Reality Show for Stay-at-Home Moms
 

Most of our more respectable fantasies have found a place on reality TV. There's the show where designers swoop in to organize your clutter and the one about the nanny who figures out how to keep the kids from using their potties as weapons. There's even a show about wife swapping.

But TLC has found one more untapped fantasy—at least for mothers. We're not talking about "The Manny." No, this is the one where you're a woman who's been home with your kids so long that you can't remember the last time you wore hard-soled shoes. Then someone (say, former sitcom star Tracey Gold) comes by and says, "Hey, you know how you always wanted to be a fashion designer, cop or chef? Well, we'll give you a week to try it out—without your family knowing. Then at the end of the week you get to choose whether to restart your career or stay home. And guess what: your kids and husband will support you either way."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/120362?GT1=43002

**************
Yay another reality show.

This show has received criticism from people who think these women are "selfish" and shouldn't have had kids if they weren't going to raise them. Eh--I agree that a family with a stay at home parent (father or mother) needs the appropriate transition if the parent decides to be the other breadwinner.

Working mothers in traditional homes tend to have two jobs--one without pay---and stay-at-home parents have a 24/7 job that is overworked and unpaid. Knowing how I feel about the family and gender, I can't just say these women are selfish for wanting to reduce the home responsibilities (which requires the fathers to do more than sit on the couch and relax) and place more emphasis on the working world. Maybe it'd be better if the kids were a bit older (like what my mom did) but it would still depend on the situation.

Anyone heard of this? What say you?

Maybe this doesn't belong in the entertainment section. The article and discussion are newsy.

I wouldn't have imagined such a backlash.....

Well it's a touchy topic for many so it's more than a TV show to them.

Yeah. I definitely don't have the cultural competency/capacity to begin understanding.

<---- mom was a working single mother and I had a mammy.








Okay, not a mammy, but a great aunt named Sissy (really!) who lived with us during my early years.

LOL @ mammy

I am reading the title and I am already thinking....

You have:

Maury
Jerry
Judy
Alex

Cheaters

Cops

Divorce Court.....

Why another?

Okay. ;) I get it.

So now that you've read the article, what say you?

This is so on point with my life and future choices when I have kids... if I had cable I would definitely watch it.

Maybe I'll try to time my workouts with the show, since my gym has cable on the exercise machines.

My gym doesn't show TLC on any of their many TVs.

I think the backlash for this show is poorly placed.

Oh...I was serious...



Furthermore, when you think about the glut of oxymoronic reality shows that are on now, one does have to wonder...why is there ANOTHER one coming out?

Whose reality are they basing 'reality' TV on anyways?

I think that the backlash is defensive... like maybe the stay-at-home moms view the show as a criticism of their own lives. Trying to look from their perspective... I've often felt a little patronized and defensive when watching a Wife Swap show where one of the wives is telling the other that she isn't a good mom for not cooking, cleaning, etc. everything around the house because the other mom has a job she is trying to balance.

:confused:

Skylark...that there is a perfect example...

What 2 families will get together and 'swap' members...let them go to each other's homes and try to tell another family what to do?


The only time people wifeswap is when they are swinging

(which when first heard of the show, I thought that was the premise...hehe)

I can see their perspective. But I didn't see the purpose of the show as saying that being a stay at home parent isn't a real job (although, many feel that it isn't so that's also the basis for the backlash). I see the show as saying that some stay at home parents dream to have a paid career and this show will get them that on a trial basis.


As Wife Swap and stuff, the mothers do get criticized a lot. In traditional gender role families, instead of criticizing the men for not stepping up and making it more 50/50, the moms are criticized for not doing "a woman's job." (:rolleyes:, btw)

Well, I think that this show really isn't just another reality show. I think it addresses an important issue that I think will be at the forefront of our generations' public policy decisions. How do we (as a society) expect women to succeed equally in careers if they are forced to do 70-80% of the at-home work as well? Biology isn't really an excuse for the dilemma, since a relatively small portion of our lives are actually spent so pregnant or post-delivery that working is a really bad option.

I think it is a conversation that women and men need to have with eachother not only at home but in businesses. We have to make career paths that do not penalize for having a balance -- for both women and men. Otherwise, we will simply be a society of couples where one is the breadwinner and the other is at home (or has a low-priority career). Because of cultural influences, that will usually mean the woman puts her career on hold or on a backburner for a significant portion of her life.

To me, this show is anything but just another reality TV show.

Yeah...that's obvious.

The real reason the show is popular is because people often believe "the grass is greener on the other side" and want to complain about their life and envy others'. Wife Swap is good in that in the end the couples usually say "while I appreciate some of the new things I've learned and been exposed to, and perhaps will implement some changes, I appreciate what I have even more and will work harder to make it work."

I think this is related.....

Has anyone ever heard of a new father being given "paternity leave?"

That happened when I worked for a university.

That is related.

I have heard of paternity leave at socially progressive places of employment.

These are typically the same places that also do not penalize parents of any gender who have parenting and family responsibilities. They know that workers who are allowed to have a healthy balance will have a greater interest in their careers and be able to advance their company profit.

For instance, therefore, women and men do not need to pretend that they are unconcerned mothers and fathers to get ahead in that environment. Single fathers and mothers do not need to pretend that they aren't single parents (i.e. "oh, nooooo, I just have visitation on the weekends. Sure, I can work late and travel and kiss your asses and pretend like this company is my family so I can become partner and make 100+K.") to climb the career ladder.

Not only have I heard of it, my husband is planning on taking some when our kids our born. (Our plan is about 3 weeks off for me then 3-6 months off for him.)

Under the FMLA, all employees get leave regardless of gender for medical-family situations... extends not just in parenting situations but also for taking care of another adult family member.

Allowing for paternity leave is required under the law, if you're giving maternity leave, as well. Many do not realize this, though, because unfortunately there are few fathers that ask to take extensive leave.

ETA:
However, getting leave is only part of the issue because what happens after the leave is over? Who takes care of the kids then? Should kids be in day care until 6pm every weekday, because in order for both parents to have professional careers in which they are not being penalized for rearing their children.

If that is the case, then there needs to be more programs made like this where serious issues will be raised that make people THINK rather than these trainwrecks that pass for 'reality TV' come on.

This is why when I see articles for 'new' reality shows, it turns me off...

I mean, let's face it....when Moment of Truth came out...it may have been a dumb premise, but think about the underlying question...how much are you willing to hold in or tell about your life to get some money.

How much are you worth?

I digress...

But ok...if you guys think this show actually has some relevancy, keep this thread going.

Fixed that for you.

And thanks for ordering us to keep this thread going. :rolleyes:;)

No problem, I do my best to be forceful...some of you people get off on that type of treatment.

heh.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

Not every employer is required to comply with this act. Even those that are required to comply find formal and informal ways to go around this act and/or "punish" employees for taking leaves. One example of a "punishment" is the fact that women with family responsibilities have an extremely difficult time getting promotions and climbing company ladders. Men with family responsibilities are also "punished" because having family responsibilities is seen as "women's work." Men who prioritize family are sometimes made fun of and not given certain opportunities because they "aren't go-getters who take their career seriously."

^^ Most employers are required to comply. (ETA: My last post wasn't clear on that point, but I was coming at it with the premise that the employer is already providing maternity leave under the act... pointing out that gender is irrelevant under the FMLA. Honestly, I was trying to keep my post simple and not like a treatise on employment law.)

There are exclusions, mostly for smaller employers that cannot afford to hold a job for someone regardless of gender or circumstances.

If you're giving leave to women, then you have to give it to men, regardless. At that point, even if the FMLA doesn't require it, it becomes a Title VII issue.

Right. Smaller employers aren't required and many people work for smaller employers.

More than that, gender will always matter for many companies and taking a leave for some companies can negatively impact the employee. As I said, there are formal and informal ways that some employers can get around this act. Just as every law can be buffered by the adjustments that companies make in response to them. This is the distinction between tehnical and practical. And a lot of employees won't challenge their employers under the law or contact HR, etc. They know there may be backlash somewhere.

Most small employers (over 15 employees) still have to comply with Title VII, which is the issue of paternity leave (which I thought was the subject we were discussing).

FMLA regards the issue of giving leave at all... which is the reason why MOST employers do allow for post-pregnancy leave. FMLA is gender neutral, so if FMLA applies to your employer, you HAVE to allow leave, regardless of gender. Yeah, okay, there are always examples of employers getting around laws... but that is an equivalent criticism of any law.

ETA: I think we should redirect this whole discussion back to the point before we get too off track. In order to not seem like a big douche I purposely simplify my posts in order to not write like I'm giving some kind of legal treatise. If you thought you were trying to "catch me" in an error or something, you're wrong. Most laws have exclusions for this or that (small employers, public employers, etc.) but it seems a little ridiculous if you think I should be citing to them every time I post. I am pretty well-educated on employment law and I doubt you're going to find yourself running circles around me on the subject. Post away, if you want. I don't think it is a great idea to turn this into a hedging match over the FMLA. I liked the original focus of your thread and I think we should get back to it.

Yes, that's what I said.

I was talking about FMLA, in general, which is why I included the link to the FMLA.

Anyway, here is one condition in which paternity leave can depend for some companies:

http://hr.cch.com/hhrlib/issues-answ...ebruary-2-2004

It appears that larger companies (employing 50 or more) have to comply with FMLA; Title VII compliance is required for companies employing 15 or more. What "protections" do employees have at even smaller companies? There are MANY companies that employ less than 15.

And my point was that if you're only analyzing the issue of paternity leave under the FMLA, then you're wrong.

I don't know what you're talking about. I wasn't just talking about paternity leave.

When it comes to those kinds of uncited, legal answers on websites (including GC)... take them with a grain of salt. They are doing the best they can (as I try to do most of the time on GC) without making the answer undecipherable to a non-legal reader. That website is one answer to a very complicated question... the answer of which is not known because the issue hasn't been before SCOTUS. Different results for different circuits... there just isn't a good answer.

HOWEVER... if you are giving an employment benefit to one gender and not another you better have a really good explanation for it. And the medical problems that come with pregnancy is only an explanation for a short leave in most pregnancy situations. If you give a 6 month leave to women (ALL women, regardless of pregnancy complications) and nothing to men... you're going to have a hell of a time explaining it in court and I sure as hell wouldn't advise a client to have that sort of policy.

Honestly... I think I'm going to cry if this thread doesn't get back on track. I thought it was really worthwhile and I certainly didn't want to spend my lunch hour writing about crap I do during the rest of my workday.

No. I provided it only as a visual. An HR illustration, regardless of where the illustration came from.

Look, you and I are basically saying the same thing as far as I'm concerned. So what's your point?

I was wondering what yours was...

This is what you said initially... which has nothing to do with being small or large:
It was only after I corrected you that being "progressive" has nothing to do with it... (it is about following the law) that you changed your story into one about small versus large employers. I'm sorry that when I corrected your perception that it was a matter of being progressive, I didn't mention the exceptions to the general rule. I didn't realize you were going to pretend that by "progressive" you meant "employers larger than 15 people."

Okay... to try to bring the thread back home:

I see working and having a productive career as being a necessary element of my future children's lives because it is really important for me that they see that women can have serious careers. I think too often girls hear that they can reach for the stars, but don't see concrete examples in their own lives.

I work for a very small company (10 people total). When my son was born, I took 6 weeks paid maternity leave. Now, my company is extremely good about working with me, and I could have taken more either unpaid or half-time, but I felt comfortable with 6 weeks. Because we are so small, there is a huge impact when even one person is missing for an extended amount of time. They had the daughter of a coworker come in and do some of my work part-time to help take the load off my manager, but everyone was happy I was back when my leave was over (or so they tell me ;) ).

Most of the husbands in our circle of friends here work for the same, large employer and it's not unusual for the fathers to take a week or two off for "paternity leave." Now, how that is arranged with their company, I'm not positive. If it's counted against vacation or not; the husband only took three days off after our son was born.

As far as the show goes, I've only caught bits of it, but I think it's a good idea. I think many SAHMs are concerned about having viable, employable skills in the chance they should need to go to work due to necessity or want to go back to work after their children get older. I know part of the show is based in fantasy (high-end fashion designer! Gourmet chef!) but, IMO, it's still a legitimate issue.

Agreed. I don't see why women have to choose.

My point is that not every employer has to comply with FMLA and that not every employer has to grant paternity leave. And that's true.

This is great. I read something about paternity leave that asks whether it is a fad or the future. I think it's a fad until more men and women demand that their employers comply with family leaves. Then they need to determine whether there will be paid or unpaid leaves.

I think it's legitimate, too. The MSN photo for the story that I posted showed a father holding the children while a smiling mother is working or about to work. That photo made me :rolleyes: because it an image of working mothers as neglecting their family. As if a father caring for his kids is out of the question even if they had initially agreed that one parent would stay at home.

ETA: Another thing that gets me is that people say "the husband is babysitting because his wife is at work." He's not babysitting the kids...he's a PARENT.

Not long after I started at this company, my manager's husband decided to quit his job and go back to school part-time. He stayed home during the day with their kids (who weren't quite school-age at the time) and took on two additional kids for daycare to help offset the costs of school. Their kids are in school now and he's graduated and has had a full-time job for a few years. That's definitely not the norm, but I thought it was really cool he did that and showed a nice alternative.