To Work or Not?

The main reason so many women have found it more economically plausible to stay home than have the father figure stay home is that we, as women, statistically, with the same education, etc. make less money than males. If it were the other way around, I'm sure it would be more likely to find men staying home. In addition, we, on average, have a lower level of education (not counting current college enrollment).

Another point I would like to make is that I came from an "affluent" family (we never needed anything), and my mom worked full time (WAY more than full time) and so did my dad. My brother and I were born in the early 80s and have both become well adjusted, productive members of society, with degrees, etc.

Maybe one of my parents didn't HAVE to work, I definitely had more responsibilities than other kids in my cohort, but that is probably also the reason that I have become that productive member of society.
PS--I know this isn't entirely relevant but here goes: my parents made sure that I got proper biologically correct sexx ed both IN SCHOOl aand at home

I left a full-time job years ago to raise my three children, two of whom have autistic spectrum disorders. I've put most of my time, energy and focus on running a home, caring for my kids and providing support so my husband could build a successful career. It's a myth that women can have it all; something's gotta give. I was unwilling to have my chldren suffer because I was absent during these crucial years of their development.

Why would the author suggest that the findings are surprising? I'm not surprised that children who are home with educated mothers do better than kids home with poorly educated nannies or in daycare with mostly uneducated carers. Kids home fulltime with a poorly educated mother will obviously get less stimulation than a child in daycare who has access to a wide range of developmental toys and perhaps a child development expert on staff. This is common sense.

I spent years coaching youth sports in a town with a LOT of upper income families and a LOT of middle and lower income families. One could unfailingly pick out the kids who had both parents working, not because they had to , but because they wanted a Mercedes instead of a Ford. They were the kids constantly getting into trouble, and otherwise looking for attention. Kids are smart. They figure out early on when Mommy and Daddy both work to put good food on the table and to have decent homes with the basics. They also figure out early on when both Mommy and Daddy work because they want luxury items, or the country club membership, or just because they like the recognition of success. In other words, the kids figure out when they are not as important to their parents as those frills. It didn't seem to matter if the Daddy or Mommy stayed at home and raised the kids , as long as one of them did.

Did anybody think that perhaps the "high-status" moms devote more time to their jobs or have more demanding jobs than the "low-status" moms and therefore don't spend the quality time with their kids that is necessary? For some moms with demanding jobs, even when they're home they're not really engaged with their kids.

Well now, how would the children in "privileged, working-mother" families do if it were more socially acceptable for daddy to stay home instead and he, in fact, did so? And why doesn't anyone ever ask these sorts of questions instead?

I'm so tired of Newsweek's obvious liberal bias, whether or not it's based on studies. We're cancelling our subscription,

Boy! These last few comments hit the nail directly on the head for me. I'm a full-time working mother by choice, as of July 1st. this year. Haven't worked in 10 years! The extra income helps a lot, especially in these strained economic times. Both my husband and take this situation very seriously and sieze on every opportunity to spend time with our daughter. It's an extreme balancing act and our daughter appears to be thriving and seems as happy as ever. I agree with InionBrigid with regard to the responsibility thing, etc. That's us to a tee!

Another B-S study by a "noted academic". More nonsense.

I don't see this being political at all. I do want to address the observation that the working-class kids of working mothers did better than the affluent-class kids of working mothers. From my own experiences, I'm inclined to think that some of that might have to do with "mommy-guilt"; a working-class mom knows she's doing what's needed for her family, so she has less problem with teaching her children responsibility, giving them chores, independence, etc. - all of which encourage children to be stronger, more self-reliant. An affluent-class mom, in contrast, has that social undertone of "but you don't *really* have to work", and so tends to go overboard in trying to buy too much, give too much, indulge too much - and the children fail to thrive under these circumstances.

I don't see this being political at all. I do want to address the observation that the working-class kids of working mothers did better than the affluent-class kids of working mothers. From my own experiences, I'm inclined to think that some of that might have to do with "mommy-guilt"; a working-class mom knows she's doing what's needed for her family, so she has less problem with teaching her children responsibility, giving them chores, independence, etc. - all of which encourage children to be stronger, more self-reliant. An affluent-class mom, in contrast, has that social undertone of "but you don't *really* have to work", and so tends to go overboard in trying to buy too much, give too much, indulge too much - and the children fail to thrive under these circumstances.

My wife has nannied for both middle class families and high class families. The most noticeable difference was that the high class moms often asked her to stay even after the moms had come home from work. To use a bit of candor, the high class moms seemed unwilling to spend time with their kids even after returning home from work. Basically these high class moms had glorified dog walkers to care for their kids, and because they can afford it, decide to extend their nanny's duration of daily care. I agree with breakoutofthebox.

jblackwell88, perhaps you don't understand economics. Labor follows the same natural laws of supply and demand as any other commodity. Wages in this country have severly diminished due to the incredible influx of female workers since the 60's. This is not a "bad" thing, just an unconvenient truth. If labor demand increases because of men or women leaving the workforce, then wages will increase also (assuming the economy is stable, which it is not right now).

I have always been supporter of mothers staying home to care for their kids. Not because I'm sexist, but because there should be no other job on Earth deemed more valuable than raising the future of this nation and planet. I personally feel that women are better at this job than men; however, I know that there are exceptions.

If you are rich and can afford a nanny, please do not choose haphazardly. Do not hire a college student who will watch your kid for one year, grow close personal bonds with them, and then leave. Do some research. If you aren't willing to parent, find someone who is for the duration of your kids' childhood.

I know I'd feel awful if I had somebody else raise my kid(s) instead of me,, which is what the selfish parents are doing today by both working.. And cheating both ends..