Women in Good Place to Leave Work
by Candice Watters on 03/28/2007 at 11:22 AM
Monday I discussed the latest findings in the NICHD longitudinal daycare study. While it's disconcerting to realize how potentially damaging daycare can be, and how many women use daycare so they can pursue their careers, it's equally heartening to learn women don't have to stay on the career track from start-to-finish after all. Women, it's discovered, are in a good position to take a break from work when their babies arrive.
In her commentary on Crosswalk.com, Janice Shaw Crouse writes:
...the playing field at work is quite level; indeed, in some instances women have a distinct advantage both in hiring and in promotion. Studies also show that highly-qualified women can jump off the fast track and then catch up when they are ready to jump back on. It’s called “off-ramping;” increasingly, talented women who want to balance career and family are taking that route.
She reports that balance is something a large number of Xers want.
According to a 2005 Harvard Business Review (HBR) study, family responsibilities are identified as the motivating force behind young careerists who choose to “off-ramp.” Gen X parents say they spend more time on child-rearing (51 percent of the women are stay-at-home moms) and household tasks than the Boomer parents (33 percent of the women were full-time mothers) did; further, they express the desire to spend more time –– especially those in the higher income brackets. The Los Angeles Times reported that fathers today are helping around the house much more than a decade ago (34 percent compared to 24 percent).
That's good news for the kids of Xers, and not surprising given all the heartache these "off-rampers" endured when their own Boomer parents followed the cultural tides of divorce and family disruption.
HBR did say it may cost a woman up to 18 percent of her earning power to leave the office for a season -- a tradeoff the women doing it consider worthwhile.
This is good news for Christian couples who want children and want mom to stay home with them while they're young. But most of all, it's good news for the children. The more moms who raise their own children, the better.
1. P&P said the following at 11:34 AM on Mar 28:
As anti-biblical as this might be to some, I think that there needs to be a greater emphasis on having fathers participate in child-rearing. I've seen that the happiest (and least stressed) families try to balance out child rearing responsibilities.
Also, I don't think it's fair to paint the results of that study with such broad strokes - if you read the childcare study closely, it empasizes the need for quality daycare. Although there is no true substitute for a caring parent, a well run daycare center will not damage your child for life.
2. Jen said the following at 12:16 PM on Mar 28:
I agree with the above poster. Why are the childcare responsibilities always considered the mother's responsibility? What about fathers staying home to take care of their children?
3. Mandi said the following at 2:03 PM on Mar 28:
Not sure why you would think it's "anti-biblical" to emphasize the need of more participation by fathers in child-rearing. The image God chooses most often to describe His love for us in the Scriptures is that of Father, after all.
But a human father's love and care are unique from a mother's. His roles are sometimes different...because of biology. There are just some things only mothers can do, especially at the infant stage. But even later, men are just wired differently and their contributions to child care -- which are essential to healthy development -- are different from a woman's, because they're men. I learned a lot about that when I read the book "Marriage on Trial" (I didn't expect to because it's a book about the case against same-sex "marriage" and parenting, but it does a great job of presenting the results of research done over the past few *decades* re: parenting).
I wish I had thought about "off-tracking" when I was choosing my path in university. But God has a way of working things out for good, even when we don't think things through properly at first. It can feel like I will be "sacrificing" at times, but even if it is, why should we find the idea of sacrifice so offensive as Christians, when our Lord taught us by example that it's the most beautiful and loving thing a person can do?
4. EmmaLee said the following at 2:42 PM on Mar 28:
Jen
I can think of one obvious reason why women have traditionally been the ones to stay at home. Until the advent of birth control and the modern idea of family planning, the majority of families quite often had new additions. As the mother was the only one capable of feeding the babies, she naturally stayed home with them. So childcare has traditionally been the womans role.
Also, I feel that the scriptures imply the separate roles of the man as the provider for the family and the woman as the caretaker. Going back to the beginning, when God punished Adam and Eve, Eve's punishment pertained to having children and Adam's pertained to working (in the fields). In Titus 2 it states that young women are to learn to love their husbands, their children, and to be discreet, chaste, homemakers. The famous Proverbs 31 woman "watches over the ways of her household". Though many people use her as an arguement for women to work, all the tasks that she performs can be done from her household.
Now, I am in no way trying to say that men are unfit to stay home with their children. Rather, men have a different role (equally important) that I believe God calls them to. Our earthly fathers are examples to us of our heavenly father. They are to be the head, the one who provides and protects, and the one who corrects out of love.
Finally, there is the generalization that women are more open about sharing their emotions and feelings. This is very good for children who need to learn emotional awareness and to see and hear affirmations of the fact that they are loved consistently. I am sure that there are men out there who do wonderfully as stay-at-home dads, but I truly believe that it is God's plan for the woman to stay home and care for her household.
5. fridge said the following at 4:07 PM on Mar 28:
I must admit I was quite disgusted with the way the childcare study was portrayed in the media. In the two online papers I read, the bold headlines announced that kids who go to long daycare have a higher risk of disruptive behaviour. Read the article, and the fine print said that this 'disruptive behaviour' effect was slight, was well within the bounds of normal behaviour, and that parents had a far stronger influence on whether a kid was disruptive or not. Furthermore, the study found that kids who go to quality daycare have a better vocabulary when they get to primary school.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21452421-2702,00.html
As for whether mum or dad or both should reduce their work hours to look after kids, I think they both need to look at their earning potential, the extent to which taking time off will disrupt their career and the availability of flexible conditions in their workplaces, and then come up with some sort of arrangement. However, in the current climate this often results in the mum - even if she earns more - taking the most time off. Because employers figure that raising kids can only ever be women's work, they're quite happy to let a new mum work 2-3 days a week when her children are young, but baulk at letting a new dad take even a day off work each week. Thus even if mum earns more than dad and likes her job more, unless Dad's going to quit his job outright to look after the kids, Mum will end up severely reducing her hours to look after the kids.
I know of a couple who were in this situation - she was a doctor and earned a lot more than he did as a public servant. She was provided with generous time off, flexible hours etc. but the most he could arrange was one day a week off work.
So in response to Candace's comments, while it is great that the workplace has evolved so that women can take time off to look after their kids with less detriment to their careers/earnings, by focusing the flexible workplace revolution on women it has only further entrenched the idea that childrearing can only be women's work. It has failed to address the fact that it may be better for some families if Dad takes primary responsibility for child rearing.
6. Iris said the following at 2:52 AM on Mar 29:
I responded in the intial post about the study. Since then, like Fridge, I have also read interviews with the study's director and more information on the numbers in the study. Again, while having children stay at home with mom is the ideal situation, it does give me some peace that the study says the differences are minimal for children who spend a limited time in childcare (and again, my girls are at a babysitter's 2 days x week where they can recieve one on one attention, which I think is the best child care situation).
7. Martha said the following at 4:28 PM on Mar 29:
My parents chose biblical priorities early on, mom was able to stay home with the four children in our family. I remember her frequently saying, "I would live in a trailer park to stay home with you guys."
Like my mother, I'm so excited about one day being a stay-at-home mom. It doesn't mean I'm stuck with no life (think of how busy the Proverbs 31 wife was!), but that I see raising godly children as one of the primary goals of my adult life. How dangerous it would be to entrust that role to a day care employee!
8. Brooke said the following at 6:38 PM on Mar 29:
These blogs have me thinking. At this point (no children), we could not live on my husband's salary alone just the two of us, in our apartment (we don't have a lot of expenses either). We want a house before we have kids, which I know will require me to work at least part-time. Is it better not to have kids if you can't stay home with them full-time?
9. Sarah said the following at 2:33 PM on Mar 31:
My fiance and I are currently wrestling through this issue. I teach full time, but I plan to stay home once we have children. In order to do this, I have to be able to rely on my fiance's income.
My fiance is working on a two-year degree but does not plan to go on for more school. (Having been homeschooled K-12, his philosophy is that he can educate himself without the expense of tuition.) Eventually, he wants to own his own business.
My concern is whether a two-year degree is enough to prepare him to provide for a family. Even if he personally is prepared, does he have the credentials to convince an employer to hire him? Am I putting too much trust in education and not enough in God's provision? Where is the line between stepping out in faith and irresponsibity/not planning ahead?