"I have no doubt that most women (and men) would like more time with their children and more flexible schedules and workplace policies to facilitate that being possible. That's definitely what feminists want."

Amen to that! This is a big reason why I like Chris Dodd so much in the presidential race...it's too bad he hasn't gotten more traction. He sponsored the original FMLA, and is now pushing for an updated version that would make the mandatory leave paid instead of unpaid (so we can join ever other country in the world except for, what, Swaziland and a couple other backwaters?).

Alan

I'm a SAHM. I love it, I get to play with my 5 month old,work on my cooking skills, have a breastfeeding support group and read Feministing all day. We (my husband and I) sacrifice the income that I would be making so that our baby has the attention she deserves. But you know what, there are some things I miss about working. I miss having my own money, especially around the holidays. I also miss that feeling of accomplishment that I used to get when I got my paycheck, or when I taught my consumers something new.

There really is a different kind of happiness in working outside the home.

I think it's really important not to fall into the stay-at-home-parent/parent-working-outside-the-home
"controversy" that the media loves so much. While I can't picture myself being happy being the full-time at-home parent when/if I and a partner have children, my mother viewed her parenting, as a home-educator in the 1980s, as political and counter-cultural. Being an parent full-time does not necessarily mean being socially isolated or publically productive, especially if your interests and abilities match the sort of work you're doing based at home (my mother was interested in early childhood education and intentional community years before having kids). I don't necessarily think it has to be mothers doing this work, or one parent exclusively even. But I also don't think if is the mother and she is doing it full-time, it is necessarily a less-happy option.

What I'm wondering is if the data are impacted by the fact that full-time stay-at-home mothers tend to be in family systems that are more traditional--and THAT's the factor, rather than the work/not-work issue?

I forgot to really touch on the social aspects.

I don't doubt that many SAHMs have social issues, hell I did until I found out that babies are portable. I have a wonderful tool called a Nojo baby sling that allows me to tote my little one with me everywhere, so I still keep up with my friends. I think having organized activities for mamas is important, similar to annajcook's mom, I have my own interests. Right now its spreading support for other breastfeeding moms, next year it could be anything.

I wonder if working moms get more or less outside of work social time than us SAHMs?

I agree with annjcook, I think. These studies need to be thought about and discussed. It's probably not as simple as just working outside the home. When I look at a study like this I think that the point it really emphasizes is that women (and men) cannot be fulfilled with a one-track life. Especially a life that is confined to the private sphere, one that is socially isolating, one where a woman (or man) is not free to follow any or all passions or interests. If the majority of stay at home moms are from traditional or conservative systems (like annajcook points out), chances are they are not taught to think about themselves or pursue interests beyond being a good wife and mother.

Plus, no one is ever summed up neatly in one identity and women who work outside the home automatically have a separate and independent identity.

I think it is important to note that this article states that "non-working mothers are more satisfied with life once their children start school."
The costs of full time care for young (infants to preschool age) children, at least in my experience, virtually cancelled out any income I made from working outside the home. That definitely did not make me happier!
I'd be curious to know what the average income to childcare expenses ratio was for the women in the study.

acranom - i think you're right; it's not about being "at home" or "outside the home" per se, but rather access to social situations and participation in activities that are fulfilling to the individual distinct from marriage and family, whatever those might be. i imagine that most people, irrespective of gender, thrive best in an environment that allows them to both commit themselves to work and to having a family/personal relationships. nothing new here, we just suck at making it happen in this country.

But when it comes women who are stuck at home with no outlets for public productivity, less financial security and--as Amanda points out--less ability to be social--it's not exactly shocking that they would be less satisfied and happy.

A more useful feminist reaction might be to inquire as to the soceital factors that prohibit women from getting the most out of a choice that many take freely, and many more would like to. It's disappointing that the reaction here seems so resigned, no thought to the idea that those "keys to happiness" factors are necesarily dictated by culture. Must we shrug it off with "just go to work, then?" or as in the Salon article "maybe they need a job?" Is that the best we can do? How about the crazy idea that some mothers might like to stay at home AND be happy, and how can society support that choice that many many make, or might like to, if it wasn't a recipe for alienation and unhappiness in our culture?

The message seems to be: get a job and we're behind you all the way, stay home and your unhappiness is your own fault, and now we have the stats to prove it. Obligatory disclaimer: we support your choice to be unhappy, should you decide to make it.

Where's the creativity here? Where's the world changing ideas?

I feel like the study is a side issue altogether. Who cares what a study says about happiness?? - the point is having a choice. If you're happier staying at home with your kids, go for it, and enjoy. If you prefer to work at a paying job, that should be an option as well. You shouldn't be made to feel like you chose "poorly" in either case, so long as your children are loved and well-cared for and you find satisfaction in your day-to-day life. For me, one of the main points of the feminist movement was to create this choice, rather than requiring everyone to quit their jobs as soon as they got knocked up. It also created a choice for men, who should have the same stay-at-home option if they're married to someone who can financially support the whole family.

On a side note, I discovered feministing about 2 weeks ago and am completely hooked! Thanks for all you do. I'm driving my husband crazy quoting you, but it's good to be back in the feminist-know, as I've been lax about it the last few years.

As other commenters suggest, I think a prominent issue here is the element of choice. Ideally, a woman would have the chance to decide whether or not she would stay at home with her children or work outside of the home. Unfortunately, though, class difference doesn't always afford women the opportunity to work inside the home instead of in both the private and public spheres. Not to be total theory nerd, but Arlie Hochschild has written several books on the work/life balance for women, "The Time Bind" and "The Second Shift," in particular. My perspective is one which comes largely out of hearing stories from friends and colleagues with kids, so I haven't experienced it first-hand...but the work/family balance seems to be a constant point of anxiety and concern for women, especially among Women's Studies circles, where I am currently.

The study did show that there are happy stay at home mothers. But when compared to mothers who have a paycheck job, the percentage of happier ones was greater on the paycheck job side. This doesn't take away from those that are happy to stay at home. This doesn't take away from those of you happy at home. It's like gay marriage is not a threat to straight marriage. The happy career woman is not a threat to your lifestyle.

But don't presume that the study must be flawed, thinking that there must be some block in the way because surely, more women should be happier at home all the time.

Also, I think it is fruitful to reconsider what that recent author wrote about the financial dangers of stay at home mothers. If I were to give advice in this changing, scary economic world, as I did to my best friend who is stay at home, it would be to somehow keep your toe in the door professionally. You never know if your husband gets laid off (as happened to my friend) or something happens where you need a job with health benefits - which usually means a full time job where you are in tight competition with other people to get it.

To not do so is also not caring for your family and it is also not keeping that investment in your college education and your years of work experience valuable. You can do this without taking a full time job.

It is not easy to jump back into work, you aren't greeted with open arms from those who did not jump out of the work force (they figure they should have an advantage over you for their builtup time and commitment), and this difficulty getting back in is often minimized by the media.

"How about the crazy idea that some mothers might like to stay at home AND be happy, and how can society support that choice that many many make, or might like to, if it wasn't a recipe for alienation and unhappiness in our culture?"

...or a recipe for unhappiness on our planet?

I mean, it's not just human societies that put pressure on women to work for a living. Some of that pressure comes from survival instincts too. Most adults in most animal species on Earth need to put some effort into feeding themselves, instead of focusing more on reproductive instincts while someone or something else provides all the food.

"Where's the creativity here? Where's the world changing ideas?"

Now if only there was a way for people to photosynthesize... ;)

I agree with the others who are talking about choice. I am a working mom with a two-year-old, and I would LOVE to stay at home with him. Unfortunately for us it is not an option. We have to have two incomes. It does seem to me that the happiness factor depends upon whether or not you have the option of staying at home or not. And recent studies have shown that is true in all aspects of life; that is, the happiest people seem to be those that have the most choices. It seems obvious that this would carry over into working mothers vs. stay-at-home mothers.

"It's not exactly surprising that women who have paid jobs are happier than their unpaid stay-at-home counterparts."

Actually, I'd say that's pretty surprising. Where I grew up, lots of moms, including my own, stayed home and were happy to do so. Attacking stay-at-home mom or assuming they are any less happy is to limit the number of acceptable feminist occupations.

SuzyQ, SAHMs themselves are reporting lower levels of happiness. Nobody's assuming anything. And nobody's attacking anyone.
And raising one's children is not an occupation. Unless you consider the roof over your head and the food your husband pays for your "compensation."

I'm sorry, I didn't mean my last line to sound like an insult to SAHMs. It wasn't meant to be, but now that I read it, it looks like I'm accusing SAHMs of leeching off their spouses or something, when I definitely don't feel that way.
I think the husbands who are part of this equation should be part of the discussion as well.

tgood--welcome! I discovered feministing last spring, around the time of the Supreme Court ruling on abortion and it's been wonderful to be a part of an intellectual community of feminist thinkers again.

we support your choice to be unhappy, should you decide to make it.

I think it's important not to paint "feminism" with a single brush here. The feminist activism that has gotten the most press attention in the last 30 years has been focused on women's access to work and childcare--both very important issues--but there are certainly feminist theorists and activists out there who are trying to creatively re-imagine family life. off our backs did a two-issue special on motherhood and feminism last year, which I thought had some really great stuff in it.

Oh gosh, Mina, you're right. Mothers who want to stay at home simply *forgot* they had to feed themselves!

Attention all mothers who would like to spend your days with your children (or those wishing you could, if you could only afford it): you silly girly gooses, you have to feed yourselves, so get a job. You can thank me later for rescuing you from slackerdom in "focusing more on reproductive instincts while someone or something else provides all the food."

And Sarah MC, you don't have to get paid to have an occupation. Deliberately not acknowledging it as an occupation would go a long way toward delegitimizing the value of mothering as work (and whose ends does that serve again? Not feminists, surely...?) but unfortunately the dictionary doesn't support you on this.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/occupation

I liked my parent's strategy-- my father worked full-time during the week but he never took his work home (though he sometimes got called in if there was a problem). My mother worked part-time out of the house when we were infants, then would go into work 2 days and work at home 3 days a week once we were able to go to daycare/preschool. That way we got the advantage of a dual income, but someone was around to shuttle us to sports and clubs and pick us up from daycare, and to stay at home with us when we were very little so we didn't get dumped into daycare too early. Plus she was able to shift her schedule of days she went into work if we were sick, etc and work at home on those days; and she got the social aspect of going into the office and could get time to herself in the evenings and on weekends when my dad would watch us.

I know most parents don't have the best jobs for that, but if you can do it, it's a great system. I'm going into medicine so I probably won't have that kind of flexible schedule, but my current boyfriend is a writer, so if we wind up having kids someday he'll be able to work out of the house and make sure there's someone around to take care of the day-to-day childcare.

Having a parent who can work out of the house some of the time is a fabulous middle ground, in my opinion.

Also, I wonder what this study would be like if they made more categories: one for people who chose to work, one for those who feel forced to work to pay bills, one for those who chose to stay at home, one for those who stay at home for social/cultural reasons (because they feel it is their duty) and one for those who stay at home because of a specific reason, like caring for a severely disabled child.

I bet the highest happiness would be in those who chose to work, or chose to stay at home, and there wouldn't be all that much difference between the two. But many women who stay at home aren't choosing to do it-- they either feel pressure to do it from their family, partner, or community, or their child has specific and demanding needs that require lots of attention-- and I'd guess those are the women who will be reporting that they are unhappy with their situation.

I think some people confuse being an SAHM with having a reasonable maternity leave. In most countries, women have 6 months to a year or more, either partially or fully paid, before they go back to outside jobs.

In my own experience as a mother of three, it wasn't just the opportunity for social contacts when I was home vs. at work; it was the kind of social contacts. I was more fulfilled by the conversations I had at work, where I socialized with a variety of people (not just other women my age with kids around my kids' ages).

The pleasure I found in working may have been enhanced because my hours were reasonable (I was a teacher), and my husband was with the kids during the day and worked in the evenings, so we had minimal childcare costs. Though I personally don't think there's anything wrong with daycare, we avoided censure from those who do.

The women I knew who were most interested in being home were often those who carried the bulk of the second shift when they were working or who hated their jobs and were looking for a socially acceptable way out. They probably enjoyed being home more than they enjoyed either of these alternatives.

is there such a think as a non-working mom?

I don't think anyone is attacking SAHMs at all. I just think it's important to acknowledge the unhappiness that women who don't work outside the home may feel--especially considering social conservatives are so hell bent on telling young women that this is how they'll be happiest.

And it's not only that I think the potential isolation or whatever could make women unhappy--I think we can all agree that the work women do at home isn't valued, and I imagine that could play a big part in women's unhappiness.

"I think some people confuse being an SAHM with having a reasonable maternity leave. In most countries, women have 6 months to a year or more, either partially or fully paid, before they go back to outside jobs."

Exactly. I stayed home with my daughter for a year and it was wonderful. I never considered myself a stay at home mom though. I knew that I had a job waiting for me and I received employment insurance benefits plus top up from my employer.

I bet some of the unhappiness comes from feeling unappreciated/unsupported by husbands who work outside the home.

I know some SAHMs have husbands who refuse to contribute to childcare, cooking, or other chores after they get home from the office at night. They think they deserve to relax all night since they "worked hard all day" and "this is her job."
In effect, he works 9-5 while she works from dawn until her head hits the pillow.
I know that's true of many women who work outside the home as well (the second shift), so...

"Oh gosh, Mina, you're right. Mothers who want to stay at home simply *forgot* they had to feed themselves!"

I was responding to your statement "how can society support that choice that many many make, or might like to, if it wasn't a recipe for alienation and unhappiness in our culture?" and pointing out that earning a living is hardly an arbitrary custom generated by snobbery alone.

Meanwhile, how many adults who can earn a living for themselves but prefer doing something else do you think societies should support?

"Also, I wonder what this study would be like if they made more categories: one for people who chose to work, one for those who feel forced to work to pay bills, one for those who chose to stay at home, one for those who stay at home for social/cultural reasons (because they feel it is their duty) and one for those who stay at home because of a specific reason, like caring for a severely disabled child."

Also, just as some women don't have the choice of whether or not to work outside the home, some women don't have the choice of whether or not to be a mother.

What if someone wants to be a mother but no sperm bank, adoption, agency, or potential sex partner is willing to help her have a child?

What if someone doesn't want to be a mother but doesn't have enough access to birth control?

What if a pregnant women doesn't want to be a mother but doesn't have access to abortion and her husband won't let her give up their kid for foster care or adoption?

"is there such a think as a non-working mom?"

Great point.

Well, I do find it surprising for women with full time jobs to be happier, just based on what I’ve seen with my co workers. I have many female co workers who have children under the age of 2. Maternity leaves are 12 weeks at MOST and unpaid. Most co workers take significantly less because they cannot afford to be without income for that long. One of my co workers took only 2 weeks because she was a single mom and could not afford to live. Now we are a fairly normal/average American establishment with a 9 hour workday (includes lunch), 2 weeks vacation a year, most employees don’t work overtime except certain managers during certain times of the year. But add in commutes and such and most of my co workers only see their children an hour or two a day. Plus when their children get sick they get flack for taking too much sick time (we aren’t allowed to work from home and daycare will not take sick children). I am not the least bit envious and plan to quit at least for a couple years when I have children. Not that I think being home full time will be the most ideal environment, but it seems to be all or nothing in corporate America today, and I think staying home will be less stressful as a whole and allow me to explore different more fulfilling ways to spend my time than what I do at work, which frankly is not that enjoyable.

I think part time/flexible options would strike the ideal balance, unfortunately in the US these options are not to the point where they are financially viable. Most part time jobs are in the retail/food service sector, provide little pay and no benefits, and do not provide the intellectual stimulation that many women need. I agree that instead of fighting between stay at home and working moms we should be campaigning for more part time and job sharing options for both men and women that allow them to spend time with their children and enjoy the economic, social, and intellectual benefits of working outside the home.

I thought the most important message of this study was that working women are happy and fulfilled. *That* is what flies in the face of the traditionalist notions about gender.

They don't report the means or standard deviations in the piece, but I'm guessing it's a small effect. That overall, there probably isn't that much of a difference between the groups.

I think this piece also points out that staying at home isn't a magic happy button for women. Whether or not staying home produces happiness will depend on a number of factors (how much they like their social contacts such as other moms, how much family support they have, how many kids under age 6 there are to deal with, etc.).

we aren’t allowed to work from home

I know that telecommuting has become more popular in the past few years, but I know it could be (and should) be better.
What is the point of making all your employees drive to and from work in order to sit at a desk for a set number of hours, when they could do their jobs from home?
Allowing and encouraging telecommuting, in sectors where it's viable, would reduce traffic congestion, cut down on travel time, and allow workers to have more flexibility in their jobs. I know I often feel like it's a huge waste for me to be sitting here in my office, waiting for 5:30 to come so I can get out of here, when I've had the day's work completed for two hours and could be chilling at home.
Abolishing the strict 9-5, five-day work week, wherein all workers must leave home in order to do jobs they *could* do from their home computers, would go a long way towards making many parents' lives easier and more fulfilling.

Okay, now that I've read the actual report, there really isn't anything there.

On a 7 point life satisfaction scale:

Women who work 6-10 hours per week are the happiest (5.3)

Women who 0 hours a week are least happy (5.0).

Women who work more than that fall in between (means 5.1-5.2).

But in other words, that's pretty much nothing on a 7 point scale. The only reason is a significant difference is because there is a large sample. I didn't read carefully to see what factors they controlled for (e.g., income, etc.) but really that whole news article is making alot out of nothing.

So, just to restate my opinion, the major finding of this study is that working women are just as fulfilled as stay-at-home moms, if even a little more so. Which is positive news for feminists trying to open more opportunities for women.

http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/pubs/workpaps/pdf/2007-20.pdf

Meanwhile, how many adults who can earn a living for themselves but prefer doing something else do you think societies should support?

I think, Mina, that it's wrong to say that parents who are full-time parenting and not doing wage-work are not "earning a living." Marriage or other like partnerships in which adults and children share resources are small-scale communal arrangements. Families enter into economic as well as social relationships--we share resources and apportion the work that needs to get done to benefit the overall health and wellbeing of the family. Parenting is one of those tasks.

While I understand that people should keep in mind that these partnerships may not last forever, I also don't think it's freeloading for one parent to spend some years not earning a wage, but instead raising children.

"What I'm wondering is if the data are impacted by the fact that full-time stay-at-home mothers tend to be in family systems that are more traditional--and THAT's the factor, rather than the work/not-work issue?"

Very interesting. As part of my marketing degree, we had to construct surveys to take different factors into account, but I hadn't even considered the above. Knowing WHY the people happy or not is vitally important.

"The message seems to be: get a job and we're behind you all the way, stay home and your unhappiness is your own fault, and now we have the stats to prove it. Obligatory disclaimer: we support your choice to be unhappy, should you decide to make it."

"The message seems to be: get a job and we're behind you all the way, stay home and your unhappiness is your own fault, and now we have the stats to prove it. Obligatory disclaimer: we support your choice to be unhappy, should you decide to make it."

I am saddened to hear or read the stories of women [not here] who feel their status of SAHM is looked down upon by many in modern society, or literally, about some young women who feel like they have somehow failed as modern women, if they would like to [hypothetically] stay at home to raise a family in the future. It is just another choice for people to make. It is too bad so many families (like mine) need more than one income.

"And raising one's children is not an occupation. Unless you consider the roof over your head and the food your husband pays for your 'compensation.'"

In the strict modern sense of earning a living, as in typical leading definitions on dictionary.com, perhaps. But as a calling, a calling as valid as any other like a man getting into nursing at the age of 39, nearly bankrupting the family with full time schooling, I wholeheartedly disagree. I understand you did not mean to imply SAHM are taking from their husbands. It is simply a division of labor.

wonder what this study would be like if they made more categories: one for people who chose to work, one for those who feel forced to work to pay bills

The problem is that those categories are, for all but a few people, entirely overlapping. I have to work to support myself, sure. But I have chosen the work I do, and I love it. If I didn't have to work to support myself, I'd probably change some of the restrictions under which I work--hours, courseloads, etc.--but I wouldn't give up the job. Similarly, how are we going to differentiate between women who stay home because they want to and those who stay home due to socio-cultural pressures?

Hang on, I misspoke--when I said "for all but a few people," I was thinking of the very few who don't have to work, not the all too many who do have to work at jobs not of their choosing. My class error. I'm sorry.

I maintain that for a great majority of middle-class households, those categories almost completely overlap.

"'Meanwhile, how many adults who can earn a living for themselves but prefer doing something else do you think societies should support?'

"I think, Mina, that it's wrong to say that parents who are full-time parenting and not doing wage-work are not 'earning a living.'"

Of course they're working. OTOH, not all work is earning a living. Can these workers in question eat the results of the work or exchange the results of the work for something else to eat...?

"Marriage or other like partnerships in which adults and children share resources are small-scale communal arrangements. Families enter into economic as well as social relationships--we share resources and apportion the work that needs to get done to benefit the overall health and wellbeing of the family. Parenting is one of those tasks."

Yeah, that sounds like another adult/s in the household supporting the one/s who choose to not earn their daily bread/rice/etc.

Meanwhile, Sage sure seemed to be talking about societies supporting adults who choose to not earn it.

Which reminds me, what if both parents in the household (or all the adults in a polyamorous or extended-family household) want to stay at home and raise kids full-time instead of earning groceries too...?

What if both parents in the household (or all the adults in a polyamorous or extended-family household) want to stay at home and raise kids full-time instead of earning groceries too...?

In my mind the idea would be to come up cooperatively with a plan that might be a compromise, but took into account everyone's wishes as equally as possible. Just because one parent/partner WANTS to be a full-time parent, doesn't mean that gives them the right to do so regardless of all the other family members' wishes.

Barring some sort of socialized childcare, where adults who wanted to parent full-time took care of the society's children, and all the other adults supported them collectively, it seems like the balance of parenting and wage-earning needs to happen on the level of individual families (in whatever form), with a framework of support from the state and business sectors--eg flexible work schedules, childcare options, etc.

What is the point of making all your em