"Livingston disclosed that she hadn’t spent any real time away from her work, including after her children were born — she placed the blame on herself for that."
This always seems to be framed as a women's obligation. The children have two parents.
This always seems to be framed as a women's obligation. The children have two parents.
There's no need to twist words – I'd interpret Jessica's words as expressing a normal, human, desire to spend time with and get to know her children.
She's been working at a very high level, and likely has seen much less of her children than someone working a regular 9-5 would.
Criticizing mothers for not spending enough time with the kids while not criticizing fathers is certainly sexist and problematic. But real parental involvement is generally understood to be good for the kids. So, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
The world is a bit stacked against those who aren't at home for their kids childhood. For example, in the first year, a kid will grow a tiny bit during each nap that they take. If you are at home, you get to see this. If you are at work away from home, you miss two or three tiny growth increments each day.
So it is both parent's obligation, but can be difficult to carry off if one works away from home.
Also, if she blames herself, doesn't that mean she sees herself as having agency to either work or not work, which means that she isn't obliged to do either?
My family had lots of nannies by profession. Most of them worked for rich people who had all the time to spend with their kids but they choose not to. Most of them would spend about a hour or two per day with their kids total. And these people are not exceptions by any means from what I've seen. I always found this fascinating and contrary to what everyone say they want, rich people are fascinating.