Why do women get to 'take a break' or 'take a sabbatical'?

Pretty sure no one in this thread, except you, are comparing things to 100 years ago. Most everything was more difficult on 1919. Also, pretty sure the concept of sabbaricals didn't exist.

How many kids do you have?

 

My significant other worked for the state for 30+ years, retiring a few years ago as an executive of an important commission that works for the legislature. She never had to work directly for either of the recent GOP Governors or Lt. Governors, thank god. Bob Bullock was enough of a handful! Where I’m going with this is that she took several weeks off when she had each of our kids, having banked her vacation time and also sick leave. Three months for the first one, and two for the second, separated by a few years. None of that time was “paid for by the state.” It was all time she had earned by putting in the time.

The longer you work for the state, the more annual vacation time you get, as I’m sure you know. Sick leave depends on how much you have used before having a kid, assuming that’s the reason the time was taken off. Sometimes, but rarely, the time is taken off to obtain an advanced degree or for other reasons that have a positive impact on your job performance. Another big difference is if you have at least a master’s degree. The commission she worked for required it, with only a few exceptions over the decades she was a state employee. That often opens doors to higher positions that lead to lots of opportunities many state employees are unable to benefit from.

It helped that she was an executive and good friends with both directors she served under, but employees of that commission, from secretaries to executive staff, were treated the same way. That good treatment can vary a great deal depending on the state agency or commission you work for, and more importantly, who your boss is and how long you’ve worked for the state. I can’t speak to the conditions state employees have to deal with elsewhere in state government, just the couple of state agencies and commissions she worked for. What also helped, I might add, is that when she returned to work, I was able to spend a great deal of time with each kid, a benefit of being older that she is, I suppose. I’m still searching for other benefits!

In other words, @Xerobull, the women you might be thinking of quite possibly have a lot more going on that allows that time off than you may realize. I hope that cleared up at least a little of the confusion. Speaking of confusion, living for decades with a strong woman who worked her butt off to get to where she ended up (and she was the director of a commission herself at one point in her career), produces massive amounts of confusion, among other things, like having to listen to her when she got home explain everything that happened at the office, or in other parts of Texas state government that impacted her job, often in minute detail. It’s helped that I’m a good listener, something that some here may find hard to believe. ;-)

 

I think I accepted that having kids was a challenging enterprise. That's why only responsible people should undertake it.

There's no refuting the fact that home life is exponentially easier than it used to be.

And as for the 100 years -- well, if you don't want to see the bigger picture, I guess I can't force you to.

Don't have any kids, mostly by choice I guess. Doesn't mean I can't observe and see what it is like. In fact, it's that very thing that leads me not to undertake that choice.

 

Regardless of how things are easier now than they were 100 years ago, doesn’t mean that raising kids and taking care of the family is easy. It doesn’t make the comment @Nook made any less true either. You are also overlooking the fact that working outside the home is now easier than it was 100 years ago as well.

 

You ... have ... no ... idea.

 

Yep...having to feed kids three reasonable meals a day...constant cleaning...getting them to various school things and extra curricular activities...constantly having to watch infants and toddlers to make sure they don't kill themselves..plus all the ancillary household related activities

 

I wouldn't totally deny this. A person who has not gone through something cannot fully appreciate/understand something that another person has gone through, unless they have been through something very similar.

Still, I would maintain that sometimes all one has to do is to see glimpses of a particular situation, to know whether one wants that dynamic in their life, or not.

Edit: back to the point -- I don't think anyone can deny that whoever the homemaker is (man or woman), their job is much easier than it was 100 years ago.

 

This is interesting, and I don't totally deny it. Work may be physically easier than it was 100 years ago, at least for many professions.

What is a lot harder is getting to and from it. I have sometimes joked to friend that the real "work" of work (at the office) was getting to and from it (ie, commuting). And, this shouldn't be downplayed: one is often putting themselves in danger with the daily commute.

Then too I would say that work is often more mentally intensive and draining than it was 100 years ago. But that goes with it being less physically draining. It's either one or the other.

If you had said to me that the housewife of 100 years ago had it tough, I would totally agree with you.

Nowadays …….it's a lot easier, which is not to say it's easy.

 

Farming is much easier these days as well, but it is still not easy. Firefighting is easier, but it’s not easy. Most everything is easier, but many things continue to not be easy. So, I am still unsure of the point you are trying to make.

 

Speaking of mental breakdowns, I usually follow the money by working at startups and it's generally a pressure cooker for all roles.

Others have had it and I've have had some in my time, mostly because it's nonstop delivery out of survival and the team is either understaffed or underskilled.

I can also say preferential treatment can be common depending on the situation. With a few people making key decisions, if they are sexist // inherently biased, and think those subordinates are incompetent, then that culture permeates a couple rungs down. You just down hear about it unless you or someone you know are there in the meetings

Prob a different atmosphere from risk adverse government, but anecdotes can make things true either way...

 

As a parent, I've realized my Mom is super human.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/bob-le...outside-the-lines-indefinitely-170453080.html

 

As a parent, I’ve realized that my son and daughter-in-law (5 kids ages 18 months to 11 years) are super human.

 

Spent a couple of years at a boarding school, all the established faculty (not the young coaches who were ****ing each other or the students) were able to this for a year; though I don't know how many did it at a time.

 

The point I am trying to make is that men and women have different evolved roles, developed over 100,000 years+ of evolution.

Take either out of their natural role, and they become distressed, sometimes even dysfunctional.

Thus, the OP's question: why do women take more sabbaticals? (or breaks from career)

And my answer: evolved roles. Some women do well in the workplace. Many more do not. It's not their natural environment.

This is the theme in a lot of my posts -- we ignore our evolutionary biology and psychology at our own peril. And, because of this, any thoughts of "equalism" or "equality" (at least of outcome) are doomed to failure.

 

Okay, but the observation that women take more breaks than men for non-family reasons hasn't even been established. So you're explaining a phenomenon that many posters seem to doubt is even true.

 

I'm not sure these things are separable. Taking a break from career for family is taking a break, as I think someone suggested above.

Is raising a baby/child demanding? Of course it is. Is it the same as the 40-60 hour week work grind, day after day, week after week, year after year? I don't think it is; arguably it's not even close.

I'll ask a separate but related question: Who takes "mental health" days? I'll leave this thread on that rhetorical question.

 

Four pages later and the first response is still the best response.

 

Good lord. I made the mistake of hitting the “show ignored content” button. Are there people seriously making that argument? Wow. Talk about Stone Age mentality. That’s the sort of people that make up so many of the trump supporters? There are a few exceptions, like @Os Trigonum, but I have a feeling that very few post here, or read the forum.

Time for the game!

 

Hundred years ago you were able to beat your kids and send them to factories for a little extra gambling money.

God I miss the Good Ol Days