Change Up
Find a Conversation
Change Up
| Mon, 03-22-2010 - 5:33pm |
On a debate team, one has to be prepared to debate *either* side of a specified subject area.
So, what points from the "other side" do think have merit. Are there any points that you haven't seen that you think would be hard to counter?
Latest from the board
- Meal plan for the week of June 16:
- Working Moms Are to Blame...Really? 21
- Is the gender pay gap a myth where you work? 4
- Do you think your choices illustrate your priorities? 1
- How do you define success as a SAHM? 9
- Do you think that SAHDs are stigmatized? 3
- Family Friendly Professional Organizations 6
- Opt out or left out? 430
- Gender wage gap 6
- Women Not Taking Full Maternity Benefits 3
Memeber Support
Visit our Member Support area or browse the iVillage Help forum
| Q: | Where can I change my password? |
| A: | Log in, go to Edit My Preferences, and click the Account tab. Make and save your changes. |
Pages
Okay, since I'm a WOHM I'll argue for the SAHM point.
I think that just as one can devote more time and effort to one's career without children, one can devote more time and effort to one's children without a career. There is something to be said for being able to focus on just one thing or the other. Raising children while working might be like driving while using a cell phone - as long as we're not crashing, we may think that we are doing just fine (and maybe we ARE doing fine) but there may be close calls that we are simply not aware of because part of our attention is elsewhere. One might wonder whether there are things about our family that we would be better at noticing and dealing with if all of our attention was focused on that instead of a job.
I've done both, so I'll make arguments for both. The best arguments for woh are money and career. In addition to salary, you lose raises and retirement savings by sah. In some careers, taking significant time off can also be a big negative.
The best argument for sah is more time with the kids, especially when they're small.
you lose
Having two incomes is not protection. Handling the income you have smartly no matter how many sources it comes from is protection.
ITA.
I would
********
Ducky
Do you feel you would be able to get a job now and support your entire family after being out of the work force for 14 years? What would happen if your dh lost his job and could not find another one for awhile or if he found one that did not bring in enough money to support your entire family?
<>
I think this goes back to the comment about handling finances.
If their finances were handled in such a way that they had enough in savings to support themselves until he found another job, then that is what they would do. Ditto for a dual working couple.
If they had been living paycheck to paycheck, then the loss of income would be devastating and they would probably lose their home and many of their possessions. Ditto for a dual working couple.
I don't think she meant to say that a woman working outside the home is setting up a dynamic for divorce. I think she said that working FOR THE REASON of being able to protect yourself in case of divorce is setting up a dynamic for divorce.
Pages