Heart vs. Head: The work status decision

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Heart vs. Head: The work status decision
2102
Tue, 01-17-2006 - 1:03pm
Did you make your decision to SAH/WAH/WOH ft/pt based primarily on objective/tangible factors, or with your heart?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 11:38am
Maybe because everybody takes care of their kids? Honestly, I think it's just a conversation-starter.
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 11:50am

But the discussion wasn't about individual differences between parents; it was about differences between men and women that would make one or the other gender better equipped to nurture an infant. The only unique difference between men and women when it comes to nurturing is breastfeeding, and I think it's silly to suggest that nursing doesn't give women a big advantage. So what? It's the first year of the child's life for most nursing babies, probably less.

And where did I say it wasn't just as important for dad to bond with the baby as mom? Of course it is. But bonding doesn't require breastfeeding.

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 11:52am

It's critical to a nursing baby.

I've already said several times in this thread that if mom doesn't breastfeed, then neither parent has any particular advantage in terms of nurturing. I didn't think I have to repeat that every single time. I'm talking about babies who are breastfed. I'm not talking about bottlefed babies.

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 12:00pm
Maybe so, but it is not typical for dad to have *all* the other skills and mom to have *none* of the other skills. In any case, that's about individual differences, not gender differences. There's no unique difference that men bring to nurturing an infant that I can see that rivals breastfeeding, if indeed mom is breastfeeding.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2004
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 12:06pm

I have never had a conversation about WOH vs SAH status with anyone I know, either. Among my friends and acquaintances in the neighborhood, some work, some SAH but our status has never sparked a discussion on the merits of either.

For me, the implications of a statement like "I SAH to raise my children" are really most relevant in a forum like this one. In casual conversation, I would brush off the comment--people aren't always adept at expressing themselves and I wouldn't be interested in turning a casual conversation into a debate. But, here, where people are expressing specific opinions and frequent this board because the debate is relevant to them, such a statement is not going to be taken casually. Nor, do I think, should it. I mean, isn't debate all about delving into how we think about things and why? To me, and to other WOHMs on this board, "I SAH to raise my children" suggests "because if I worked, I wouldn't be raising them." That, naturally, is going to lead to, "How does work preclude raising one's children?"

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 12:07pm

Oh absolutely! And that's pretty much the point, isn't it?

I could certainly raise my children if I WOH. Not like I'd *like* to with the resources and structure I'd prefer- but I certainly could raise them! LOL!

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 12:09pm

Right. But that doesn't change the fact that skin to skin contact is *not* exclusive to breastfeeding. Just because many *choose* not to give their babies that benefit (skin to skin) doesn't mean they *couldn't*.

And frankly, I've seen many breastfeeding mothers withold the skin to skin contact... Ever see a nursing mother trying to be discreet by having her shirt done up as much as possible and only letting a tiny bit of breast out of her nursing bra? Just how much skin to skin contact does that provide? No more than a mother using a bottle with her shirt on I'd wager.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 12:18pm

<>

Maybe that's why some people take umbrage at the expression "SAH to raise my children".

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 12:19pm

The point is- SAHM's who SAH to take care of their kids (meaning they choose to care for them rather than paying someone else to) are doing so *to take care of their kids*. Sure- everyone takes care of their kids (we're assuming we're talking about responsible caring parents here) but the thing is- so many WOHM's around here get all up in arms about that statement- that one is SAH to take care of their kids. Well duh- why not be able to say WHY they SAH? Not everyone has children- those who SAH who don't aren't SAH to take care of their kids. Not everyone SAH to take care of their kids even if they *do* (as was mentioned elsewhere given the examples of aging parents, volunteering etc.) They have kids- they're at home taking care of them. Simple enough explaination. WOHM's take care of their kids too. But the other parent/dcp/nanny/grandparent/WHOEVER is taking care of the kids while the WOHM is WOH, right? Barring the exceptions of those WOHM's able to take their kids to work with them or those whose kids are in school who are WOH while they are etc. etc.) It's not that the WOHM isn't taking care of her kids- it's just that she has help doing it while she's WOH. I still don't see the big insult here.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 01-27-2006 - 12:21pm

Sorry- didn't read those posts I guess. Thanks for the clarification :)

Wytchy

Pages