i think the forbes piece is a bit presumptuous and foppish — much like the rest of the publication.

what family wouldn't want to thrive on a single income? what family wouldn't want more time to devote to kids?

forbes longs for the days of ward and june while ignoring the simple reality that it's nearly impossible to get by on a single income WITHOUT the trust fund.

Families these days are often taking care of kids AND older parents, with higher health, housing and education costs than ward and june ever imagined. we work more to earn what we did or less.

fact is couples do the best they can with the hand they're dealt. that second income means anything from college for a daughter to chemo for a grandmom.

I say Forbes should stop living in a fantasy and advocate real solutions (you know, OTHER than tax breaks for people who regularly read Forbes) to help people have a life where the TOUGHEST challenge they face is which spouse works.

I'm hearing general agreement that the research saying stay-at-home housewives take the best care of families is true, but it is not particularly useful.

I think the useful research we need right now is how each family can make their own decisions in this area.

In talking to people about this question I have been thinking that there are two, core questions that need answers:

1. How can women bring men into the equation — both in terms of choosing a spouse and then setting up the childcare arrangement early on. (I posted one stab at this topic here.)

2. What are the real financial statistics on divorce. I think the real reason women need to work is because the odds are the marriage will end in divorce and women who make career sacrafices for a family get short-changed in divorce.

I am going to look into this topic and write a bit more one it…

Little Purple,
You lay out the argument for a dual-career household very well.

The problem is that the argument for a stay-at-home parent is that the kids' life is more stable (a plethora of research — not mine). And the argument for dual-careers is that the parents are happier (there must be research, but we all know what you write above is basically true.)

I think the tough call in this life is how to balance kids' needs and parents' needs. In my mind, two full-time careers is not exactly a balance.

(I always feel compelled to say that I do not necessarily practice what I preach in this area. But I struggle, just like everyone else.)

Okay, so I tried about four times to write something that didn't come off as totally sexist and I'm afraid I've failed. So here it is, sexist or not.

This isn't an easy issue for guys either if they want to marry a woman who is committed to staying at home with kids. I can't speak for other guys, but when I was "in the market" so to speak, I was looking for a smart, motivated, and well-educated woman who wanted to stay at home with her kids AND who actually liked me. A lot. We're talking about a pretty slim demographic here! It took me a long time to find one.

The thing that makes me chuckle about men choosing a stay-at-home mom for a wonderful, smooth home experience is this: I have observed husbands that work all day, then go home, and mom, up to her armpits in kid fare, leaves the house for some freedom! She's finally off the clock.

Step in Dad. Mom is going for a scrap-booking weekend with the gals.

This leaves Dad working – at work – and guess what? At home. And then these Dads get to the point where they are tired of work, and kids, and the power struggle begins. Mom works her eight hours, and Dad works his eight hours, and then each want/deserve a break.

Just because Mom is "at home" does not mean she does not demand her own time, that everyone is not tired, and that major fights and feelings of resentment don’t ensue.

Why is this any easier than a two-career home?

hmmm i would just like to ask do you think that women should be paid to be housewives? i am doing a debate on it and i am on the negative team.. i have searched the net all over and i cant find anything.. so i have decided to get some opinions of others.. so get back to me on what you think.. thanks! x0x

I came to this discussion late but I want to also mention that subsidized daycare and a longer government-mandated maternity leave are solutions that many western European countries enjoy. I am not saying these are perfect solutions but these address the needs of women who choose to continue working while Penelope's suggestions would help women who stay at home. Both types of solutions are necessary if we truly want women to have options and a family-friendly environment. By the way, I really enjoy this blog even if my opinions sometimes differ.

Why should women have to stay at home in the first place? Society needs to stop expecting women to be stay at home moms, boys would you give up your career to take care of kids? NO WAY. Why should we? And if anyone says that women are naturally better mothers because they're naturally more affectionate or whatever, thats bs, I know many of guys who love children more than I do! There's no way in hell I'm giving up my career because my husband doesn't want a nanny taking care of our kids and he's "not into" the idea of being a stay at home dad. So many men say they want their kids to have a parent looking after them but none of them volunteer to take care of them. These men are just hypocrites. Why is it frowned upon for a woman to be a "gold digger" but it isn't frowned upon for a man to demand a stay at home wife?

I agree with PJ definitely. That is really hypocritical. And my husband is much more nurturing than I am with our kids, by the way. I try, but sometimes I just get so frustrated, and he has to calm them down. Also, since our daughter was born, there have been lots of times when he was the only one who could calm her down by talking to her, rocking her, whatever the case. She has GERD (sort of baby acid reflux), so she would cry a lot. I think it is unrealistic for the mother to be expected to give and give and give to the children, and then the father barely interacts or bonds with them or takes care of them at all. It also makes it unbalanced, b/c the children should have a good relationship with mother and father. And if the man won't lift a finger to raise the kids, and his wife ends up hiring a nanny b/c she is overwhelmed, and then the nanny is closer to the kids than the father, really he has no one to blame but himself. However, the same goes for if the opposite happens. It just doesn't happen as often. Sorry to be long-winded, but equality is an issue I am passionate about. I don't know why people have to try to separate men and women so much and "put them in their place." Leave them alone! Their "place" is where they want to be and what they want to be doing deep down. You shouldn't cause more resentment by limiting their choices because of their gender.

For those men who are looking for stay at home wives if you actually make enough money to support the family, are nice and decent looking, then please post your info here so that I can contact you!

I have to agree with Helen… and this IS a gender issue.. the topic is about a "housewife" not a "househuband".

My parents were/are both full time working people, and I am very happy and successful myself.
If someone wants to be a stay-at-home "whatever" then great.. but don't guilt or force people into doing one thing or another.

And as for statistics… when cigaretts first came out all the research and statistics said there was no harm in them! Sometimes "statistics" serve the "reseachers" agenda.

Nice in theory, but not necessarily reality. I am a woman who believed in the traditional family. I had a career, but chose to stay home and have been a dedicated housewife and mother. I am educated and normally a good judge of character, and truly believed I had found a spouse who would support me. My spouse has been emotionally controlling and abusive, and actually points out that I can't leave him, as I don't have income to support myself and the kids. Although I have continued my education and some part time work, I am extremely concerned for my future, and that of my children, as my earnings potential is limited after ten years away from career. In her book, The Price of Motherhood, Ann Crittendon discusses that not maintaining personal income is high risk behavior. I took the risk, like countless others who believe the myth, and lost. Being a housewife may be the ideal in a fantasy world, but the statistics are not in our favor for a lucrative future.

For some additional thoughts on what I just posted go to the Voluntary Human Extinction website at http://www.vhemt.org and read the Biology and Breeding section. Pay special attention to the chart called "Why Breed?" This chart lists the usual reasons that people give for having kids but it brings to attention the actual reasons behind them and lists some suggested alternatives. This website is supposed to be funny and irreverent but it brings up some very interesting issues that some people have never thought of. Take it with grain of salt.

Jeanie's situation captures the crux of the problem in the women taking the 'stay-at-home' role. Yes there is no denying a parent at home makes things oh so great…but when it hte women who does it,and she has no backup plan for financial security AND things go wrong…where does she go for help?

There are no easy answers…each to her own i suppose!

While I most certainly don't disagree, my parents are the great exception. I'll start by saying, however, that I'm their only child and that they didn't have as much input into my parenting as most parents do. Their relationship has never seemed to suffer, and both have full-time careers (though my mother did stay home until I was six and in first grade).

Still, it is a different time, and while I hate to say it, my husband and I are probably not going to have children because our careers are just too important to us.

All I can say to this column is AMEN!

The main problem with the article and many of the comments is a misunderstanding of the limitations of statistics. "The statistics are clear," but are they relevant? Statistics are useful for describing groups. Do we want to know how many schools we'll need in 10 years? We can use statistics to predict how many youngsters a community will likely have then. But can my daughter grow up to be a firefighter? It's a job that needs good upper-body strength. Statistics show that men on average have greater upper-body strength, but so what? At best, that statistic indicates we'll probably always have more men than women as firefighters, but it says nothing about individuals. Just as we can't say that all boys will be strong enough to be a firefighter, we can't say that all girls will be too weak to be a firefighter.
Sometimes, statistics can be applied to individuals. The statistics are clear that as a male, I have a 0% chance of being able to give birth to a child. It's not going to happen. But beyond that, probabilities are only useful as an additional piece of information in making choices. Blondes have more fun, but should I change my hair color? Does that even apply to men? Can I afford the coloring? Would my wife like me better as a blond? And if I go bald, I don't even have a choice.
The statistic may be clear that families are probably happier where the mother stays home and cares for the children, but that doesn't mean it can be applied to any particular individual. It does mean that as a society we should encourage it to be easily available as a choice. We can try to fix the pitfalls stay-at-home-spouses face. But we can't point to any particular family and say "this is how you have to do it." That makes as much sense as telling my (giraffe-like) daughter "don't plan on being tall, because the average height of a woman is only 5'4". And we shouldn't discourage or add pitfalls if the woman has a career. We can be honest; we can say it'll be tough and they'll have to work hard at it, with no guarantee of success or happiness. But as the article rightly points out, this is true no matter what. Boy or girl, if a child wants to be a firefighter, they'll have to work hard at it, and some just won't be able to. A successful family, whatever the arrangement, will need work from all its members, and a sharing of just what it means to be a successful family.

I completely disagree. This topic is interesting but the article is complete dribble. In an effort to make her articles so simplified for her derelict readers, she bases her fundamental point on broad generalizations and bold assumptions. Read the comments people say about this article.

STAY AT HOME MOMS: Not all stay-at-home moms create a healthy environment for their children. Often, stay-at-home mom resent not being able to provide for her children. Mommy, “Why can’t we live in a big house like cousin Richy-Rich?” or “Why can’t we go to Disneyland like the neighbors?” This would make any mom feel like a loser. How is a mother to respond to her child? "We can't afford anything because mommy chooses NOT to work, now shut-up an eat your spam."

Penelope assumes that the working husband has a fat paying job or a huge Trust Fund to adequately provide for the family. This is not the case for most families. Median income in the U.S. is NOT +$100K. If everyone had multi-million-dollar book contracts like Penelope, we could all stay home. In Los Angeles, CA it takes a healthy income just to pay the mortgage on an average priced home. Get real Penelope!!

WORKING MOMS: Not all working mothers alienate their children. This is complete bullsh!t. A mother can offer that same unconditional love while working as she can as a stay-at-home mom.

Penelope assumes the working mom develops a love affair with money/career and will quickly neglect their children as a result. Absolute crap!!

The article also fails to mention which family lifestyle (working or non-working moms) produces more successful adults. I worry more about how I will prepare my son to be a “successful” adult, than I do about if he is having fun playing games as a child with an at-home-mommy. Does a “happy” childhood breed success as an adult?

I believe that it is possible to have it all: work/money, family, and Happiness. I would never say that a stay-at-home mother is better than a working-mother as Penelope so boldly states. It's not necessary to sacrife family for work/career. Whoever came up with this bit should be shot.

"Happiness" is a residual of how you chose to live your life. Money, Big House, Car, a Fancy Bedroom Suite will never bring happiness by itself. But knowing that your work is valued, and the ability to provide for yourself & family should make you feel content with your life.

My wife is currently a stay-at-home mom, but what works for us may not work for other families. If there is ever a time that we need more income to provide for our family, you better believe that my wife will be a working mother.

Uhm … I remember reading in the '80s that the UNhappiest women were those with part time jobs. I mean, you get the worst of both worlds – you work because you have to, and you work for low pay, typically in a low-status, low-challenge job. I don't deny that life would be sweet for many if we could turn back the clock to the '50s, but ONLY for those who fit the traditional roles. The '50s were great – if you were white, straight, conformist, and wealthy or at least middle-class. For the rest of America, they weren't so much fun. My mom had to go back to work, and when the taxes were taken out, her hourly wage was $0.25 – in 1968! That was "pin money" indeed. And God help the MAN who wanted to stay home or the woman who wanted a career.

I am middle-aged, child-free by choice (rearing children in poverty is a ROTTEN choice for all concerned!) and totally UNWILLING to pay higher taxes to subsidize somebody else's choice. Not enough Prince Charmings to go around? Well, better keep those pounds off and learn to submit and say "thank you, dear." Or say, "kiss my grits, Froggy!" and enjoy your independence. If you want to stay home you will give up most of your other choices, and you will show your children a role that may be economically unsustainable in another generation. You'll also be a burden on those of us who have to pay the taxes you don't pay by working, and that will cost you my respect for sure. First law of the universe is this: NO FREE LUNCHES. Not even for your kids.

Your "trust fund" comment unfortunately confirms that men should not marry at all.

The truth is that more than 67% (no, not 50% – do your homework) of marriages will end in divorce. 92% of the time it will be initiated by the woman for no other reason than she is “unfulfilled” – oh, and because she gets the kids, the house, at least ½ the assets and most of his future after tax income for the next 18 years. The man will get raked over in family court. He will lose the house and his kids. He will see his kids 2 out of 14 days (if the ex doesn't level unsubstantiated "abuse" claims.) He will be forced to hand over 40-50% of his take-home pay. If he loses his job due to illness or downsizing, the State will toss him in jail. While jailed the arrearage will grow and the state will charge interest. The State will revoke his driver's and professional licenses, make him virtually unemployable.

If you were to take up sky-diving, and the instructor informed you that 67% of the parachutes were defective, would you take the plunge?

The men’s Marriage Strike is alive and well, thank you.

nomarriage.com

The only way the world will be better is if people realize they were raised by dysfunctional people and they then had children themselves, only to raise them with the same dysfuntional values. Human beings think bringing other human beings into this earth comes naturally. WRONG!! If it did, the world would not be filled with such hateful, evil humans. Everyone needs to stop having children until they are emotionally healed!!!

I think it is odd that you have not even had one comment from a "stay at home Dad" or someone who has aspired to be one. I have a degree from a good university, a good job and career and spent a number of years looking for a woman who was interested in marrying a guy that would stay at home and raise the kids.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I was able to find plenty of dating partners, but only one woman who was seriously interested in this arrangement. We were incompatible (I won't go into it, but she was like a typical bad guy more than anything) and finally met my current wife, who claimed to be interested in such an arrangement. But then six months after we started dating, said she was really interested in "super-mom" i.e. someone who would do all the cooking, cleaning and childcare and also bring home a healthy paycheck.

I have only known one woman who is seriously capable of both supporting a family and is interested in marrying a stay-at-home dad. And I know hundreds of self-proclaimed feminists. So the truth is, almost no women are willing and able to switch gender roles.

As it is, we both work, we both make good money, we both have good careers, and we hire a nanny and a maid to help us out. I am probably more involved in the child rearing than she is. I do almost all of the housework the maid does not do. It works out okay. There is no way my wife would be happy staying at home and the truth is, mostly due to sexism, I make 50% more than her, so there is no way we can afford for me to not work. At least not in this expensive city we live in. I probably hold up at least my half of the household, but I am okay with that. I guess I am kind of unusual for a guy in that way.

I am saving every penny and trying to retire at 50, so I can still spend lots of time with my kids and enjoy my life. At least my wife is thrifty enough that this is not impossible with her.

I guess it would have been nice if I could have found a rich beautiful young woman with a trust fund as well. I actually think that men shopping for wives should be looking for equal co-partners, but I guess in that way I am more of a feminist than you.

I would hate for my daughters to grow up believing that they were anything but fully equal to men.

Is it just me, or do most of the commenters here seem to think Penelope wrote the uber-sexist article she linked to on Forbes? Folks, she didn't write it. She offered her own input on the subject…

hi! i read your column just googling for random 'how to be a better housewife' stuff because I'm pretty bad at keeping a spotless house. Basically I was looking for cleaning tips. I myself am not exactly a housewife, but in no way do I have a huge career.
I feel that statistics are good blueprints but every relationship is different. It depends how shallow the people are. My husband and I have faced great personal challenges. We both want each other to succeed and be happy. I cannot imagine not having a job, even just the one I have now, part time pharmacy tech in a hospital. I have always been a work-driven person, and even though I have the option of going to school and not working, I do not feel that I can quit working, even though it would generally free me up for homework and house tasks.
we dont have kids yet. I imagine that I will be home most of the week when we do have them… when I graduate in two years, i'm going to be an RN, and part time I can make much more money than I make now. I agree that having someone home is very beneficial to everyone; but for me to never work, I dont think I could personally handle it. Thus, my marriage would be in jeopardy because I *wasn't* working!
I certainly won't be a 'powerhouse career' person. I have never hated my job, I get a great deal of satisfaction from working, even though I only work part time right now. I doubt I could be a full time careerist and full time mother (not to mention my husband is paralyzed so I do almost all of the housework plus help him do some more difficult tasks). I think both would definitely suffer.
well that was my two cents on a 1 1/2 year old column. have a great weekend!

I liked Pat's observation (9/7/07) about kids wanting to have other kids around to play with – they don't miss the parents! I've noticed that with one of my nieces (3 years old going on ?). Maybe it's just her personality but when she spots another kid around her age, she just goes up to them and starts talking to them – just forgets her parents and uncle. Kids need adults available to meet their needs and to referee when skirmishes come up with other kids. The trick is to find that right combination of kid-parent and kid-kid time – easier said than done.
Also one thing I didn't see mentioned is how much more families are separated by distance compared to the fifties and sixties. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members were generally in the same locality and were within fairly easy driving distance from each other. I enjoyed my time with my grandparents and I know my parents enjoyed the time off. :)

Speaking of a son of over achieving parents… I can tell you that it royally f'd up my life.

You keep forgetting that parents have radically different personalities and parenting styles, It's not simply just about work, not-work or staying home with the kids, etc.

It's NOT JUST ABOUT YOU, lets not forget this. Many people bring lives into the world when they are pretty immature. Life is way more complicated then "oh you must be jealous of me and my perfect family" etc.

Parents who are never around can have enormous influences and effects on their kids.

Many workaholics are certifiably insane. The truth is in america the culture of work and 'achievement' (or rather corporate enslavement) is lauded, and anything off the beaten path is disdained.

Women can be perfectly happy at home, so can men.
In our modern society the speed at which it occurs truncates human development, so many people live their entire lives based on lies, other peopels expectations, idealisms and romanticizations of things.

The work-life balance issue is pretty big. To me my parents were food and toy dispensers, little more. At times it was hard to even view them as people, being the career robots that they were.

The truth is people today have no commitment or moral fibre what-so-ever.

The law of diminishing returns kicks in, in every single relationship. Where you will distort reality and start blowing up small things or normal things in life into crisis and then end things in divorce.

The truth is most adults today are children, all because they've had their heads stuffesd with distortions and romanticizations of how real life is.

The close mindedness of so many people in todays society is absurd and mind boggling.

I am a career woman, highly educated and while I am an admitted work-a-holic, I make extended efforts to enjoy quality time with my son and husband.

My husband has accepted my drive and ambition and because we both feel that our child, and any future children, should be raised at minimum through younger pre-school years, by a nurturing parent who can offer them the love, attention and devotion needed in early childhood developement, he has graciously accepted a role as a stay at home father. And he is wonderful at it, even though members of his family gave him raised eyebrows about his decision.

Do not for one moment think that just because I hold an executive position, that my family does not come first. Each morning I spend several hours sipping coffee with my husband and discussing politics and daily agendas, before our son wakes up. I make breakfast, clean up the dishes from the morning, and then kiss them BOTH goodbye before I run off to my corporate life.

I come home every single day to cook and prepare lunch for both my son and husband, spend half an hour or so after our toddler is fed to play with him and then head back to work, where I fall into rythem until the end of my work day.

Although some days I do work later than average, it is always my aim to arrive home in time to start preparing dinner for my family. My husband does his fair share of laundry, dishes and grocery shopping, which is generally paired with trips to the park and sports with our son, but our main focus is ensuring that our son is given the nurturing loving environment we so badly wish him to have. Never have I claimed that because I earn monetary compensation that I have now waived my duties as a wife and mother. I still cook, clean, and do as much housework as needed. We take turns, and enjoy a partnership.

With the market, and my career positioned in investments brokering, it has become more stressful for me as a provider to ensure the stability of my family, but it is a burden I gladly carry. My son has never been sick, had diaper rash only ONCE in his lifetime (due to a 6 hour long car ride), is well mannered, polite, shares, is inquisitive and smart and completely happy and secure, and there is no price you can put on that.

I dont think it should be a matter of just staying home, or working. I also know several house wives who are, sad to say, horrid mothers. They neglect their children, their household responsibilities, and sit around all day with their kids locked in a kid safe area to play, with occassional snacks and little attention. Too many people think of their own selfish needs prior to the needs that their children and family require.

Some days I fantisize that it would be wonderful to be home with my son, watching his every movement, although I wonder if I would look at each moment with the same magic I see in him now, since each moment spent with him is quality and completely focused on him as a little person, not as a burden or a chore or a job.

My husband made the choice to put his career on hold to cater to our son and our own shared belief that parenting should be done by parents, not minimum wage strangers. Would it be easier if we had a dual income? Perhaps we could enjoy more vacations, drive different cars, eat out more, but honestly, I wouldnt trade any materialistic throw away in the world for the joy that our son is being raised with our own personal values.

No car, house, vacation or peice of jewelry should be valued as more important than your child and those important first years in life.

As parents you must be ready to sacrifice those extra hours of sleep, having fancy lunches with fellow execs, to spend the time with your family and make it count. And if that is not something you are willing to do, then you have no right being a parent, or a spouse for that matter.

Do what works for your family, the stay at home mom doesnt have to be a mom, it can be a dad. Or a grandma. Perhaps if both parents wish to work, consider that a grandparent on fixed income may WANT and DESIRE to help in raising their child, especially if you invest the amount of compensation alloted for daycares to a family member in need.

The point is, we are at a time where there are so many various options, that there shouldnt be a need for people to compromise, as long as you understand your duty to your spouse and children should always exceed your own selfish wants.

God bless.

We have this debate coming up. "Women are best suited to be housewives rather than career women." we want some points both in favour and against the motion. please help. we're school students!

oh penelope….

you have not researched the data well.

i'm guessing you don't have much of a math background. i'm guessing you're english or communications, history perhaps…

holes in your logic and take it from the female chemical engineer….

1st….
Forbes' definition of a career woman is extraordinarily broad, including any woman who has a college education, works 35 hours a week, and makes more than $30,000. So, if you define non-career women as all the "undereducated" who work part-time and make less than $30K, it becomes painfully obvious why female careerists are more likely to divorce than non-careerists:

They can better afford to get out of an unhappy marriage than their sisters.

2nd….

according to the AARP # 1 reason women won't leave marriage: finances.

3rd….

according to a british study (UK google it, BBC i think)

Premarriage housework:
women: 10
men: 8

Post marriage:
women : 15
men: 5

maybe we'd have it easier if got off his lazy ass.

also,
4th…

by steven levitt>….

factors that contribute to a child's success:

mom is over 30
mom is educated

smart parents have smart kids. end of story. TS it's genetics.
the rest is monkey see monkey due.
dumb mom = dumb kids (unless dad is unusually bright to compensate)

5th….

why when a man ignores his family and work 70 hrs a weak he's a hero but a women a bitch?

we deny men their right to be fathers. mom's are hogging the child's spotlight just so they can be validated. what about him?

Does it really matter who is around ? father or mother?

isn't the love more important than your validation?
lack of a father in one's life:

http://www.ncfr.org/pdf/press_releases/parent_1.pdf

a mother's increased access in her children's life did not compensate for the father's lacking.

here are stats on absent fathers and less involved fathers.
http://www.dadsworld.com/parenting-statistics/importance-of-fathers.html

men should be involved too. stop being so greedy.

besides, if i was at home….the world would be stuck listening to a basketweaving major like you all day….

I feel very strongly about this subject – because I am the product of a dual income household with a career mom, and it RUINED my childhood. I got to grow up in daycare centers watching my friends being picked up from school by a parent, and later got to feel the loneliness of seeing everyone else's parents attending their school functions while I arrived and left alone. Nobody ever cheered on the sidelines for me. They were at work. Do you know how hard that is for a kid?! I would sit and wait for my mother to come home, only for her to be exhausted from a long day at work and want to go straight to bed. True, the income was nice. I was never lack for any material good. But, I never got to know what it felt like to be someone's daughter. I still don't know. Now that I'm grown I have such a disconnect with my parents. I don't know them and they don't know me. I don't seek their advice or comfort, and they wonder why I never take the time to see or call them. I find it difficult to even accept hugs, because I didn't grow up receiving them. People don't realize how crucial the younger years are in our lives at forming important social patterns and life skills. A nurturing home and parents are absolutely central to that. Parents who come home tired, and talk to each other about work at the dinner table aren't giving their children the much needed attention they need, regardless of how unaware they may be of it. In the end, EVERYONE loses. Money doesn't make a happy home, people. I would have rather worked through college and have had student loans to repay than to have had it paid for with the lack of a mother growing up. That's a debt that can never be repaid. I think Penelope deserves kudos for this article. In my experience, most of those who have argued pro-career moms are those who never grew up in a household with one. Thank you Penelope.

my mother stayed at home, and increasingly became mentally ill. I was relieved when she didnt come to my school functions. Life was torture in my home. I wished like hell for divorce or for her to get a job.

You were the lucky one. I would have loved to have been you.

The one thing that I have to disagree with in your article is when you say that men should not marry women who have careers. I was very career oriented at one time. I wanted a career more than I wanted marriage, more than a family. But I changed… after having my daughter, a year later decided that I needed to be a dedicated mother and wife and made the decision to leave a career and stay at home. I am in agreement that you cant do both 100%, one is always lacking. Doesn't matter what you do to try and fix it, one will always be lacking.

I apologize if my post sounded like I only thought a mother at home was the best option – that is of course not my view. I was simply trying not to say "father or mother" every time. Of course I believe both are perfect options to stay at home! Also, please keep in mind that I stated it is only my personal experience that most (this does not mean all) families who support parents at work never had one. I only know a few who this worked well for. In your case your parents obviously did a fantastic job in balancing family with work. It's an extremely difficult thing to do and a rare thing to accomplish. It's just not a risk I'm personally willing to take.

I'm just torn. I am a strong willed, educated, independent, self sufficient woman…and a stay at home Mom. I chose to do this because I my children became my career, and I strongly felt it was the right thing to do for my family. I still do. It isn't fair that women, in general, still hold the majority of the better nurturing, parenting and multitasking skills, and still hold themselves to certain expectations where their baby cubs are concerned. Unfortunately, in marriages not in a single parent household, many times the woman is not the better choice of the two parents but she is either "expected" to be the primary caretaker (because of stereotyping), or she just "is" the primary caretaker because her husband makes better money (better paying job or just makes more money cuz he's a male).

But on to my point: although I think it is great that the workforce began embracing women (albeit slowly) and that women were given the "go ahead" to get educated, get tough, and show the corporate world her stuff….society's families and family values are crumbling. Our families are now taking on the sad shape that our politics have been. Does the woman's adult skills and identity suffer just a tad bit (okay, a whole lot more than that) for a long while while devoting most (if not all) of her time, efforts, and everything else she can give to her children? YES!!! I'm living proof! But if ONE of the parents (mom or dad) doesn't stay home full time for a good time of it to raise the kids, the kids suffer a whole heckuva lot more than the parent's identity. Someone has to stay home if it is possible!!!!

It sounds cold, but I stayed home not because I thought I'd ever win Mother of the Year, or because I had a gut feeling I'd be Mother Goose, and despite the fact that I am driven, self absorbed, and lacking in patience, but because this was a career change for me. I'd had these kids and I was going to experience them for myself as much as I could…just like I experienced all else I'd done (good and bad) before I had them. And, when they were older and I re-entered the workforce, gosh darn it all I'd just have to work twice as hard to reassemble myself, relearn, and hit the ground running! More work for me, better for my kids! And really, our greatest accomplishment is the type of citizens and parents we raise and guide our kids to be someday…we'll never really be able to chart our success until they have kids of their own, but no one said good parenting would be easy! In fact, it's the hardest damn there thing is, with the peaks and valleys of a solid, lasting, marriage being a close second.

I am a Mom of two, pre-teen daughters. By now, I can't stand myself! I'm a broken record, I'm always the bad guy, and no one listens to me! I'm not sure I listen to me anymore! But I'm hanging in there for the good fight – it's my job like it or not. I believe in what I'm doing.

I resent that whenever I talk about the pride I have for being a stay-at-home-Mom, working Moms around me immediately think I'm judging them and jump down my throat. I'm NOT Mother Goose! I've struggled with my self (old and new) ever since I had children, and question everything I was and am becoming. It's hard! Maybe harder on me than it is for others, maybe not as hard for me as it is for others. I do not judge but I do not like being judged.

I repeat: I'm torn. I am pro-life but do not ever want to see a woman's right to choice to ever be taken from her, and I feel ALL men should abstain from this decision for obvious reasons. I think a parent should stay at home full time to raise the kids, but I do not ever want society to take the easy road and start forcing women out of careers and back into the kitchen. Personally, I strongly believe those women who "burned bras" years ago to earn rights that never should have been withheld from women in the first place left women in the lurch trying to unnaturally do it all. The kids are suffering because of this. Women are the ones that must figure it out because men are not women and can not be expected to understand us. Many, many men are just trying to figure out how to give us what we want so we'll be happy, realize our full potential, take good care of their children, and love them like we once did before kids.

I do know, from experience, that what is expected from women in the home is discrimination in public places or the workforce. All these "minorities" screaming prejudice and special handling…hello…I'm discriminated in one form or another on a daily basis just because I'm a woman! I deal and I don't expect to be given a thing – I'm willing to work for the respect I know deserve – because I am a human being and because of my hard work!

I don't pretend to be a legislator, but I would like to see more women get educated, kick ass in the workforce, find love, experience motherhood, and stay at home while fighting from women's rights and never stop being vocal to show local government, state government, national government and the school system that WE CARE and WE'RE getting mad!!! Women aren't cupcakes – we're people with brains and as we get older we get better and more unafraid to speak our minds!

I guess I just spoke my mind, huh? Well, I guess it's because I've been a stay-at-home-Mom for over 10 years and I can no longer even think about living with a one income household any longer, and I have to figure out who I am and how I am going to learn to live in a workforce that has gone on without me. My priorities have changed and I don't know how to share those priorities with a future boss' business interests. I admit to be quite frustrated.

Just passionate, two cents in a world I feel is making decisions for me without knowing my potential, my passion, or my purpose. Thanks for listening, folks!

Islam teaches that a woman's responsibility is to keep her husband happy, raise their children properly and run their home effectively. A man's responsibility is to provide for his wife and home (within his means). This does not include gifts and luxury that would come anyway if the man was happy.
An education today would help any woman perform these responsibilities better.
If a woman can accomplish her basic mandate and still do a job, then there is no harm. Every woman has to decide herself whether she can fulfill her responsibilities, but she should not loose sight of what she is primarily required to do.

I have just had a major argument with my wife about this, which prompted me to look on the net about how the role of housewife is perceived by people in general. My wife is Japanese, I am German, and we currently live in London (very very expensive). I am a structural engineer and my company is about to cut salaries and working week, which means that if we are lucky I will make just enough to pay the rent (about £1200/month). I would like her to work because I think it is silly that I should be the one who works and her the one who stays at home in anticipation of having children.
She expects me to work and herself to stay at home in anticipation of having children.

Both of my parents always worked and we had a comfortable life thanks to that. My sister and I both went to university, could live in London without having to work, enjoyed going on holiday somewhere exotic during summer holidays. The life of spoiled brats basically. I got used to seeing my mother share the financial load equally and so I expect that my wife should do the same. Maybe not equally, but at least pick up some of it not that my salary is on the verge of being substantially reduced. I am also worried about paying for tuition fees later on, etc.

On the other hand my wife sees her role in the typical Japanese way: I go to work and bring back enough money for us all to live and she takes care of the home. If I don't earn enough then I should have two jobs.

After reading all the comments here I am not sure what is right anymore. Am I being too demanding and excessively harsh? I thought marriage was about making life together. If one person can't do all of it their partner helps out. Is there such a clear cut separation between male and female roles in a family?

In some ways I wish it were possible to go back to the 1960s when everything was clearly defined. Nowadays it seems you are at a clear disadvantage when one one spouse is works: not enough money and people look down on you for being traditional…

Apologies if I am rambling here, but my whole perspective on life just got upended. There is a clear rift between Japan and Europe.