Privileged kids whose moms are college educated have an advantage becaue their moms use their education to inform them when raising their children, in particular as they are going through the school system.

Staying/working at home is a privilege and a luxury in the states.

I believe the choice whether to stay at home with your children or go out and work is a very personal decision.

I know some women that love their children, are great mothers, but have to be out working and be an active participant in a work related setting.

I choose to stay home with my infant (my two older boys are now in school) until he's at least 2 years old.

This is my choice. I want to be the one raising my infant son and be there for his first crawl, his first teeth, his first words.
I want to give him story time. Lay him down for his nap. Feed him meals that I prepare at home.

These things are , in my opinion, essential to his developement.

When he begins school like his two older brothers, I will go back to work.

As for being educated, I'm mostly self taught in everything I do. I have no degree yet.

I read and research on things that fascinate me. I'm currently enrolled in an internet college.

Also, it's difficult for me to work as I have been going through numerous surgeries and treatments. And my husband is Air Force.

So, it just makes sense all the way around for me to stay home with our youngest son.

Ok so first I want to say that I completely respect the choice to stay home. My grandmother, aunt and even my mom before her divorce all stayed home and I would NEVER think that their lives are a waste or aren't valuable. So with everything I say please remember that I do respect you, but this is an issue I'm a bit conflicted on.

One thing that worries me is that it's almost ALWAYS a mother who decides to stay home. The expectation is that if one person's career that needs to suffer for the kids, it will be the woman's. And while I think that staying home is an altruistic thing to do, when it continues are our kids still growing up thinking that men go to work and women are best staying home? Even if we teach them otherwise, is that how children will internalize gender roles?

Also, there is still so much pressure on women to stay home. My sister is an extremely successful corporate lawyer and loves her job, but she doesn't even have kids yet and she's already subject to a lot of shaming because she doesn't get home until 7:30 and apparently that's "unfair" to her husband. So while I can accept that some women want to stay home, I'm not sure I believe that all or even most women who stay home would really, really want to do that if they weren't subject to a lot of pressure.

You bring up very good arguments when you say that women who work outside the home aren't necessarily using their degrees and working at fulfilling jobs. But I'm not sure that women at home are using their degrees, especially graduate degrees either. I think that there is a lot of very worthwhile and fulfilling public work out there if you work hard to get it, and I worry that women aren't getting their share of that work because so many of us are choosing to stay at home, especially once children are in school.

Also, I don't think that the point of feminism is to get equal access to all choices (and I don't believe that any choice is feminist just because a woman makes it). I think the point is to end sexist oppression and make women the social and political equals of men (but this does not mean make them the SAME as men).

So while I do respect each individual's choice to stay home, I don't think the number of women staying at home necessarily advances feminism (I'm conflicted). When so many people think women's place is in the home, and so many women (even who don't think that or teach their children that) are staying home, men don't take equal roles as parents and housekeepers, and there is a drain on the time, energy and talents of women who HAVE to take on those roles in addition to any other purpose or occupation they may want.

"-Women at home are living less than fully satisfying lives -- as women at work are living fully satisfying lives"

I actually find more examples of the opposite assumption on this one. People who believe you can't be really fullfilled unless you are a SAHM, with the emphasis on "M". In media from movies to TV to comic strips like "For Better Or For Worse", whenever there's a professional career woman character she's generally portrayed as unhappy, mean, sexually frustrated, secretly lonely, etc. If she does happen to have kids she's portrayed as a cold uncaring mother.

Or when a woman with kids chooses to work all these people go "How will you balance work and your kids?" Has anyone ever asked a MAN with a career and children how he balances it all?

I will wade in here, although I don't know if it will have much impact.

Here are the things that I think are missing from this discussion. First, people talk about how so many women are now fleeing the workforce to be SAHMs. This just isn't accurate. In 2006, 5.6million mothers were SAHMs, out of 82.8 million mothers in the US. That is less than 7%, and the numbers are not increasing. However, when women have recently become unemployed because of the economy, that has been attributed to them wanting to become SAHMs, rather than them not able to find a job outside the home. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/business/22jobs.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Poor%20Economy%20Slows%20Women%20in%20the%20Workplace&st=cse&oref=slogin ] When women with higher levels of education have been accused of becoming SAHMs in greater numbers, the data has been based on really questionable sources, like tracking the careers of women who announce weddings in the NYtimes. So, the idea that there is some flood of women becoming SAHMs is just wrong.

Second, the assumption seems to be that women who become SAHMs today are doing it for decades. That is not what I have seen to be the case. They stay home for a year or two, not 10 or 20. They then return to the workforce. Is it tricky going back after dropping out for 2 years? Yes, more than if they hadn't stayed home, but there is not some intellectual drought because all the educated women are leaving for good.

Third, SAHMs today, thanks to the work of feminism and things like the internet, are able to do more things than just eat bon bons and watch Oprah. I heard a story on NPR, which I can't find a citation for, that said that 75% of SAHMs today start some sort of business while they are staying home. These are usually quite small, maybe selling crafts or Avon, sometimes bigger, and like all new businesses, they don't all last, but this shows that women today are using the opportunities they can find to use their intellect and creativity. If I can find the cite, I will add it.

Finally, I think the concept of feminism being about choice throws a monkey wrench into the conversation, as inevitably, someone suggests that there are "good, feminist" choices, and being a SAHM is not one. I believe that feminism is about bringing respect to women and providing them the tools they need to succeed. If a woman truly wants to be a stripper, for example, she needs a well-regulated industry, health insurance, protection from dangerous situations. If a woman is a stripper because she feels she has no other option, then she needs job training, health insurance, support for leaving the industry. That means feminism should work for a more regulated sex industry, health insurance for all women, job training for all women, and laws that protect them. The case is no different for SAHMs. If a woman wants to be a SAHM, she still needs access to health insurance, job training if she chooses to stop being a SAHM, social security insurance (which she doesn't get), childcare support if she needs to go back to the workforce due to death or divorce. If a woman feels she has no choice but be a SAHM, then we need to be working on changing the idea that being a SAHM is the only acceptable role for some women.

Oh, and one last thing, I tend to see SAHMs maligned because my current mindset notices those things more. Someone who is not a SAHM will see working mothers more maligned. Part of it also depends on where you live and who you know. It becomes a race to prove that one side or the other gets less respect. The truth is ALL mothers are maligned a great deal, as are women who choose not to be mothers. Supporting motherhood in its many forms is a major role for feminism because the patriarchy doesn't do it on its own.

Being a SAHM is not necessarily a luxury -- yes, the typical model is the middle or upper-middle class mom whose husband comes home at the end of a long day at Microsoft or whatever, where he earns significantly above the poverty line, but in a lot of places, being a SAHM isn't a luxury.

Childcare is expensive. There are a lot of families who, especially in this economy, choose to have one parent at home because the second income is entirely eaten up by childcare. I think that when people think of the stay-at-home Mom, they don't think about this woman who has chosen not to work because she would rather be the one raising her children; since they're not going to have that extra 20 grand a year anyway.

Then, of course, there is the college educated, middle class mom who has chosen to have a family because that is as much or more valuable to her than slaving away in a profession that she wouldn't find nearly as rewarding as her motherly duties. This is the mom who is called bourgeois. She's privileged. She's got the luxury of breeding and having a family. Sure, okay, but so what? Just because someone has the privilege associated with being middle or upper-middle class (or white, or male, or heterosexual, whatever) doesn't mean that they deserve to be thought of as less-than, as unproductive. You don't know what a person thinks based on the socio-economic background; you don't know whether she floats around in a housedress making cookies all day or if she spends that extra time while the kids are at school with a headset on taking calls for the Domestic Abuse Helpline.

There's an assumption that comes with assigning someone the label of "privileged", and that is assuming that a)they don't know/realize/care that they are privileged, and b)they don't do anything with it. If I am not mistaken, this is the root of what Teresa is concerned over.

The other issue, the capitalist issue, that something isn't worth one's time if there's no price tag attached... that's something that our society is going to grapple with for a long time. Our culture worships the dollar. Worships money. That's why people with money are privileged, but people with families are not (although there is an argument that can be made that families have more opportunities than single people). It's a symptom of capitalism gone crazy, and there's not much to do about it aside from taking a personal stance of not valuing something based on its financial cost.

"But, if you have the money, what better way to spend it than on devoting your time and efforts to raising your kids"

Are you saying women should ONLY work if they HAVE to? Doesnt that position women who work because they want to as selfish? Also, women who work ARE devoting all their time and efforts to raising their kids. How would a career interfere with that? How do you think a career interferes with a womans parenting and the amount of love she gives to her child? Do you think it ideal (meaning if both you and your partner had the resources) that both parents stay home? What about balance in the home between the father and the mother (or mom/mom/dad/dad/single by choice)?How can you have that when one is doing majority of the childcare?

Exactly Rachel. My mom never finished post-secondary so it made sense for her to stay home with us instead of work for nothing and put us in day care. We ended up in a small house, spared luxuries people with both parents working had but it worked for my family.