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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 10:02am
It's readily obvious with Joey, much less

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2000
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 10:07am
It is one thing if you have no interest to SAH, in which case you obviously would do more hands-on parenting. But if there is another reason, like you don't want your partner to feel he is not an equal parent somehow (as kbamama would suggest), that is a different reason. The way you worded your answer made me think that it had something to do with your relationship with your dh, not b/c you just don't have a desire to be a SAH. That is why I asked. Now do you want to answer?
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 10:14am
You're the primary parent because you are more interested in them and they are more emotionally attached to you and yet you don't want to do more hands on parenting than someone with whom they have less emotional attachment and who isn't as interested in them?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2000
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 10:14am

I tried to go back and see how this subthread topic started...but I'm wondering, do you think that if you SAH, your kids would have an even more emotional attachment to you than they already do? Is that what you are concerned about when you responded the way you did to , I think, wytchy?

I realize that your marriage has different dynamics than mine - or obviously, anyone else's for that matter. But as I'm sure you know, having a healthy and somewhat equal emotional attachment, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the work status of either parent. Not that you said it did, but for many SAHMs, it is not something we have to worry about. Nor does our marriage suffer in some way b/c one person is WOH/WAH and the other is not.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 10:39am

I personally would have waited the 6 weeks, and probably would have waited a couple of weeks longer.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 11:29am
It has to do with both reasons.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 11:30am

Yes, that's right.

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

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 11:48am
Sorry, but if you're going to read posts out of context, don't expect me to tack on a qualifier for every single thing for you. Like I said, you chose not to read the post I responded to (which was right above mine, not too hard to find)--not a good debate tactic.


Edited 1/30/2006 11:54 am ET by mom34101
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 11:51am

Well, maybe, but the likelihood that you would be unable to nurse later is not very great. Most women whose babies won't take a bottle find other ways around it, like Lois did.

And my original point was that breastfeeding was a critical part of nursing a breastfed baby. If you stop breastfeeding, then it's not critical anymore.

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 01-30-2006 - 11:53am
No, that is not what I'm saying. You have not been following this thread, which was about whether mom or dad is better equipped to nurture a breastfed baby. I'm not interested in debating ff vs. bm, so let's just move on.

Pages