Heart vs. Head: The work status decision
Find a Conversation
Heart vs. Head: The work status decision
| 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?

Pages
That could be. But then- altering any circumstances, for better, worse or just change could have that same effect. But when someone says they 'can't raise their child without X' I tend to think they're meaning what they say. Either way- they'd be raising the same child but the outcome might be different to varying degrees...
Wytchy
OK, let me get this straight ...
If a mom says "I can't raise my children w/o my village" you ASSUME she means just that. That she can't raise them. You don't assume she means to add the unspoken "the way I want to."
But if a SAHM says "I stay at home to raise my children" you ASSUME she means to add the unspoken "the way I want to."
Very, very interesting.
I'm just talking about the difference between the two concepts- replying to a post you'd made to someone where I thought there was a misunderstanding.
Wytchy
Like I said- unless one is talking about specific situations, as you are here, it *is* a patently false statement when made as a generalization.
***Just about every source I've ever heard of recommends introducing a bottle at around 6 weeks if you don't intend to exclusively breastfeed, simply because it is not an easy feat to get an exclusively breastfed baby to take a bottle if you don't. That's a generalization, and it's not false.***
Uh- yes- the generalization *is* false. If one phrased it as "it is not generally an easy feat to get most exclusively breastfed babies to take a bottle (once nursing is well established or whatever)" then that would be a true statement according to statistics and observable data. However, to say it as simply "it is not an easy feat to get an exclusively breastfed baby to take a bottle" is *false*- because it does not take into account the many exceptions to the statement where the babies did *not* have any problems and bottle introduction was done easily.
Wytchy
***There is more to raising a child than them living, dying or obtaining custody of children. A lot more. Doesn't your definition of raising children include a lot more than just preventing them from dying?***
Oh absolutely it does. But it was said that she *couldn't raise her children without X*. I wondered what would happen if X were removed for whatever reason.
***Just look at the orphans in many countries where they have the basics, do you think those children are being raised by those in charge?***
Not the point. I don't believe they are claiming to be raising them or if they are, that they are incapable of raising them without X.
***But no, I would not be able to raise my children without help and lots of it and proud of it as well.***
So again I'll ask- if that help and lots of it were removed for whatever reason- would your children die? Would you have to get rid of them? Would you not then *be* raising them?
***I am very happy that my children have a wide variety of loving, caring adults very active in their life.***
As am I- but I don't think they are raising my children.
Wytchy
Yes- I have been saying that. And yes- I'll agree with you in regard to the likelihood of a very different outcome. But that is, IMO, different than saying that one couldn't raise their child without X (X standing for whatever one is claiming not to be able to raise their child without).
Are you saying you don't see/think there is a difference between these two statements-
* "I couldn't raise my child without help- and lots of it" (paraphrased)
and-
* "His outcome was not possible if I were the only influence as he grew up.
Wytchy
***I understand that you sah to raise your kids, correct? Does that mean the sahp is the one raising the children while the wohp is not? Where does the other half of the parenting duo fit in here?***
IMO- both parents (assuming both are active involved present parents) are raising the child/ren. The SAHP is SAH to make that their primary responsibility rather than sharing the load with a caregiver such as a dcp etc. The WOHP is still raising their child/ren but they are taking on a secondary/shared role. Rather like the difference between a part time and a full time employee. (Not at all suggesting that WOHP's are "part time parents"- just denoting the difference in time spent in relation to the job at hand.) In the case of dual WOHP's that role (raising said child/ren) is generally shared between parents and other caregivers. (And while I've already said that I disagree with the idea that librarians, doctors, stock clerks etc. are helping to raise a child- I do feel that anyone who spends as much time with a child as a dcp in regard to full time employment is certainly having a hand in raising that child.)
Wytchy
So then
PumpkinAngel
***how is the other parent in this same family raising their children as well if he is not a sahp (which is the way they think a child should be raised)as well?***
OK- that's a little different than what I thought you were asking before... In our family, we are each parents, but we aren't just individuals, we are part of a team. For us, it's important that our child have *a* SAHP, not that we each have to *be* that SAHP. It's not that we aren't each raising our children, it's just that I have the more active hands-on role in doing so given our choice to have a SAHP for our children. Were we both WOHP's we'd be pretty equal in the raising task because we'd have to hire a third party to share in that responsibility.
Wytchy
I wasn't talking specifically about her, but in more general theory terms.
What do you think is the difference between the sahp who can't be the kind of parent they want to be unless they are at home and the partner of that person who can be exactly the kind of parent they want to be all while working?
PumpkinAngel
Pages