Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Myth of the Opt-Out Mom

By Stephanie Coontz, Christian Science Monitor. Posted April 3, 2006.


Despite what naysayers would have you believe, the number of mothers who also work outside the home is actually on the rise.
Advertisement

In 1998, Brenda Barnes quit her job as head of Pepsi's North American Division to spend more time with her kids. Since then, hardly a month has gone by without some media outlet reporting that affluent, highly educated mothers are opting out of their jobs to become full-time homemakers. If Helen of Troy was the woman whose face launched a thousand ships, Ms. Barnes was the woman whose resignation launched a thousand myths.

Like most myths, the opt-out mom story contains a kernel of truth. It's hard to combine work and parenthood, and more moms than dads take time off from work while their kids are young. But also like most myths, the kernel of truth is surrounded by a comforting lie that relieves social anxieties without solving them, in this case by feeding the illusion that women will resolve our work-family conflicts by reversing the growing commitment to lifelong employment that they exhibited in the 1970s and 1980s.

Take a closer look at Barnes's story. Today she is the CEO of Chicago-based Sara Lee, after signing on as its Chief Operating Officer in 2004. She describes the news accounts of her break from full-time employment as "definitely a myth." When she quit PepsiCo, her children were 7, 8, and 10 and were doing fine, she says. She just wanted to spend more time with them for her own sake. Even so, Barnes was never a full-time homemaker. During the next six years she served on seven corporate boards, was interim president of Starwood Hotels from November 1999 to March 2000, chaired the board of trustees of her alma mater, and taught at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management.

Brenda Barnes is one of a growing minority of working women who have the clout to move between high-powered jobs. Good for her. Highly educated, high-income wives did take more breaks from employment between 1993 and 2004 than in the previous decade, an option made possible partly by their own achievements and partly by the soaring incomes of their husbands. The top five percent of households saw their after-tax income rise by 52 percent during the 1990s, while incomes of the middle 20 percent rose by just 12 percent, even though most wives in this income group increased their work hours.

Nevertheless, highly educated mothers are less likely than any other group of moms to become stay-at-home moms. For mothers with children under age six, 65 percent of those with high school diplomas are in the labor force, compared with 68 percent of mothers with college degrees and 75 percent of mothers with postgraduate degrees. The real story is that the workforce participation of less-educated mothers is catching up to that of the more educated ones. Today, the likelihood that a woman will leave her job because of her children is half what it was in 1984.

The "opt-out" stories got a new lease on life in 2005, when census studies showed that the workforce participation of mothers had dropped by almost 2 percent since its peak in 2000. But economist Heather Boushey reports a similar drop in labor force participation rates of childless women and all men as the job market shrank during the 2001-04 recession.


Digg!

Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage," teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't suck up to the naysayers
Posted by: rbohan on Apr 3, 2006 3:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right response isn't an article that says "Hey, it's not really happening! The "opt out" mom is a myth!"

The right response is "So what? Well-educated, powerful men have always gotten to do what the hell they want to do. Why should women be any different?"

The problem with us liberals is we always want to be liked and "understood". We are congenitally unable to say, "Who gives a damn what you think? If I wanna quit my job and hang with my kids, what's it to you?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't suck up to the naysayers Posted by: teenagelunatic
The truth about putting more women out of labor is actually painful to men more than women
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 3, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about it. The more women who are unemployed, the more stress and strain men will have to put up with and they're going to need affordable access to healthcare and other fringe benefits even more than ever. With our failed government rewarding businesses that gut the benefits, this is only going to cripple both men and women, not to mention hamper our ability to guide our children properly if they want to be competitive and keep the future of America or what's left of it alive and well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why does the Corpwhorate Media always "talk up" working moms?
Posted by: cry0fan on Apr 3, 2006 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Umm, because the corpwhorate media is the mouthpiece of CAPITAL, of Big Money, of business, and business wants as many people working as possible. We are their cattle. America is their ranch. THey want as many immigrants as possible, so they have the media treat immigration favorably; they want as many people in the workforce (more money for them), so they have the media treat affirmative actin and feminism and working moms favorably. They want every working hour possibly available, so we have daylight savings time.

People, wake up. THe corpwhorate media (and propaganda organs like Alternet) are mouthpieces of CAPITAL.

Now, I am not a socialist or a capitalist. Both are just tools.

I am not a conservative christian wanting moms in the kictchen.

I am an atheist observer. I am married but I have no children.

Why is it no one seems to notice that our social policies are promoted by the media and that they favor CAPITAL. Why is it that the media and business run america like a cattle ranch, while europeans work much less per year (35 hour weeks, 6 weeks vacation in some countries there).

Wake up and see the ranch for what it is and see policies like feminism for what they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

galaxy
Posted by: joanne wine on Apr 3, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I understand the take on this myth, it appears we are still fighting the fight to have "homemakers" recognised as a "career". Making a home is work! Caring for the children is "work". I have raised five children and worked outside the home (financial reasons) and had the home making chores to do by myself. My husband and I would come home from work (outside the home) and he would set down to read the paper while I did all the "homemaking". I have read studies about todays "working families" and this is still the way it is in most homes. Again, being a home maker is hard work. I have always looked at being a homemaker as a partnership. The bread winner, regardless of gender, brings home the bacon and the homemaker fries it. Please America, recognise the inequality of this "myth", that being a homemaker is just setting on the couch watching soaps and eating bon bons. Its hard work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: galaxy Posted by: anothername
Revolution is the answer...what is the question?
Posted by: WitchyNy on Apr 3, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am pleased at the response letters to this article so far, and I am suprised that the author works at Evergreen.

As my Wobbly grandparents sang-
" Is your soul life's ambition...to be a good and willing slave?"

I think the most radical thing a woman can do today is stay home, plant a garden and teach her kids to be radicals.

And don't think the bosses don't know it. Keep the slaves to tired and busy to revolt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For most women the myth is the options.
Posted by: kmeer on Apr 3, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most women I know are in the workforce because they need the money. Most would like to spend more time with their children, but many families just can't make it on one paycheck, and many women supply the only paycheck. Highly educated professionals have more options. Why shouldn't they do whatever they want to do? Their choices are personal. Their choices are not indicative of the experience of most women. Women generally work very long demanding hours whether they work primarily taking care of their families, or work outside the home, or both. The myth is the idea that most women even have options.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» whaaaaaa? Posted by: gotmyeyeonyou
» RE: whaaaaaa? Posted by: realmuzik
» RE: whaaaaaa? Posted by: vicki2001lynn
» RE: whaaaaaa? Posted by: Aussie Kim
Which side
Posted by: BlueTigress on Apr 3, 2006 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "pro-family" groups want women out of the work force and at home with the kiddies.

The corporate media went along with this for a while, dutifully reporting on the increase in "opt-out moms" as they were called.

Only problem is, the only examples they seemed willing to report on were the high-earning women who could afford to quit their corporate-officer jobs because their husbands were also making corporate-officer money.

I have no children, but I skimmed those articles anyways and yes, it is easy to be a stay at home mom when Hubby is earning $200,000+. Try doing it when Hubby is earning $25-40,000 and the mortgage and cars need paying.

That's why more articles like this need to be published. Despite what's coming out of the White House, the economy is not "humming" and most households need two earners just to get by.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Which side Posted by: teenagelunatic
since when did a corporate hack become a role model either way?
Posted by: codingguy on Apr 3, 2006 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i'm amazed at the tone of this article, which seems to be driven by a dated feminist ideology and hardly seems "progressive". Is the author so insecure about women's place in the workplace that at the merest sniffle implying some women are staying at home, an article must be written in refutation? sure seems that way to me.

My wife decided to stay at home a week before our first child was born and for 10 years did just that, raising 3 children and living the way SHE chose. luckily i made enough money to support both of us during that time; since then, my economic fortunes dipped and my wife returned to the workforce part-time. She's fine with it but would much rather stay at home, raise kids and pursue her other creative interests. I don't blame her.

the idea of going into a panic at the thought of women opting to stay at home makes me want to agree with those who believe that articles like these actually serve capital, not people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is crap!!!
Posted by: J- on Apr 3, 2006 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our 'Hero' in this article is Brenda Barnes, that hard working mom of three that left her "job" to spend more time with her kids, and thankfully she has a 'high salary husband' to help out when she needs a break. Here's to horseshit and incompetant journalism!! Yippee!!

Here's what 10 minutes of internet browsing came up with for Sara Lee and Brenda Barnes:

Sara Lee's previous CEO, Steven McMillan, raked in $13,961,690, and cashed out $1,609,558 in stock option exercises.

I'm sure Brenda Barnes will make much less.

Furthermore, Sara Lee, under family hero mom Brenda is currently under a plan to close manufacturing in areas such as Cincinnati and North Carolina, and concentrate on 'brand management'.

Ask one of the laid off truck drivers or one of the people who work at the factories being closed about 'leaving work to spend time with thier children', and not a CEO with 341,561 shares with a current market value of $6,185,669.71.

At this point, I don't care what gender she is, she is still a douche CEO wrecking working and middle class people's lives for her own personal gain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is crap!!! Posted by: dangerouslysane
THANK YOU
Posted by: ladyoracle on Apr 3, 2006 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coontz has once again taken a cultural myth and yanked the "truthiness" out of it. Thanks, Alternet, for sharing this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THANK YOU Posted by: realmuzik
Corporate Hack or Economic Power?
Posted by: Kali on Apr 3, 2006 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we look at the big picture instead of the "here, me, now" stories posted here, we will realize that women's collective social power is directly connected to their collective economic power and participation in paid-work. It's not just about "Can I afford to stay home?". This is about political, social, economic, legal, academic, scientific, technological, cultural equality. To the extent that women, especially the highly educated, intelligent and talented ones, sacrifice their careers and worldly ambitions in order to stay home with the babies, to that extent they will be subject to domination and control by men - subject to taliban-like laws and rules that men devise to control economically and socially weakened women. This is not just theory, this is a historical and current (in some parts of the world) reality.

Next time a man says he can "support" a stay-at-home wife, ask him why he can't support her by taking more child-care responsibilities instead. Next time a woman feels tempted to give up her career to stay home with the babies, urge her to think about all the ways in which man-made laws and customs are screwing women over. You cannot make laws and legislation, influence public opinion in a big way, make funding decisions at state, national or international level by staying home with the babies. Think about this the next time they
- make abortion illegal even for rape and incest victims, and without health exceptions.
- make laws about where women can go, with whom, and in what clothing.
- make laws against the education of girls
- make laws against women working outside the home, and also against women receiving medical care from men, effectively denying health care to women.
- make it easy for men to rape and get away with it.
- spend all money on war and tax cuts for the rich while cutting aid for the poor, elderly, children, struggling single moms.
- theorize about how women are intellectually deficient because they have hardly produced anything of intellectual value.

All of these wonderful things are the direct consequence of women's relative absense from the public world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the meantime...
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 3, 2006 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stay-at-home-Dads are still the whipping boys from every side: we're the enemy of the male establishment, the usurper of the womanly role touted by the opt-out contingent, strange beast lurking in the shadows, lazy, cop-outs, unseen, unheard, etc. Not that any of that matters at all but it's just damned weird to observe the different essence and angle to the clash of silence and noise around stay at home dads that is very different from that over stay at home moms.

The article made no sense to me. The minute it's about CEO's I'm "out" because that world is like Mars to my everday reality of trying to figure out how to work, raise kids, and support the breadwinner who works three money jobs that don't pay well but then still has time to join the Rosie Resistance by complaining that I can't seem to get all the housework done (ignoring the 15 loads of laundry I did complete by focusing on the 16th that I let go for the day because after working 20 hours I'm friggin' beat... but then, I'm a man so must be lazy; she'd work 26 and still be the martyr and never needs a doctor when she's sick). It's all crap and hoo-hah. Bottom line is teachers aren't paid enough to be the professionals that they should be, writers work for weeks to earn $150 with no benefits, and the rich bitch and complain that us working poor folk are all out to steal their damned toilet paper. That's the real story. Where are those Alternet pieces, eh? I could give two hoo-hahs for Betty friggin' Pepsi-Sara Lee.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: In the meantime... Posted by: realmuzik
» RE: In the meantime... Posted by: Aussie Kim
We act like this is the 1950s!
Posted by: CovertRage on Apr 3, 2006 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This tripe about mothers working is not only lame, but antiquated. The limp-weenied males, as well as the dimwitted women gullible enough to support these hypersensitive little prigs, all with obviously way too much time and too little talent on both hands, need to apply their powers to the greater good of this venture of bettering the plight of American womanhood. Most mothers who work do so to feed their kids, not get away from them. Most working mothers are in familial situations that lack resources and support, finiancially, emotionally, paternally, socially, economically, cultrally, and religiously. Too many mothers who are home are there for lack of employment or by demands of a spouse, not by personal choice. We should note that being a working mother has neither more nore fewer perks or drawbacks than being a mom who is home from the work front. American mothers have proven to be no more liberated, gifted, or praisewortrhy than mothers rearing their progeny in any other place on Planet Earth. Women globally adapt to their respective environment in which they live to do the best job possible under the given circumstances. It's just human reality here in this life under the influence of the tree of knowledge of both good and evil. So, let's not make too much more of this if we aren't working to better the situation of American womanhood beyond it current rather bland mendacity. Working at home or away from home, American mothers aren't doing anything beyond the reasonable expectations of the role of female parent. Few are executing the maternal process at an efficiency beyond mediocrity, at that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We act like this is the 1950s! Posted by: teenagelunatic