She had everything -- but a life

Arranging life so the family can sit down together for dinner, or count on enjoying a vacation when they need one, is missing from the lives of lowly clerks, skilled industrial workers, general laborers, and all kinds of other people.

Raising children is work, it is essential, and if our entire culture and economy don't value it, it will get short shrift.

Really great comment, Siarlys Jenkins. Amen!

Great Lugh, I can agree with Mr/ Mrs Jenkins. This women spent her twenties building up capital so she could do this. Moreover she was blessed in the cognitive ability lottery in life. But she does not think of society as a whole -- she is extremely fortunate, as is her husband. But I know these sorts -- and I know they will vote next election with nary a care about how to make what they enjoy possible for others. I don't blame her, it is not malicious. It is just that they never think beyond their own, limited, circle.

You have to go further than no explicit mandatory overtime. Remembering our economy again, if that overtime is available, there are people who can't afford not to take it to keep their families afloat.

You need to go one step farther though, Siarlys, and note that, as uncommon as such an event as this seems to be, they're practically plentiful in comparison to the number of men making the choice to be the one that stays home to tend the household and care for the children.

We're not just dealing with the fundamental problem of people working for bare sustenance rather than for usable capital that Adam Smith warned of in the basic definition of capitalism, but also still the unbalanced bias against what is and isn't "real" work as defined by whose role it is still assumed to be to do that work. The two elements are fundamentally linked in our social consciousness, no matter how much we try to believe that we've managed to overcome that particular bias.

Siiiiiiigh. I applaud her and ache with jealousy at the same time. But I'm stuck. I married a guy who was going into ministry, and that was okay, because I could work in the advertising industry and make enough to support us. Then his ministry failed due to partners who quit on him to pursue bigger dollars in secular careers (replacements didn't work out). So I kept working after three babies arrived. My husband's second career met an untimely end after the dotcom crash. I kept working. After struggling to figure out what his third career would be, he was struck by a truck as he was walking across a street (driver was negligent) and suffered a closed head brain injury. Now he'll probably never be able to be the primary breadwinner, though he does have a customer service job. Meanwhile, I fail at everything. My employers think I'm not dedicated enough because I have to be home every night to do the homework help/bathing/advising/cooking/cleaning/laundry/lunch-packing/lawn work, etc., so I have been getting tiny raises if anything at all. I'm getting old -- I don't know what I'll do when I lose this job (age discrimination is rampant in my profession, so I'm lucky I've held on as long as I have). My house is never clean enough, there are dozens of things that need repair, and there's never enough money to hire help. My kids -- well, I try really hard not to let them suffer. I try to help them feel they have just as much "mom" as anybody else. But I don't know how often I succeed. I'm just grateful my husband has recovered enough to start parenting again, and on his good days, he can help around the house. I can't regret where my life is because I haven't had any other choice for years. But I wish I could be the creative, energetic, kid-focused mom I had always intended to be. And I wish I wasn't so exhausted and lonely and desperate for help that's never there (no family in town, no time for friendship). Lord knows, when my kids grow up and marry and have kids, I'll do whatever I can to help them out so that they can be the parents they want and need to be.

Judith, the admiration comes from the fact that she's done the difficult and unusual thing in her social milieu: walked away from a high-powered, remunerative job for the sake of her family. What's not to admire about that? In my book, I had a long passage about my wife, and how I admire the choice she made to leave the working world to devote herself fulltime to raising our child (and subsequent children). It was easier, I suppose, for her to do it than for Hinsliff, because Julie was just starting her career. But it was still very difficult, especially living in New York City as we did, where there wasn't a lot of cultural support for that, or for young motherhood (once, in Bloomingdale's when she was pregnant with Matthew, Julie, then 22, had a strange woman walk up to her, look at her belly, and sniff, "Babies having babies," then walk away). As Julie says in the book, she could only afford to make that choice because she concluded that she could count on me to be faithful to her, and not to leave the family. She's right, and that puts a big responsibility on my shoulders, one that I am pleased to carry and to honor. Still, husbands whose wives make that choice should always be conscious of the trust and fidelity required to give to one's children the gift of a full-time mom.

Furthermore, we live in a culture in which the work women do in the home is undervalued. An irony of feminism: instituting the dogma that the only women's work that is treated as on parity with men's work is work that heretofore was done only by men. Like the Hinsliff family, we are blessed that I make enough money to support Julie being a full-time mom; many women and families obviously are constrained by finances from making that choice. What Hinsliff discovered, though, was that she and her family could bear the loss of that second income more than the loss of a full-time mom. Anytime a mother or father places the welfare of their children and the family unit over money or professional achievement, it is to be applauded, not only because it's the right thing to do, but because in our culture, it's the difficult thing to do.

She calls her blog "Used to Be Somebody". By that reckoning, I'd have to call a blog "Have Never Been Anybody Anyway".

I'm not sure to what extent she'd being ironic with that title -- making fun of the idea that a woman is only "somebody" as long as she's got a good job -- or if she's expressing her own anxieties about how her sense of self will suffer from the choice she's made. Probably both. If I felt compelled to leave my job as a journalist to be a fulltime Mr. Mom, it would be very, very difficult, because so much of my identity over the years has become wrapped up in what I do for a living. I would hope to have the courage that Hinsliff does.

In one sense it would be easier for me: men don't engage in the masculine equivalent of the Mommy Wars, i.e., men don't snipe at each other for making those choices. I'm certain that at least some of the criticism working women aim at women like Hinsliff comes from a sense of guilt that they themselves aren't making the same choice for their kids, if they know in their hearts that they can afford it. Conversely, I can easily imagine that some stay-at-home moms can get self-righteous about the choice they made, as a way of dealing with feelings of inadequacy and self-reproach over the choice they made to leave the office.

Sigh, your story is heartbreaking. I'm sorry to hear it. I find it hard to imagine how hard-pressed women in your situation must be with regard to feeling like you don't provide enough time and service to your children. The needs of kids are never-ending, and seem to expand to fill however much space you give them. I wonder if there is any such thing as a conscientious mom who believes that she has provided enough for their welfare.

I think the Hinsliff story speaks mostly to women like the top magazine editor I interview 10 years ago in New York, who told me with no hint of self-awareness that yes, she was always at the office late, or off to dinners or parties connected to her job, and she didn't see her children often. But she made sure the time she did have with them -- usually a few minutes before bedtime daily -- was "quality time." She really believed that lie, because she couldn't keep doing her job if she didn't, and her job was too important to her sense of self. If that meant her children suffered from not having a mom at home, then that's just how it was going to be. Self came first for her, even though she didn't have a financial need to do that job.

Powerful story. Interesting to see it on CC. Sadly, it's the most important subject of our era, and probably the least talked about because it brings to light the failures of our progressive culture that we are so proud of.

And the writer of this article will soon find that merely working less doesn't automatically lead to a healthy family oasis living among a decaying culture; I would bet some serious cash she will be disappointed and find herself back in the work saddle in no time. Why? Because only faith, sacrifice, correct choices, and hard work can lead to the good family life. And contra modern fantasy, there are no easy political fixes to get here either; The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent those mistakes from being corrected. Sure, modern feminism is one heck of a fatal cultural mistake, sure. But so are materialism and secularism. They are the two horns of the same dilemma, and the family is DOA.

Siarlys, Arranging life so the family can sit down together for dinner, or count on enjoying a vacation when they need one, is missing from the lives of lowly clerks, skilled industrial workers, general laborers, and all kinds of other people.

Have to smile at this. It's going to be fun watching the average American shed one income and have a nice little vacation and work less hours. Not without cutting way, way back on spending. My coworkers? I'm actually laughing out loud here.

No, any such social change will occur only after the the community decline reaches such a horrific level that the last, terrified middle class folk are hungry to accept that women need social and legal protection to be mothers, and men need social and legal protection to be breadwinners and heads of their homes, and that government support of unwed mothers has been a disaster. But it will take a lot more pain before we go here, as it means one heck of a loss if individual rights for everyone, such as the right to walk away from a family, the right to work for equal pay, the right of the individual over family. Religion and moral taboos, not law, used to protect the family. Until these return, it's going to merely spectator sport since we are nowhere near this realization in 2009. There is going to have to have be acknowledgment of our complete social failure first, and this won't happen until the boomers, the vanguard of this failed era, are safely pushing up daisies. By then, we also simply won't be able to prop up the mess any longer as we run out of money and try to pay off our debts. But it's happening fast; a lot of these changes could start as the economic crisis develops.

Rod, your comment about that working mother made me think of something my mother once said:

"Children spell love T-I-M-E".

Two years ago, with the support of my husband (who made/makes far less than I do at a not-for-profit organization), I left my high-level, high salary, 70-hour a week job and began taking on freelance work. I am a far happier and healthier person now. And, surprisingly, I've been able to make a comfortable living as a freelancer…we are not "just squeaking by" by any means.

While I was working at my "high-level" job, the idea of having children frankly repulsed me. It seemed unfathomable to add another complication into my life; I had so few moments to my self, or with my husband, that the idea of adding another just seemed insane. I was one of those folks who puzzled about why the "breeders" did it. Now, as I think about what makes a fulfilling life I think about my travels since leaving my full-time job--trips of up to a month in which I spent whole weeks reading a stack of books and eating cheap, delicious exotic food (far from the soulless business trips I used to take)--I think about the trips my husband and I have taken together over the holidays and on the weekends…I think about how exciting it is that we're going to meet our baby in just four months, give or take (!!), and, although I am a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, I think about how good it makes me feel to make us both breakfast before he leaves for work in the morning, or to score some delicious produce at the farmers market. We don't have a nice car and it is looking like we will only just barely be able to afford a house (though we are trying!). Do I ever look back on my previous professional life and big paycheck and regret leaving it behind? Never--not even when sitting in the mortgage brokers office. Rather, I feel a bit like an animal who chewed its foot off to get out of a trap…

Sounds morbid, right? BUT my previous job WAS creatively fulfilling, and interesting, and I don't regret doing it for the time that I did…I guess I regret that it was incompatible with a family life, a personal life, and, frankly, my physical health. There is something wrong when women (or men) must sacrifice their personal lives in order to have a profession. For me, the money wasn't worth it. I do wish our employment marketplace allowed for folks to have both. And I remain hopeful that at some point, after the baby, I'll be able to find an engaging job that allows for me to have time for myself and my family. It's a relief not to care anymore about money or prestige, and to be able to appreciate what I have now, which is really more than I have any right to ask for, when I really think about it…

Why, just this morning at church, a member got up and talked about being a busy family practice doctor while her husband was a busy orthopedic physician. When the kids came, their lives became so hectic--filled with take-out dinners and chaos--that she finally decided to "stop family practice and start practicing family."
I applauded and many others in the congregation joined me. No doubt she experienced many blessings for her choice and showed zero regret about it.
Now, her kids are grown and her life is in a different season. With more free time, she has happily entered into an opportunity to practice medicine once again, serving at a free clinic in town. She seems content. Good for her.

Ever since I had my first child, I knew that being a United States Senator could not come compare with the satisfaction of being an at-home mom. I still believe that with all my heart.

Stari, Siarlys is a Welsh name, its male, and I'm not married. But thanks for the compliment, you and Cecelia and everyone else who agreed.

David (another good Welsh name, but a more common one in English too), you are correct about the chances of staying home with the kids AND affording vacations in the current market economy. Call me communist, socialist, communitarian, or whatever sort of collectivism is in vogue in devout Christian circles these days, but if we found a sensible way to shift the incentives and the flow of money, we really could give families more options. It is not true that if you just taxed 90% on the super-rich you could fund prosperity for all, but it is true that if, for example, top executive salaries were limited to 20 times what the lowest paid entry level worker received, we would have a somewhat more equitable distribution of money, and we could provide more options to families raising children. Some prices would drop, some paychecks would grow larger, and the parasites would have to work for a living. On the other hand, if everything is measured in monetary terms, raising a family requires sacrifice, and SOME pleasures might better be pursued AFTER the children are grown. Most of us live long enough to have some decades left, unlike our ancestors a few centuries ago. I think there are some Hindu and Buddhist traditions that you spend 20 years growing up, 20 years raising a family, 20 years in well compensated honorable public service, then retire to a monastery. That's not for everyone, but it is an interesting model. We can't all have it all, all the time. To everything there is a season.

I think we have such a schizophrenic view of what it means to be a stay-at-home-mom. On one hand it’s perceived to be heroic and morally superior. On the other, it means that you have no social status. Culturally, we see it as being the more fulfilling option, but a woman who does so has no identity outside of her family. I’ve heard over and over again about women who leave great, but busy jobs to be home with their families and have found it to be so rewarding, blah, blah, blah.

I’m a new stay-at-home-mom and am eager for my child to hit pre-school so I can get a part-time job. We are fortunate that we don’t need the extra income, but some days I feel like being home full-time is turning me crazy. The way that we “do” mothering in our culture is a recipe for insanity. One woman, one or more children, one-on-one 24/hours a day! As much as I adore my child, I can’t do that. I feel considerably less crazy on the weekends, when my husband is home, or when my mother is visiting or when I’m with a friend and realize more and more that raising a child is a group task not the sole responsibility of one woman, alone.

I think that the work-home balance is something that we’ll never find unless we start raising our children in community.

This lady's account might have been groundbreaking in 1998, but it seems to me that women of that class have been blogging this same story for like, five years now. It is getting kind of predictable.

Not that this is a bad thing, mind you!

After all, I was a housewife before it was cool. ;) (Practically every mom I know is a housewife. It's a military thing. All my mom's friends were housewives, too, since, like me, she was a soldier's wife.)

I just figure that eventually there will be a newer, hawter, generation of grrrls who aren't going to let farmer's markets and Thomas the Tank Engine reruns sidetrack them from Demolishing the Patriarchy, one 60-hour workweek at a time. lol.

But my favorite commenter on the whole issue right now is Tom Hodgkinson, of "The Idle Parent" fame. Two parents, three kids, and supposedly no real "job" between them. The mind boggles.

What I wouldn't give up to have my husband HOME more than three or four waking hours a day!

I do think the author makes a valid point. And I'm all for downsizing.

However, there seems to be a lot of upper-middle-class swagger (typical of the Observer) involved. She could do what she did because of her husband's good income. She had to mention Oxford - one of the most expensive places in Britain. I would be more interested to hear about downsizers on more modest incomes - eg. London corporate drones who've sold their flats to buy little houses in unattractive northern towns, and semi-retired. People are seldom as totally trapped as they imagine, but they are not helped by advice/gloating from people who really do have a lot of options.

Good post Rod, and great comment by Siarlys, who said,

"Raising children is work, it is essential, and if our entire culture and economy don't value it, it will get short shrift."

Indeed, our culture and economy don't value family. Takes two jobs for most families just to stay afloat. Few employers provide decent maternity or sick leave. There's little flexibility in schedules for most. Part-time workers are second-class citizens. "Family values" politicos are ironically also most often aligned with big businesses that exacerbate these problems. There are powerful forces indeed working against family integrity.

What's it going to take to change things? A cultural shift. And even when there's a push for them, those usually take a generation, sometimes two.

"It is so bogus that society is sending a message right now and has been for probably the last 40 years that a woman isn't strong enough or smart enough to be able to pursue an education, a career and her rights and still let her baby live."
Sarah Palin, Nov. 6 2006

Re: I don't know how the actual Jewish name of the King David in the Bible was spelled or pronounced, but "David" is a modern Europeanized variation.

This is true: our English Biblical names come to us after first being filtered by Greek and Latin (and sometimes French). "James" for example started out as "Yacobimini". It's odd that the name "David" appears to be popular only in the British Isles (and their descendant nations), and probably derives mainly from the Welsh usage. Why was King David a popular source of naming there and no where else in Europe?

It's true that most women can't actually have much of a career-plus-baby without leaning pretty heavily on outside care. Question becomes, who is going to provide that extra care, and how are we going to pay them?

The spoiled yoga moms are a fair bit better than some of the part-time working young moms of my acquaintance, who don't quite make enough money to pay for reliable childcare, but whose husbands also don't have good enough prospects to make permanently forgoing their wives' small careers a reasonable option.

Those couples try to do opposite shifts to avoid burdensome childcare costs, but they also lean pretty heavily on friends and family to look after their kids during inevitable scheduling conflicts. It gets OLD after awhile.

All that "it takes a village" stuff leaves out the inevitable petty village drama.

I, for one, am feeling pretty tired of being the unpaid "emergency" back-up babysitter lately. grrr.