Throwing this out for debate. Time magazine has an article about a book written by a woman who basically says that women are waiting too long to have kids. They've concentrated on their careers for so long that when they decided to have kids, they had problems conceiving, and some end up childless, but not by choice. Feminists say the book is sexist.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020415/story.html

By Loving2 on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 02:52 pm:

I just got my Time magazine Sunny. I'll have to read the article later & come back here to discuss it.

By Pamt on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 03:48 pm:

I'll have to say that the article was definitely slanted to the "women can have it all" side. To some degree that is true and I have experienced some sense of that personally. However, it is largely a myth. Sacrifice is involved in parenting---that's a key ingredient. I have a bachelor's and master's degree, as does my husband. He is the breadwinner. I have always worked part-time or been a SAHM since having our 2 boys. We were married straight out of college at age 22 after having dated since we were 17. My dh worked as an insurance adjustor to put me through graduate school (2 yrs.), then I worked full-time as a speech pathologist to put him through seminary (3 yrs.) We had our first son 9 months before my dh graduated when we were both 26 years old. I had to keep working then since I was the breadwinner at that time, but I decreased my hours to 30/week and we sucked up the lack of $$. Since dh was nearing the end of school, he only had class 3 days a week. My best friend kept the baby 3 days/wk and dh was a SAHD the other 2. Worked great for us. After he graduated I was a SAHM exclusively for about a year. Then I started gradually taking part-time speech clients during my son's nap. I have worked 10 or fewer hrs a week since that time until last year when I started working 20 hrs a week now that both of my boys are in school. I am also in my second semester of working toward my doctorate in communication disorders. I am a "professional" woman with 2 children, a solid marriage, and a husband who is thankfully NOT a workaholic and puts family as a priority. We would both quit a jobs in a heartbeat if that were not the case.

All this a long-winded way to say that I feel I have achieved both a family and a career. However, the "feminists" in this article would think that I have sold out. Have I?? Yes! BUt I've sold out to my family. I have missed opportunties to be the director of my department (increasd $$ and prestige) because I was not willing to change my status to full-time. My benefits aren't as great and I could make lots of money if I worked full-time. I am a VERY acheivement-oriented person and those who knew me in highschool would flip out to know that I chose family over career. My thought is that by having children early, I'll still be young enough when my nest is empty to really expand my career, if I so choose. However, I might just open a quilt shop and dh wants to own a hotdog stand--LOL. I will be 47 when my youngest son graduates highschool and that still gives me tons of options...instead of regretting that I put children as a last priority and was more concerned with career. Life is filled with choices and I am so thankful that my having children was a big priority early on. I had a hard tinme waiting as long as we did--LOL.

I've been down the infertility road with several friends (usually much younger..late 20s and early 30s) and it is a painful road. However, the reality is that for these older women it will be much harder to conceive and their energy level has decreased too. I think it was cruel of that woman in the article to be 51 and have a 4 y/o, esp when she has several other children. She's gonna be 60 when that child is 13. I'm 34 and my parents aren't even in their 60s yet!! I could go on....but I'll stop here. Interested to read other responses.

By Melissa on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 06:50 pm:

I agree with Pam. I don't think you can have it all.( at least not all at once) I've been thinking about this recently as several of the practioners I work with keep encouraging me to go back to school and get my N.P. certification. (right now I am a women's health counsellor) If I knew then what I know now I would have done the N.P. thing before I had kids, but I didn't. My sister says so what go now Lexi will adjust, happy mommy == happy kid.
I think that is true to a point, but I'm not unhappy and I don't need to do this financially.
So how can I justify all the time Lexi would lose out on by my doing this intensive program? I don't think I can. So maybe when she's older or graduated but for now she has to be my #1 priority.

By Ginnyk on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:01 pm:

I do wish writers would not try to pit SAHMS against WOHMs. But, anything for a buck, I guess. There are families where mom stays home, or works only part time, and puts her career on hold, and it works fine - if mom doesn't resent it. And there are families where mom is a full time WOHM and the kids are in daycare, and that works fine - as long as mom isn't constantly wishing she were home with her kids. (There are even some families where dad is the houseparent - but not many.)

Some women who have children are simply driven batty by staying home full time, and they should definitely get a job and use day care. And others who work full time are on the phone to their kids 10 times a day, fretting and worrying, and if at all possible they should stay home.

But all of those choices are choices made by families based on who the people are, what they can live with, their financial needs, etc. I think a WOHM is just as good a mom as a SAHM, but she will miss some things in her childrens' lives, without question. And I think SAHMs are just as bright and skilled and ambitious as WOHMs, but have made a choice that makes sense to them, and who am I to question or criticize.

I was a SAHM until my youngest was 7, then became a single parent and a WOHM. Do I have regrets - some, but not many. And those regrets are not based on whether I was a SAHM or WOHM, but other things I did in relation to my children.

One thing I found very interesting - when my youngest was about 3, I was chatting with people and talking about wanting to go back to work, and everyone I spoke with was adamant that I should be at home for my children. But when my dh lost his job and we were on welfare (youngest about 3-1/2), almost everyone who knew of our circumstances asked me, since my dh was not being successful in his job searches, why didn't I get a job? What had changed ? Did my children not still need me at home?

This contrast in attitude always amazes me. On the one hand, some of our political leaders speak so strongly of the value of family - but on the other hand, they say that every woman on welfare, even those with preschool age children and even if adequate day care is not available, should get a job. And they are not satisfied with the woman being in training or school so she can eventually get a real job that pays a living wage and has prospects for growth and financial improvement. She should get a job immediately, at minimum wage, because being on welfare is so terrible for her family.

Now, if she is lucky enough to then marry a man who makes a good wage, lots of people will then say that for the sake of family values she should quit her job and stay home with her children.

Go figure.

By Jann on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 08:16 pm:

I saw the author on a talk show being interviewed. She said that she started out writing a book about successful women and what traits they share in common in hopes of writing a sort of self help book for women not a book to pit sahm and wohm. One of the most prevalent common traits she found among these women were the fact that they were childless. My understanding in listening to the author being interviewed was that her point was that women have been served a raw deal. That for years they were told they could postpone their childbearing so that they could acheive career status, and then, once acheived they could start their families. In doing so, many women found themselves at the age of 40 being unable to conceive.
Her point, from my understanding, was that women CAN have it all, just don't postpone having it.


With that said, I find it interesting, at least in my experience, that the only place I have come across this sahm vs wohm rivalry is in the media. In my neighborhood, we have a good mix, and it's just not an issue. What I find more interesting and more prevalent is the age bias of young mothers vs "older" mothers. There are many women by choice or fate, who won't be "young" when their last child grows up. We are the same ages as our oldest child's friend's parents, but our youngest child's friends parents are at least 15 years younger than we are! Some even 20! They look at us like dinosaurs! LOL Conversly, I don't think that just because someone is 20, that it means that they are not "old enough" to be a good parent. There are pluses and minus, trials and bonuses to each age group when it comes to parenting.
I don't think age is the determining factor on how well someone can parent.

By Pamt on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 09:41 pm:

I have to say that I didn't interpret this article as being WOHM vs. SAHM at all. I perceived more of viewpoint that for women who wanted to work outside of the home, that the decision to bear children should come sooner than later. To me, the underlying assumption here was that the target women wanted to work...it was just a matter of how and when to fit children into the scheme of things. IMHO I think the thinking should be reversed. If you want a career then you need to focus first on the children and then on the how and when work fits in.

By Sunny on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 12:05 am:

I had it all planned. Married at 19, mom of two by 23, and then I would go to school and go out to work when the youngest started school. I almost did that, too, but it didn't work out. I applied for school after the second was born, knowing that the program I wanted to study (nursing) wouldn't start for another year and I could earn credits in the meantime to concentrate on the core subjects when they started. I ended up being put on a waiting list and didn't start the nursing courses for 2 1/2 more years. During the second semester, we bought a house, I had a miscarriage and we started having marital problems. I dropped my classes and focused on my personal life. Then, I got pregnant again, and school was put on the back burner. This time around, I planned on going back to school this Sept., but my plans changed again. I have always wanted to stay home with the kids until they were at least school-age, and I've been fortunate enough to be able to do that. I figure I can always go back to school.

I think many women were told they could delay having children until they established themselves in a career, but were never told how hard it would be to actually conceive those children and the problems they might face. I was surprised to read that a woman's fertility starts to decrease at 27! It was also mentioned that, for all the advances in infertility, the medical community can not overcome the age barrier. For women who want to have a career and children, they need this information to make an informed choice. I don't see this as wanting to back to the 50's or trying to suppress women's reproductive rights, I see it as important, biological, information that every woman who wants to have children should know.

By Jann on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 10:38 am:

Sunny, I totally agree with your last paragraph!