Do you think a SAHM should go back to...
Find a Conversation
Do you think a SAHM should go back to...
| Fri, 09-05-2003 - 11:46am |
Do you think a SAHM should go back to work once the kids start school?
- Absolutely, why shouldn't she? There's no reason why she shouldn't.
- It's up to her & her family.
- No, not really. What do the kids being in school have to do w/ her working?
You will not be able to change your vote.

Pages
You said a mouthful when you said your marriage is not about fair play. Mine is, I don't expect dh to give more than I'm willing to give and if he has supported me in an endeavor, I would (actually have) support him in something similar.
Edited 9/13/2003 8:47:25 AM ET by cyndiluwho
I consider myself to be quite normal and would expect only a small increase in time spent with my kids if I SAH but I have a lot of company so, let's turn this around. Since the average increase in the amount of extra parenting is so small maybe SAHP's should go to work and gain the increase in SES they could by working at a decent job, lol.
Yes, I expect that most of my time extra would be wasted as a SAHM but if you look at the time studies, I'd have lots of company, lol. Yes, WOH does make me appreciate the time I have and keep me on task. That's one of the individual benefits I get by working but I have this feeling I have a lot of company when I read time studies.
Part of the reason is to be able to have time for my hobbies, creative outlets, friendships and just time to read and take naps.
I appreciate every minute I have as I know exactly how lucky I am to be able to SAH and not go out to a job every morning!
I spend boat loads of time with my kids. But I don't sit right by them, stay in their face all day. They need to learn to play on their own. They need that time to explore and learn. They also go to Mommy's Day Out for a Bible program. They will be going to three half days of preschool beginning after Christmas.
And there is no waste. As my Dh says. If you are doing what makes you incredibly happy, there is no waste, none at all.
Can't you just admit that, while you like to have dinner at 5pm, there are times when seomthing overrules that? for a night or two? or once a week for 6 weeks?
Hollie
But I haven't seen you ever address the question of whether this small time difference is related in any way to the age of the child. Frankly, I find it *very* hard to believe that a SAHP with an infant is only interacting with that infant, on average, 1 hour 23 minutes a day (I think this is what you posted?). Please post the studies showing that to be the case if I am wrong.
I know that with both my children I spent about 20 minutes 8-10 times per day physically nursing them until they were at least 8-10 months old. That works out to about 200 minutes per day (3 hours, 10 minutes) spent purely on feeding...it doesn't include time spent on diaper-changing, holding, cuddling, carrying, feeding solids, rocking to sleep etc. Toddlers, ime, require an enormous amount of hands-on discipline and watching, didn't you have that experience? If a WOHP with a baby is gone for 9 hours a day, that adds up to (at the very minimum) at least 3 feedings of about 20 minutes each (=60 minutes) that the parent has missed...hardly 23 minutes. And that is pure feeding alone, it doesn't include any other interaction that goes on with a baby in those 9 hours. I don't have any problem with parents who go back to work when their child in an infant. But it is patently absurd, to my mind, to claim that the SAHP of a baby interacts with his/her child only 23 minutes more per day that the WOHP.
Older kids I could well believe don't spend a whole lot more time interacting with a SAHP than a WOHP on average. By the time they hit school age, they are very interested in their own activities and are often off in their rooms working on their own projects. I think, however, that you miss the point about having a parent around in the afternoons with older kids. There are clear and obvious benefits to older kids and teenagers having a parent around and aware of what is going on in the afternoons, even if there isn't a huge amount of direct interaction. You, I am sure, will point out that you will be able to be there in the afternoons for your kids. Not every working parent can be...those parents may well consider whether the benefits of more money outweigh the benefits of more time (even if it is not direct interaction time). If the family has enough on one income to put them into a higher SES, then the benefits of being around in the afternoons may well outweigh the benefits of yet more money (since the only benefit from working comes from raising the family's SES). In that case, the decision to SAH (at least part time during the out-of-school hours) could be considered a direct benefit to the children, much the way that the higher SES of 2 WOHPs directly benefits the children.
Laura
Exactly what part of "we will work it out with respect and honor" translates into "You take, he gives and if he should decide he wants to take for a while he's SOL".
To quote another poster (I wonder who that could be) learn to READ.
My marriage isn't aobut "fair" either. I don't have the time or inclination to keep score in any way, shape or form.
I don't expect more than I'm willing to give, but I'm willing to give a whole lot more than I expect to get. Nothing tit-for-tat. That IMO is petty.
So take your pick -- negative or positive spins.
Sure, my working positively benefits my family. It means my son gets to attend Jewish day school and receive a far better education than anything he'll get at public school.
But I figured out a long time ago, the more hours I work (which means more money/ higher SES) the more it negatively impacts him. So it's a balance. More money isn't the answer to all of life's ills. I like to think my TIME is worth more than any amount of stuff I can provide him.
That is why I don't buy into studies. Because you can read whatever you want into them. I'll just go by the real evidence -- my son and how he is doing.
outside_the_box_mom
Pages