Rodolfo

Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.

Sure, she's right...and it'll never change: because she's at the reins! Right not, parents (and women) across the US are trying to make a point that "success" shouldn't have to mean not having children or caring for them lovingly. Mary Sue is clearly stuck in a retrograde feminism. Right now, there's parents at Michigan fighting Coleman to create a place where her vision doesn't have to be true for women and men who want to have families. I've known that Mary Sue was anti-families (succeeding), but I've always seen Coleman to parse her words more carefully. I'm appalled that Mary Sue said this. Not because it isn't true, but because it reads like she's making an excuse to perpetuate this systematic closing of doors for parents trying to move ahead in their careers. U of Michigan doesn't have to be the world she imagine. It is too bad the Coleman is in the way of families. I am appalled.

silo

Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.

Every person here was BORN... you didn't pop out of your father's head like Athena! If it were acceptable for both men and women to take time off to start families then I think we would NOT find ourselves 'behind'; it would be more part of acceptable culture and would not have this ridiculous status attached to it. Did I consciously choose to "populate the world"? Yes, after I worked for 15 tyears and saved for my time off. I gave birth to one child and would now like to continue a career I can be proud of and support him with. What diff does it make that I am??? yrs older? Did you in particular have to cover for me? No. I was gone. Not working. I, on the other hand, did cover for you when you had your nose job, when you blew your knee out skiing, or went on that golf trip to Orlando witht he boss. So there. Go home and call yer mom to thank her!!!

Sallyxyz

Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 1:07 p.m.

The issue in the workplace is easy to solve. Anyone who comes in late, leaves early, takes excessive time off, etc, should be subject to either making up those hours or no pay for those hours, regardless of the reasons for the absences. Workers are granted a certain amount of sick and personal time, and vacation time. Once that is exhausted, then the hours missed (regardless of the reason) need to be documented, and made up or no pay for those hours. Simple. Childcare reasons should not be "better" reasons or "excused" reasons compared to someone else's reasons for being late, leaving early or being absent beyond what the benefits plan allows. The issue is not that the workers who continuously have to cover are jealous because some mom went home early to take care of a sick kid. The issue is having to cover for people who leave early repeatedly. And most important, the issue becomes one of equity in the workplace if the people who leave early, come in late and have excessive absences (regardless of the reason) do not have to make up the time, or do not get their pay cut if hours are not made up that exceed the benefits plan. The workplace rules need to be applied to everyone in the same way, and childcare should not be a reason to bend the rules for working moms while others do not have the same "bending of rules" applied for them. That's the issue. No one forces anyone to have kids, by the way. It's a choice, and it comes with good and bad stuff. If you choose that path, and you choose to work while your kids are young, you need to be ready to follow the workplace rules like everyone else.

FredMax

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 8:17 p.m.

In the professional world, anyone that must allocate large amounts of time tending to children will fall behind their associates; e.g. growth, knowledge, contacts, opportunity, salary, notoriety, promotion, etc. On the other hand, this concept probably does apply well to jobs requiring a limited skill set, such as flipping burgers. If you have hitched your wagon to a career that does not automatically provide these kinds of rewards for the additional hours you work, then this is an mistake of your own. Find a new job or career rather than blame your inadequacies on others (e.g. co-workers with children).

GreenEggsandHam

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.

@momof2ina2: To make sure I stay with this topic, I agree with Coleman but she is also the one who provides this "perk" or "benifit" for her employees. When you talk about the "Wah" "Wahs" in fact you are talking about me. I can relate to what Ignatz and others are relating because I personally experience this too. Although systems and benifits are there to support employees, there is and are room for abuse. Too far are single employees considered as not having a "life" or "anything going on" so lets use them to cover others who are perceived as having a life because they have family needs to attend too. Bais are alive and well.

momof2ina2

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 1:02 p.m.

@Frogger; I'm not asking anyone to feel sorry for me. I'm glad I made the choice to have kids. It's the best thing that's happened to me and also the hardest. What I'm responding to is a bunch of complaining by people who have no idea what they're talking about. "Wah, wah, wah, I have to work and these people get to go home!" I'm just merely pointing out that we are not going home to have time to ourselves but to do a different and very important (for the society) kind of work. And before I had kids, guess what I did? Worked my butt off and pitched in when others were sick or otherwise unable to make it in to work that day. And I didn't complain. Why? Because I value the family. And that was at a time when I didn't think I was going to have kids either.

GreenEggsandHam

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 12:43 p.m.

momof2ina2: I'm not getting your point? Ya,if you have kids you may have to wipe butts and clean up vomit because that comes with having kids-your choice.I don't feel sorry for you though. You are right that I may not know "how" it is to raise a family and work, but again thats my choice so I don't need to understand. I am sorry that for you its not a "real party", it is what it is, your choice.

fremdfirma

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 12:05 p.m.

I find it rather ironic that folks rail and rave against parents taking time out to BE parents, yet are so quick to flame and blame for the very social problems which come directly from the fact that in order to survive, many folks cannot be effective parents because there's no room for humanity in corporate america. You cannot have it both ways, you either accept the inevitable social disaster caused by absentee and negligent parenting, or you make room for parents to do their job - and I really suggest people think about that, think really hard, the next time some youth crime pops up and they get the urge to flame away and blame the parents, who often as not don't dare put in the time because of the very factors mentioned here. And lets not even go there regarding the general corporate hostility towards people who have kids, or are considering having them...

momof2ina2

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 11:57 a.m.

Coleman's comments are right on and I don't think she's saying it maliciously, rather, what's the reality for women who take time off to raise their kids. I personally don't like what she said, but I respect her for her honesty. As far as other nasty, unrelated comments made by A2K, Sally and Ignatz I have this to say - grow up! Sounds like you're being a bunch of spoiled-sports. just remember, those without kids have an easier time climbing the corporate ladder and will probably have more money than those of us with kids (we have to spend most of ours on our kids). And until you experience it yourself, you have absolutely NO idea what it is to be a working parent. Do you think we want to take time off when they're sick? Or are you just jealous because we get to stay home? Yep, we're living it up cleaning up vomit and wiping butts and noses. It's a real party. I suppose the next time my child is sick I should just let him stay home by himself. Pretty ridiculous (and illegal if they're under a certain age).

GreenEggsandHam

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 11:37 a.m.

Sallyxyz: I agree and currently working in an office where I'm the only single manager. Weekly others managers are calling in late, leaving early, missing days because of the "kids." Guess who is asked to work overtime, stay later, come in early.Having a family is a personal choice and never should be an excuse for "others" to cover or pick up the slack.Ya same place Coleman works for.

Sallyxyz

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 10:36 a.m.

@A2K: I agree with many point made about picking up the slack in the workplace for those with kids. I'm sorry, but it's not fair at all to everyone else without young kids (workers who didn't have kids or workers with grown kids). Regardless of the reason, the coworkers who repeatedly leave early because "johnny" goes home sick from school, or who perpetually come in late because "johnny" took so long finding his boots, or who spend gobs of time on the phone all day making personal calls with babysitters and schools, all the while expecting the rest of us to pick up the slack, are slackers. And the worst one of all, "I have to stay home today because my kid is sick." How many times have we heard that? It is simply not fair to any co-worker to repeatedly have to cover and do extra work for these workers who cannot adequately balance child rearing and work without dumping extra work on everyone else. These moms with young kids who cannot perform their work adequately due to childcare issues, should stay out of the workforce until their kids are grown up, or find a job to work from home. No one minds an occasional situation where someone else helps out, but some workers with young kids really take advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, supervisors usually do not reprimand these slackers because their reasons are always about "childcare." If it was for other reasons, they would likely be reprimanded for poor performance. That's the problem. Too much PC going on in A2. Thanks to the posters who mentioned this problem, as it is very widespread in the workplace in my experience.

ILJ

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 10:23 a.m.

And bringing up Sarah Palin only reinforces Coleman's point. Is Sarah Palin pausing her career to stay home with Trig until he's school age? No. What would happen if she did? I think if she stayed out of sight for five years and then tried to get the public's attention again five years later, she would find she had lost all momentum.

ILJ

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:45 a.m.

People are reading so much into what Coleman said, things that I think aren't really there in her statements. She didn't say that you couldn't take six years off and have a great career. What she said is you can't take six years off and expect to succeed if you are "aspiring to leadership," if you have your "sights on the top." From her perspective, I thought she was talking about being president of a top university, or president of a large company, or governor of a state, or a top scientist in a field. As the president of U-M, I thought that was probably her frame of reference when talking about "aspiring to leadership" and "sights on the top." It would be interesting to poll women in such "leadership" positions -- university presidents, company presidents, renowned scientists and others in charge of something major, where they must lead large groups of people -- and see how long they paused their careers to have their children. I bet Coleman is right. I bet most of them took nowhere near six years off.

AAJoker

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:29 a.m.

For anyone to take 6 years off during the peak of their career is detrimental to the career path be it for children, health or a personal decision; anyone that thinks otherwise or somehow thinks this can magically go away is crazy. However this does not mean giving up on career goals, just that achieving them could be harder. Life is truly about trade-offs, I am very lucky as my wife has decided raising our children is more important than status or a bigger paycheck. This is a decision we made before we had kids as we don't believe in procreating and them handing off the results to someone else to raise. If she kept working could we have a bigger house or newer cars, sure, but children grow up to fast to even miss a single moment.

A2K

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:29 a.m.

I agree with MSC: anyone taking 6 years off for anything non-career-related will be at a severe disadvantage in their field. It's irritating to be a woman in one's early-30s and have everyone assume that you are, at any second, going to drop everything for a pregnancy; I'm Child Free and staying this way. Or (and I've heard this more than a few times at UM) "So and So is the breadwinner for his family, that's why he got the raise as there's only so much to go around, I know you do excellent work, but they need it as there is a baby...I'd think as a woman you'd understand." Er, I've been breadwinner for me/husband for 2 years...and I routinely pick up the slack when aforementioned coworker goes home early or comes in late, or blabs on the phone all day booking vacations, due to family stuff...but I need to sacrifice for THEIR choice to have another baby? As a woman I am automatically programmed to nurse everyone else's kids with my paycheck? Seriously? We've got a LONG way to go, there are too many school "Why aren't you barefoot and in the kitchen woman?" people out there yet.

sbbuilder

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:21 a.m.

I like to think my mom had the greatest 'high power' career of all. Raising four kids. She never took time off to further some other career. She poured herself into this chosen career day and night, week after week, year after year. Us kids were the beneficiaries of this energy. Now that she is old, and has Alzheimers, we return the sacrifice. Thanks, mom, for placing us kids first.

Susan Montgomery

Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 8:38 a.m.

As others have repeatedly reminded readers, President Coleman referred specifically to taking many years off when having children, not merely having children, as being detrimental to a career. Even then, she was not judging one choice as better than another, no need to get defensive... What if she had not even mentioned children, could anyone argue that taking 6 years off your career wouldn't affect your chances to make it to the top?

Chase Ingersoll

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 11:45 p.m.

If Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin could find career success even while enduring multiple labors and years of lactation, I pity the fool who would think Ann Arbor has not many ovulators who could achieve the same or better.

Stephen Landes

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 11:44 p.m.

I come from a family that included many wonderful women each of whom chose their own path and made great contributions -- and that was in the first half of the 20th century. Some chose to marry and have families. some chose not to marry at all and worked long, successful careers. I certainly don't know all the trials and tribulations they experienced, but I do know that they were mentally, emotionally, and intellectually strong. As you might expect I voted for "sometimes", because the challenges are different depending on the career one chooses. Success depends on a clear understanding of your personal values and goals. so the measure of success is not one thing for everyone. I have great respect for the comments of "dianebee"; sounds like someone with a clear sense of what is important to her and one who derives satisfaction from what she has accomplished without worrying about the scorekeeping mentality of so many people. We can use more leadership like hers.

UtrespassM

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 9:02 p.m.

It depends upon so many which include but not limit to 1. type of the care, harder for a scientific researcher, easier for a writer or a house speaker; 2. How well trained and how successful you were already before you took the off; 3. How much support you can get from you husband and all of the other resource.

johnnya2

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 6:57 p.m.

@ Deb Anderson "My widowed grandmother managed to raise three kids during the height of the Great Depression and she also accomplished, career-wise, a lot more than Mary Sue Coleman has or ever will" This is the biggest load of crap ever. It perpetuates the myth that there is a competition among careers. Unless you grandmothers goal was to be president of one of the greatest universities in the nation than you are comparing apples and oranges. You basically have just said what your grandmother did was more important. That is ridiculous. I also would love to see how we are rating success in raising children? Did your grandmother take time off to have the children or continue to work? Maybe you need to gain some reading comprehension to understand what was said, and not some knee-jerk reaction. There will always be cases that are exceptions to every rule, but if you think women who take time off for children are on an equal playing field to gain top posts within any organization, you are delusional.

Sallyxyz

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:29 p.m.

@atnapp: All working folks have paid into social security and medicare all of their working lives. I do not have children, and will collect social security and medicare when I am retired. I earned the right to collect because I worked all of my life and contributed all of my life. The fact that the US government (both parties are guilty) for the last 30 years has raided and raped the social security fund and spent it on other programs and will not pay it back, is not something I can control. The fact that social security has become a ponzi scheme and future generations will pay more has nothing to do with the fact that I paid into the system and I will collect, along with everyone else who paid in, when the time comes. Your kids and every other kid will pay more in the future because the government raided the trust fund and is not paying it back. It is not the fault of the current generation of workers, and whether or not they had kids. The government over the last 30 years has also allowed the insurance companies to charge whatever they want for health care premiums, and hospitals and doctors can charge whatever they want for services, however outrageous the costs. There are no checks and balances on the system, which is broken. This is contributing to the escalation in medicare costs, along with the unhealthy choices people make which we all pay for: the smokers, the obese, and the people who choose to drink excessively, do drugs, not exercise and engage in other unhealthy habits. These people get sick more often and we all pay, regardless of how each of us lives our own lives. Everyone pays for the spiraling cost of health care, workers, retirees and yes, future generations will pay more unless something is done to stop the unsustainable spiral. Insurance companies, doctors and hospitals can charge whatever they want to charge for services and this is not sustainable. Other developed countries have much better health outcomes and their healthcare systems spend far less per person and cost far less for the population, who are all insured. You, atnapp, can opt out of social security and medicare in the future if you choose to do so. Feel free to do so. I do not. And yes, when I retire I will continue to pay taxes on my income, whether it's earned income, investment income or social security income. And some of those taxes will pay for the military and roads, just like everyone else's taxes.

Sallyxyz

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.

Coleman is simply stating what is the state of affairs in high powered careers. She is not making any judgments about what is good or bad, desirable or undesirable. She is just stating the way it is. High powered careers are demanding, at every level, and they require a full commitment if one is to reach the top of one's field in the sciences, for example. There may be other fields where one can reach high levels and for women, still raise children. It is very difficult, however. Coleman is very realistic and very honest about the path needed to achieve world-class leadership status in a career, and it is not for everyone. Women have choices. No one is forcing them to have children, no one is forcing them not to have children. You choose the path that fits your goals.

Sarah

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:35 p.m.

I think she's correct, more in that the degree of difficulty of rising to the top is exponentially higher after taking six years off. Its not impossible, but its unlikely. Please note, she isn't saying that people don't have kids, don't take maternity leave, or anything like that. She is saying when you drop out of the workforce for 6 years, and then enter back in, you will be playing catch-up for a significantly longer period than 6 years.

Snehal

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.

At the end of the day, I always ask the question - is it worth it? For me the family comes first. After all what is life without balance?

Allison

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.

As a mother of one child I know that work can be hard to handle when she is having issues, I also know that she is hard to handle when I am thinking about work, I understand why mom's take time off, I have known high powered women who have taken time off to be mothers and they are able to come back to their field after being gone for 5 years, in part because they took continuing education credits and made sure they would be ready when they came back. I cannot help but say she is wrong and it was mean and nasty for her to say those things, I know she doesn't mean you should not have kids, but I think she should have stated that being a mom is a full time job so when you have two full time jobs it is hard to excel in both of them, some moms who take the time off and come back might not go as far as they would have if they did not take the time off but that does not mean they will not have a very rewarding and successful career, others however with lots of hard work will go just as far as they would have if they did not take those 5 years.

Barb

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:42 p.m.

MSC is dead on and I for one love seeing someone so accomplished own up to what it really takes to get there. I was fed the myth growing up in the 70's that we could have it all and that's just a load of hooey. There are always sacrifices.

loves_fall

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:39 p.m.

I also don't think she said women needed to choose between having kids and having careers. It sounds like the take-home point was that the time you miss being out of the workforce for six years is going to put you at a big disadvantage when you come back. I'd say if you take six years off work for just about anything, you'd be in the same boat. I'm contemplating taking 4 years off work to go to school and I know it's probably going to put me at a disadvantage compared to my peers who did the schooling 10 years earlier.

loves_fall

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.

I think her comments are true, but I don't think that should be construed to mean that your life as a woman is only meaningful if you choose to cultivate a career. There's a lot to be said for stay-at-home motherhood. If you value raising kids, then do it and enjoy it. Pick what works for you and don't worry about what things would have been like if you'd have done something else. Success is success, regardless of the arena.

Deb

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:27 p.m.

My widowed grandmother managed to raise three kids during the height of the Great Depression and she also accomplished, career-wise, a lot more than Mary Sue Coleman has or ever will and my grandmother worked during a time when working moms... with a graduate degree was a rarity. Despite her eventual fame (which ended up global) she was most fondly known and remembered as a mother and grandmother. Take that Mary Sue! This is also troubling because culture shift begins at the top so I guess UofM will indirectly punish woman if they choose (GASP!) to have children???See More

Kellie

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.

I think it is telling that the first two comments posted are so polarized and adversarial. I think it is unfortunate that both sides end up feeling so defensive and end up attacking the other. I have also seen this play out in my own circles. Parents (especially mothers) who work outside of the home are made to feel like they are being selfish for trying to have it all, all the while feeling like aren't even close to having it all. Parents who stay home with their children are looked upon as though they are living lives of leisure. I think both sides feel judged and unsupported. While I want to violently disagree with Dr. Coleman, I have found her words to be true at least in my own life. I am the parent of a 4 year old and my mind and energies are simply not available to my work in the ways that they were before I had a child.

John B.

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.

Iggy: Yowsah! If/when your aged Mom gets sick, and requires you to take time off to care for her, and I have to fill in for you, can I complain then? Not sure your gripe has anything to do with the subject matter of this article, by the way. And I think Ms. Coleman's comments indicate that there is a potentially huge price that parents (women, in particular) already pay if they choose to take major time off....

dianebee

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:14 p.m.

I agree, hence, I chose to be a mother, and am now a Grandmother. I did not become a "high powered" career anything. But,Ignatz and President Coleman,I am happy with my choice. I chose to contribute to society some pretty wonderful individuals. I have also had a creative career. There is room for all of us. At least I am not as angry as some (@ Ignatz) appear to have become. I have a whole lot of love in my life. Beats a big paycheck any day!

theodynus

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:12 p.m.

Countries have huge economic problems when they don't have young adults. They don't have young adults without kids. Wealthy countries don't produce enough kids without incentivizing parenthood. Ignatz, I assume you'll be covering your own social security and medicare rather than expecting my kids to do so? When you're done working, I assume you'll still kick in thousands in taxes each year to cover the military and our roads?

Ignatz

Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:04 p.m.

I agree with President Coleman. I for one do not like that parents of either gender get to take time off for their kids. Meanwhile, those of us who decided not to contribute to the overpopulation of the planet have to fill in and not be granted time off for non-child issues.