Another look at the Working Mom vs. Stay at Home Mom Debate

I don't normally watch Oprah. She usually annoys me because she too chatty. When she has a celebrity guest on, she does more talking than they do. I know it's her show and she can do what she wants with it, but it's like, ask the question and let the guest do the talking, will you?

I taped Oprah Tuesday and I also had taped Liz Vargas' first 20/20 Show which aired back on November 9 on the working mother dilemma.

Apparently, as evidenced in this new Oprah show, the debate is still on, so apparently Ms. Carol Evans was wrong. :)

Whatever decision is made, it affects the whole family, including fathers living in the home. I am getting weary of the media attention being focused solely on the the women. Not only is it a decision that should be made as a family, but the fathers can offer a great deal of support and have something to offer to the discussion, but they seem to be overlooked in these types of news stories and shows. Apparently, it's all about the women.

On Oprah, Ms. Vargas mentioned that she had received a letter from N.O.W. in protest of her decision to pull back from her career position as ABC News anchor to devote more time to her family, and I thought that she made a very good point about it. Feminism should be about CHOICES (after all, isn't that what the abortion debate is all about?) but radical feminism is about ONE choice that is deemed the only right one. If you make the "wrong" choice, then you are betraying the sisterhood. I applaud Oprah for showing respect to Ms. Vargas for her decision.

The one thing that feminism will never be able to stop is the driving nature of motherhood. Ms. Vargas said that she feels guilt every day that her children will not be as well off as those with mothers who don't work. However, after going through all the talk about guilt, she then says, "I know I've made the right decision for my family." How can she be so confident and still be so wracked with guilt? She can't have it both ways.

Having BTDT I can only say that she should listen to her conscience. Although feminism would dictate that we ignore it, it's there for a reason.

She also says that she is aware that she misses 98% of her childrens' day because she has been at work. Then the next thing I know she says, "I think the time I spend with my children is what makes me a good mother." So, the remaining 2% sliver of her time that she manages to squeeze out of her busy life to spend with her kids --- makes her a good mother??? I honestly just don't understand it. If her situation were reversed could she say that about her job with ABC?

In 20 years, her son will look back on his childhood. What will he say? Will he say, "I'm glad mommy had a fulfilling career"? Or will he say, "My mom loves me so much that she gave up her career just to be there for me and raise me herself. I love her so much."

She can decide what he will say.

In fact, it seemed to me that Oprah was more concerned about what Ms. Vargas had to give up careerwise and how difficult the decision was to make. Oprah asked, "Was part of the difficulty in making the decision because, if you are a newsperson, if you are "in the business" of media (and the network anchor job for the 6PM news is the most coveted job in television) was there a part of you thinking what you were giving up and how long and how hard you had to work to get to that position?"

Perhaps she was trying to make an example of her, as if to say, "If she can make this unbelievably huge sacrifice to spend more time with her family, so can you." Although she never made that point, I hope that was what she meant to illustrate.

The topic of government funded quality child care assistance came up and Oprah played the 20/20 interview with Senator Chrstopher Dodd. Although Ms. Vargas balanced the argument well in her conversation with Oprah, they didn't show Ms. Vargas' 20/20 interview with Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Karen M. Czarnecki who had the gall to suggest that individuals take steps to be financially responsible for their plans to have a family.

The women in the show were interesting. Jallon, the principal, has more patience with 120 other (possibly unruly) kids than she does with her own 2 toddlers. Lisa would sell her house before she would go back to work. Christian didn't get enough satisfaction from being a mother. Whitney encouraged working parents to find a way to bring either parent home for the children.

And Barbara (oh, boy) said that you have to separate yourself from your kids. In an effort to argue that the teen years are more important than the young years, she said, "Anybody can read a book to your kid or cuddle with your kid, but not anybody can ask your kid how the soccer game went, or be there to cheer them on at the game."

Ugh. Lisa referred to the foundation that is laid when they are young and it is best formed with their own mother. I feel that it is that foundation which forms the bond that the child carries into the teen years. In fact Oprah validated that point later in the show. She said that it's really about the level of commitment you have to your children. "I have been doing these shows for years, and when the kids go astray it's because of the lack of connection, and the lack of connection doesn't start with teenagers... It's not a teenage thing...it's when they're 3 or 2."

Dr. Robin Smith said, "The other issue for me is what tapes we have playing in our heads from parents, grandparents, mothers. 'My mother never accomplished what she wanted, so I'm going to make sure that doesn't happen to me,' or 'My mother stayed home and rocked me and read to me.' That's fine, but you don't want that to be the defining statement that writes your own script. This is your life.

I agree to a certain extent. I think that what Dr. Robin is probably saying is that we shouldn't feel that we are required to base our decisions on those of our parents or grandparents. You have the right to take control of your life and make it what you want it to be.

However, isn't it the job of the parents and grandparents to teach and pass down what they have learned and what they feel is best? Don't we mostly learn by our parent's example and then make our own decisions anyway? I stay at home because that's what my mom did. I chose to follow her example because I think it is a good one. I liked having her there every day and I felt secure knowing that she would be there, and I honestly believe that it is what is best for a child.

Then Dr. Robin said something that I totally agree with. "Having it all is an illusion, a fantasy" and Oprah followed up with, "You can have it all, you just can't have it all at the same time."

Dr. Robin also made a good point that, whether you are a stay at home mom or a working mom, the goal is to be in tune with yourself. I would like to adjust that and say that you should be in tune with your family. You could be a stay at home mom and be totally checked out as a mom, or you could be a working mom and your mind could be constantly on your work. Whichever choice you made, if you are not attentive to your family, you are doing them a disservice.

As the ladies were sitting in a room talking, Whitney asked, "If you are going to invest all of this time in having a child, why not invest a couple of years in being there for them?" And she said something very profound, which many women have actually succeeded in doing.

Motherhood as a Profession.
"It is thinking, 'What do I hope to achieve?' You have goals, deadlines, objectives, a purpose when you are at work. Can you not bring that same skill set, that same drive, to your child for a few years and make that a profession?"

wow.

While the point was made that it's not just a few years, it's for life, I think that what Whitney was simply trying to say was that it's okay to give up the career for a while and go back to it later, but we'll never be able to go back to the years our children are young.

The judgement aspect of working mothers vs. stay at home mothers was also adressed. Working mothers are mad about being judged as though they don't love their kids as much as they should because they chose to work, or their kids won't turn out as well because their mom wasn't home all the time. Then came the popular defensive argument, the one that says, "You don't have the right judge me because you haven't been in my situation."

But with reguard to any decision that needs to be made in life, I have a set of values and I use them to guide me in my life and in my decisions. My values are my guard rails, and without them, then it's anybody's guess what I would do in a situation where I had to make a decision. We use our values to make judgements about actions that we feel are right or wrong. That's what we are supposed to do. Otherwise, what good are our values to us?

The last part dealt with regrets and guilt. Peggy, who worked, regrets not being there and being a part of the important events in her children's development, while her daughter said she felt very loved and secure as a child. Dr. Robin said that's because she was engaged with her children. Robin profoundly said that the guilt is to teach, not torture, and that it is important not to project those feelings onto our children.

Lynne, who stayed at home, says she regrets not doing more for herself. I think it's sad that Oprah didn't deal with her at all on the show (tho she probably did after the taping- Oprah After the Show only airs on Saturdays now at 2 PM on Oxygen) but I personally do not feel that just because a mother stays at home that she can't take time out fer herself and do things she enjoys, and when the kids are grown, it is perfectly okay to want that time for you to fulfill your goals. In fact, once the kids are in school full time, a mom can do whatever she wants between 8AM and 4PM.

So that's my take on the show. Many good points were made, and Oprah led a great discussion. But one thing I noticed is that the working moms were still so defensive. Just because this subject comes up repeatedly doesn't mean that working moms must feel that they should defend themselves for the choices that they make, just as stay at home moms shouldn't. Many moms have chosen to stay at home because we know that if we tried to work and take care of a family we would suck at both. The reality is that many moms all over the country are coming to the same realization and are taking another look at their choices.

Right or Wrong?

So my friends and I were sitting around the table having coffee and one asked a very intriguing question. She had just received a new laptop computer with wireless capability. When she opens it, it auotmatically searches for an open wireless Internet connection, and it has found one- the neighbor two houses down. And it even gives their name. So her questions were regarding general information about wireless Internet connections, how to secure them, how easy it would be to hack into one's unprotected wireless connection, what kind of damage could be done, etc.

After exchanging some general information, I said, "Obviously you don't want to tap into your neighbor's connection without his knowledge or consent."

To which one gal said, "Oh, it's no big deal. I do it all the time if mine goes down."

I said, "You know, they are the ones paying for the internet service, and if one were to use their connection without their knowledge or consent, that seems to me to be wrong, like stealing."

To which a second gal replied, "Well, it's no different than going to Starbucks to use their free WiFi or for that matter it's no different than turning on the TV and getting a signal over the airwaves."

To which I said, "I think I understand what you are saying, but there is a difference. A radio or TV transmission is paid for by sponsorships with the intention of making it available for free to the public. At Starbucks or other places where there are public WiFi connections, the person or people (possible sponsors as well) who pay for that service do so with the intention of offering it for free to the public.

"However, her neighbor is paying for his own internet connection and I highly doubt that he has any intention of offering internet service up for free to his other neighbors, nor should he be expected to, and it would be immoral and unfair to take advantage of the available connection without their knowledge or consent. It would amount to freeloading.

"Stealing utilities such as cable and phone connections are against the law too."

To which a third friend said, "Well, if they don't have the intention of offering it free to the neighborhood, then they should lock it down."

At this point my chin is sitting squarely on my chest, I can't believe how cavalier these gals are. I said, "Just because someone doesn't protect their connection doesn't make it okay to use it without their knowledge or consent. Am I the only one who think this is a big deal?"

Thankfully, another older and more respected member of our group backed me up. "If I leave my purse in my car, does that make it okay for someone to take it? If I leave my back gate unlocked, does that make it okay for just anyone to enter my backyard and lounge by the pool?"

Then the third gal said, "Well, right, leaving your purse in your car or your gate unlocked doesn't give anyone the right to take your purse or lounge by the pool. That's stealing and trespassing. But everyone should know that if they aren't going to take precautions, they leave themselves open to theft, infact inviting it"

Then she gave us an anaolgy. "If I take my kid to the park with his toys and he leaves his toys to go play on the slide and another child plays with them, is that stealing or tresspassing? I don't think so. If we didn't want someone else to play with them, then we shouldn't have left them there unattended.

"A car with it's doors unlocked doesn't sit there and say, 'Hey, my door's unlocked, come on in.' And a backyard gate doesn't scream, 'Hey, I'm not secure, come on in.' But a wireless Internet connection advertises itself and says, 'I'm over here!' It becomes the primary responsibility of the owner to protect himself."

Then I said, "So, what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't lock down their WiFi deserves to get hacked into? As though it was their fault? It still doesn't change the fact that the thief is the bad guy, not the person who failed to protect himself against the thief. And if I take my son's toys to the park and leave them unattended, I would not be surprised if another kid started playing with them. But that doesn't change the fact that it is wrong-- the kid or the kid's parents should have come to me or my son and asked permission first."

"Besides, you are comparing apples to apples and calling them oranges. You are saying it's not okay to take an unprotected purse or walk into the unsecured backyard, but it's okay to play with someone else's toys without asking just because they are there, unprotected and unsecured."

I had a conversation with my son last year about cheating. He was having trouble keeping up with his assignments in class. He had asked the girl next to him to help him. Her "help" was giving him answers to questions on an assignment. I told him that it was wrong of him to accept that type of help. 1) it meant that he was not learning the material himself and 2) the girl was doing the work for the both of them, which isn't fair to her. She is only responsible for doing her own work and my son is responsible for doing his. (I alerted the teacher and she said that she would talk to the girl about this, that she probably didn't know it was wrong to help him in that way.)

The same applies to using someone else's wireless internet connection without their knowledge or consent. It isn't fair to the person paying for the connection to supply the connection to anyone who happens to find it without having given his/her consent.


It may even be against the law. There was a case in Florida where a man was arrested for using an unprotected WiFi connection from his car outside someone's house. And there is a discussion on ZDnet about this case as well.

So, anyone have any ideas? What do you think- is it okay to "borrow" a neighbor's unprotected WiFi connection? Or is it morally wrong, and should there be a law against it?