Lol....I had a hard time TTC #2. I was on Clomid for 2 mothns. Got pregnant and had a miscarriage. I decided to give up the drugs after that as we were going on vacation to Disney.
I got pregnant when my dh and I had a few margueritas at the restraunt Jimm Buffet's margaritaville.....
I am that commerical - my second was a souvenir from Disney :)
when Liza was an infant and toddler and I was so miserable in my marriage and coming to grips with so many things. i'd put her to bed at 7:30 and promptly leave the house (ex dh was there of course. he never went anywhere. mostly b/c he doesn't like people LOL ) and stay at a friends visiting until 11 or 12 on weekends -- couldn't wait to get out of there.
but do you really think sahm's never tsk their kids concerns or lack understanding or sympathy - i guess that could be the case if you had one child but once you start addidng more kids to the mix someone is always having to wait their turn and it doesnt always mean the kids gets the attention they want at the second they want it.
I am not sure I understand what you are looking for. This is absolutely not meant to be argumentative, I am just looking for clarity. In the original post, you asked about a benefit that individual parents felt SAH provided for their children. But in this post, it seems like you are looking for a benefit that is unique to SAH, but universal to all SAHMs. I say that because you question why the mothercare would cease to be important at age 5--when I think many posters have stated reasons that are unique to infancy. For me, establishing a breastfeeding relationship was the reason I stayed home for more than the first three months with my first. While many, many mothers could handle the breastfeeding relationship without staying home, I know I, personally, could not have. What I would have returned to was not a workplace where pumping was possible. So does that count as a unique benefit, since in my family, my child received a benefit that my child would not have received had I not stayed home? Or does that not count because when speaking in terms of the population as a whole, many other working moms are able to breastfeed?
With my second, I stayed home because he was such a difficult child, and while I tried to enlist help from the people I thought were most capable of dealing with the fussiness, I was never able to find anyone who could deal with it better than I could (I could barely deal with it). So in my particular situation, I found that it was a benefit to my child to be cared for by someone who was able to force patience when an outside caregiver may not have. I have no doubt there are many, many families out there where the opposite would be true. That having a fussy baby would be better dealt with by giving both parents the opportunity to get out of the house. I know if I could have found someone who was extraordinarily patient, it would have made things better for all of us, because the sense of insecurity and lack of control that I experienced did not have a positive impact on anyone. But, I never found that person that was able to deal with it, and so I think my child experienced a benefit by having the parents take care of him rather than turn him over to one of the caregivers who would have been unable to control the frustration. So is that a unique benefit because it holds true in my family that my child was better off with parental care? or is it not a unique benefit because it cannot be extended to SAH v. WOH generally?
As far as the question why my concerns (which could be described as finding mothercare to be superior under my circumstances) end at age 5, they actually end well before that. With the first, they ended when the breastfeeding relationship ended, with the second they ended when we started him on formula and he showed a dramatic change, to a happy, pleasant child.
I will be the first to argue that I cannot find a benefit that is unique to SAH, but is universal to all families. It irritates me to no end when someone tries to claim that all mothers should SAH and that the best decision for the kids is always a mom SAH. But I cannot agree that within particular families, there are not benefits to SAH that the particular family could not have if both parents WOH. and I do not think that is limited to parents of special needs kids. I think it can be based on availability of quality othercare, financial considerations, career goals of the parents, personalities of the parents, etc.
In the original post, you asked about a benefit that individual parents felt SAH provided for their children. But in this post, it seems like you are looking for a benefit that is unique to SAH, but universal to all SAHMs.
Pages
I was putting the cost/analysis aside. Of course that is a major factor.
And your right about my siuation. I had a lot of good reasons to sah.
Lol....I had a hard time TTC #2. I was on Clomid for 2 mothns. Got pregnant and had a miscarriage. I decided to give up the drugs after that as we were going on vacation to Disney.
I got pregnant when my dh and I had a few margueritas at the restraunt Jimm Buffet's margaritaville.....
I am that commerical - my second was a souvenir from Disney :)
at the peak of my parenting frustration during Liza's infancy I slammed the wall above
Yes. We. Did.
here's a great 'tsk tsking" story.
Yes. We. Did.
when Liza was an infant and toddler and I was so miserable in my marriage and coming to grips with so many things. i'd put her to bed at 7:30 and promptly leave the house (ex dh was there of course. he never went anywhere. mostly b/c he doesn't like people LOL ) and stay at a friends visiting until 11 or 12 on weekends -- couldn't wait to get out of there.
Yes. We. Did.
but do you really think sahm's never tsk their kids concerns or lack understanding or sympathy - i guess that could be the case if you had one child but once you start addidng more kids to the mix someone is always having to wait their turn and it doesnt always mean the kids gets the attention they want at the second they want it.
I am not sure I understand what you are looking for. This is absolutely not meant to be argumentative, I am just looking for clarity. In the original post, you asked about a benefit that individual parents felt SAH provided for their children. But in this post, it seems like you are looking for a benefit that is unique to SAH, but universal to all SAHMs. I say that because you question why the mothercare would cease to be important at age 5--when I think many posters have stated reasons that are unique to infancy. For me, establishing a breastfeeding relationship was the reason I stayed home for more than the first three months with my first. While many, many mothers could handle the breastfeeding relationship without staying home, I know I, personally, could not have. What I would have returned to was not a workplace where pumping was possible. So does that count as a unique benefit, since in my family, my child received a benefit that my child would not have received had I not stayed home? Or does that not count because when speaking in terms of the population as a whole, many other working moms are able to breastfeed?
With my second, I stayed home because he was such a difficult child, and while I tried to enlist help from the people I thought were most capable of dealing with the fussiness, I was never able to find anyone who could deal with it better than I could (I could barely deal with it). So in my particular situation, I found that it was a benefit to my child to be cared for by someone who was able to force patience when an outside caregiver may not have. I have no doubt there are many, many families out there where the opposite would be true. That having a fussy baby would be better dealt with by giving both parents the opportunity to get out of the house. I know if I could have found someone who was extraordinarily patient, it would have made things better for all of us, because the sense of insecurity and lack of control that I experienced did not have a positive impact on anyone. But, I never found that person that was able to deal with it, and so I think my child experienced a benefit by having the parents take care of him rather than turn him over to one of the caregivers who would have been unable to control the frustration. So is that a unique benefit because it holds true in my family that my child was better off with parental care? or is it not a unique benefit because it cannot be extended to SAH v. WOH generally?
As far as the question why my concerns (which could be described as finding mothercare to be superior under my circumstances) end at age 5, they actually end well before that. With the first, they ended when the breastfeeding relationship ended, with the second they ended when we started him on formula and he showed a dramatic change, to a happy, pleasant child.
I will be the first to argue that I cannot find a benefit that is unique to SAH, but is universal to all families. It irritates me to no end when someone tries to claim that all mothers should SAH and that the best decision for the kids is always a mom SAH. But I cannot agree that within particular families, there are not benefits to SAH that the particular family could not have if both parents WOH. and I do not think that is limited to parents of special needs kids. I think it can be based on availability of quality othercare, financial considerations, career goals of the parents, personalities of the parents, etc.
In the original post, you asked about a benefit that individual parents felt SAH provided for their children. But in this post, it seems like you are looking for a benefit that is unique to SAH, but universal to all SAHMs.
I agree.
*********
Ducky
Pages