Comments on ABCs and PhDs: Crazy

• Is it possible
• Posted by Ann M. Little , Associate Professor, History at Colorado State University on July 23, 2008 at 10:40am EDT

• that the "I'd go crazy" comment really is about the speaker and not about you? Of course, I defer to your judgment based on the tone and context in which the "crazy" comments are delivered, but based on the information here I don't understand your defensiveness. It strikes me that caring for babies and young children is more a matter of temperament, not intellect--and some people have that temperament, and others don't. Some people are very engaged in developmental issues and questions with their children, and others are not. That's what I see in your interlocutors comments that they'd "go crazy"--they just don't have the temperament.

  You've made a decision that's right for you and your family, right? So why do you care if other people say that it wouldn't be the right decision for them and their family?

• I agree with Dr. Little
• Posted by Physiology Mama PhD on July 23, 2008 at 1:45pm EDT

• I also think there is the possibility that you are taking the comment the wrong way. As the wife of a stay at home Dad, I agree that some people decide it is important to have a parent raising the child but I also agree that not everyone, male or female, has the right temperament to do so. My husband has two masters degrees and is plenty intellectual but he is also much better suited to be stay-at-home Dad than I am in terms of personality.

• Ditto
• Posted by Veronica on July 23, 2008 at 4:30pm EDT

• I say that comment all the time and it is a reflection of what I think MY flaws are. Actually what I know my flaws are. I don't have the temperament to stay home with the kid more than a few hours at a time. Which is why I think SAHM/Ds are awesome. I don't have enough creativity to make it work. Or have enough faith that I could do it.

• Posted by Karen on July 23, 2008 at 6:15pm EDT

• I am guilty of this comment also, and I have never meant to imply that someone who stays at home (Ph.D. or not)is not intellectual or committed to other outside the home things. For me, I make the comment based on actual experience trying to full-time parent while working on my dissertation. After trying this for six months, I became aware of my inability to pursue mental/intellectual work at the end of a day (or during the day) of full-time parenting. I am certain this is a weakness of mine; some parents might be able to excite their two year olds about applied statistics (I've tried), or may find a way to weave in reading while the child sleeps or plays, but not me. Perhaps I have the "formula" wrong, but when I was full-time parenting AND trying to work on my dissertation, I had no "effective" brain time left; hence, the feeling of going crazy was very real. Part of my interest in this blog is to see how parenting and PH.D'ing intersect and to have some outstanding examples and role models of individuals who have found balance.

• Odd "framing"
• Posted by ACF on July 24, 2008 at 5:00am EDT

• I find much in the article (and somewhat in the comments) representative of very odd framing. That is, a really smart and loving parent would actually WANT to take care of their children. That's why smart and loving people become parents in the first place. If you don't WANT to take care of your children, then you really shouldn't be having them. Do we really need more children with parents who don't WANT them?

  Of course, many modern (post ~1960's or so) parents will say things like, "Well, I just don't have the temperament...." What does that mean?

  If you don't have the "temperament" for children, or don't want to teach them about the world, or don't want to raise them, or don't see a near-infinite wisdom in their wonder, or don't want to fulfill your responsibility to love them, then just don't have them.

  If you prefer to do "intellectual" things, like work 14 hour days at a University, then have at it - just leave the procreation to those of us who are so "un-intellectual" that we actually WANT to spend time with our children.

• Thanks
• Posted by Dana Campbell on July 24, 2008 at 5:00am EDT

• to all of you for the feedback, it's comforting and interesting to hear your consensus. And sure I agree that the right temperament may make it easier for some to be with children full-time. But also, like so many things, I would argue that you get better at being with kids full-time (maybe your temperament improves?) as you do it more.

  I still must say that I have often encountered the sentiment that full-time parenting precludes much intellectual activity, and I'll just re-emphasize my point that one who decides to become the primary caretaker for his/her kids (even long term) doesn't lose their intellectual thirst. I certainly don't mind if others don't think my decision would work for them, it is a very personal choice. However, I would like people to realize that although I chose to leave the traditional tracks of the academy to be home with my children I am still intellectually engaged in the interests that led me to graduate school in the first place, and I actively seek out ways to balance and incorporate these interests into the work I do with my family, just as those employed in academic positions are constantly balancing, too.

  And I'd be very interested to hear Physiology Mama's husband's perspective on all this!

• Thanks for the perspective!
• Posted by Michelle on July 24, 2008 at 9:10pm EDT

• I want to thank you for this article - it has opened my eyes and helped me reconsider staying home. I always thought of it as an either/or proposition: either I stay home full-time or I am intellectually stimulated. It's great to read about a model of life that rejects that dichotomy. Thanks!

• wanting and doing are separate things
• Posted by Jennifer on July 25, 2008 at 5:45pm EDT

• I can understand that it can seem offensive for people to assume that you are not as *interested* in intellectual pursuits once you become a parent - clearly, parenthood does not have anything to do with the ability of your brain to work just as well as it did before. But my guess is that most people who make comments like the one quoted are thinking more that parenting takes *time* (not interest) away from intellectual pursuits. Certainly, being a parent (a decent one anyway) does affect the amount of time you have available for academic activities. That is simply the trade-off that must be made.

  I find it interesting that child-free folks often get just as defensive about people implying that they are 'selfish' or 'must hate kids', etc. There must be some way to shift these conversations to be more win-win instead of lose-lose!

• Posted by dana campbell on July 25, 2008 at 7:50pm EDT

• Yes, it's true that parenting does take time (and energy) away from other pursuits. But more than that, if one steps out to be a full-time mom at a mid point in her academic career, that derails the traditional career track pretty seriously - traditional academic tracks are not things you can just jump back into. Thus, I think others tend to interpret parenting as something you might take on only if you were not up to making the cut in academia, or somehow intellectually less capable. There are ways, though, to think and parent and work on intellectual projects, and I love the flexibility of combining independent scholarship with parenting (although it can be tough, and it really helps to have others who have made similar choices around!)

• Posted by Ashley on July 29, 2008 at 4:50am EDT

• I have had the same frustrations. When people ask me what I do and I say that I am a stay at home mom, I immediately want to follow it up with, "but I have a PhD". I get a look from working individuals that tells me that since I am a stay at home mom I obviously am not smart enough to contribute to intellectual conversation.

  I want to thank you for this post and I want to add my agreement. I have a 16 month old who thrills me to no end. The fact that she is communicating plainly with me and speaking in complete sentences makes me realize that my "intellectual conversation" with her is all worth it.

• Posted by Theresa on July 29, 2008 at 12:50pm EDT

• I have an opposite view of the person who made the crazy comment. I am amazed and thoroughly respect people who are committed to be home full time with their children. I wish I had the discipline, financial flexibility, and patience to stay home fulltime. Unfortunately, I have none of the above.

• Odd Framing Nails It
• Posted by Mary , English Professor on August 1, 2008 at 4:35am EDT

• Didn't have time to read all the comments (perils of the work/academic life, right?) but I thought that the post "Odd Framing" touched on something hugely important: why don't we want to stay home with our children? Why is spending time with one's children seen as heroic, burdensome or onerous or even something worthy of comment?

  As someone who has done it all ways -- stay at home PhD Mom, to flyaway adjunct, to tenure track now -- the greatest hurdle I face (and this is just me, personally) is the endless labor that primary parenting involves. From wiping the bottoms to driving to cleaning to cooking to navigating extended family, the person who is primarily at home as as his or her 'primary" tasks the tremendous task of managing several individual lives and a household. So that's your job.

  Now, if you're smart, capable and organized, you want to, and can, do that really well. That's hard work with no end, and no clear-cut 'hey, good job you've finished' at the finish line. You're helping one to four other human being actualize themselves, while keeping the kitchen clean. Um. . . when am I finished with my work day?

  The shock that registers surrounding stay-at-home PhD mom diminishes the vast nature of the work, which isn't at all a non-intellectual pursuit, but which demands all aspects of intellect and emotion. That's a tremendous challenge and incredibly interesting, rewarding terrain. Isn't that why we chose this path?

• One more re: Odd Framing
• Posted by miracatta on August 1, 2008 at 2:45pm EDT

• I agree, the framing of these conversations is odd. It seems that our environment emphasizes money-making, credential-grabbing superachievers.
  Anyone who values care-giving, especially--horrors!!!--without getting a paycheck, is not considered quite that intelligent.
  I've been a SAHM for 17 years, and have had to hold onto my self-esteem with an iron grip. When you run against a very strong current, it's tough.
  The culture sucks. I remind myself of that all the time, and it helps.

• re: ABC/PhD
• Posted by Connie , Been There, Done That but SO WHAT? on August 17, 2008 at 8:15pm EDT

• This is going to rankle a few and downright anger some but it IS my own opinion and I am entitled to it: I find it ridiculous when people get so defensive over comments which are so clearly NOT intended to offend, whether outright or back-handed. When completely stripped to the bone, we see that this kind of defensiveness usually comes from either a lack of understanding (ie. communication problem) or the person's own fear and regret. I mean, honestly, who are any of us to think that we have a right to demand that another person hold the same opinion of any topic, whether it is near and dear to us, something we loathe or something between the two?
  Just for the record, I've been on both sides of this fence and enjoyed both immensely. I've also, at times, found both to be quite a pain even if worth the effort.