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
Do you think its common that people still have friends from kindergarten? I don't. I think its rare.
I went to two school districts in my time. Only two. And they were 45 miles apart. The oldest friend I have that I'm in contact with on a regular basis I met in 4th grade, but didn't really get to know until about 6th grade.
Maybe because I live in a area were peole have lived here for 3 or 4 generations! Everyone grew up with everyone in my neighborhood. Philly is very "neighborhood" oriented. It is hard to explain but all of my friends have known each other since birth.
Overall, I love living in the city b/c it is sooo community oriented but it get sannoying b/c everyone knows your business all the time. I would love the community feel but in the suburbs (I am dying for a backyard!!)
***So all of a sudden my family, friends and everyone I (and my entire family) know(s) are (is) going to drop off the face of the earth and will be totally unreachable?***
No, but for the sake of the hypothetical, maybe you or your DH have to move due to your job or some such. Do you consider email/phone and other long distance communication to count? I wasn't thinking about that. (Although personally I don't think that someone who only really 'sees' my kids via email etc. is at all helping to raise them- but- whatever).
***We are totally ISOLATED for EVERYONE in the WORLD? No way in the world I would do that to myself or my family. For what?***
It's called a hypothetical situation. And no- not everyone in the world. Say you find yourself having to live in a very rural area where the other adults around aren't exactly the people you'd prefer to be helping to raise your children. Say you had to live in a backwoods town where they believe in women SAH and the neanderthal male. Say that these people were also few and far between. (Meaning you had to go 20min to find a neighbor, and then you'd find a neighbor whose views of the world were the polar opposite of your own.) Could you still raise your children? (Sure- you could move or choose not to live there- but for the sake of the hypothetical- let's say you can't). The POINT is- one can raise their children under less than ideal circumstances and without the benefit of a myriad of outside resources.
***The third or so time, since you are certainly not reading my posts, there is A LOT between children dying/giving away and raising them. There is a ton more to raising kids then keeping custody and keeping them alive. Is that your argument?***
No- that is NOT my argument- Unless you are saying that unless one has all of the resources that you've mentioned one is only providing the bare minimum for their children and merely keeping them alive and maintaining custody.
***OH, for peats sake, why the drama here?***
YOU are the one being dramatic. I am merely trying to clarify a point. Can one or can one not raise their children without the "help" of a great deal of interaction from 'the village'. What if the village just isn't *around* for whatever reason? What does one do then? Is one or is one not still *capable* of raising their children? What does *raising* entail *exactly*? To me it means creating an environment that produces a respectable, responsible, capable and well rounded adult. Providing a child with security, support, education, guidence, etc. In my experience while those other things (a vast network of other adults who are close to the child) are *nice* to have (certainly other people who care about a child are beneficial to have around!) they aren't *crucial*. If a child has maybe one other non-family member adult in that position, I'd consider it sufficient. NOT that I don't think more isn't 'better' in some/many cases- just that I wouldn't say I *COULDN'T* raise my child/ren without a list of 20 or so folks that have to "help" in order for me to do so.
***Yet they are alive and the orphanage retains custody of those children. Why would you not consider them being raised at that point?***
Because, as you've said- there is a great deal of difference between keeping a child alive and maintaining custody and that of raising them.
***Like I have said before, there is a lot between keeping children alive and retaining custody and what it takes to raise a child.***
Right. So what *exactly* is it that you consider vital and non-negotiable when it comes to raising a child? What *specifically* is necessary to the extent that you cannot raise said child without it?
***Why, it doesn't take much to keep them alive or retain custody which is what you are basing your argument on.***
If that were what I was basing my argument on, you would be correct. However, since you are grossly misunderstanding my argument and its base you are very much mistaken.
***Not acceptable. I don't want to live in your rural area where my family has no contact with the outside world.***
So you're saying that parents who live in rural areas are not raising their children? You *COULDN'T* raise your children there, or you *couldn't raise your children in the manner in which you prefer* there?
***So? Did you have music lesson? Sports? Church? School?***
None of the above until I was school age. As for friends- sure- but we're talking about other adults, remember?
***Did you have any contact outside of your mother?***
I didn't have any other non-familial adults in a close capacity that influenced my life until I was of school age. My dad was a big part of my life, (as far as family goes) and I saw one set of grandparents about once a month. The others maybe once every few years.
***However, it's not a life I want for my family or my kids***
It's certainly not for everyone. I liked it- my parents liked it- but I can see where some people wouldn't care for it at all LOL! The point is, however, that there is a differece between "I can't raise my children in that situation" and "I can't raise my children in the way I prefer/desire in that situation". I am saying that one is perfectly capable of raising ones children in the situation, but it may not be what one prefers or finds desireable. THAT is my point- not anything about just keeping a child alive.
***I can't provide everything for my child.***
Of course not. But that doesn't make it *necessary* to have oodles of other adults in an intimate relationship with your child in order to raise them! It may be *nice* to have that, but I don't believe it's *essential*.
***Why on earth is that so hard for you to understand or even accept in others?***
Once again you are grossly misunderstanding me. I am not saying anything at all about others in specific. I am ONLY saying that one is *capable* of raising their children under any circumstances under the sun just about. If one doesn't have access to the myriad of resources that you've previously mentioned- they CAN STILL RAISE THEIR CHILDREN. Maybe not in the manner in which they would prefer, but they CAN still raise them. Do you disagree?
***Just because you did something, doesn't make it right or even the best way for others to raise their children, doesn't make it wrong either of course, but it's not a path that I want my family to follow down.***
Um... I feel I have to resort to a Bart Simpson quote here.... DUH! I don't want to raise my children in a rural environment either. I'm NOT saying that it's right or the best way, or that anything else is wrong or anything else you're thinking. ALL I am saying is that ONE CAN RAISE THEIR CHILDREN in situations that they might not find preferrable. Much like I could certainly raise my children if I were a WOHM. I wouldn't find it preferrable, but I could certainly raise them. Understand now?
Wytchy
***Hmm....I wasn't and haven't been talking about the librarian, doctor or the check out lady, you must have me confused with another poster. I have been talking about teachers, youth directors, Sunday School teachers, coaches, family friends, etc.***
Maybe (confused with another poster). Sorry about that. I still don't think that the above mentioned are helping to raise a child. I think they are influential, I think they are good examples, positive influences etc. but not 'helping to raise'.
***So we are basing raising children on spending large amounts of time on an almost daily basis? Interesting, I hadn't realized that you were going that direction with what it takes to raise a child. I think we are so far apart on what we believe takes to raise children it's than it's not even measurable. Wow. Large amounts of time on an almost daily basis.....kinda only leaves a sahp raising the child then, eh? Wow, again.***
It's more a point that someone who sees a child once a week for a couple hours of practice, or a brief conversation once a week after service/Mass/Whatever or occasionally babysits for the child etc. are not IMO 'helping to raise' said child. You don't believe that you, as a WOHP, are spending large amounts of time on an almost daily basis with your child/ren? Didn't you argue some time back that you most certainly *did* spend a great deal of time with your kids? Or was that someone else?
Wytchy
"I still don't think that the above mentioned are helping to raise a child. I think they are influential, I think they are good examples, positive influences etc. but not 'helping to raise'. "
I agree.
My Mom was still good friends with her kindergarten friend. Despite the fact that they haven't lived in the same state for 50+ years. Her friend died last June (75). My sister's best friend is from 7th grade. They now live a block away from each other in a different state that the one we grew up. THey married two H.S. friends too.
However, I agree with you, most/many people do not stay friends with people even from Jr. High or High School.
***So he's raising his children because you are the one spending the large amounts of time with the children and doing all of the work?***
First of all- I don't do all the work. I do all of the work while *he* is at work. It's my 'job'. Second- I do spend more time with the children overall, but he does spend large amounts of time with the kids on a daily basis. 3hrs a day and all of the weekend.
***So his raising of the children equal the fact that he married someone who wanted to be a sahm and is willing to do more of the active hand's on stuff? Interesting. Never quite thought of raising children in that way, explains why we are so far apart on what is involved in raising children debates.***
Only as much as a WOHP's raising of their children equals the fact that they pay a nanny/daycare to do more of the active hands on stuff. (sarcasm) Let's break it down this way- I am with the children by myself (IOW- without DH) from 8am to 5pm. 8 waking hours- taking into consideration an hour long nap. DH is with the children from 5pm-8pm. (kids go to bed at 8) or 3 waking hours. (I tend to let him have most of that time to himself with them so they are able to connect with *him* without me in the way.) We're together with the kids on the weekends. It's a simple matter of math and who's home as to who does more active hands-on stuff with the kids. Since we don't use othercare, I'm the one with them, which gives me more overall time with them. Given the greater amount of overall time, of course I am going to handle more of the hands on 'work' simply because I'm there to do so.
***Right, the large amounts of time thing again. Interesting that the dh in your idea of raising children doesn't need to spend large amounts of time or have the active/present level...they just need to marry someone willing to do this, is that correct?***
No- it is incorrect.
***Working has never limited by ability to be active or present, but I guess it can others.***
Well good for you. For me, I can't WOH, take care of the house and other responsibilities in the manner that we want as well as be active and present for my children at the level that they deserve and I desire to provide for them. If I were working f/t, I would not only have that job, but I would still have the things around the house that need to get done, I would still have my children that I need and *want* to be with, I'd still have the fact that DH and I both prefer that our children be homeschooled, and I'd just not be able to handle all that in the manner that I want it to be handled. Sure- I could focus on the children exclusively while WOH and let everything else slide, but I wouldn't be happy with that. There are things that are important to me that aren't important to you and your situation and that's fine.
***You say parents, but don't you mean parent? They would have far less time with you, right? How would they have far less time with your dh?***
Right- in my case it would be me. If DH were SAH and I were WOH the statement would be reversed. However, they'd have less one-on-one time with each of us because if I were WOH, DH wouldn't be able to enjoy the time he spends with them just by himself because I'd be horning in on it too after being away all day LOL ;)
***Right, I believe you mentioned that you do more of the hands on stuff than your dh. Personally dh likes doing sick days with the boys, they don't happen very often, but he enjoys the time with the kids outside of his normal time with them.***
That's nice. My DH will just take a day off when the kids are feeling fine and go do things with them. He likes not having to limit his time outside of his normal time to when they're sick.
***So you think spending more time with the sahp is better than either equal hands on time? Interesting.***
When you ask a question and make a statement such as 'interesting' after it- it leads the reader to believe that you are making an assumption and that it's not actually a question. It becomes a rhetorical question because you've already answered it for yourself. That is how I got that it was a suggestion. I understand that is a common debate tactic for you, but if you are truly asking a question, you might refrain from answering it for yourself and wait for the person to answer it for you.
In answer to what I now understand to be a question- I think that spending more time *with a parent* is preferrable to spending time in othercare when children as as young as mine are. (Mainly the 3 and under set). It would be lovely if DH were able to spend as much time with the children as I do and make that time equal, but that's just not possible since someone has to earn a paycheck.
***I really have never kept a score card, but I would say yes I believe it's better for children to have two very hands on active parents who do a equal (but often different) hands on stuff with the kids, yes I would.***
And that's just a difference between us. DH and I are both active hands on parents- but I just happen to have more time to spend with our children and therefore do more of the hands on stuff *because* of that fact. But yes- I'd agree most certainly that it's better for children to have two very hands on and active parents. As for equal- well- I don't think it's beneficial for a WOHP/SAHP family to give up what they feel is best just so that the parents can be "equal" in regard to hands-on parenting time.
***I also don't believe it takes large amounts of time either, but I know you do.***
What do you consider large amounts of time to be? Because I think we may have different ideas on that one. When I said large amounts of time before I was referencing the difference between parents (whether SAH or WOH) and that of coaches, sunday school teachers etc. who spend maybe an hour or two *a week* with said child/ren.
Wytchy
<>
So did I.
Pages