Blogs and Stories
The Downside of Opting Out
Thomas Northcut / Getty Images
Six years ago, The New York Times gushed about well-off women who quit work to stay home—without examining the economic risks. Only now is the paper setting the record straight.
Guess what The New York Times has just discovered? Women who quit their careers to stay home can face financial challenges if a recession hits and their husbands lose their jobs! And—gasp!—when these women try to re-enter the labor force after a timeout, it’s hard for them to find work, and they earn far less than they did when they left!
The front page of Saturday's business section, which featured this startling news in a lengthy story under the headline “Back to the Grind: Recession Drives Some Women to Return to Work,” brought to mind the newsroom joke that circulated during the 1970s and ‘80s, when I was a New York Times reporter myself. Back then, long before the Internet revved up the pace of the news business to a 24/7 merry-go-round, staffers made fun of the Times’ glacial pace and snickered that its motto was “The last with the most!”—a wry acknowledgment of the paper’s tendency to arrive ludicrously late to any story but overcompensate with acres of ponderous copy.
For the major media that romanticized opting out as the soothing solution to the stress of juggling work and family, the devastation that choice has left in its wake represents merely another story. But for the women who got sold a bill of goods and gambled their futures without understanding the risks they were taking, losing that bet turned out to be the biggest mistake of their lives.
In this case, however, the paper of record bears an unusual responsibility for setting the record straight—something it has taken an extraordinarily long time to do. Six years ago the Times published a Sunday magazine cover story that discovered what it deemed a happy new trend among affluent women and coined a catchy phrase—the Opt-Out Revolution—to describe the cushy lives of women who quit their careers to become full-time mothers. In what seemed an astonishing oversight, nowhere in that 2003 cover story did the Times investigate the economic challenges that the privileged Princeton graduates it portrayed might face should they ever lose their husbands—or their husbands lose their incomes.
Since then, of course, boom has turned to bust and a global financial cataclysm has claimed the jobs of millions of men. When the economic crash hit a year ago, I called the author of that infamous magazine story to suggest that the Times take another look at what hard times and rising unemployment might mean for women who had blithely assumed that an obliging husband would always be willing and able to support them.
One could dismiss the ensuing time lag with a resigned “Better late than never,” but even now the Times seems loath to acknowledge the levels of suffering and hardship that prevail throughout the country. Not until two-thirds of the way through Saturday’s story does the reporter quote a lawyer whose 10-month search failed to produce a single job offer. “This has been the most humbling experience,” said the woman, who finally became an unpaid intern at a law firm. Even later in the story, the Times relegates the stunning financial penalties suffered by women who opted out to a parenthetical aside: “(Studies have found that for every two years a woman is out of the labor force, her earnings fall by 10 percent, a penalty that lasts throughout her career.)"
Having spent a significant chunk of my own life interviewing such women, I found the Times’ belated acknowledgment of their problems to be bittersweet. Two years ago, I published The Feminine Mistake, which documented the financial risks of dropping out of the work force and also criticized the mainstream media for neglecting the well-documented but catastrophically under-reported economic aspects of the opting-out trend.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Bad News, Darling, We're Broke
Leslie Bennetts, a former New York Times reporter, is the author of The Feminine Mistake.
Hawnzz
This is shock? How?
jackied881
I agree. After both of my kids I went back to work about a year after they were born mainly because I knew that employers would not appreciate the fact that I took off an extended period to be home with them. I also feared what would happen in my family if we had to depend on only one income source.
What I did instead is compromise with less-demanding jobs than I might have otherwise sought. In the long-run this has been a decent strategy for me.....I have my own IRA and pension and may even see a decent SS check when I retire. And I have stayed relevant in the workplace. And, finally, my kids (girl and boy) know that it takes two incomes to make a married-with-kids- household work.
pashn8woman
Any woman who chooses to not be self sufficient is taking a risk, I didn't need more women's magazine articles to know that, duh. The last sentence of the article, "Those who encouraged them to do so have a lot to answer for" makes me laugh! Huh? How about personal responsibility for our choices in life. The subject of this article is why I never stopped working and exhaustedly did/do the working mom thing when I longed to "opt-out" and live that lower stress lifestyle. But I knew it was a risk and I was responsible for my own choices. I'm now divorced and nearly 50, yet in my twenties, I knew that economic freedom and personal freedom/happiness were important to my wellbeing as a woman.
Saying that women "got sold a bill of goods" just perpetuates the idea that we're not responsible for our own lives. I agree there should be more press on the risks that women take when they opt out, in case many of them haven't thought through their major decisions, but the risks to any woman who is depending on her man to support her were always there, whether there were good articles, a bad economy, whatever.
jhub32
Very well-written post. It's nice that your career track gave you enough financial breathing room to leave your kids in childcare without worrying about their well-being. But it's a shame that you're simplifying the issue and accusing women who stay at home of having made a poorly thought out choice to not be self-sufficient. It would be nice if the debate in this country weren't a battle of working moms versus stay at home moms. But I suppose blaming each other is easier than blaming a culture, a society, a government, and a feminist movement that haven't stepped up to the plate to make sure there are services and systems in place to safeguard careers or offer high-quality, regulated childcare for everyone at a reasonable price. Most women are not actually making a choice. Most women are just getting to a certain stage of life and dealing with the confluence of crushing financial and personal factors that force us to either keep working or stay home. It's just such a disappointment that there's so much mud being slung at anyone who makes a different 'choice' than we do.
Veronicaxy
"It's nice that your career track gave you enough financial breathing room to leave your kids in childcare without worrying about their well-being."
"It's just such a disappointment that there's so much mud being slung at anyone who makes a different 'choice' than we do."
jhub -- seriously?
And Pash, totally agree. In my 20s I didn't need any articles to point out that for a multitude of reasons I could be the one who had to financially care for every child I'd have. I'm married to the best man, but that doesn't safeguard him from disaster. Or me.
I wasn't raised to think of myself as a breadwinner and provider so it often feels an unnatural act, but it's the reality of our life in the U.S. that I need to be able to do that.
All parents, have your daughters read this article!
djanimaequeen
jhub way to stay above the fray. Is that mud I see in your hands? I agree with pash. There needs to be accountability for ones actions. Also, "traditional" families in this modern world need reevaluation. Anyone, man or women, depending on someone else financially is a bad decision especially when children are involved. It's up to YOU to balance the care of your children with your financial needs. While I do think that one parent needs to stay home with their newborns and infants for obvious reasons, I don't buy the stay at home mom crap once the child is in school. Frankly that's just an excuse to sit around sucking down bon-bons and watching soaps (yes I am bitter if you haven't noticed. I wanna suck down bob-bons too but I have to get my butt to work).
YOU decided to have kids. Remember that when picking up the next mudpie to sling.
suzyblue
The author's point is well taken. I stayed home for 8 years to raise up some babies and it was no easy feat going back. Came in $10k less than I was making when I left my job. My peers were all 8 years younger and without children. It wasn't easy.
Chicago48
Well Boo-hoo, the princesses have to leave the kingdom and join us regular working bees.
jhub32
Class insecurity, much? Or do you say the same thing about the suburban moms working so hard to raise a family and live a quality life on a single average paycheck? That's right, they're all running around in their Ross dress for less outfits and Payless shoes, driving their 8 year old Ford minivans because they're hoity-toity lazy asses who don't know how to work hard. In case you missed it, the idea that stay at home parents are sitting around eating tea cakes and sipping sherry went out with the knuckle-draggers who expected to be greeted at the door with a martini in the 50s. Everyone should be lucky enough to have their very own housewife.
Aemsere
I'm sorry, but no, they don't have a lot to answer for. People who contribute to the times by buying it when it runs articles covered in fairydust and sunflowers have a lot to answer for. They need to get real.
I totally get what you're saying, it's a huge problem, you're doing good by trying to get the pricks at the times to apologize for something they did that was downright lousy...
But the overarching problem here is that taking risks like the ones you depict is considered "ok" and "freedom" and such - the women who quit their jobs and decided not to look for new ones may well have been stressed out, they may well have been following a trend - but in the end, what they did was risky business. They should have been worried sick about the consequences of failure.
I can guarantee you that many of the women who made the choice are, in fact, better off for it - but many aren't. And that's what happens when you play high-stakes games.
Germany, for example, has a security net for women who want to become stay-at-home'ers - society has decided that a lot of people will have their lives ruined without such security - so naturally, the government has implemented it.
As a result, the German economy is less well developed and the German taxes are higher - that's the price for living in a nanny state - but Americans should know better. They should know that when you don't live in a nanny state, you're on your own. You need insurances up the wazooi to guard yourself, you need to stress out and worry about the future, and you need to be very logical about any life choices you make.
But that's not how things are casually portrayed in American culture, and in the times in particular, now is it?, It's chock full of positive portrayals of America as a nation, of America as a meritocracy where what goes around comes around, and where you're rewarded for your abilities. It should be portrayed as a scary place where no-one helps you up when you fall.
To that end, this recession is excellent. It'll keep people from buying silly newspapers that run stories about silly, risky choices, and help them understand that their current society is a bloody scary place to live in, where you need to keep your head with you all the time.
In the end...it's not about the journalists. It's about the Americans who don't add things up, or who don't want to add things up. Well, these women are now forced to, and at the very least, that might make them understand their responsibility for their own lives.
GPatton
A lot of well off suburban ladies in the Mad Men 50s and 60s were dissatisfied with their lot. They read Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinem and went about changing social roles in middle class and upper middle class America. In many ways, these women got what they wanted. They've become lawyers and professionals, had careers with major corporations, etc. And many hiring and retention practices have been mandated to favor them. But now that the US is heading towards third world status and is for the most part generating nothing but McJobs, these ladies may well end up pining for the time when men were supposed to support their families on one paycheck, and social arrangements and employment practices reflected this. Lower class (economically) women have been made worse of by what these feministas did. But bettering the lot of those not so well off was never really the point, now was it? LOL George Patton
Dylan111
The only thing that is clear from your screed, General Patton, is your own longing for the good ole days when you could keep the missus barefoot and pregnant while she fried up your bacon n' eggs before you trundled off each morning to slay whatever metaphorical dragons you think make you a man.
Seriously, while I do agree with the gist of Bennett's article on the current crisis, I think that basically life for women the US (which is not headed to third-world status just because we have a black president, thank you, General) is much better now than it was. Who in her right mind would want to go back to the time when girls were constantly told what they couldn't do? Look at all the support from conservative women, many of them home-makers, that was given to Sarah Palin for example. She was applauded for her so-called ability to multi-task. Female advancement is here to stay; it may get slowed down from time to time but in the end it is inexorable. Don't forget that less than ninety years ago women in most states could not vote. And now we have had three female secretaries of state.
kansasrefugee
Yes, I agree. I think Sarah Palin's appeal was precisely because there is a conservative subset of women who found her neo-suffragette, Annie Oakley-with-her-gun, & 70s-feminist-style sexualized presentation and position of female workplace independence compelling. It's like watching the 20th century history of women before your eyes (I guess a lot of them weren't paying attention when these movements were discussed in history class or when they lived through them and may not be aware that these issues have been largely resolved in certain parts of the country; also, alas many men have not yet caught up and so if you live in a red state and you want to have a family you did/do face strong pressure to go along with the patriarchical model.)
GPatton
Dylan: We started down the road to third world status long ago, when Wall Street was allowed to become a casino. I like President Obama and am to the left of him in many ways. We're headed back to one breadwinner families, with the wives bringing home the check. This "recession" which is a controlled depression has caused a lot more men, both in absolute and percentage terms, to lose their jobs. And its their wives and kids who will be hurt the most. Just because I use this nom de plume does not mean I'm white, or even a man. Think about that, asshole! George Patton
kansasrefugee
GPatton-
You seem very male-identified and patriarchical in outlook even if you're not one. Ever thought of considering something other than all-or-nothing thinking and Armageddon scenarios?
The male unemployment in this recession has nothing I can see to do with feminism. In fact, it is the male-dominated sectors that have done a poor job of integrating women (Wall Street, real estate) that took us into the recession. The lower-paid, female-populated (even if they are still sometimes dominated by men) ones like health care and education have been more sustainable. I am not sure if there are gender neutral (neither gender is dominant) fields; I'd love to see us have more of those..
GPatton
Kansas is as wide of the mark as Dylan. What makes you think I'm so patriarchal. And what's this shit about all or nothing thinking and Armageddon scenarios. As we approach third world status, many women will pine for the old days when social and workplace arrangements supported one breadwinner, men work/women take care of the kids families. Of course this is lost on the "upper crust" types who read the New Yorker, etc. Just ask your nannie/cleaning lady. They don't read TDB. But they know how the system works. George Patton
kansasrefugee
"Third World status" sounds like an Armageddon scenario to me? Also, a lot of your remarks are doomsdayish: "only women over 30 get respect" "we're all going to have McJobs"
You sound patriarchical because you're focused on status & competition.and you seem to see everything as "winner takes all" i.e. your statement that women will be the breadwinners and you don't seem to be able to grasp a concept of women and men both doing breadwinning.
I agree that if I were a low-wage worker marrying Donald Trump or Billy Joel or Larry King or John Edwards or such might look good to me. But that I suspect is really only appealling to the woman who has no understanding or knowledge of a reciprocal, interdependent, intimate relationship in which she has full autonomy. She's not going to get that with Trump et al, because they won't consider her their equal and worthy of such reciprocity; those men may be so focused on their on status that they wouldn't consider any woman their equal and worthy of such reciprocity; they just want someone fertile to help them get it up a little easier (which only works for a while) and to support and service them.
Veronicaxy
Hey George, my mom was one of those Mad Men wives, Betty to the core.
She couldn't have a credit card in her own name in those days, she had to endure a terrible marriage for financial security, sex and social status. I'm going to guess you're old enough to remember those days too.
Also, the economic shift was not women entering the workforce (female dependence on men in that way was an anomally actually -- Detocqueville comments frequently on the independence of American women and their strength as able bodied heads of household in the early age of our country), the American manufacturing base was sold out during the 70s and we saw the shift of our well-paying blue collar jobs leave the country. It takes two incomes for many families to eat and have a home. I remember that as our mothers entered the workforce, it was interesting and bizarre.
The dream of a doting wife was just that. For some couples, they do live that. All the power to them. Most don't have the option if they wanted it. And many don't.
GPatton
Looks like I hit some raw nerves! Wish people would argue with me. Not just use my insightful comments as a jump off point to unload a lot of their personal garbage. George Patton
Johnnorth
Leslie Benneetts sure packs a punch - I almost said for a woman! - sorry - but she has a terrific point about child support. Pity Chicago48 tries to turn this into the boring old class warfare. Count herself lucky she has a job instead of sneering. The Great Recession has hurt so many.
Jafly08
Hate to say it, but to me this is "just desserts" for all the women who take up valuable seats in highly competitive law schools and MBA programs only to become stay at home housewives and mothers and not use their degrees beyond a few years. What a waste, especially for those less-privileged women (or men) who gladly would have taken their seats and stayed in the workforce for 20-30 years.
mom23boys
Just desserts? Not everyone leaves the workforce to play tennis and have lunch with the ladies. Believe or not, some people "have" to leave very demanding professions because they can no longer meet the demands of their jobs or their families. Not every child is blessed with a fairy tale childhood - some have problems, illnesses and conditions that require much more parental intervention and assistance than anyone could have imagined. I did not walk away from my profession on a whim - but rather, I walked away from a 19 year career after much soul searching and a determination that it was the "right" and "best" decision for our family. I knew I would never have the same opportunities later in life that I was walking away from - but it was the choice I had to make. Who are you to say that my 19 year career was a waste because I was forced to make the decision that I did?
Genni2002
Hey Jaf- Give it a rest, would ya? Just because you think the only reason to get an education is to work at some lame bank, for a bunch of jack ass disfunctional and totally self interested executive bonus prostitutes, doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same way. Thank God!
Wherzmycountry
I disagree. It is fine to enjoy having a career but what has to change is the corporate mentality. It is at odds with family life. Men make families too and should have to take care of them as well. The only way to do this is to have a more humanist approach and reduce work hours for all. Our "vacation" time in America is ridiculously penurious. In modern times it is appalling that we have not found better solutions so that people can enjoy work, family and life in general. But the Europeans have because they are not slaves to profits, nor are they interested in money-grubbing or showing off....they just live their lives (not perfectly) but certainly in a more balanced way. Of course, Wall Street becomes apoplectic at the thought of reducing work hours (we could do perfectly well with 32 hours or less)....but not here in America because we won't be sensible nor tolerate any sort of enjoyment of life anymore. The totalitarian state of corporatism is complete. We need to change this. I am a woman and should I run a business, I have no intention of emulating the corporate male system which I do not agree with. And I am fine with making less money if that is the result.
GPatton
One other thing, those returning to work after a few years at home, be ready for this: many of your younger "sisters" will treat you like dirt. I've seen offices where only the men (many of them) treated over thirty women with respect. The younger women, forget it...George Patton
Veronicaxy
Ah, youth!
When do we respect those who are older?
Especially when there is no hope or desire to bonk them or manipulate them with our charm into taking care of our careers?
Msbeachwood
I don' t think the Times has to answer for anything. These woman were looking for a quick fix, but obviously did not think about the consequences.
jhub32
What a lovely and enlightened crapping on everyone who makes the choice to not leave their kids in someone else's care. The comments here labeling stay at home parents as people with cush lives who aren't working is backward and small--quick fix, princesses? Get your heads out of the sand, readers. The choice to stay home with one's kids and the choice to leave them in someone else's care are both difficult and complicated, affecting a family's quality of life and the stay at home parent's long-term identity and career in a myriad of ways. Our culture needs to stop this divisive finger-pointing--career women don't care about their families! stay at home parents are wasting their educations and playing risky financial games! The problem isn't that anyone makes the choice to "opt out," the problem is that there are no systems in place in this country to support families or make it possible for people to "opt in" again when circumstances change. All of the blame in the article and in the comments here is misplaced.
Wherzmycountry
Your comment is exactly right. It is ridiculous to have "mommy wars". Women marched off into corporate life, handed their babies over to the corporate world - and hence we are ruled by corporations and corporate schedules that bear no relation to modern times. What exactly is it we're working for...? I work to live and enjoy my family. This should be our goal. But America has been brainwashed by "free market" ideology wherein we are unable to free ourselves from corporate enslavement and mindless consumerism - and worse, keeping up with the Joneses - as if these are worthy goals - they certainly are not humanist nor reflective of "family values".
jhub32
And to the author of the article: You are right that opting out screws the parents who do it for long-term career viability. But for some people, the long-term benefits for their family make this a sacrifice they can't not make. The problem is cultural, the problem is where the feminist movement got derailed at the end of the 80s, the problem is that we do not live in a society that values family. So no one, really, makes a choice when it comes to opting out or opting not to opt out--the only thing anyone makes is a sacrifice. Have a look at Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety; no one should be blamed or shamed or made to feel fearful about the 'choice' they make.
Genni2002
jhub, I think I agree with you. In Scandinavia women get to take of nearly a year to be with their baby and then they can go back into work. By then they are ready. No one looks at a person, man or woman, sideways if they need to pick up the baby from day care - ever. You never need to beg to have time to take care of a sick child. on and on....
Veronicaxy
Jhub what's misplaced is your anger, you're shooting the messenger and people who are saying 'yep' instead of reacting to the message itself.
Kids having family and friends around them all day is a great thing, and stay at home moms are doing extremely important work. I don't see anyone saying otherwise here.
The issue is that there is little safety net for the women who make that choice, most first world countries are more supportive of your choice, ours is not.
That's a terrible reflection on our U.S. family values. But in the meantime as a woman, you've got to risk mitigate the heck out of your life if you've made that choice.
Do you support laws and/or government support that would diminish the risk of your choice? And do you have back up plans, including actively working on your own behalf to make sure she's a signed owner of assets, have a college degree that will matter in the workforce, active in networks that could help you find a job if needed, have great life insurance, etc.?
So, our U.S. society is a dangerous place to stay at home. I hope that does make you made, and you put energy into helping changing that.
dcnoble
The problem with being judgmental is that you are making the assumption that someone else was in similar circumstances as your own and made a different choice from you--the easier choice. While you made the more heroic, difficult choice.
Never would I have imagined that I would be a housewife at 43. I assumed my hiatus from the workforce was temporary; that after the birth of my son I would pick up where I left off--a job that was exciting and challenging, a job I loved.
But fate had other plans, for me it was a diagnosis of autism for my son. I would love to be a princess, watching The View or Oprah. But I am too busy driving my son around town to his various therapy appointments, buying his special foods, spending long hours in the kitchen making everything from scratch to minimize his exposure to allergens and toxins.
Please stop thinking you know why someone made the choice they did, what their life is like and how it is so much easier and perhaps more vacuous than yours. I would love to participate in the adult world of work, with achievement and problem solving. Without temper tantrums and odd behavior that earns me the condescending glances of onlookers. I yearn for that life that was so less stressful--but I am now in a job I cannot quit.
connieboyd
In recent years there has been some backsliding and anti-feminist backlash, even at the supposedly liberal New York Times. But the downside of "opting out," the big lesson of the current economic crisis, will not be lost on women. Daily Beast commenter George Patton, that chip on your shoulder is about to get heavier.
kansasrefugee
Well said.
The patriarchs can tell their world is crumbling. Little do they know the benefits in store for them.
RedPariah
Who ARE these women who had the option to 'opt out'? How could they be so naive?
They must be under 30, because those of us older than that remember the last recession. Any woman - any PERSON - who decides to opt out of the workforce and assumes they will be 'taken care of' is setting themselves up for heartbreak.
Divorce, unexpected illness, family emergencies - to pretend these things only happen to other people is idiocy.
My 'landlady' is one of these women. College educated, married a lawyer, popped out a kid, and checked out of the workforce. Now - at 36 years of age - she's asking me for contacts and resources because they need cash.
kansasrefugee
For all the men and women reading this who wish to consider another way to set up their families, the book "Getting to 50/50" provides some excellent suggestions on how to increase male participation in unpaid work of parenting and domestic chores (and how this is in the child's interest) as well as dealing with the biases and misconceptions in the working world that prevent women from succeeding (including patriarchs with entitled, insensitive attitudes like G. Patton).
The Gender Knot is another book I recommend. It provides a fantastic explanation of our historical gender conflict and how we can untangle it.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.