Don't Marry Career Women

[Marie]

Originally Posted by RACooper

My cousin's wife - she took time off to have two kids, worked part-time until the youngest was three, then went back to work full-time. The youngest is now entering kindergarten, after being in daycare... while Kelly has just been promoted to a regional manager for her bank... so yes it is possible. The key is not cutting all ties with work while raising the kids, it makes the re-intergration back into the workforce alot easier.

Awesome! Thanks!

[PinkandGreenJ]

Originally Posted by Marie

Awesome! Thanks!

For lawyers, it almost kills your partnership chances. Whereas for men, its an asset for them to have a family for partnership.

[jubilance1922]

Originally Posted by Marie

Does anybody know of a woman who took time off to have kids and successfully transitioned back into the workplace years later (meaning achieved promotions to middle or upper management)? If so, what industry was she in?

Right now, I'm not sure what my ideal situation would be. Coming from a household w/two working parents, I'm more inclined to want to keep working. Ultimately I don't have a desire to be a housewife long term, and I greatly prefer two incomes. However, there is an appeal to being w/the kinds until they enter elementary school.

I'm just trying to get a feel for whether or not folks have really expereinced a successful re-entry into the working world, or if their career has simply stalled after the break. Hmmm, maybe I'll start a business instead.

Yes, I know a woman with a PhD in pharmacology, who took ~5-6 years off to be at home while her kids were young. When she returned to the workforce, she took a lower position initially because she had a flexible schedule. She is now a manager and still has her flexible schedule. I believe she goes in early, her husband gets the kids off to school, and then she leaves at 2:30 or 3 to go pick them up for school.

That's the type of work situation I'd like to have. Unfortunately, in my field (sciences/engineering) most of the time women are expected to put their family life on the back burner. But the attitudes and cultures seem to be changing bit by bit, and flextime and other work/life options seem to be more common.

[aephi alum]

According to this article, my husband should be miserable because he married a "career girl".

Each couple needs to decide for themselves what makes sense - whether that's "he works, she stays home and cooks and cleans and minds the kids" or "she works, he stays home" or "one of us takes a few years off and re-enters the workforce once the kids are in school" or "we both work and the kids go to day care" or "we both work and we don't have kids". In this day and age, both men and women do have choices.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Marie

Does anybody know of a woman who took time off to have kids and successfully transitioned back into the workplace years later (meaning achieved promotions to middle or upper management)? If so, what industry was she in?

Yes - I know at least two in education (transitioned back, became administrators), one in insurance (rose to Vice President/Co-Owner of her agency), a couple in public relations (one became a director of communications for a major nonprofit, the other rose to partner in her PR firm), and a handful in law (rose from associate to partner and, in some case, senior partner). On average, they left during pregnancy and returned when the children were in the beginnings of elementary school (around 6 years old). I'll agree in the attorney example that it's not the rule as much the exception; these women were well-regarded trial lawyers or had a large number of contacts in the business community, so that when they returned they could still pull in the clients and revenue for their firms.

All of these women were established in their fields and kept up contacts when they left to raise their children. For them, it was a nearly seamless transition back to their working lives.

[amycat412]

Marie, My best friend just did. She left advertising 6 years ago and recently went back--at same level she left at, but the co. was hot to hire her because her first expetrience was in LA and now she is in SLC

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PinkandGreenJ

For lawyers, it almost kills your partnership chances. Whereas for men, its an asset for them to have a family for partnership.

Both of these are only partially (or, more specifically, they are situationally) true.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by PinkandGreenJ

Depends on what way you define quality of life

I don't mean material possessions. It's really nice to come home to a place where the beds are made, things are clean, and you know that someone, out of love, cares enough about the home, and the people inside of it, to make sure that things are clean and a good meal will be made, etc. That, not what "stuff" you have, defines quality of life.

So, yes, having one person--regardless of gender--at home does increase the quality of life.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I don't mean material possessions. It's really nice to come home to a place where the beds are made, things are clean, and you know that someone, out of love, cares enough about the home, and the people inside of it, to make sure that things are clean and a good meal will be made, etc. That, not what "stuff" you have, defines quality of life.

So, yes, having one person--regardless of gender--at home does increase the quality of life.

However, it's not necessary for one person to stay home for these things to happen -- there are other options. If both people work a reasonable number of hours (say, 40 instead of 70 per week) and they choose a small house close to work instead of a McMansion way out in the 'burbs, they may well have time to do the things you mention. Some people don't care about beds being made and would prefer to order takeout or go to a restaurant -- and hey, some people think having 900 crappy cars is where it's at and that material possessions matter more than anything else.

Quality of life and what's important is, as always, different for everyone.

[KAY10]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Well, that's your opinion, and some people disagree. In my ideal relationship, both parties have the same options and responsibilities, and I wouldn't even consider dating a guy who thought it was his "duty" to provide for me (and, of course, that guy wouldn't want to date me, either).

LOL what's the point? Everybody has his or her own idea of how relationships should work, and what's right for one person isn't necessarily right for someone else. Problems arise only when people try to have relationships with others who don't share their ideals or can't reach an acceptable compromise. There is nothing wrong with a guy who wants a woman to stay home and raise kids -- someone like me who doesn't want to stay home or have kids would be a fool to date him, and would be a bigger fool to say that there's something wrong with him because of it, or, worse, that men suck because they're tryin' to keep the strong women down.

As a side note, my problems with the Forbes article are numerous, but I don't even think it's worthy of discussion.

I can agree with that.

[PinkandGreenJ]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Both of these are only partially (or, more specifically, they are situationally) true.

Just like with everything! There are always exceptions! It also is dependent on the firm culture, city culture, type of law, size of firm, etc. Too many variables......There was an interesting article in the NYT a few months back on this subject if anyone is interested in the female partnership aspect.

[Marie]

Thanks All. I'll definitely put some time and thought into the best way to create that balance.

[Marie]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I don't mean material possessions. It's really nice to come home to a place where the beds are made, things are clean, and you know that someone, out of love, cares enough about the home, and the people inside of it, to make sure that things are clean and a good meal will be made, etc. That, not what "stuff" you have, defines quality of life.

So, yes, having one person--regardless of gender--at home does increase the quality of life.

I feel you. Just a thought, though. My mom worked, and we had all of the above. Beds were made before anyone left for work/school, daily cleaning was done each evening in preparation for the next day, and a homemade meal was prepared every night btwn 6 and 7. Additionally, I got daily assistance w/homework, door to door car service (I never had to rely on public transportation), and parental attendance at every school function under the sun (believe me, I was in a lot of crap) including school field trips (you know it was fun times when you could pick your own group since your parent was the chaperone). My parents will celebrate their 29th wedding anniversary next June. I'm not taking anything away from having someone stay home, but I just want to point out that 2 working parents does not equal a sacrafice in quality of life.

*Sidenote* I need to go send my parents some flowers b/c they worked hard as hell!

[PinkandGreenJ]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I don't mean material possessions. It's really nice to come home to a place where the beds are made, things are clean, and you know that someone, out of love, cares enough about the home, and the people inside of it, to make sure that things are clean and a good meal will be made, etc. That, not what "stuff" you have, defines quality of life.

So, yes, having one person--regardless of gender--at home does increase the quality of life.

Perhaps for you. You can have a clean house with a cleaning woman. For me, quality of life is the being able to live life. Not having to be the one who has to clean....being able to go out to eat at a nice place and not have to cook or clean up after it....being able to enjoy my family and their company and not have to worry about the laundry, etc.

For you, that equals quality of life. But, I am sure for others, like myself, it does not. That is exactly why I said it depends on how you define it. What makes America great is that we all can have different definitions, opinions, etc. and no one can saw we are wrong. Each person needs to determine what is right for them.

BTW- even if I am home, there is no way I am cleaning. That is what I have a cleaning person for. You said it was nice for you to come home to a clean home that someone cared enough to clean for you- well, it is nice for me to come home to a clean house that my husband made me get a cleaning person to clean so that I can pursue my interests other than Pine Sol. Again, its all in the definition.

[PinkandGreenJ]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Quality of life and what's important is, as always, different for everyone.

AMEN!