Women should be MOTHERS NOT CEO's Graduation Speech

[Colleen27]

Maybe he said it completely wrong. I don't agree with women having to make a choice between working outside the home and raising their family. But he specifically women CEOs. I think there is a big difference ( please don't flame me) between most women working and female CEOs. The job of a CEO, I would imagine - as I am not one, is drone consuming and not 9-5.

Exactly. He specified, both in his comments to young men and to young women, very time-consuming, high-intensity career paths. And while I know a lot of teachers and nurses and accountants and other everyday professionals who will argue that it is possible to have it all, people who achieve that level of financial success all seem to have the same basic story of very long hours and all-consuming focus. I do think most everyday careers can be balanced successfully with parenthood, but to me that isn't "having it all' - it is an ongoing compromise between competing priorities. But those compromises do take one off of the "CEO" track, I think, and it seems to me that the speaker's point was that there isn't anything wrong with that.

 

[Colleen27]

Here's the econometric problem with his remarks: if his underlying premise is to be applied, i.e. that the most essential role of women is to raise good children and that the most essential role of men is to protect their wives and children, and therefore the role of those children when they grow up is, once again to create and raise good children, he is essentially creating an unsustainable pyramid scheme whereby none of the "good children" ever feed into the economy. The more efficient economic model is for parents to contribute to the overall economic model while simultaneously raising children who are able to contribute to the world in multiple ways, thereby increasing the nation's total economic and sociological outputs.

But he didn't say women shouldn't work. He said that they should put family first, that motherhood is their most important role. Leaving aside for a moment the assumption that everyone desires and will eventually attain parenthood, that isn't a statement that precludes working. My mother worked and put family first, but she earned less over her lifetime and didn't advance as far as she could have if work had been a higher priority. Putting family first didn't mean quitting her job, it meant sticking with an employer that offered lower overall pay and less potential advancement for the 9-to-5 schedule and excellent PTO policies, not applying for promotions that would have demanded relocation, etc.

Putting family first doesn't automatically equate to staying at home. It doesn't mean not pursuing a career. But it does in the vast majority of cases mean not reaching CEO levels of success. And in a culture that places a high value on aspiring to and attaining the pinnacle of a chosen field, I think our kids could use a reminder that there's nothing wrong with "good enough" (in terms of ambition and earnings, not in the sense of doing the bare minimum).

 

[LisaR]

Actually, research shows that mothers spend more time with their children now than they did in the 60's. Fourteen hours, versus ten in 1965. Perhaps you meant something else, but I know that my husband and I spend WAY more time with our kids than our parents did with us. We do lots of family outings, play games together, ride bikes, etc. From what I've seen, this seems pretty typical of families in my area.

There are many sources to support how moms now spend more time with their kids compared to "the good old days". Here's one: http://www.livescience.com/29521-5-ways-motherhood-has-changed.html

My comments are based solely on the people/families I know personally. Not only don't they spend as much time as a family unit as they did when they were growing up, most of them admit that they wish they had more time together. Most claim they want more board game time, meals together, less chauffeuring services and more real time together but they just can't get there. The research may say otherwise, but that is what I hear from the people I know in real life.

 

[Claudia1]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. It seems you are indicating that a Christian message would by default be anti-female

I was addressing two topics in one sentence. I know that many will recoil from the Christian message and was acknowledging that. I should have made two, completely different statements. Thanks for letting me clear it up.

But he didn't say women shouldn't work. He said that they should put family first, that motherhood is their most important role. Leaving aside for a moment the assumption that everyone desires and will eventually attain parenthood, that isn't a statement that precludes working. My mother worked and put family first, but she earned less over her lifetime and didn't advance as far as she could have if work had been a higher priority. Putting family first didn't mean quitting her job, it meant sticking with an employer that offered lower overall pay and less potential advancement for the 9-to-5 schedule and excellent PTO policies, not applying for promotions that would have demanded relocation, etc.

Putting family first doesn't automatically equate to staying at home. It doesn't mean not pursuing a career. But it does in the vast majority of cases mean not reaching CEO levels of success. And in a culture that places a high value on aspiring to and attaining the pinnacle of a chosen field, I think our kids could use a reminder that there's nothing wrong with "good enough" (in terms of ambition and earnings, not in the sense of doing the bare minimum).

ITA.

 

[Kogo Shuko]

aside for a moment the assumption that everyone desires and will eventually attain parenthood, that isn't a statement that precludes working.

To me, that's what offended me most.
The assumption that all the women in that hall/gymnasium/what have you, would all one day want to/are able to start a family.
At that age, I never wanted children. Never ever ever.
Ten years later and I still don't really want children.
Having someone tell me my most important role in life is to have children is kind of... degrading, I find.
What about all those women (and men) who chose not to have a family in order to better our world in other ways (cures for diseases, for example, didn't just pop out of nowhere)? Are they.. any less... because family did not come first for them?

 

[Gracefulskinny]

Not all women are cut out to be SAHMs and these children are often better off in daycare.

Having worked Daycare. Having had to go to day care as a kid. I'll say this...

If you are such a bad mother that your children are better off in daycare then they would be in the home with individualized care and attention then you have no business procreating.

It's YOUR job to raise your kids not some stranger.

That being said, we do live in a broken society and there are times when a single parent just doesn't have the option. But know this.... no matter how nice the daycare is, no daycare will EVER be better for a child then the actual parent doing their job.

I think this guy is Spot on! It might be argued that it may have been not the best time to bring it up but its something that needs to be said.

 

[TDC Nala]

There's a reason why most of us (and that's everybody - not just women) aren't CEOs. It takes a great deal of time, and dedication to running a company.

I'm neither a mother nor a CEO, guess I blew it all the way around.

 

[skatalite]

There's a reason why most of us (and that's everybody - not just women) aren't CEOs. It takes a great deal of time, and dedication to running a company.

I'm neither a mother nor a CEO, guess I blew it all the way around.

But you're a moderator of the Dis!

 

[disykat]

To me, that's what offended me most.
The assumption that all the women in that hall/gymnasium/what have you, would all one day want to/are able to start a family.
At that age, I never wanted children. Never ever ever.
Ten years later and I still don't really want children.
Having someone tell me my most important role in life is to have children is kind of... degrading, I find.
What about all those women (and men) who chose not to have a family in order to better our world in other ways (cures for diseases, for example, didn't just pop out of nowhere)? Are they.. any less... because family did not come first for them?

I didn't read anything as saying people HAVE to have children. Maybe he wasn't talking specifically to your dreams, but can't anyone extrapolate something from his speech - like being really purposeful about setting your priorities?

Do people without children not have families, other people, and activities in their lives that they value outside of work?

I think some people are losing sight of what his message was.

Neither of my siblings have kids, nor does my best friend. All of them have a lot in common with me in that they value their loved ones and none of them consider work their whole life.

 

[michellev]

Having worked Daycare. Having had to go to day care as a kid. I'll say this...

If you are such a bad mother that your children are better off in daycare then they would be in the home with individualized care and attention then you have no business procreating.

It's YOUR job to raise your kids not some stranger.

That being said, we do live in a broken society and there are times when a single parent just doesn't have the option. But know this.... no matter how nice the daycare is, no daycare will EVER be better for a child then the actual parent doing their job.

I think this guy is Spot on! It might be argued that it may have been not the best time to bring it up but its something that needs to be said.

Are you suggesting that only single women should work? And that I had no business procreating since I could afford to stay home, but chose not to? Huh...

 

[kate_wdw]

(In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't read the whole thread.)

I think his comments were ridiculously inappropriate, not only because they were phrased in a sexist and insensitive manner, but also because they weren't applicable to the next stage in these teenagers' lives. Encouraging 18-year-olds to focus on marriage and parenthood makes absolutely no sense to me. At this stage in the graduates' lives, it is to their own benefit and society's benefit that they focus on getting an education and/or building job skills so that later in life they can freely choose whether to work outside the home or stay at home.

 

[TinkerBelled]

Having worked Daycare. Having had to go to day care as a kid. I'll say this...

If you are such a bad mother that your children are better off in daycare then they would be in the home with individualized care and attention then you have no business procreating.

It's YOUR job to raise your kids not some stranger.

That being said, we do live in a broken society and there are times when a single parent just doesn't have the option. But know this.... no matter how nice the daycare is, no daycare will EVER be better for a child then the actual parent doing their job.

I think this guy is Spot on! It might be argued that it may have been not the best time to bring it up but its something that needs to be said.

I know I should leave this alone, I know I should, but I just can't.

This line of thinking is so completely illogical that I can't begin to unravel all of it. Nevertheless, a few key points:

First, a daycare provider shouldn't be some random stranger. He or she should be a professional with special training in the education and care of a young person. We don't say that parents who send their kids to public school are having their kids raised by a stranger, do we?

Second, part of raising your children is giving them the skills they need in life. Some of those skills are found in daycare, including socialization skills, as well as the basic building blocks of education. Can these be provided at home? Yes, in many cases. But is making sure your kids are in an environment where they can learn to socialize and learn the value of education somehow not raising them? Absolutely not. I went to daycare from the time I was a year old. I made amazing friends, many of whom I'm still quite close to, I was miles ahead academically from my non-daycare peers, and I have a fabulous immune system. This isn't to say there aren't benefits to staying home as well--my husband stayed at home until first grade, and he found wonderful things in his experience. But I was raised by my parents just as much as he was by his.

Finally, the idea that my role as a parent is simply face time with my kid is ridiculous. I learned a huge amount from watching a mother who was passionate about her work, successful in her career, who engaged with the world around her. Her economic contribution to the family was, of course, noticeable, and it meant that I got to explore the world around me with fewer limitations, but that wasn't the real benefit to her working. I got to see a woman running at the peak of all her capabilities, which was and is priceless. She was not a bad mother--she was a role model and an inspiration. Your blanket statements that women who send their kids to daycare are bad mothers is beyond offensive.

 

[DisneyDiva8401]

Are we living in 1913 or 2013. Not everybody can be stay at home moms, or even be a parent at all (let's not forget the ladies who struggle with infertility). Women are capable of doing more than birth children.

 

[Handbag Lady]

Are we living in 1913 or 2013. Not everybody can be stay at home moms, or even be a parent at all (let's not forget the ladies who struggle with infertility). Women are capable of doing more than birth children.

Agreed. And there are many that are capable of doing both a CEO-level job (or high enough as a VP or EVP) and raising children just fine.

 

[Ember]

Good to know my value is in my uterus. Here I thought the international volunteer work I do, working with the poorest children on earth, had value. Or that the time and effort I put into my career as a teacher were worth something. Or the pursuit of a masters degree with its focus on international education if girls was a positive thing. Silly me. The choice to be child-free clearly negates my worth as an individual.

 

[bethy]

There are indeed parents who can do it all and do it beautifully. I learned the hard way and a long time ago that some people are simply smarter, more organized, more self-disciplined and have more physical, mental and emotional stamina than others. Some people have more resources overall. Most people can improve in these areas over the course of their lives but some are born with more of these gifts than others.

Me, I can basically only focus on a couple important things at a time and handle them well. So right now my main priority is taking care of our children. I usually love doing it though it gets very tiring and my husband and I feel it is a great use of our limited resources. But I also freely admit that I wouldn't be very good at it if I were trying to do much else. It doesn't help that my husband is similarly limited in the same ways I am and so his main focus has had to be his career . Someone has to put food on the table and that's good parenting, too, IMO. People harp on him all the time for neglecting his family and working too much. But for him, he really is doing the best he can just getting through every day. He wishes he could balance things better and get his work done more efficiently. Some folks are simply better at juggling life than others.

 

[Robinrs]

I know I should leave this alone, I know I should, but I just can't.

This line of thinking is so completely illogical that I can't begin to unravel all of it. Nevertheless, a few key points:

First, a daycare provider shouldn't be some random stranger. He or she should be a professional with special training in the education and care of a young person. We don't say that parents who send their kids to public school are having their kids raised by a stranger, do we?

Second, part of raising your children is giving them the skills they need in life. Some of those skills are found in daycare, including socialization skills, as well as the basic building blocks of education. Can these be provided at home? Yes, in many cases. But is making sure your kids are in an environment where they can learn to socialize and learn the value of education somehow not raising them? Absolutely not. I went to daycare from the time I was a year old. I made amazing friends, many of whom I'm still quite close to, I was miles ahead academically from my non-daycare peers, and I have a fabulous immune system. This isn't to say there aren't benefits to staying home as well--my husband stayed at home until first grade, and he found wonderful things in his experience. But I was raised by my parents just as much as he was by his.

Finally, the idea that my role as a parent is simply face time with my kid is ridiculous. I learned a huge amount from watching a mother who was passionate about her work, successful in her career, who engaged with the world around her. Her economic contribution to the family was, of course, noticeable, and it meant that I got to explore the world around me with fewer limitations, but that wasn't the real benefit to her working. I got to see a woman running at the peak of all her capabilities, which was and is priceless. She was not a bad mother--she was a role model and an inspiration. Your blanket statements that women who send their kids to daycare are bad mothers is beyond offensive.

Thank you, THANK you!!!

I had no choice but to send my son to daycare and found an amazing one. A Christian Learning center run by a pair of twin sisters who both had sons and knew a lot about boys. My son is Facebook friends with them to this day, they were a BIG part of his life, and he'll be 21 in January.

Are we living in 1913 or 2013. Not everybody can be stay at home moms, or even be a parent at all (let's not forget the ladies who struggle with infertility). Women are capable of doing more than birth children.

 

[KimR]

Having worked Daycare. Having had to go to day care as a kid. I'll say this...

If you are such a bad mother that your children are better off in daycare then they would be in the home with individualized care and attention then you have no business procreating.

It's YOUR job to raise your kids not some stranger.

I'm typing....and backspacing.....and typing....and backspacing....

 

[disykat]

Good to know my value is in my uterus. Here I thought the international volunteer work I do, working with the poorest children on earth, had value. Or that the time and effort I put into my career as a teacher were worth something. Or the pursuit of a masters degree with its focus on international education if girls was a positive thing. Silly me. The choice to be child-free clearly negates my worth as an individual.

Did you read his speech? Did he say that?

 

[KBoopaloo]

I get so tired of hearing this kind of argument. Life was great in the 40s and 50s, blah, blah, blah. Sure it was, if your cultural narrative was an American-born, white, middle-class, Christian male. Try talking to immigrants, women, poor people, non-Christians and other historically marginalized people. Ask them how great is was growing up in the 40s and 50s when they were disenfranchised, unable to receive medical treatment, segregated, etc. When physical and sexual abuse was swept under the rug by everyone, including the legal system, clergy and families. When unmarried women who became pregnant were shipped off to have the baby and then forced to give it away, or underwent extremely dangerous "medical" procedures to end an unwanted pregnancy. When children with disabilities were send to "mental asylums" for their entire lives. When men could run off with a mistress and not be held accountable to the family they left behind.

I know you don't care to look at stats to back up your flawed argument, but maybe you should try talking to some people who are non-white, non-male, non-Christian, etc. to see if their experience is different than you assume.

Thank you. You managed to say what I was thinking in a much more eloquent and less inflamatory way than I ever could.