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
Beats me, but then again, I have zero idea of what you are talking about.
PumpkinAngel
***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?***
I am not sure why this is so difficult. WE not ME but WE made the decision for me to be the SAHP. Not for finanacial reasons but for the fact that he felt that SAH was not something he wanted to do, and I did. This was a JOINT decision. We wanted our children raised with one of us home. It has nothing to do with one parenting one way and another parenting another. It has to do with the two of us wanting me to be home with our children. We are raising our children the way WE want our children raised. That is with 1 parent home with them.
***Right, I couldn't raise my children without a variety of people in their lives. I am not sure what you don't understand. If they were removed, I would find replacements.***
I mean- if you *couldn't* find replacements for whatever reason. Say you had to move to an extremely rural area. Or *whatever*. You're saying that you *couldn't* raise your children? And again- what would happen to them then? Would they die? Would you have to give them away? Would you consider yourself not to be raising them at that point?
***Sure it is. What is happening to those orphans then? Nothing, they are just in limbo?***
From what I've seen in many cases, the orphans are basically warehoused. Which yes- sadly, would be very much like being 'in limbo'.
***No, I wouldn't easily discard my children as you seem to think I would, nor would they perish.***
No- that isn't what I think. I thought *that* was quite clear. I'm the one who *does* think you'd still be capable of raising your children in that situation- remember?
***Why are you so easily confusing raising a child and the bare minimum of what it takes to keep a child legally and alive?***
I don't think that what I am talking about IS the bare minimum. I'm not talking about borderline neglect and the providing of only the basic necessities. I am merely talking about not having multiple family members, friends etc. involved in a childs daily life. (And although I'd admit that it would be *good* to have those things- I don't believe that it is necessarily *critical*, *necessary* or that one can't raise their child/ren without them.) I grew up in a very rural area with basically my mom and sometimes my dad. (he WOH and was gone on business quite often- he was a good dad, but not really around much). I feel my mother did a wonderful job in raising me and she *didn't* have all the outside help that you mention. I'm certain I'm not the only one who was raised or is being raised in such circumstances.
***I think based on your comments above....we just aren't on the same page here.***
Oh I'd agree with that. I still have to wonder why you think you wouldn't be raising your children if you didn't have all that help though- and what would happen to them if you couldn't replace it... Still don't have an answer for that one.
Wytchy
<>
ITA. That is the only reason why I stayed at home.
Personally, if all the people that influenced my children were gone tomorrow, we could still raise our children. I think these people greatly influence my children but raise them? Nope. At the end of the day my dh and I are responsible for how our children are being raised. The rest of the people are the icing. They are nice to have but not ncessary.
***Exactly like some of the others I have listed who have a hand in raising children, despite not spending large quantities of time with them.***
No- very much unlike those others- in that the other parent would be spending far more time and have far more interaction with the children than, say, the librarian or the doctor or the check-out lady etc.
***You mean like teachers, coaches, Sunday school teachers, youth directors.....all examples I have used. Thank you for seeing my point.***
If those people are spending large amounts of time on an almost daily basis- then sure- but around here, aside from teachers, we're talking a once a week for a couple hours sort of thing, so that wouldn't be at all the same. So no- I don't see your point.
Wytchy
***So he can be the kind of parent he wants to be because, you are doing more of the active hand-on stuff?***
Right. He wants his children to have a SAHP there for them- as he was raised. He found it to be very beneficial and positive and that's how he wants his children to be raised as well. I was in the same situation and I agree. He's more suited to being the WOHP whereas I am more suited to being the SAHP. He also feels very strongly about the male-as-provider role- it is important to him to be able to play that part. Having me be a SAHM helps him to fulfill that desire. So yes- he can be the parent he wants to be because we chose that I would be a SAHM.
***....and? Why would this change the kind of parent you would want to be?***
Because I want my children to have a parent around rather than a dcp. I want to be an active and present parent on the level that I see most beneficial for my children. I see a difference between a dcp and a parent, and I want my children to be spending that time with a parent. IMO and at the ages my children are, 8hrs a day is a very large amount. It's not something I want to give up. It's not something my husband wants our *children* to give up. It's not something *he* wants to give up. So no- we couldn't be the *family* we want to be if our situation weren't what it is.
***I mean other than the fact it would be much more equal versus you doing more of the work.***
Personally I don't see equality in this regard to be necessarily a positive thing. It may be equal between parents, but my children would have far less time in their day/week with their parents than they enjoy now. Not necessarily a benefit IMO. And while my children certainly do enjoy interacting with various other adults and people in the course of their days/weeks/lives, I like that I am able to choose when that occurs rather than having it be forced on us by an employers work schedule. When my children are sick we don't have to worry about who has to take time off or whether either of us *can* take time off.
***You sah to raise your children in the way you want to, means that you want to do more of the active hands-on role than the other parent?***
It means that my DH and I agree that we want our children to be raised with a SAHP- so it means that I SAH to raise our children in the way that WE want to. It means that if DH and I were BOTH *able* to be a SAHP that we would be, but since that's financially impossible, we've chosen that I be the SAHP. As it is- we're lucky in that DH is able to be flexible with his hours, take plenty of days off (he gets government vacation, sick days, and earned time etc.) Seems every week he's taking at least one day off LOL ;)
***It's better in the sahp I am staying at home to raise my children way not for parents to be equal in raising the children but for one parent to do more of the work? Interesting.***
My children get to spend more time with me than they would get to spend with either of us/both of us if DH and I were both WOH. I don't see how decreasing overall parental time merely to create equality between the parents would be *better*. Are you suggesting that doing so would be better? Interesting.
Wytchy
***No. Unless of course you mean that he couldn't do more of the hands on work that you do with the kids and/or you that couldn't provide enough money for the family to have a sahp?***
We *could* switch roles if we wanted to, but we both prefer the roles we have chosen at this time.
Wytchy
***I asked what the difference is. Basically you have said it's okay for him to be focused on his career while you are focused on being domestic.***
Right.
***What makes him able to focus on his career and be the kind of parent he wants to be? Well a wife who is willing to sah, of course.***
Yes- because parenting is a partnership and the SAH/WOH combination requires working together on that level and agreement that both parents want that sort of situation.
***What makes you able to focus on being the kind of parent you want to be. Well a husband who is willing to focus on his career of course.***
Yes.
***Interesting. I have to go back to my previous statements....very fine balance***
Only if one is rigid and unable to adapt to new situations. If ones happiness is solely based on their working status, then I'd agree it's a fine balance. However, that's not the case.
***So, I guess one only be focused on their career if they have someone who is willing to be focused on the domestic front?***
For us? Yes. But obviously that's not the case for everyone as there are plenty of dual WOHP households out there.
***Is this a 5 year only plan for the majority or in homeschooling cases...how long?***
I'd think that would all depend on the specifics of the family in question, don't you? Or am I not understanding the question?
Wytchy
Do you disagree that clarity is important in the context of a text based debate?
Wytchy
Up to a point, but this is getting ridiculous. And I find it very curious that you found nothing to complain about the op's original statements that "a nursing baby could be switched to a bottle at any time," which is simply not true, yet you claim that me pointing this out is "false" unless I add a disclaimer that there is an exception to every rule.
My feeling is that you keep trying to make this discussion into something about you and your situation, when it isn't. It's about whether mom has an advantage when it comes to nurturing a breastfed baby. You didn't nurse your babies, so nothing I've said is about you.
Pages