I was reminded of an article (by Paul Graham I think, but I can’t find it now) on why women are underrepresented in scientific research. As I recall, he argues that, on the whole, it’s not due to prejudice or deficient education but to women making sensible decisions about what they want out of life.

It’s interesting that the article you comment on jumps from an imbalance in the statistics between men and women in certain jobs, to assuming that there’s a problem that must be solved, in the absence of any actual complaints about mistreatment or the glass ceiling.

I’ve personally done two degrees, worked as a teacher, as a software developer and researcher and am now a housewife. I think they were all useful and worthwhile things to do. While I have a duty to myself and others to do the best I can with my life, I have no duty towards the collectors of statistics to make the numbers come out nicely!

And you are right: if I could show that small children’s preference for Mom isn’t culturally conditioned, I’d also have to show that majority time with Mom isn’t bad for them. Even as a thought experiment, that is too uphill a battle to consider.

Susan: As a guy who works at home, I fully agree that career arrangements that allow men to see more of their children are a good thing, and should be pursued by men if possible. My youngest has never known Daddy going to work, and my ten-year-old can just barely remember it. However, it seems in general that little children want to see more of their mothers than their fathers. I can’t demonstrate at the moment that this isn’t merely culturally conditioned, but if we could show that it is at least partially due to the nature of the human creature, then that would put a small dent in your fairly [small-e] egalitarian take on career/family balance.

Nancy: I think your focus on finding a calling rather than ladder-climbing is a good one. I think pentamom was getting at when she mentioned hair stylists. But then what if your calling is vicious, mercenary, backbiting corporate ladder-climbing? That’s a tough one.

But seriously, while your choice to work part-time would be considered anathema to the women quoted in this article (or you’d just be dismissed as a non-serious contender), it is clearly a good choice that avoids putting the little ones on a sacrificial altar.

And I have a hard time seeing you as immature. Marriage and childrearing have apparently been good for you.

Substantive discussion to follow later…

I guess what it looks like to me is that the article simply assumes that everyone SHOULD be focusing on corporate climbing, and to the extent we’re not, we’re not merely selling ourselves short — we’re somehow damaging the overall health of the profession and the good of society more generally.

As in, we MUST get more women onto the IT escalator! We simply must! As Tim says, You Will Join Us…or…Something!

Not merely my or your individual belief that we’re better off devoting more time to our families is wrong, but so is the belief of the hair stylist that she’d rather style hair! There must be MORE women in IT!

So when I did get pregnant with my first I switched to part time and it has been terrific for our family. As Susan mentions, my income relieves the pressure on my husband (he’s 100% commission - lots of pressure). But there really are two issues at play in Tim’s post. First are women using IT to get to the executive role or do they go into IT because they like it? If a woman’s goal is to climb the vicious corporate ladder, the family will bear the brunt unless the husband is less ambitious and spends more time at home. What about viewing IT as a great career in which a woman can work hard in her early years and then leverage the relationships and contacts so she can continue work, but do so part-time or in a job-sharing arrangement. Tim tells of the woman who really didn’t like her work so she stayed home. But…if she had liked her work, she could have found a fun job that was part-time. And yes, little projects, those ones that won’t put you in the running for the executive position, can be a lot of fun and very challenging. Oh and those small projects might be less stressful with fewer dollars on the line.

I think the original article missed the point entirely. We are too focused with corporate climbing when we should be focused on finding a vocation we love and then pursuing excellence in our vocation, even if we only have 20 hours a week to devote to it!!!

I am certainly not a techhie by any stretch, and when my kiddos were young I stayed home with them …until the divorce…then I had to work.. so my home would be quite unsuitable as a good example; though an example it is of “typical” American life in far too many cases, alas.

That said, I know several couples who are raising kids and both mom and dad cooperate with the child-care side; and in two cases the dad stays at home more than mom. No au pair for these parents…why have someone else raise the kids? yikes.

For a long time it has been the case that mom did not have the education or skills and therefore even if employed, would not make enough $ for it to make sense to be the “breadwinner” so mom stayed home, dad worked the 60-70 hrs a week…and I’m sure you’ve heard the statistics regarding how little kids see thier fathers…. Personally, I think its an improvement overall when both mom and dad share parenting, and careers, and the more they can swing that the better for everybody. Dad works fewer hours (’cause he doesnt have the stress of being the only ‘breadwinner’) and mom gets out into the adult world, and the kids see equal amounts of both parents. I don’t see anything wrong with that at all…. and maybe it would help all those women who are clamoring for IT positions keep their jobs (but heaven knows WHY anyone would want to be in IT….. *grin*…okay your turn Nancy….)