CLW hits the nail on the head (m)
Find a Conversation
|Thu, 04-03-2003 - 3:28pm|
But anyways, she says somewhere in the Firefly post that it is not fair to have a child home with an overworked mother. How "great" can a mother be if she spends the whole day canning turnips and then darning the turnip sack into kitchen curtains? It's not good for a child to have a SAHM if they don't get any nurturing or interaction all day. I think *most* of us who sahm or work very pt do so in order to spend time with our kiddies.... to read books and draw chalk pictures on the driveway, to cook a recipe together or go to the local museum and look at dinosaurs. If a mother woh to provide needed income and the child goes to quality dc where they read books and draw chalk on the playground, etc, I think that child is "better off" than the child who vegitates in the corner in front of the TV all day while mom is down at the river scrubbing undies to save money on the electricity the washer would use. And don't throw the old "well we darn socks together" argument out..... I'm sorry, sometimes I'll fold a load of laundry with my four year old, but he wouldn't get off on spending the whole day mending torn knees on his jeans.
It's great that some people live on shoestring budgets in order for a parent to be at home. But the quality of life has to be looked at in those situations. Maybe a few days in daycare with lots of activity and stimulation are better for kids while mom goes and works to pay for new socks from Walmart.
And back to the argument of work costing too much money. No, it doesn't. I have a college degree and certification. It COSTS me money to NOT work full time. I'm sorry but staying home canning tomatoes and recycling my newspaper into toilet paper is not going to cover the six figures I could make working full time. I do not work full time because I don't want to. And I have the luxury of being able to afford the COSTS of sah.