Do you think a SAHM should go back to...

Avatar for val10154
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-26-2003
Do you think a SAHM should go back to...
1368
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 12:55pm
Huh? I hope you know it was an example, and that you didn't even answer the question. All I'm trying to say is that you take into account ONE thing that affects the outcome of children and try to use it as the ONLY thing that affects the outcome of children. SES is part of it but there are a lot more factors than that. If SES was ALL that important, all rich kids would be better than poor kids, regardless of their parents' work status.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 12:58pm
SES is only one factor in improving the lives of children, and you treat it as the only factor. Do you not think there are other factors in the quality of your childrens lives than money?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 1:05pm
What, like your "evidence"? One page of census data, and the rest a bunch of unsubstantiated biased crap that didn't even state what questions were asked or how many people were surveyed, or how the study was performed? Sure... I'll believe a study that says working moms are better by the "National Working Moms Association" or whatever it was.. they didn't start out with an agenda or anything.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 1:08pm
That's where you don't understand statistics. Maybe on average SAHMs don't spend more time with their children, but I guarantee you I personally do.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 1:18pm
It also only talks about cities. Urban sprawl only happens in cities and metropolitan areas. The problem is people IN those areas don't use the public transportation that already exists. The problem is NOT that public transportation doesn't exist in places that couldn't use it anyways.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 1:21pm
I've also thought about the "young people" thing. In every place I've lived where I regularly used public buses, 85% of the people using them were younger. Rarely do you see 30-50 yr olds on buses at all. So I think it might be them who are causing the problem. "I'm too good to ride a bus" syndrome.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 1:31pm
You mean you don't look at Paris and Nicky Hilton and wish you had enough money for your daughters to turn out as well as them? I think a high SES can be a bad thing for kids. Silver Spoon Syndrome.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 1:32pm
I spent a number of years working for an environmental agency and one of the biggest reasons sprawl exists in the first place is that family farms, who are the ones who sell to the developers to build all those surburban mcmansions, do so because they simply can't make any money due to price controls and.....ENVIRONMENTAL regulations, permit fees and hefty penalties for even the most minor of offenses like storing manure literally an inch closer to a water source than the law states!!

Can't help but find it a bit ironic ;-)

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 1:35pm
Sweden is, overall, a very sparsely populated country. There are loads of small towns (population less than 6,000 in many cases less than 2,000) spread out far apart. And yet, there still exists bus and train services to these small towns that connect to larger cities. It is absolutely possible to go from serious countryside to Stockholm by bus and train alone...no car necessary. The reasons for this are, I think, two-fold. First, public transportation is not expected to be a paying proposition in Europe, it is a government service that is expected to cost the government a fair amount...permanently. Second, because there is a tradition of using public transportation, more people make use of it instead of cars. The more people use it, the less unprofitable it gets. People in the US are so unused to the concept (outside of a few metropolitan areas) of public transportation that they wouldn't use it, even if it were convenient. So it becomes a vicious circle: not many people take public when it is available so it becomes prohibitively costly to run because there are no (or few) paying customers so the services slowly runs down and becomes even more inconvenient until it is cancelled altogether and then everyone complains that there is no service and that it is not possible to get a service running because no one will take the transportation.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-13-2003 - 1:45pm
I guess you're right. But it still strikes me as odd when these trains services they start don't get used, and it's because it costs twice as much to take the train than it would to carpool with your neighboor, or even drive yourself. Noone will flock to public transportation on principle, not even in Europe. If it were prohibitively expensive there, people would drive. It needs to make sense money wise, because in reality most people look out for their own wallets first. As it should be.

Pages