The Numbers

A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer

Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.

ARCHIVES

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Previous | Main | Next »

Work-Life Balance: Beyond the Politics

September 02, 2008 11:31 AM

Sarah Palin’s selection as the Republican nominee for vice president has created a swirl of interest in a sensitive subject: The challenging decisions faced by parents in their home-life vs. work-life balance.

There’s been some kickback on why these questions should be raised only with the arrival of a woman candidate. There’s a clue in the data: In a poll we did a couple of years ago, 85 percent of mothers said they had the primary child-care responsibilities in the family. Just 13 percent said their spouse or partner had main (2 percent) or equally shared (11 percent) responsibilities raising the kids.

Working, moreover, does not eliminate women’s primary child-care tasks. Among working moms, 81 percent still said they had main child-care responsibilities in the family. And even among mothers who described themselves as being on a career track, 76 percent said they were in charge of child-rearing – on top of the day job.

All told, our poll found that 61 percent of mothers hold down paying jobs. That includes 45 percent working full-time, 16 percent part-time. And 37 percent said they're on a career track.

This is not new: as many, 59 percent, said their own mothers worked outside the home when they were kids.

There is some impact on involvement, particularly when comparing at-home and career-track moms. Fifty-eight percent of all mothers told us they feel they’re more involved in their children's lives than their mothers were in theirs – ranging from 63 percent of at-home moms to 55 percent of all working moms and 52 percent of career moms. (Few in any of these groups, 0 to 6 percent, said they feel less involved in their kids' lives.)

In a related and stronger effect, at-home mothers were more apt to say they’re doing a better job than their own mothers did; 47 percent said so, slipping to 34 percent of all working moms and 29 percent of career-track moms.

Nonetheless our results did not support the notion that working moms have more parental guilt. Compared with at-home moms, working mothers are no more apt to feel guilty about not being a good enough mother, are as confident in their child-rearing skills and get along with their kids as well.

Rather than a shift in the extent of parental guilt, there's simply a difference in its cause: Among working mothers, lack of time with the kids is far and away the greatest cause of guilt about parenting. At-home mothers are more apt to cite other causes, such as discipline problems or a lack of money.

We covered related issues in another survey, a year earlier, in which we found that working moms are as satisfied as other women with their lives overall, and with their ability to balance work and family life. And they’re no more likely than other working women to say they’d quit their job or cut their hours if they could.

But time, again, is a different story: Among women who don’t work outside the home, 68 percent told us they’re “very satisfied” with the amount of spare time they have. Among women who don’t have kids at home, it’s 51 percent, fewer but still a majority. But among working moms that plummets: just 20 percent are happy with their free time.

Part of the debate around Palin’s choices likely stems from a certain “Leave it to Beaver” reflex; in our 2005 poll on the subject, three-quarters of Americans agreed with the statement, “It may be necessary for mothers to be working because the family needs money, but it would be better if she could stay home and take care of the house and children.” Even among working mothers themselves, 72 percent agreed.

But, as our analysis at the time noted, there are some problems with that measurement (which we repeated from a 1998 poll). Agree/disagree statements in polls carry acquiescence bias (people tend to agree). This one doesn’t draw working in a particularly positive light. And the results are confounded by personal reality: If they didn’t have to work, 79 percent of working mothers said they’d keep working anyway – just fewer hours. And wouldn’t you know, 80 percent of working dads said the same.

Work-life balance isn’t the only sensitive issue raised by Palin’s candidacy; see also my previous data summary on teen pregnancy. Whether or not these constitute legitimate political fodder, they’re certainly important social issues – and the data that illustrate them serve as a compelling reality check on the rhetoric.

September 2, 2008 in Social Issues | Permalink | User Comments (18)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Psa 26:4 I did not sit with liars, and I will not be found among hypocrites.

These so called evangelicals who are really political cronies hiding behind the cloth love the Republican Party more than they love God. They don't have any family values. But we all know if that were Michelle Obama's or Hillary Clinton's pregnant teenage daughter Tony Perkins and others would be pointing a finger at them and saying what a poor example they are setting. They would be raking these mothers across the hotest of coals.

As a born again, bible-toting Christian, I'm offended by these hypocrites

Posted by: mary | Sep 2, 2008 11:58:02 AM

wouldn't this have gone away a bit if there had been evidence that ONE of the two Palin's was going to not work and raise all the kids.

Unless they are multi-millionaires...and could've cared for them all...

think of this

if it was a man candidate and his wife was working wouldn't there still be questions of overall parenting values?

yes...there would.

Posted by: dl | Sep 2, 2008 12:01:05 PM

it is not like they have 2 or 3 kids without special needs...

it is about both parents...

and if the Obama's or the Mccain's or the Bush's or anyone else had two working parents with 5 kids and one serious special needs...

there would be questions to their parenting and their values.

Posted by: dl | Sep 2, 2008 12:03:16 PM


Would anyone in the right mind propose on the first date?

This is what McCain has done by picking Palin.

GOP never should have nominated McCain in the first place!

Posted by: Peace | Sep 2, 2008 12:04:30 PM

Women work and balance family each and everyday, even with spouses involved 95% of the time the Mother is still the point person in the family when it comes to the kids, there are lawyers, Dr's, CEO's etc. that go to work every day and handle multi million dollar corporations and perform major surgeries and defend peoples legal rights and still manage their families, because it is a mothers instinct to do so. If this whole thing washes then we are saying that the female surgeon that will open up the brain this morning will be distracted because her daughter is at home pregnant or having trouble in school, the CEO that is closing the multi-million or multi-billion dollar deal will blow it because there is an issue at home, or the Lawyer defending the individual that could possibly get life today, will be distracted from her closing argument because of issues at home, these people are professionals and they have balanced their lives all this time and they will continue to and the same goes for women in politics they can do it as well as anyone else.

Posted by: Kim | Sep 2, 2008 12:19:00 PM

The issues surrounding Palin's work-home life balance are salient because
the people (mostly older, white males) who run the Republican party have spent the last forty years putting obstacles in the paths of working women, denying equal pay to women for equal work, limiting paid parental leave and workplace protections, battling increased female enrollment in law and medical schools in the 1960s and 70s and keeping women out of corporate boardrooms and country clubs. Republicans are the keepers of the glass ceiling and the defenders of the status quo, so voters quite naturally have a genuine fascination and a healthy degree of skepticism with their sudden conversion and the motivations behind it.

Posted by: Skye | Sep 2, 2008 1:09:31 PM

If Sarah really knew about the pregnancy before accepting the nomination ...than it's sad that she choose her daughter to be a sacrificial lamb. I think any decent parent would not have wanted to place thier child in this sort of spot light. I can't imagine what this child and her boyfriend are going through...being scrutinized by the WORLD?

Posted by: All4one | Sep 2, 2008 4:33:20 PM

Where in God's name do you people come from? You guys can't accept that a good looking female with more experience than your Leftist tendency Candidate is qualified to be the Vice President of this great nation? Leave her children alone! The bias is blatant, the hipocricy of all of you makes me sick where is the conscience in all of you, there is no blemishless human, look within you and you will find far uglier mistakes than Mrs. and Ms. Palins, it's how you raise your chin and continue the fight that speaks of character. All of you who feel good about pouring this venom out on this family should confess...yes its a sin to consciously be unkind to others.

Posted by: Mrs Ramsey | Sep 3, 2008 9:23:36 AM

This entire discussion is a disgrace! IT is shameful! Each and every person posting here OWES their lives to A WOMAN! This constant back and forth about what women can or can't do has absolutely NOTHING to do with ability to do a job. Sadly, this is still a patriarchal society which places little value beyond servitude on their women!
By the way, Governor Palin may be the first Republican Woman to be nominated for VP but our newscasters should get their facts straight. The first woman to crack that ceiling was Margaret Chase Smith, 1st Woman Senator from Maine, who was NOMINATED by the REPUBLICANS to run for PRESIDENT in 1964.

Posted by: wizeyes721 | Sep 3, 2008 10:35:38 AM

Wizeyes721, the media has its facts straight and you are wrong. Margaret Chase Smith was a Republican nominee for president but clearly was not your party's candidate for the office in 1964-- that would be Barry Goldwater, who lost all but six states in the largest landslide defeat in modern American history.
As for Palin, it is not "sinful" to point out that she lacks experience and has a thin resume. Certainly no male would have been put in the VP slot who
is so clearly unqualified for the office, particularly as the understudy for a 72 year old with a history of cancer.

McCain has actualy brought on the media criticism by not allowing Palin to do substantive interviews and presenting her only briefly to the public, and then only in tightly controlled settings. The public won't fall for a stealth candidate about whom they know little and whose known positions are far to the right of mainstream America. But mostly this is about McCain and his poor judgment in rashly selecting a running mate he had barely met and had not properly vetted.

Posted by: Skye | Sep 3, 2008 10:56:19 AM

I agree that we should absolutely leave the children out of the equation. My concern is that Gov. Palin would be one heartbeat away from the presidency. I just don't think she is politucally ready to take on that task. As a woman, it is really patronizing to me that McCain would think women would vote for her just because she is a woman. Well Sen. McCain, you are wrong! I do have a mind, I do follow politics and I do have a voice! I hope other women are as upset over this as I.
It is not about gender, it is about what is best for this country. And yes, we really do need CHANGE!

Posted by: mmosley | Sep 3, 2008 1:24:23 PM

all mothers work. the fact that sarah palin can handle the jobs she does, raise children-one with special needs, has a husband, and is willing to take on the vp job just underlines that fact. what's one more responsibility? she can handle it! most women could.

Posted by: fluffybutt62 | Sep 3, 2008 4:18:45 PM

I want to weigh in on the pro-life issue. I beleive it should NEVER be on the table. We are looking for someone to lead our beautiful country NOT what their religious or personal convictions are relating to this subject. I or you could never ask this question of someone being interviewed for a position in a company. I do not care if my neighbor is pro-choice or pro-life - are they a good neighboor? I think Americans that vote with this as their primary issue need to pull their heads out of their butts and look at the big picture. And I do not think a running mate choice should be made with this issue being at or near the top of the list. LEADERSHIP!!!!!!!! Integrity Insight

Posted by: rickert | Sep 3, 2008 4:48:07 PM

Am I the only one that that was very surprised to see Plain's baby at the convention. Way past bedtime for an infant - plus way too much noise. I understand that they wanted to us to see a united family, but most parents watching would realize that any child that young belonged in bed with a sitter.

Posted by: Undesided | Sep 4, 2008 5:00:22 PM

I have always been a Democrat. Always will be, I like Hillary Clinton, would have voted for her but Obama seems smarter than people give him credit for, especially after listening to McCain for the past months. He never fails to mention his experience an the service as a pilot. Nevertheless, he's always been a republican, and they've had the White House for eight years. So look at the mess. Plus the war as everyone calls it, isn't a war, it's policing of another country,which we need to quit wasting our soldiers and money on.

Posted by: Jerkygirl | Sep 5, 2008 12:48:05 AM

Liberals are shaking in their boots. Sara Palin is a thorn in their side. She is a mom of five and that makes her over qualified for most jobs. Most men don't have a clue what kind of savvy it takes to run a family. This woman is strong and courageous and will be a friend and true asset to this country as vice-president.

Posted by: trutalk25 | Sep 5, 2008 1:02:22 AM

Give me a break! If Obama's daughter was 17 and pregnant, people (not just republicans either) would be all over this! Republicans can continue to Spin, Spin, Spin, till they get so dizzy they throw-up the hypocrisy they are full of.

Posted by: Jenny C | Sep 5, 2008 4:16:04 AM

Sep 4, 2008 | 3:37 PM
Do the Democrats remember D-WA State Senator Patty Murray, "The Mom In Tennis Shoes?"
Remarks by Senator Patty Murray - Alliance for Excellent Education Conference Date: 11/17/2003

Speech Remarks by Senator Patty Murray - Alliance for Excellent Education Conference, Quote:

"Thank you, Secretary Riley. It's an honor to be introduced by such a champion for our students. One of my proudest accomplishments was working with you, Mr. Secretary, to pass the Class Size Reduction Act, and I've got to say that we miss you here in the Capitol.
I want to thank all of you for that warm welcome. It's always a pleasure to speak with people who are working to improve education, because education is where I got my start.
When my two children were little, they were in a great preschool program in Washington State through our community college. The program taught skills to our kids, and also offered parenting classes for parents. But one day the instructor told me that the program was being cancelled. Apparently they were canceling it because they had to make budget cuts. Well I wanted to know who they were and why they would cancel such a good program. Apparently they were our state legislators, so I bundled my children into the car and went off to Olympia to explain to them why they could not cut this program. The legislators in Olympia told me that I was just a mom in tennis shoes, and there was nothing I could do to save our preschool program.
But I didn't listen. Instead, I organized a grassroots campaign. I picked up the phone and started calling other parents. And they called

Sep 4, 2008 | 3:39 PM
PATTY MURRAY CONTINUED:

But I didn't listen. Instead, I organized a grassroots campaign. I picked up the phone and started calling other parents. And they called more parents. We wrote letters. We held rallies, and much to their surprise, the legislature kept the funding for our preschool program in the budget! I went on to teach in that same preschool, and I'm proud to say that the program is still going strong in Washington State today, and the Legislature wouldn't dare to touch it. Later, I ran for the local school board, served in the Washington State Senate, and then I decided to run for the United States Senate.
A lot of people told me that I could not become a United States Senator because I didn't have the right background. They told me I didn't have enough experience. They told me I couldn't raise the money. They even told me I was too short. Well today, I'm proud to say that I am the 11th tallest woman in the United States Senate!
And the experts were wrong in saying I didn't have enough experience to be a senator. The truth is that I learned everything I needed to know about the United States Senate by teaching pre-school. I learned: to treat others as you'd like to be treated, to make sure everyone has a chance to speak, and to never let the bullies win.
So whenever there's an uphill battle, whenever people say that you can't do anything about it, I'm always ready to roll up my sleeves, bring people together, and make it happen." EndQuote
.....................GO SARAH!!! HANG IN THERE!!! If Patty Murray can go from School Board to State Senator because

Posted by: Moeli | Sep 7, 2008 8:50:46 AM

Post a comment