Babies at Work
by Heather Koerner on 03/31/2008 at 1:09 PM
Thought it was interesting that on the same day that Candice is answering a question from a young woman who wants to be a stay-at-home mom, USA Today prints an article titled: "Day Care's New Frontier: Your Baby at Your Desk."
The article highlights several companies who have decided on one way to avoid losing employees after childbirth: Let new parents bring the baby to work. According to the Parenting in the Workplace Institute, more than 80 companies across the nation have such policies.
Some love it.
Allie Hewlett, 33, a benefits administrator at T3, brings her 7-month-old daughter, Scout, to the office most days. Bringing Scout in, she says, helped alleviate the anguish over leaving the girl in day care, which Hewlett plans to do when Scout becomes more mobile.
Hewlett had been sharing an office with co-workers but moved to a private office now that Scout accompanies her to work. Along with her briefcase, Hewlett brought a Pack 'n Play, an Exersaucer, a bouncy swing and other baby paraphernalia that she set up beside her desk.
"Scout is so well-adjusted, and people come over all the time to play with her. They jump at the chance to watch Scout if I have a phone call," Hewlett says.
Others have their doubts.
The babies-at-work trend is drawing criticism on several fronts. Bringing children to the office — whether once in a while or every day — raises legal concerns for employers, creates a distraction that can undermine workers' productivity and may not be the best environment for a baby to get interaction and stimulation, critics say.
"The reality is, the parent can't pay 100% attention to the job, and the child is often distracting to other employees," says Robin Ryan, a career coach.
This sounds like an arrangement I would have thought of as ideal ... that is, before I had kids. Continue my professional life without having to leave my baby in day care? Perfect! But then, as they say, reality hits. In those first months of life, while trying to fulfill my infants' needs, I barely found time in the day to get a shower, much less take care of them and work my full-time job.
It reminds me of what one friend confided recently. She is working a part-time arrangement, two days and two evenings, while staying at home with her infant son the other three working days. "I don't feel like a good mother and I don't feel like a good employee," she said. "When I'm doing one, I'm always thinking about the other."
It seems like these employers' attempted solution does continue to highlight one thing: New parents, most especially new moms, want to be with their babies. It's so important, I think, to understand that before you have kids. I'd recommend giving Candice's advice a read.
1. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:40 PM on Mar 31:
That's definitly not the best idea...I mean, mothers with young children are getting less sleep, too. How productive can they really be?
I was just thinking about that...I mean, I barely have the time to clean my home after work as it is...let alone get dinner ready and such. And to add a baby to that equation without taking time out of work? Even if you do bring the baby with you...you aren't raising your child, your simply giving in to your need...not meeting the child's need...
2. Louise said the following at 1:45 PM on Mar 31:
IMO, regularly having children in an office (unless there in an actual segregated day care center with hired workers) is not appropriate.
Having other employees "watch your child while you take a phone call" is an imposition on the other employees and a distraction to the office environment.
I would never tolerate this in the workplace.
3. Anna said the following at 1:58 PM on Mar 31:
Wow. Work is stressful enough without the added strain of concurrent parenting! I think it says a lot though about the plight of working moms today...even if they enjoy and desire to stay in the workplace in some capacity, they still wish to have their children near.
Sometimes it seems that many of the "work-life balance" solutions I hear about for women really aren't so much about balance at all. It's more like seeing how much you can take away from family to give to work and seeing how much you can take away from work to give to family, all while keeping everyone "happy." Seems like an impossible task in some situations.
As a woman laywer, our demographic get asked constatntly how we can achieve more balance with a family and an hours-intensive job. And people offer lots of solutions. Still, I feel like it's hard enough to have work-life balance now, and I am single with no kids! I don't deny that it's possible to find some kind of balance between a very hours-intensive job and a family, but I just don't think that's the type of "balance" I want...balance that keeps everyone just satisfied enough with me while completely spazzing me out just doesn't seem appealing!
4. Laura_MH said the following at 2:27 PM on Mar 31:
I fall into the "Others have their doubts" category.
In the original posting, does Allie work a much longer day at the office to compensate for the interruptions and attention that her daughter needs? As a supervisor, I would want my employees to have good stretches of uninteruupted time where they can be productive. Does anyone remember the old theory that says, it takes X minutes to re-focus and get yourself back on task, once you get interrupted at work? (Not that we all shouldn't take breaks during the day, but I think you get the idea.) And I wouldn't like the fact that, "...people come over all the time to play with her. They jump at the chance to watch Scout if I have a phone call." That's a *good* thing? So much for everyone else's productivity.
I am all for FMLA and other accommodations that our society makes for families. But this is really going too far. Seems like every little accommodation in the workplace these days is for working parents, the childless get completely ignored. I would not like to be Allie's co-worker or boss.
5. Sarah22 said the following at 2:35 PM on Mar 31:
I actually know of a girl I grew up with who does this, not only that, but she works in a physician's office and sees PATIENTS. I find this absolutely ABSURD. I was actually quite incensed when I heard about it and could hardly wrap my mind around the idea. My first thought was that I was deeply saddened for the baby as there's no way he's getting the attention, stimulation and interaction that he desperately needs. The second thought I had was what kind of employer would allow this and what does the customers think when they see a woman carrying around her baby while trying to do her job? Again, it's the American idealism that “I can have it all” and it is so unrealistic. Someone always suffers and in this case it's both the Mother and the child. The fact that this is happening is truly sad. I am opposed to letting someone else raise one’s children, but even daycare would be marginally better than bringing your baby to work if there was "no other choice" (although there always is if one is open to sacrificing things). I once worked with a lovely woman who had a 4 year old and a baby on the way and I know she loved her family. However I knew for a fact that she did not make a massive income, and she was fairly open with admitting that the only reason she worked full time was so that her and her husband could have “extras” (new bigger home with a pool, fancy SUV for her to drive, nice vacations, etc.). I just could never wrap my mind around sacrificing time with your children for some added luxuries in your life and it really saddens my heart.
6. Adam T. said the following at 2:37 PM on Mar 31:
"I don't feel like a good mother and I don't feel like a good employee," she said. "When I'm doing one, I'm always thinking about the other."
And of course, there are elements in our society that will say that the above sort of guilt or tension exists mostly because it's a construct of conservatives/Christians/whoever.
7. a sassy sister said the following at 4:37 PM on Mar 31:
Ok,
I have a question about this post....
we always talk about the work/home balance for women, but what about work/home balance for men? Our society still subsconsciously believes that a woman's place is in the home, and that belief projects itself in the current "mommy wars" debate in the past decades, continuing today. What makes it even worse is that there are FEW articles and questions FOR MEN who spend more time at the office than they do at home. Why? I honestly couldn't tell you, but could the fact that our culture still has a hazy definition of what fatherhood is?
8. Tami said the following at 4:39 PM on Mar 31:
Perfect! Baby can learn to do little tasks around the office! It's never too early to start building up that resume!
[P.S. if it's not obvious -- I'm totally joking. I think this is a bad idea for all involved, not to mention a lawsuit/OSHA issue just waiting to happen. Though, interestingly, my old office building had a "nursing room," which did get used.]
9. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:51 PM on Mar 31:
I've yet to see anyone realize success being full-time career woman, full-time mother, and full-time wife. I've seen two of the three work, but never all three at the same time.
One of the smartest (and most driven) women I know--a physician whose undergrad degree was in chemical engineering--couldn't even do it. She moved her medical practice back to part-time.
10. Kellie said the following at 6:16 PM on Mar 31:
My job isn't one where you could bring a kid to work, but lots of moms(and dads) work from home once they have kids and they still seem to be productive.
11. Kellie said the following at 6:20 PM on Mar 31:
I'm also not really sure what Heather intended with her comment about her friend. That working moms are doomed to be bad parents and bad employees? Not every Christian woman is going to be a SAHM. Could Boundless stop with the guilt trips already?
12. Chrysti said the following at 8:16 PM on Mar 31:
Granted, I don't have kids yet, but if I were to bring my baby to work, he/she would be too much of a distraction to me and to my students (I'm a teacher). I don't think it's a good idea. Although, it is nice that parents are a little more willing to spend time with their babies...
13. Christina said the following at 8:17 PM on Mar 31:
Sassy Sister,
If the man was the one to stay at home, think about how much more you would be cutting into your income from having one parent stay at home when its not the mother...
You have maternity leave, and if your smart (doctor recommended, for both mother and child), a mother will breast feed her child. Granted, a woman can always milk herself before heading to work and handing the bottles off to her husband, but the time spent away from the office to have the baby is money lost (unless you have a plan that pays full salary while you are on maternity leave...)
There's still a lot of stop and go involved.
Its still much more practical and sensical for if one parent stays home, its the mother.
14. Katie B said the following at 8:27 PM on Mar 31:
Amir (#9) my mother balanced that beautifully, she stayed home until my younger sister was in school all day, then got a job/graduate school combo in which she actually worked in our elementary school! as we grew to take care of ourselves, her job evolved. Niether me nor my sisters ever went on a field trip without one of our parents chaperoning, until we got old enough to beg them to stop. we still had family meals and game and movie nights, as well as each kid spending regular one on one time with both parents. And my parents also had regular dates, as well as time alone every day, and vacations by themselves.
My parents arent christian, and I actually think that helped them, they dont fall into the traditional male female behavior roles, they figure out what works best and do it that way. (my dad had offered to stay home but his job was more lucrative) My mom doesnt do all the home stuff or the parent stuff, my dad was every bit as involved in caring for us and the household. I think that makes a difference.
15. Kellie O said the following at 8:56 PM on Mar 31:
I think sassy sister's comment is a good issue to bring up. The man is the provider but often times at the expense of spending time with the family. Women and men both want to spend time with their families and be involved in raising the children, though I would agree that men receive less support. Almost any woman would be either supported or understood in her decision to stay home but then a man would probably get a hard time for actually wanting to spend his time with his children and wife.
16. BDB said the following at 9:24 PM on Mar 31:
I'm convinced that anyone who can take their baby to work must work in marketing. I was a marketing guy for a while; I know all about the helium tank and glitter....
a sassy sister (#7) wrote:
>>What makes it even worse is that there are FEW articles and questions FOR MEN who spend more time at the office than they do at home. Why? <<
They're in the "Married Men" section. I've lost track of the number of times I've heard sermons on how working too many hours is bad for your marriage. As a general rule, if you make enough to support a family, you don't have time to see them. But the way men get "balance" is to take a job that's beneath their full skills - the result is that they have something left over at the end of the week and they don't just go home and collapse. Personally, I hope they have such sermons at retreats for single women, so they look for men who are willing to take a lesser job so they're not gone all the time. It means a less expensive car and a smaller house, but the trade off is worth it.
Hey - someone should write book - getting serious about work/life balance.
You know, there IS a weekly Wall Street Journal column about Work/Family balance. I was interviewed for it once because I was a manager figuring out how to make a full-time job work as two part-time jobs for new moms in my department...
17. Leah said the following at 12:22 AM on Apr 1:
Kellie, if you're getting guilty, perhaps that's your conscience or something else you've read. Boundless has not laid on any guilt trips- the only things I've come across that could induce guilt are simply results of studies that they've published. In those cases, it's the results of the study making someone feel guilty. Just because someone makes another person feel guilty doesn't mean they're laying on the guilt trips. Guilt tripping is only when you're making someone feel guilty for the sake of them feeling guilty- to get back at them, or if you have something to gain from them being guilty. I have no idea why Boundless would be doing that.
Also, how is Heather saying all women are doomed to be bad mothers or bad employees? She was relating an anecdote, a real life event, not making up some propaganda to make you feel a certain way.
a sassy sister- if you have a look in the bible, you will see that it says men are to be leaders in relationship and family; to that effect, they are generally the main income-earners. This inevitably means that they *will* be away from the home more, and biblically, that's ok, because they are fulfilling their biblical duty in that. Such a mandate is not given to women though, so if a woman is doing those same things, it is by her own choice, and not to fulfill a biblical duty. Hence why bible-based people like Boundless advocate women staying with their children more than men, and provide advice for women trying to balance these issues. For sure, men still need to pay attention to and spend time with their kids, and so they could do with a bit of advice, but because, biblically, women don't *have* to be earning an income (not to say they can't!!), they should generally be spending more time with the kids (and so warrant the larger chunk of family-career balancing advice).
18. Amir Larijani said the following at 3:55 AM on Apr 1:
Katie says (emphasis mine):
You just proved my point: even in your mom's case, there was a time in which she eased back on the career track for the kids.
19. Laura said the following at 5:55 AM on Apr 1:
I wouldn't take my child to work with me - and I work in a child care centre! Children need individual attention from their parents, and the office is rarely a calm, quiet, smooth running place. If my experience is any indication, it is often noisy with people coming and going, phones ringing and machines printing and photocopying - let alone the stress and frustration from difficulties of the job! I realise that for some single parents, they can't stay at home with their child, but as has been mentioned previously, a child care centre is better than taking the child to work!
20. jess said the following at 8:10 AM on Apr 1:
My mom also handled being a full-time worker, mom, and wife for me and my brothers--and quite well I should think! We still ate dinner every night as a family and she took us to school every morning. I always felt loved and there was always lots of time to be together, etc.
Re: the actual article, I'm not sure having your baby around at work is all that appropriate, especially it he/she is very young. Unless there is an on-site daycare place, you should focus on your job while you're at work. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing moms to bring their older kids to the office once in a while if school gets canceled, lets out early, or some other thing you can't predict in advance.
Personally, I don't see myself as a stay at home mom, at least beyond a few years. I like working, and I do think it's possible to care for your family and have a job. I don't think it's really Boundless that brings the guilt trips, though they do seem to run a lot of articles that talk about this decision whether or not to stay at home when most people seemed decided one way or another. But I do feel some animosity from the others who don't think it's possible, and that you'd be a bad mom if you didn't stay at home. I don't think we're jumping into relativism if, since we all agree taking care of one's family is important and, indeed commanded of us, that however each of us gets there should be supported.
21. Carrie (the original) said the following at 8:42 AM on Apr 1:
Eventhough I'm a big fan of Boundless, I really do resent gender stereotypes. I think it's ridiculous to expect women to live as if they aren't part of the 21st century. It really seems necessary (with the rising cost of fuel and the mortgage crisis) to have two incomes.
And every time I have this thought I look at all the SAHMs in my church. They are really quite astonishing. They work with small incomes ($50,000 split 5 ways takes some creativity). They take joy in shaping, educating, and nurturing their children. It's almost as if they were created for such things.
I hate gender stereotypes. I really do. I defy them whenever I am given the opprotunity. However, I have to remember that we live in an age of feminized men and emascualted women. Gender roles have been reversed. So, as much as it pains me, I'll allow a man to lift something heavy for me and then I thank him.
I am enjoying the prospect of having a succesful career, but I have to be open to being a SAHM because children don't need to be shipped off to someone else for the majority of their waking hours. Having a husband stay at home just seems stupid because he would be giving up his role to be a provider. It's built into him, just as nuturing and servanthood has been built into me.
Yes, men nurture and serve, but it is different. Just accept that. Stop trying to make everyone "the same".
I see "traditional" roles played out in very non-traditional ways all the time.
22. Sarah22 said the following at 10:29 AM on Apr 1:
"if, since we all agree taking care of one's family is important and, indeed commanded of us, that however each of us gets there should be supported."
To me, that's like saying we all agree being married is important, however you should support us in whatever way we chose to get to the altar, whether it's with children born out of wedlock, or through various sexual escapades, hurting others emotionally, not treating others with all purity, etc...
The thing I understand and yet don't understand is how people keep stating that it's "just impossible or realistic" to live on one income nowadays. Are not all things possible through God? Why is God able to save our souls from hell but not from having to work in order to stay at home with our children? If nothing else you should aspire and plan to raise your children at home someday - if every road is blocked and you can truly say you believe God did not allow it then go on in peace, but I find it very hard to believe that God would keep a Mother from raising her children from home *in most cases* - if you are a single parent because of divorce or the death of a spouse I know that's a different case. I don't have a big problem with a woman working once her children are in school if she does not feel lead to educate her kids at home (it's not for everyone, I know that and I was home educated) but even that job should be one that allows her to be home when her kids are home and have plenty of time to provide the support they need. I think it is absolutely VITAL and God-commanded to be at home with your children at all times when they are younger than school age.
23. PLH said the following at 11:10 AM on Apr 1:
Leah-why do you think that the leader is who makes the most money? Sure, society says that but is it biblical? Where in the Bible do you see people with wealth in leadership because they have more money?
The article is interesting. I doubt this phenomenon is very common-I have yet to see it at my university during business hours. I see how this would create problems but it's important to remember that in the past, before day care existed people DID work with their children. Slave women would often take new babies with them to fields, other domestic workers would too. Even SAHM "work" with their children since they also do housework, shopping, and other economic activities other than watching children.
24. P&P said the following at 12:40 PM on Apr 1:
For me, this also raises a class issue. If a woman works in a restaurant kitchen, trucking terminal, manufacturing line, retail store or some other typically "blue collar" job, she will be unable to bring her child to work.
A classic example of this is Starbuck's headquarters in Seattle is known for its liberal policies for nursing mothers, however a barista who actually serves the customers does not have that same privelege.
Yes, I'm glad that Candice and Ted are in situations where they can afford to either work from home or support a family on one income, but they're only speaking as members of the educated upper middle class. Their realities are only for a small group of people in the US and a miniscule number of people in the world.
25. jess said the following at 1:40 PM on Apr 1:
Hi Sarah22,
I don't quite follow your analogy. I was saying that, as a woman I know that I was designed to nurture and care for my family. I understand that a rebellion against this command would be sin--and I am definitely not advocating this. What I was trying to explain was that I don't think working is in violation of this command, and I do think that I can do both. Yes, it requires sacrifices on both sides, and support from my husband, but I don't think that once I have children, that the ONLY way I can be a faithful mother is to stop working until all of them enter school. I see this more of a preference issue...if I am living in sin here, and really am rebelling against what God created me for, then of course I would want my thinking to be corrected, but so far I haven't been convinced that this is true. I know some women can't wait to have kids so they can quit their jobs and be home full time...I'm just not one of them, and as long as I'm pursuing this path prayerfully and with the support of my husband, I don't see how this is wrong. As a sidenote, I'm not against staying at home because of the income issue. I really do just LIKE working. I get fulfillment out of my job, and I've learned that this is not only not wrong, but in fact good, since our work "on the job" is really just an extension of God's work. Check out Doug Sherman's "Your Work Matters to God" if you're interested in this topic...it really helped me clarify my goals for a career and a family as a Christian woman.
26. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:08 PM on Apr 1:
You know,
All you guys seem to think that this is about "you".
My mother made one of the most frustrating remarks to me because i felt I was being "called to motherhood"...as I put it. She told me there is no "call" to motherhood. Its a responsibility that God gives you at a certain point in your life...
And your job is to take on the responsibility and raise those children in a Godly way - raising them up in his word on their hearts. Raising your children, having children, working to provide income or for self-fulfillment...its not about YOU.
So..when you decide you can be a mother and work at the same time (yeah, it will be hard, and there will be sacrifices, but I can do it...cuz I want to), are you thinking about the sacrifices made to your children? Is it possible for you to work and raise a family at the same time without sacrificing integral parts of your children's care?
That's the question. And what IS integral to your children's care?
Yeah, if you can answer sincerely, after much thought and prayer, that you can work and raise a family without compromising your children's "godly" upbringing, then by all means...more power to you! Some women might actually be able to successfully pull it off.
However, if you have any doubts on that matter, I would strongly suggest you forego the working + motherhood bit. This isn't about you...its about pouring out your desires and dreams and sacrificing them at God's altar to bear a responsibility that HE gave you when you first conceived.
27. Katie B said the following at 3:10 PM on Apr 1:
Amir, I didnt understand your original statement if you meant that that by never realizing success in all three roles you meant that success means always having been successful rather than achieving success. I attribute success to a process of finding out how to balance all that God has given you and called you to without sacrificing something God-given. A few years off a carreer path to bear children, study and work freelance means that all future balance and success and achievement is disqualified?
Would you apply that same standard of success to other situations? is a career unsuccessful because you start at the bottom and move up as you learn? Or was your original point not
"I've yet to see anyone realize success being full-time career woman, full-time mother, and full-time wife. I've seen two of the three work, but never all three at the same time. ?(post 9, emphasis mine)
28. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:03 PM on Apr 1:
Katie...
Amir's last post was speaking to the fact that your mom phased out her career pursuits based on her children's needs.
When you needed her 100% of the time, she was there 100% of the time...as you and your sister started school full time, she began picking up work, still being available to you for the part of the day you needed her.
As you became more independent, she demonstrated trust while extending her working.
I think he was more supporting your mother and seeing how your mother handled things as supporting his original statement...
29. Kellie said the following at 4:08 PM on Apr 1:
Christina, for some of us it comes down to working and having kids or working and remaining childless. Is daycare so horrible my child is better off not being born?
30. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:28 PM on Apr 1:
Katies says:
Katie, why is this so hard?
When the baby is in diapers and mom is at work full-time and dad is at work full-time, who takes care of the baby? If it's day care, then I would question your definition of "success". If it's other relatives, it still blurs the lines, because that child ideally ought to have mom around rather than at work.
If you are suggesting that God calls women to abandon their kids to day care while they pursue their "calling" to a "professional career", then we are not in agreement on that matter.
When mom is at home while the kids are at home, outcomes are generally better. Having seen the difference between kids who grew up in day care and public schools versus homeschooled kids, all I can say is: "Advantage, SAHM!"
And no...I have yet to see a case where a woman does all 3--full-time--successfully. You might be able to show a couple in particular, but show me the general case. It ain't there and you know it.
Even the doctor I used as an example paid a horrendous price.
In her preparation for medical practice--undergrad studies, med school, basic residency, specialty residency--she put off childbirth. She didn't start medical practice until she as 31.
She was able to have one child before her fertility went to pot. While her wealth allowed her to do a foreign adoption, she was able to have no more on her own.
And...BTW...she agrees with everything I am saying here.
31. BDB said the following at 4:42 PM on Apr 1:
PLH (#23) wrote:
>>Slave women would often take new babies with them to fields, other domestic workers would too.<<
Um...actually, before the industrial revolution, EVERYONE could bring their children to work...in the garden. Farm kids can do lots of work themselves; no babysitter is needed. They can feed ducks, clean stables, pull weeds from about age 5 up. It was only when we had factories that people noticed child labor, and started requiring children to go to school, thus separating them from their parents.
32. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:52 PM on Apr 1:
Kellie says:
By no means, Kellie.
I am referring to people who DO have a choice.
It's kind of like that marriage debate: there are some women who INTENTIONALLY go single well into adulthood, sacrificing marriage and family life and then finding their prospects dim as they get older, whereas others are so for reasons beyond their control.
The emphasis here is on those who have a choice, not folks like you who otherwise struggle just to make ends meet.
33. Christina said the following at 5:14 PM on Apr 1:
Kellie,
There are alternatives to working in a workplace full time to make money.
As some on these posts have mentioned previously, pick up a skill that you can utilize from home.
Shaklee is a very good and highly respected vitamin supplement company that relies on the same style of selling products as Mary Kay and Pampered Chef...you can do the entire thing from home, on your own time, and your children can be part of your "informational" sessions.
Web design, writing, possibly even being an editor could be done at home.
Look for a job that supports indefinite part time and allows you to work from home the entire time.
I know one woman who used her artistic skills to sell products to Cracker Barrell...she had her children involved in the process of making the items.
Another woman was a seamstress and while she was unusually busy, I babysat her 1 year old while she was in the same room focusing on getting something done.
You can make money while being a full-time SAHM. It really is possible. But who's needs are you going to put first? If you are your own boss, you call your own shots. If you have a boss, everytime your child's needs come to head with your boss's demands, you risk losing your job or failing to meet your child's needs.
Which, to you, is more important?
And to top it off, all of the above alternatives to working away from home full time or part time is consistent with Proverbs 31 =)
34. jess said the following at 5:24 PM on Apr 1:
Christina, you bring up some good points about thinking of your children's needs for best knowing God when they are young. I guess I was speaking from my past experience where my mom was working and I didn't feel that my relationship with God was at all stunted because of her job. It's true that the decision to become a SAHM shouldn't be based ONLY on your desires for work and such, but neither should they be based ONLY on giving kids everything of your life. Kids can become and idol too, and I think for me the correct balance would be between work and family. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that fulfillment from one's job is wrong, and indeed it should happen as we worship God through our labors (whether that's in a job away from the home or in raising one's children). I guess the best question is always "How can I best worship God and use my life to serve Him?". If the answer to that changes the role work has in your life after you have kids, then make the appropriate adjustments. Still, I don't think this necessarily means cutting it out entirely for everyone.
35. Louise said the following at 7:30 PM on Apr 1:
Re comment 29 I would be interested in your opinions...what would be your advice to a young woman who KNEW she would have to work until her 60s: be a working mom with children in daycare/babysitters or decide to remain childless?
36. Becky F. said the following at 10:46 PM on Apr 1:
I have an 8 month old son. Thankfully, I'm able to stay home with him right now. Unfortunately, I have to go back to work a little after his first birthday when my husband is done with his paid internship and is back at the Seminary for his last year of classes. Am I looking forward to going back to work? Not really at all. I do not want to think about being away from my son for longer than a few hours.
Could I imagine having a job right now that I brought him to? No WAY!! Infants take so much attention, especially when they get to the stage when they enjoy social play, are awake pretty much all day, and they get bored. I can't even finish a full sink of dishes most days because my son needs me. I still don't get a full night's sleep, and I am glad that 5 of the 7 days of the week don't require me to get up and go somewhere in the morning (I attend church or Bible study on the other 2 days of the week).
I really don't understand how working mothers get the rest and down time that they need. They're amazing women. I don't think I could do it. I guess I'll find out how I do in 4 1/2 months, huh?
37. Sarah22 said the following at 10:57 PM on Apr 1:
Jess: I pray that you and your husband are still planning that once you have children you would be able to stay home with them if your heart desires to, because while work is so wonderful to you right now (and that is of course ok just as you said), it’s appeal most likely will fade tremendously in comparison to the darling little soul staring at you each morning as you leave for work. I've honestly never met one woman who did not feel guilty about working and having someone else care for their children. I know mothers with college aged children who are still harboring a lot of guilt and are overly protective and overbearing because of feelings of having missed out on so much when their kids were younger.
At the end of the day it's my strong belief that God designed woman to carry children in their bodies for a reason. The caring does not, and should not, end at birth. We should not be handing our children off to other people to be cared for. Proverbs 22 does not say, “LET OTHERS...train up your child in the way he should go....”
I am not trying to be offensive to you, I respect your response and your viewpoint but I am desperately trying to understand why a Mother would not want to spend all her time with her child just because she “really likes” her job.
38. Rachael said the following at 11:12 PM on Apr 1:
Louise,
I'd probably advise the person to have the kid. God can provide...and he might provide excellent-o daycare workers and babysitters; I'm sure there are some neat ones out there!!
39. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:06 AM on Apr 2:
Ok...the day care thing.
If you have to work to provide an income, in general you need to be making more than $20 an hour to even it out.
Assuming you work 8 hour days and it takes 30 minutes to travel from dropping your child off to getting to work and "clocking in", you would be paying $900 a week on child care for one child. On top of the child care, add in the extra cost that will be spent on business clothes, additional eating out, easy prep foods, and other expenses that are a natural result of working.
To justify putting your child in child care, you should be making about $1200 a week (that gives you a $300 supplemental income to your husband's income).
All this is assuming that child care costs $20 per child per hour. Which is how much people pay 13 year olds to watch their kids. If you are leaving your child with professional care, the cost could go significantly higher. Add on another child to that, and the cost doubles.
At some point, your entire income ends up going to child care...you are making zero additional income for your family while your children are being raised elsewhere.
So really, child care vs SAHM doesn't add any benefit to the income =p
I'm 25, working as a software engineer for a governmental contracting company. It is arguably one of the more lucrative jobs out there. I'm making less than $700 a week that's coming home with me (after taxes and savings). For me, teachers, and many others out there, staying at home IS the financially prudent choice.
40. Lynne said the following at 8:45 AM on Apr 2:
Well, there is always much lively talk when it comes to the SAHM vs. Working Outside the Home Mother on Boundless. As part of the often criticized, seldom understood minority here (work full-time outside the home with two children), I'd like to add a little perspective on child development.
If you read the USA today article, companies allow employees to bring their infants in, UNTIL THEY ARE MOBILE. This is huge. Your typical baby can be on a standard sleep cycle around 4 months or so, and if you're in a private office, there could be less distraction for your co-workers. They aren't crying, they are nursing, feeding, drooling, crying, pooping and sleeping.
Though I don't have the type of work where this would have been doable for more than about 1/2 the day, it would have been totally worth it for me.
Please remember that there are others out there (even here, reading Boundless) who might make different choices, interpret Proverbs 31 differently, and it is no gurauntee that their children will be more or less godly, safe, etc. than the children of the family structure many of you support.
I just get distressed when I see these pronouncements from people who don't have kids and haven't had to juggle the issues. I have no problem with you stating you opinions, I just hope that they could be phrased with a bit more grace.
Just my .02 (up from a penny)
41. jess said the following at 9:17 AM on Apr 2:
Hi Sarah22,
I agree that once we have children, it's entirely possible that I may change my mind. And if I do, then of course I would stay at home. However, I think we're getting caught up on different definitions of care. My mom worked when I was a kid and even though my brother and I went to our neighbor's house after school (we both went to pre-school very young), I still definitely felt cared for by my mom, and I definitely wouldn't say we were trained in any way on how we should go about our lives, and how to build our characters, by our neighbor. If anything, school had a much bigger impact on those things in my life, but I think there would be far fewer who would argue against trusting your kids' education to people who are more trained than yourself. But really, in my experience, it is possible to have a mom that works and feel entirely loved and cared for by her. She probably wasn't the typical worker, and whenever we had practice or a dance or anything for school at all, she was ALWAYS willing to leave and rearrange her schedule. And even when my dad wasn't working for a while, my mom seemed to be the one that made sacrifices, and indeed seemed more "there" while we were at home. She might have had minor anxieties about working and being a mom, but I think everyone in our family knows it was and is the right decision for her (my little brother is 10--big age difference!), and that the family is better off with her working. Again, it's not just that I "really like" my job that I want to work, it's that I feel it's the best way for me to serve God, and I believe it will remain that way after I have kids. As I mentioned earlier, if I become convicted that that isn't the right course before/after I have kids, well then I'd need to make adjustments.
42. PLH said the following at 10:41 AM on Apr 2:
BDB-That's what I was trying to get at. Sorry if I wasn't clear but I definitely agree with you. My point is just that this "work with your children" thing is not new-it's actually how most women have cared for their infants while they have worked at other things. I also agree with what P and P says-that is is a class issue partially. Many women cannot afford not to work. It's important to remember that historically, most women HAVE worked whether on the family farm, as a domestic, doing laundry inside the home or other "home work", or a myriad of other jobs. Until recently, only wealth and middle class women had the luxury of not working.
43. Leah said the following at 10:58 AM on Apr 2:
Carrie the original- keep in mind it was originally God who gave men particular roles and women particular roles. For sure, society has done it too, and kudos to the men AND women shunning those society-dictated roles- but no kudos to those trying to shun God-given roles.
And seriously? We do NOT need double incomes just to survive. My family of (now) 4 kids survived off one income for 7 years (although over those 7 years we didn't always have 4 kids... we acquired them along the way ;P) while my Mum wasn't working, so that she could stay home with the kids. She went back to school (working as a teacher) when my sister reached preschool age, and for the past 9 years has been working one or two days a week. So we, a 6 person family, have quite comfortably survived off 1- 1.2 incomes for 14 years. (And my Dad is by no means a high income earner- no uni degree, he used to be an electrician by trade [NOT electrical engineer] and is now a sales accounts manager/rep for an electrical firm).
I look at the other families in my church- 4 kids, 5 kids, 7 kids, 11 kids- who have all survived off single incomes while Mum's had young kids at home and has gone back to part-time work once the kids are in school. Sure, living expenses are much higher now than 15 years ago, but it's DEFINITELY doable for most people.
PLH- never did I say that someone gets put in leadership because they have more money. NEVER. I am talking solely about the man-woman relationship, and I am saying that the man has the responsibility to provide for the woman. If he can somehow do that without being the main income earner, then by all means, kudos to him. But most of the time I doubt that's realistic. It's not about being wealthy as you implied, it's about providing.
44. a sassy sister said the following at 11:28 AM on Apr 2:
Lynne:
well said...
45. Tami said the following at 11:37 AM on Apr 2:
Lynne, for the most part I definitely agree with you; we should give grace to each other, and women need to make their choices based on God's leading (and they will not all make the same choice!). But speaking from the coworker POV, I submit these points for consideration:
* Not all offices are private. And not everyone works in an office -- what if the woman who wants to bring her baby in works in a cubicle? How do you control all the smells/sounds/etc?
* Not everyone is comfortable with nursing in "public," *even if* everything is well concealed.
* If the baby starts to cry or scream, it becomes *everyone's* problem. Walls are not that thick. And at that point -- which is your priority? Rightly, you need to think about the baby. But also -- you are at work, and need to tend to your job.
* The OP mentions a lady who claims her coworkers "jump at the chance to watch [her baby] if I have a phone call..." Who's doing the coworkers' work at that point?
I know that from time to time parents need to bring their babies or kids into the office. (It happens often at my work.) But consideration on *all* sides is appreciated. It is, first and foremost, a workplace.