To Work or Not?

When we have these "mommy wars" discussions, it's very telling that only the stay-at-home advocates discuss the needs and best interests of children. The crowd who defends moms who work who really don't have to (which is what this article is about) talk about the mother's intellectual opportunities, fulfillment, etc. It seems like sacrificing for one's children is anathema to those who think this way.

Just sayin'. Who do you hear discussing the interests of children? We ignore them at our own peril.

Mermon: You might try reading the whole article "And give him credit: he did try to find out what effects the presence of stay-at-home dads would have on kids. The problem was, there just weren't enough stay-at-home dads to study." Respectfully, I do not think this study is sexist. I think women and men are equally capable outside the home and inside the home. The issue is that our society leans toward women staygin home and men have to wrok.

Breathtaking, insightful & timely. This level of leadership journalism is why the Press is so well respected.

Mary, you are an amateurish and opportunistic hack. A serious discussion of this subject may long overdue, but your shameless link vis a vis Sarah Palin is a political cheap shot and a testament to your very dubious investigative and analytical skills.

If anyone should take anything away from this article it should be that anyone considering starting a family should think very carefully about long range consequences.

Unlike others, I don't think this is a political jab to anyone. It simply states that children need their moms. What's so politically unnerving about that? That's just biology and science.

I'll be glad when this political race is over, so we can resume on our typical wars. I think it's ironic that we finally speak Republican about mom and their nurturing roles, and the Palin lovers are upset about an article that jabs at women and their search for success as Meryl Streep's mother character did in "Kramer Vs. Kramer."

Take away from this article that mothers are doomed to be criticized until death. No amount of motherlove will fix anything, not even money.

Would Mary Carmichael have been asked to write this story if Hillary Clinton was picked by Obama?
No.
Women who are successful will take their children to be tested if they have any concerns of learning disabilities. This is something they can afford. As such, is this research flawed? Yes. Is Mary flawed by trying to tie this to Sarah? Yes - she has nothing to do with this story. She is a successful MOTHER and EXECUTIVE. Shame on Mary.

I think this reseach study may be flawed and inaccurate. I also think the timing of such a story is just to serve the self serving interests of Mary Carmichael - who obviously wants to put all women in the dark ages. Her story is promoting that women 1) Should not get Educated and 2) If they get educated should not do anything of importance besides raise children. Mary - the writer - seems to be writing this to please her Democrat bosses, who obviously do not want women to be successful. This is another shameful BIDEN-OBAMA attack on women and should be stopped.

zMary Carmichael,, the writer of this story and obviously either a paid or unpaid blogger for Obama, is trying to tell us lies again. Mary can't get over the fact that women can do a good job both working at home and raising children. Husbands need to step up to the plate. This study does not seem to take into account divorced statistics. Also, generally people of privilege will do anything they can for their kids. They will take them for additional testing. For example, Mark who won 8 Olympic awards has AHDH. His mom works - he is still an amazing American hero.

Men need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for not just working, but being an equal family head at home. It seems that American society - or is it just writers? - who are still in the dark ages and think that child rearing is only the responsibility of the WOMEN. Researchers also are biased given that they are taking grant money to pay their salaries and do their research. While I disagree with Biden's piolicy, Biden did a good job raising his family as a single man. Its time to put the responsibility on both parties and not blame the working woman.

I'm a high-status mom with a chunky six-figure salary, I'm also divorced, with 50/50 custody. My kids, now 19 and 16, seem to be doing well in school, not into drugs, playing sports, social, fit and in good health, and fun to be around. BUT despite my job, they have always been number one. I come home in time to cook - although I might have to catch up on work in the evening. I make time for their activities, and I drop what I need to if something happens - for example, when my son, then 14 called me at work and said he'd come off his skateboard and broken his teeth, I immediately cancelled a meeting and left to take him to the dentist. Now, I work for a company that allows me flexibility and lets me manage my own time, not caring how I choose to get my work done as long as it's done. Having said that, it is not easy - it's two jobs. I have to work to support myself and do my part to provide for my kids, but if I had the choice, I would at most work part time. It is really hard, and I've dropped the ball both at work, on occasion, and at home - when my son was six, I forgot to put the easter eggs out for easter morning, and he said, deflated: ""There isn't an easter bunny, is there, It's you." I'm not a traditional cookie-making mom, but I have somehow managed to be there for my kids, for their sports, their plays, their problems, the things that matter to them, because I believe it's incredibly important for their development as happy, well-balanced adults. It is also incredibly important to me.

We will find out in Nov! weather women who work and have kids, will still be allowed to work "for the children" as Palin will put it, and has!!! when she takes back what took women 40 years to gain...Remember that ONE working parent "for the children" for most one income families, does not,, pay the bills!!!

I'm a tax attorney who worked throughout the time my husband and I raised our now 26-year-old daughter in a stable and loving environment.

But my daughter and I agree - Ruhm is right. If privileged parents want the best for their child, mom shouldn't work.

I know it's unfair. I know it doesn't necessarily seem illogical. I know it arguably wastes the intellectual capabilities of talented women. I know it's sexist.

But - and for reasons we may not entirely understand - I think it's true.

When I was a young woman starting a family, women were told - and absolutely believed - we were "superwomen" who could indeed "have it all." That the frustration and boredom that would come from not working would make us less effective parents.

Readers are free to choose whether to accept Ruhm's findings and conclusions or not. And I certainly would never second-guess Sarah Palin or any other woman who, for whatever reason, makes the decision to work outside her home.

Speaking solely for myself, however, the decision turned out to be a very poor one.

Hmm, This article fails to address the segment of homeschool moms, we work, with our children, at home.........

Why this is even an issue? If a woman learned how to read and write, went to school, collage, graduate program, got some working experience, she probably did it to be a successful and productive member of society ???not just meet a guy and have a baby. The fact that the question ??? should mothers be working ??? is still debated in the USA is appalling. No other modern society even asks this question. Of course, they should. Women, the same way as men, have some talents and skills. The question should be ??? how society can help to balance parenting and work. Should maternity leave be longer and paid? Should a woman be getting more sick days during the first year after birth of a child? What is about corporate day care? Summer camps? These should be the questions.

By Dr. Ruhm's measures I qualify as an affluent educated mother. I worked full-time until my first child was born, and then worked part-time for 8 years. After years of working in part-time positions with no benefits, I quit to become a stay-at-home mom. I was curious so I googled Dr. Ruhm's study and read through it. He doesn't focus on families with incomes over $300,000 per year--the "high status" moms in his study had some college education and family incomes around $56,000 per year. His conclusions showed that kids from families with an educated mother and a higher income did better overall on measures of academic performance and obesity than kids with less affluent and educated mothers. This held true whether the mothers of more affluent families worked or not. He found that children of less affluent families tended to have better outcomes when their mothers worked part-time rather than full-time. The same held true for the children of affluent mothers--the kids whose mothers worked part-time had better outcomes than those working 40 or more hours a week. The key difference (and the one causing all the fuss) was his conclusion that children from affluent families with moms at home had higher academic achievement and much lower obesity rates than the children of women who worked 40 hours or more per week. The Newsweek article failed to emphasize that the children of affluent moms who work part-time have results that fall between these two extremes--they still have higher academic achievement and lower obesity rates than the children of moms who work full-time. Based on his results, I think the discussion really ought to focus on the need for better part-time work options for mothers of young children. I would have continued working had I felt I had any viable option besides full-time work or a dead end part-time job.

If everyone (mother and father) would put the care of their own families and children first and forget about their own selfish gains then we would have a peaceful world.