Thanks to the folks that came out for the Maybe Baby session today. There were 30 people there, quite a turnout. I heard from some people who thought it was a great discussion, and some who were pretty depressed. What did you think? I'd love to get some comments. You can post anonymously on this blog.
My recap:
Regarding whether to have your baby during school, Carson (who had a baby in school, and another as a second-year associate) said school is the way to go. There, if your baby needs extra attention and you have to neglect your work, the only one who is affected is you, and all that will happen is you'll get a lower grade. Plus the Remote Learning Room is such a great resource. Whereas now that she's working, if there's a problem with the baby, potentially a client could suffer (though that's never happened to her). Sarah, on the other hand, chose not to have a baby during school because she needed to keep her grades up -- scholarships at her school were based on grades. Plus she was going to be coming across the country to find a job, so grades (and law review, and federal clerkship) were crucial.
A couple of people asked what if you want/need to take the summer off with your baby, and I asked, what if you need to take a quarter off and graduate late. Both speakers thought that if you had a hole in your resume you could explain, it shouldn't bother employers, though it's a good idea to look for something that takes minimal time away from your baby, like doing research for a professor.
Sarah works full time at a big Seattle firm (I'm leaving out identifying details because this blog can be googled). She enjoys it, and finds that she rarely has to work nights and weekends to make her hours. She gets about an hour a night to purely devote to playing with her 17-month-old son. This was one of the things that some of the audience members found depressing: one hour a day. Sarah also said she makes a point at work of never "playing the mommy card" -- never blaming her son for having to leave or for having difficulty making a deadline. Sarah was kind of the hard-core example of how to work full time with a baby.
Carson's work is more flexible, with paid maternity leave, and partners and associates who work less than full time. She works full time. She said she's absolutely focused when she's at work, and eats at her desk, but rarely does work at night or on weekends.
So, the discussion strayed from the "Maybe Baby" topic and wandered more into the "work-life balance" area. For those who were looking for more answers about what it's like to have a baby in school and how people made the decision to do that, PALS members are more than happy to talk about it. In particular, Laura Arras, 3L, had a baby her 1L summer and brought her to school most of her 2L year. You can email her at arras@... Vanessa Hernandez also is willing to share her thought process and experience. You'll see her around -- she's the one that looks like she must have been due two weeks ago (but she still has a couple of weeks to go).
What did you think of the panel? Any suggestions for follow-up discussions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This was a great event; thanks to Lisa for setting it up! I was a little disheartened by Sarah's comments. For work-life balance, her essential point seemed to be if you work your hours and never indicate that you have a baby ("play the mommy card"), then your employer will likely be fine with it. Well...duh! If you get your hours and don't need accommodations, there is no problem. What happens when you do have to play the mommy card because the baby is sick and the hubby out of town?
I am not sure I got a good sense that her workplace was all that accomodating at the end--though that might just be the lifestyle that firms expect. (personally, the idea of working more at night just to get stuff done means too much...and scares me. A lot.).
BUT I really liked her honesty in balancing work which she finds fulfilling with having a family as well. This is something that is rarely admitted by women; as is the fact that grades can be important enough to sacrifice family plans. I appreciated her honesty in sharing her experience, and she is a good example of getting it all done!
That said, I am not sure I got much advice about the nitty-gritty on handling pregnancy and baby during law school. But then, knowing all the power mommies at this school, the sense that I get is that is certainly possible, easier in school than at work, and family is awfully fulfilling =)
An hour a day. Did she talk at all about her spouse's work-life balance? How many hours a day does he spend with the baby?
I apologize for the rancor, but is this why we work so hard? So that we can pay someone to raise our kids?
For a reality-check, go visit a few daycare centers. Even the good ones: no matter how much you pay, you can never hire someone to love your kids. Then consider what ''an hour a day'' really means to that toddler.
Anonymous #2: do you think mothers should work at all? Actually, I think daycare workers can and do come to love the children they care for and vice-versa. Especially "the good ones."
I suspect that at high-quality daycares children get as much attention as stay at home moms of 2-3 kids give each child when those mothers have no domestic help (ie, much of their day is spent cooking, cleaning, errands, etc). Also, I think the mom on the panel did spend the entire weekend with her son, and probably makes enough money so she can hire cleaning etc out, so isn't bogged down with household tasks.
First of all, I began by asking about S's spouse, so I'm not sure how my statement could be interpreted as ''women shouldn't work at all.'' So long as one parent (or some system of extended family) cares for the child, then my comment about impersonal daycare centers doesn't apply.
Second, I'm sure your frazzled daycare provider loves your child, because your baby is a special snowflake. But I am not going to agree that paid laborers can or will care for their charges as much as parents with ''2-3'' kids.
Third, you're right: I'm afraid I don't think one of the parents (I didn't say or mean to imply just mothers) should have to work at all when their kids are babies. I endorse a more Scandinavian system, where parents can each work part time, or one can stay home altogether to nurture their kids, and the family can expect approximately three years of subsidy. In those systems, even childless folks recognize that this is an investment in a better civilization.
Finally, your point about being able to afford domestic help, thus freeing 'quality time' was a good one. But I could argue that kids enjoy helping with cooking and shopping if that means more time with Daddy or Mommy. Oops, I guess I just did.
I didn't say that daycare providers love their charges as much as actual parents; I said high quality daycares probably provide them with as much attention (defined as actual interaction). Obviously parents love their children more than providers. (one hopes)
The "special snowflake" comment was a little snarky and not quite necessary.
I know my provider loves my child because I see her cuddling him and giving him kisses and hugs. He is well-loved there; we are fortunate to have such a good provider! I was a childcare provider myself and definitely came to love the children in my care, so I know whereof I speak.
Also, Scandinavian or not, there is no reason American parents cannot work part-time, or have one parent stay home. I am dubious that having subsidies provided to such effect would always and everywhere lead to "better civilization" because I actually think many parents do a very poor job. I think subsidizing high-quality care (of which there is very little) for poor people would be better. Rich people are free to halve their income to stay home if they choose, which will give them the same result as the Scandinavian subsidies: half their current income (in those countries at least half your pay goes to taxes, so having one parent support the family or both parents work part-time in the US probably leads to the same standard of living for the more affluent....)
Howdy -- In answer to the question above, Sarah's husband stayed home full time with their child for the baby's first year. Now he (the husband, not the baby) works full time too. I don't know how many hours he gets with their son now.
I might ask for less, um, snarkiness on the blog, but on the other hand, I think it's good to know some people feel that way. But to get back to the topic, what did people think of the discussion, the "mommy card" comment, et al? I certainly will be leaving advice for next year's PALS officers that they try to get more current students on the panel next year so they can try better to stick to the "Maybe Baby" topic.
Lisa
Thank you Lisa for organizing the panel, it was obviously a thought provoking discussion. I just wanted to add my two cents to caution against criticizing someone else’s parenting choices. Fulltime, part-time, stay-at-home, or somewhere in between, we ALL love our children and try to make the best choices for our families and ourselves. When we start criticizing other people choices, it divides us when we really should be united. Every person and every family is different. The “right” choice for one family may not be the ‘right” choice for another. Maybe what we should be doing is thinking about how we could support each other and advocate for workplace that respects everyone’s personal choices.
I also object to the phrase “playing the mommy card.” Everybody has personal needs that should be respected; whether or not they have children. Something is really wrong when having a personal life is seen as a weakness or a liability.
If “playing the mommy card” means using your child as an excuse to foist your work onto your colleagues, or acting like you’re entitled to more time off because your personal life is more important than theirs, then of course I agree that’s wrong and unprofessional.
However, I also think it’s a fact that kids get sick, have important school concerts, sometimes need extra help with their homework, etc. If “playing the mommy card” simply means telling your employer that you aren’t available between 6-8 pm one day or using one of your personal days (gasp!), then I think it’s sad that women have to be so concerned about appearing weak or undedicated that we feel forced to put the needs of our employer above the needs of our children.
(I realize that last line sounds a little snarky too—I genuinely don’t mean that as a condemnation of the panelist or of anyone else. Forgive me for sounding like a huge dork, but I keep thinking of the episode of Grey’s Anatomy where Dr. Bailey has to miss her son’s first Halloween because she’s in surgery saving someone’s life. Her son was too little to even remember that she wasn’t there, and at the time the surgery definitely felt like the more pressing need and where she should be, but it still made my heart ache to think of how much she’d miss over the years because such important would always trump her son.)
Personally I don't want to be available to my employer ANY day between 6-8pm, or later for that matter.
But then, that could be why I'm not looking for a job a big firm.
I think you have to make your choices based on whats importatnt to you, and that is for everyone to decide individually (or perhaps with their significant other)
Post a Comment