Acronym

Well said--both your column and Alboher's. I agree with her conclusion: i.e., if you want to blur the lines, it helps to have work you love. That's the challenge: finding that work. She's a proponent of "slash" careerists--people who do more than one thing professionally, all of it connected to things they enjoy and feel can't be chosen one over the other (like lawyer/writer, teacher/model, etc.). YouTube has an interview with her and Tim Ferris (author of The 4-Hour Workweek) at http://youtube.com/watch?v=UcqcWVZJPb0&mode=related&search=

Beautiful post, Betsy. I'm reminded of an article I read a while back (Washington Post I think) that said it isn't really work-life balance. It's internal-external balance. There's a lot of the "life" part that is tedious external stuff and there's a lot of the work that can be nourishing to your soul, so the work/kids dichotomy doesn't capture it fully. And I don't think there is a magical number of hours with your children that determines "fair" or "unfair." But if you don't even think about it, then you're leaning towards unfair!

Excellent points, as always, Betsy. I feel like I could have written the same thing. As far as blurring lines goes, for me, it's okay, as long as the employer understands that the lines get blurred when I'm in the office too. I wonder how comfortable employers are with that. Someone will do very, very well when they figure out an employment model that suits the needs of parents.

I found it interesting when I clicked back to the column that inspired Alboher that the (obviously 20-something) "brazen careerist" snorted at the idea of a firm line between work and the rest of life. He wrote (defiantly?) that he fully expected to work on a brief while he watched TV. All I could think is: 'You get to watch TV? You must not have children.'

For me, at least, in these early intensive child-rearing years, the hours immediately after I get home from work are non-stop family time - and that's not necessarily by choice! Even if I wanted to, I couldn't check my BlackBerry while changing a diaper. It's physically impossible, and I think that would be cheating my kids - whether or not I'm ok with it in the abstract. Clearly that author hasn't had to think about it in those terms - yet. If you have kids, there are times in life when people other than yourself and your boss have a legitimate and urgent claim on your time, no matter how much you love your work. And that need precludes everything else.

In some ways, I think really loving your work complicates things. That is, parenting is guilt-ridden in every direction, and if I were checking e-mail instead of reading a story to my kids in part because I really LOVE that e-mail, it would be another source of guilt. It seems to me that taking the chore and obligation element out of work could make it harder to live with a balance - though I agree it's crucial to at least like what you do.

Hi Betsy!

Like Kristi, I feel like I could have written this same post (although not as eloquently!).

Your post happened to mash up in my brain with a post I just read at Employee Evolution. In a nutshell, the blogger there argues that if you really want to do great things at work, if you want to "capture your dreams," don't get married--don't even have a serious relationship.

Initially his post really irritated me, but then I had your post to think about too, and when you put the two together, I can kind of see that he has a point. If you choose to try to balance work and family, you will have to make choices, and you will have to worry about which ones are the right ones.

But I still believe that serious relationships with a spouse, children, family and friends strengthen you as a person and enrich your work, even while they do add pressure and choices to your life. (My two small people are totally worth it, for instance.) Betsy, I'd love to hear your take on his post!

Lisa,
I had another geezer moment when I read that post on Employee Evolution (my most profound one this week: painstakingly putting together an e-mail response on my new BlackBerry - took me 5 minutes to type 5 words...).

Anyway, at the risk of sounding like 1) grandma and 2) an armchair psychologist, I think that young man has issues, which are a precursor to, not a justification for, his desire to remain free of emotional attachments through throwing himself into work. Put another way, this guy is Not Boyfriend Material as my friends and I would say, but I think he's using his workaholism to justify that character trait, rather than the other way 'round. And of course the case can be made that despite his freedom from CHOSEN attachments, he may (god forbid) find himself - as any singleton might - in need of balance because of the need to care for aging or ill parents or siblings (after all, parents aren't the only workers who need balance).

My cursory mental flip through history's great figures (Georgia O'Keeffe, William Faulkner, Gandhi, Marie Curie, Bill Gates, etc.) shows not solitary individuals, but people with lovers or spouses and children. Now, I'd be willing to concede that many of those partnerships were artifacts of a time when marriage was not a romantic arrangement so much as a business deal, or that anyway they wouldn't pass emotional muster for most people today, but that can't be the case for everyone.

Let's just say I'd be interested to know what that guy thinks on this topic in ten years.

to my Balance is off
ah--- the torrents of emotion that is parenthood.I remember this so well. is it better to work more or better to eat less,play less, worry about the future (financially) more?
Bills have to be paid, and kids grow into surly, spitting, house guests*--then they move out and call you everyday to let you know theyre all grown up! i'll leave it at that.

a few generations ago it was more so mainly men who had to face this dilemma: making money,and not making time for family. we told them to stop being babies and take responsibility. now that the shoe is on the other foot---cant we handle it a little better? I know life aint cheap, but maybe taking a lesser job or lifestyle- yes YOU may actually end up being the working poor or just poor. no extravagant sweet 16 party for YOUR kid.
am i being smug, am i deviod of understanding? no, Ive already lived it. everything cant be priorty one. something has to give. the job, the kids,or your idea of the perfect life.

if this is not a choice, if. then hold your head high, teach your child pride in accomplishment and that because you love them you fullfill your dreams so they can fulfill thiers. go nontraditional keep them up later just to spend time with them, etc. time is important, lose sleep. in 20 or 30 years it will be all over. remember 50 is the new 15 so youve got plenty of time.

p.s. sorry i'm long winded and preachy, but its all true

p.p.s. work is about money; yours, thiers, and ours and more of it. love is the word they use to sell you stuff. does your job love you ? only if you produce more. they stay in the black by getting more for less. you know they love you by that pat on the back - cost $0.00.(the cynical view)

love what can love you back.(dont let the teen years fool you-see above*)

told you i was preachy.