don't consider cooking dinner while she practices her musical intrument "spending time with her." Talking at dinner, or when we can fit it in, a walk after dinner -- that is spending time with her.

So I agree with experienced mom at 8:47, always question statistics. The reports are only as good as how the data is framed.

What a lot of bickering this morning! LOL! I will be the first to say that I probably work less than everyone. My house is a mess and I haven't cooked a meal in years. My husband does all the cooking. When the house is too messy, we just ignore it. We are swamped by junk mail and catalogs...perhaps we will turn into the Collyer brothers?! We thought about hiring someone to clean but we don't want him/her to tell everyone what slobs we are. I can't wait until the baby is big enough to start picking up after us. I do actually get stuff done at work in between posting to this blog.

Relax folks. Everyone is working and trying to do the best they can. Is there some grand prize that I am unaware of for working the most or having the cleanest house?!

(...and by dirty I don't mean CPS-is-coming-to-take-my-child-away kind of dirty! Just so ya know.)

Okay... everyone is probably going to jump on me for this, but I'm really interested in hearing people's opinions considering the comments today that staying home is a luxury. My mom was SAHM when I was growing up and I know that, at least when we were little (3 kids), they didn't have a lot money. But my mom has always maintained that "everyone can afford to be a SAHM." While this is obviously an overstatement and wouldn't apply to single parents, her point, and I think it is an interesting one, is that people can cut back to make it happen if they really want it... live in a smaller house or cheaper city, only buy used cars, take fewer vacations, etc. It seems that, at least for middle class familes, this may not be THAT inaccurate. What does everyone else think?

I find it interesting that the number of hours a SAHP works was challenged when the number of hours a WOHP wasn't.

I don't find either hard to believe, although I am kind of suspicious of the attempt to count the hours outside of "paid work" at all.

If I am playing with my son, I'm having fun and it's not necessarily "work" - BUT it is not like I can walk away from him (he's 14 months old) and go get my hair done instead. So is that work? I would pay a nanny for that time.

When I have a day where I am working for pay for a lot of hours, coming out of my office and playing with my son is a break. But on a day when my son is teething and I have to be on with him all day, working a few hours at night is a break.

It's very relative, what's "work" and what's not, if you take out the pay factor. /Especially/ when it comes to kids.

I sort of think it's comparing apples to oranges. To my mind they really are two different lifestyles, and working part-time from home is a weird mesh of the two.

However, having said that, a lot of people who have chosen to stay home or (as in my case) reduce their paid working hours do it because they find the pace of full-time work + childrearing to be too frantic for them. (And they are lucky enough to have the choice.) I know that's one reason I did, along with several other reasons.

So I don't think it's rocket science that work out of the home parents are busier.

Homes with children in them get messier (houses with children in daycare only get dusty)

******************

If only that were true, my life would be a lot easier. I could just run a quick Swiffer over everything and then plop down to watch Desperate Housewives!

Hi. Newbie here.

In response to gradstudent's post, yes, I do believe that to be true for certain families. In fact, that is exactly how we live our lives. I'm not the type of woman who feels she needs everything new, shiny, or big. We'd be in debt up to our noses, and it's just not worth it.

Now, that does not mean I don't desire a new car or bigger house. Sure, who wouldn't? But being constantly strapped and stresed over the payments just wouldn't be worth it to me. I've seen marriages fail for this very reason, and it's not pretty. We're comfortable, and that's more important, in the grand scheme of things.

to grad student:

what your mother's theory fails to take into account is (1) the explosion in the cost of housing (2) the explosion in the cost of health care and (3) wage stagnation. It is simply not possible for many, many middle class people to live on one salary, no matter how much they cut back on lifestyle "extras." Yeah, if you're lucky enough to have bought a home 15 years ago, or if you're lucky enough to have an employer who gives you full health insurance at an affordable cost, you might be able to raise a family on one salary. But for others (like myself), it's just not possible. We don't have a McMansion -- we live in an apartment. We don't take lavish vacations or eat out in fancy restaurants. We have over $80,000 in debt from a medical problem three years ago that our crappy insurance didn't fully cover. We both have to work to get by. I am sure our situation is far from unique!

"live in a smaller house or cheaper city, only buy used cars, take fewer vacations, etc."

Have less saved up for retirement, contribute less to the kids' college education, have less savings in case of disability or illness, be screwed if the breadwinner is laid off or fired, be screwed in the case of divorce... Yeah, it's possible.

Amy Dacyczyn went hardcore on saving money so she and her husband could both be home with the kids. One of the things she did was tell her kids that she'd only drive them to a friend's house once a month. Me, I think that if you want to stay at home and live out in the boonies of Maine, you've got something of an obligation to make sure that your kids' social life isn't drastically stunted as a result.

Could we afford for my husband to stay home when we have kids? Probably, if we cut way back, stopped putting money into savings, and stopped saving for retirement. I don't think it would be all that responsible to do so, though, and I disagree that a SAHM is a luxury for anyone except the SAHM herself.

gradstudent, I've said this in the past, but I think your question really comes down to what people think its acceptable to cut back on, and in that sense I think you're right.

I know families who go without health insurance, savings, college savings, etc and who rent cheap apartments in not-so-great neighborhoods with not-so-good schools in order to have a stay at home parent. They obviously decided it was that important and are making it work, and there seems to me to be very little luxury involved. But I think many people who say it's a luxury of the rich are people who would not consider it an option to live in the circumstances the families I mentioned live in. It's a question of what each family considers essential and what is negotiable, and that will vary a lot across different families.

did anyone else notice the different wording in the comment referred to at 1:21 -- "homes" with children in them v. "houses" with kids in daycare - am I reading too much into it, or is this in itself a value judgment

I hope that my "house" is still my "home" even though I have to work outside of it to pay the mortgage

please tell me I'm reading this wrong :)

did you know that in terms of personal productivity the French are first ranked in the world?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/opinion/29krugman.html?ex=1280289600&en=3c228241f02da3b6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

and i know i would not mind more family friendly laws from our government (much touted "family values" anyone?) if they helped me lead a more balanced life.

as for the legendary french disdain of tourists, i happen to vacation there every year, and i have never experienced this proverbial disdain from french people. just another myth.

"I know families who go without health insurance, savings, college savings, etc and who rent cheap apartments in not-so-great neighborhoods with not-so-good schools in order to have a stay at home parent. They obviously decided it was that important and are making it work, and there seems to me to be very little luxury involved."

I'm sorry, but making your kids go to a crap school and living without health insurance so you can have a SAH parent is the very definition of a pointless luxury. It's the same as an E-2 in the Army going out and buying an Escalade.

GradStudent:

I think that "what you can afford" is easy to say, but is actually not that simple to define. Living in a safe neighborhood with good schools is valuable. Having retirement savings so you don't need to depend on your kids in your old age is valuable. Having enough money in the bank that you can weather a few "bumps in the road" is valuable. Being a SAHM can interfere with all of these things.

We have decided that my being a SAHM is a high priority for us, but I would never presume to tell another family that they ought to be able to "afford" it.

As for whether or not its a luxury, I guess it depends who you're comparing yourself to. For me, being able to stay home with my kids and still have health insurance, pay the mortgage, and cover the other necessities without tons of stress is a luxury. When I say that, I don't intend to show-off, I intend to be aware of my blessings. Lots of people are getting by with a lot less (and that's without even looking beyond the US).

Lizzie, I personally have a hard time relating to the decisions those families have made (though in fairness to them, I believe the schools are less of an issue because they are mostly planning on homeschooling, though I'm sure many would take issue with that as well). My point is simply that it is a matter of choices, but that many people (including myself) aren't willing to consider certain options that other people are.

While this is obviously an overstatement and wouldn't apply to single parents, her point, and I think it is an interesting one, is that people can cut back to make it happen if they really want it... live in a smaller house or cheaper city, only buy used cars, take fewer vacations, etc. It seems that, at least for middle class familes, this may not be THAT inaccurate. What does everyone else think?

Posted by: gradstudent | October 18, 2006 01:13 PM >>>>

I think many (not all, of course)dual income families could probably financially afford to have one stay home. However, I would argue that for many it isn't a question of short term finances, it is a long term question. The job market these days is so different from the 1950s. There are many more lay offs (esp. in the technology sector) and being a dual income family gives financial flexibility. It also better allows for long term financial planning (personal retirement; caring for aging, irresponsible baby boomer parents; children's education; etc).

"did anyone else notice the different wording in the comment referred to at 1:21 -- "homes" with children in them v. "houses" with kids in daycare - am I reading too much into it, or is this in itself a value judgment

I hope that my "house" is still my "home" even though I have to work outside of it to pay the mortgage

please tell me I'm reading this wrong :)"

I noticed it, but I'm still reeling from the revelation that all I have to do is dust because my kids are in day care. I'm going to have SOOOO much more free time now!!! And to think, I've been cleaning up the apparently non-existent mess this whole time!

Does anyone feel that the kids' ages matter too? No matter how much I love my kids, when they were both under 1.5 I would classify my days as very hard work. Maybe others find it easier, but for me, it was fun--but hard work.

Now that they are both preschool age, my days are fairly easy and I don't really think of my time with them as work at all.

amen 1:47 -- I'm am glad to know, though, that SAHMs can't keep their houses clean either

we really do have more in common than not

amen 1:47 -- I'm am glad to know, though, that SAHMs can't keep their houses clean either

we really do have more in common than not

The problem is that you don't need 2 professional salaries to get by and live a decent life (modest home, car, insurance, retirement, decent savings etc...) You probably need 1 1/4- 1 1/2. So when people have 2 professional incomes, they can afford a lot of the extras: nice vacations, summer camps, cable, etc... But on one salary, you can barely afford cable. So your sitting at home with nothing to do because you can't afford gas or the money to take your kid to gymboree. So what is worse? When SAH families see WOH families, they see all the little extras, and think of course they could afford to stay home. Yes, if they don't want adequate retirements, college savings, safety nets etc... So I am not sure what anyone thinks "afford to stay at home." Yes, most people (more than 50%) could eat, have some form of shelter, and a car and stay at home. I often wonder if a lot of the SAH families have college savings and retirement savings. When a $700 car repair puts them in a mind for a month or two, I would not define that as comfortable staying home. But this is American. Everyone is free to make their own choices.

I know families who go without health insurance, savings, college savings, etc and who rent cheap apartments in not-so-great neighborhoods with not-so-good schools in order to have a stay at home parent. >>>

When an emergency happens, like say bad car accident/serious illness/job loss, what do these people do? This seems very short sighted and a scary way to live.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful responses to my question. My husband and I don't have kids yet, so we haven't really had to think through what cutting back could really mean and I know my mom's theory is largely based on the fact that she is "old-school" and thinks it's better to have a SAHP. I don't really know what we will end up doing so the more information the better! Thanks!

"It also better allows for long term financial planning (personal retirement; caring for aging, irresponsible baby boomer parents; children's education; etc)."

Oh, please...not more baby boomer crap. My husband and I (baby boomers) worked for two retirements and a deferred comp. fund. Just because Madison Avenue caters to a large segment of the US population doesn't mean that we (the baby boomers) are all self serving. Mad Ave goes where the money is.

gradstudent - I think it depends a lot on housing and insurance costs, and also on what debt people are carrying, particularly in school.

I think your mother's generalization works less well now for a variety of reasons - increased housing and educational costs among them, but also what "basic needs" are.

When I was growing up we didn't have: a vcr (no rental charges), cable tv, anything but a basic phone, one car, and three pairs of shoes per child. But that was -normal-. Granted, the cost of some things (like shoes) has gone down in relative terms. But things are just plain different.

WOW I can't believe what a pissing match this has become.

Gradstudent on your question.

If I lost my job tomorrow I wouldn't be destitute. However, My husband and I both have student loans, car payments, and other bills. I refuse to drive my kid around in a used car. I buy a new car every five years. I feel that new cars are safer, and in the next four years, I'll trade my car in for a hybrid. I am not going to live in a small cramped house in a bad neighborhood either. Also my income goes a lot further than just my door step. I have my parents to think of, my nephews and nieces, and some other organization that benefit from me working. Plus, I also have myself to think of, I know people say this and other people get upset, but if my husband got killed in an accident tomorrow, I'd still be able to take care of my family. I don't find any of the above selfish in the least and I fully understand as the daughter of working class parents that some people have to work and still can't afford the things I just described.

So to answer your question, no I don't think everyone wants to or can be a SAHM. Some things just aren't worth sacrificing so your children won't have to go to day care.

To incredulous, who wrote about me: "WHAT? She said SAHM's "turn her stomach".

I don't know what's wrong with your reading skills, but I said no such thing. Go project on someone else, ok?

Maybe there's one more title to add to SAHM and WOHM. Sounds like some of the women who don't do paid work outside the home and have school-age children are essentially HOUSEWIVES.

A Housewife, in my mind, sees the older children off to school, cleans a bit (or supervises someone who cleans), volunteers, runs a couple of errands, meets a friend for lunch/coffee/tennis/whatever her pleasure, and is home when the kids get home from school.

That is different from a SAHM with young children who are with her all day while she changes diapers, feeds them 3 meals/2 snacks, entertains them, cleans the house when feasible, reads the kids books/takes them to enrichment programs/library/park and so on.

Jayne,

I see nothing wrong with your comments. Ignore the other people. I don't understand what was so offensive with your posts today. :)

To gradstudent - as you move out of the womb of college and into real world you will see that life decisions are not always so black and white. So saying that everyone can make it happen if they really want is just too simplistic. No one can venture out into their lives with a definitive road map saying, "OK, when I'm 25 I will get my perfect job and at 28 I will marry my perfect mate and then we will put together our airtight budget so that by the time we have our perfect child by 31 I will be able to SAH without any significant impact to our perfect lives . . . " No, life comes at you in different ways and you have to make choices based on your situation right then. My husband and I decided that I could SAH after the birth of our 2nd child (and subsequent layoff 1 week after returning from maternity, but that's an issue for another time) but we sold our house in VA and moved to my home state of MI so that we could afford it. Now 2 1/2 years later we are back in VA and I am back to work because our move to MI was not the best future financial decision (job security, healthcare costs, educational opportunities, etc.) for us and our kids (plus I forgot how frickin' COLD it is up there! jk!). For my life, I wanted to SAH and was willing to sacrifice for it, but once we were into it my husband and I looked down the road and decided that our family would be better off financially and emotionally if both of us worked. That being said it super suk'd going to work today because my oldest has the flu and I had to go in while my husband stayed home with him - yep - I think I will be buying a lottery ticket tonight on my way home from work . . .

"When an emergency happens, like say bad car accident/serious illness/job loss, what do these people do? This seems very short sighted and a scary way to live."

Alex. Mom, I'm not sure if this is rhetorical or if you're really asking me, but I'll answer anyway. I don't really know any of them well, but I do know that one of the husbands lost his job and they sold most of their belongings and moved in with the wife's parents (with three kids) and started looking for other income. I also think that most of the kids qualify for state-funded health insurance, but I don't know about the adults, so what they would do if one of the adults became seriously ill I do not know. I do think it's very insecure and I would find it enormously stressful. But they feel very strongly about their choices, as many of us do.

gradstudent - try living on one income now and banking the other. Then if one of you wants to stay home you will know that you can afford it and will also have a nest egg.

"I think I will be buying a lottery ticket tonight on my way home from work"

Me too, me too!

That sounds like a good idea. We have the power ball in MO.

For the record, I'm not in the "womb of college." I'm getting my master's while working full time for a government contractor. I've been working full time for over five years. I understand the real world where my husband and I have a ridiculous mortgage for a small condo, student loans, car loans, bills, family obligations, etc. However, I think there are a lot things that people don't understand (i.e. having kids, etc.) until it actaully happens to them. Never having had to decide if I could afford to be a SAHM, I've never had a response to my mom's theory. This was simply an exercise in information gathering.

Right on, Scarry, CO does too. Chances of winning 1 in 147 million, here I come!

2:38 - boy, I bet the wife's parents just loved THAT, having daughter, hubby and kiddoes just turn up on their doorstep. See, that's another thing to think of when making that SAH vs. WOH choice - if something bad happens, are you going to burden your family? Is it fair to ask family members for largesse or houseroom? Yes, we have to take care of our own, but our own shouldn't take advantage of that.

With my winnings from the lottery I am going to create the "Institute for Working Moms Who Want to Stay Home" complete with conferences (in exotic spa locales only, of course) on "Would you Rather Scrape Playdoh Off the Carpet or Sit thru Another Inane Conference Call on 'Budgets'" My Institute would work diligently towards finding the answers to the questions posted to this blog . . . anyone want to join?!? or make a contribution so that I can go back to being a SAH?

One friend of mine, (single mom) has very minimal health insurance she saves for her children. If she gets sick and stays home, she has no income, so she takes OTC medications and tries to stagger through her work shift. If her car stops working (16 years old), she gets it fixed best she can with what little emergency money she's got saved up. She walked six miles to the mechanic while pregnant when she had her car fixed last year rather than spend the money for a taxi.

There've been times she has had to decide which utility to have cut off for a month or more in order to pay more pressing bills like medication for her child. She is doing the best she can with what she has available, and hoping the worst doesn't happen to her.

Those of you complaining about the lack of "me time" you have in your busy and affluent days, or worry about how messy your house is, have no idea how bad it can actually be for those not as fortunate as you.

I hope it's not some selfish baby boomers'(parents')home to which they run.

2:51, I definitely see what you're saying. Though I would say that if the wife's parents were the source of her belief that it is that important to have SAHM, they may not see it as being taken advantage of. I don't know if that's true or not, but I think of trying to understand their choices in the same way I think of trying to understand the perspective of a very religious person - you have to look at it through their own internal logic, not yours. If her parents share the same values, then under their logic/perspective, what happened wasn't the result of bad planning or whatever, it just was a bad thing that happened. Anyway, I don't really kno