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
"It seems as if you're looking at parenting as two completely seperate individuals rather than as a parental unit."
YES.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Probably for the same reason you feel the need to do it?
PumpkinAngel
Why would you think otherwise? Do you think that SAHP/WOHP households are more satisfied with their work arrangements?
Well, I do express homesickness for California occasionally.
It has nothing to do with it because that's not at all what I've been talking about. I'm not talking about merely keeping a child alive- I am talking about being able to raise them to *be* a fully functional adult without dozens of other adults intimately involved in their lives on a regular basis (aka- helping to raise them- which is another debate in and of itself in this thread). Are other adults beneficial? Sure they are- but it's possible to raise a child without that resource. (Just as it's possible to raise a child without preschool or gymnastics or church or whatever other nice-to-have resource is out there. That is my point- not anything about merely keeping a child alive- although that's certainly important too LOL!
Wytchy
I agree. Since I began reading these boards, I have become aware that there are marriages in which a lot of "score keeping" is going on, lol! I agree with you, not a healthy situation.
Robin
What I think is unhealthy is believing that each parent needs to contribute in the same way for the burden to be equally shared.
Robin
>>You have done it in this thread to me, I even asked you to provide posts for support. Twice. Still no posts.<<
once again pka, are you denying the q i asked you earlier or not. do you deny *ever* bringing a sah/woh argument to the level of comparing the sahmom to the wohdad? and why do they always lead to that if you do?.....i'd be more than willing to apologize if i mistook you for another poster. pending question. twice now.
and about past debates, i can think of two off the top of my head that you felt some need to bring up, just in the last few weeks. one was related to a discussion in the politics folder regarding public and private school which i did answer and the other is related to my midwestern roots which i'd love to return to (what that has to do with the *raising* element though, i just don't understand). why and where is the relevence in these. really?
tia for answering my own queries.
Edited 2/2/2006 5:25 pm ET by egd3blessed
***Okay. But since I didn't say anything about this as an example, I guess you were just talking out loud and not really making a statement on my comments?***
Pretty much- yes. Thanks for not assuming.
***In order for me to form an opinion/statement on a hypothetical situation, there has to be a grain of truth or a possibility for it to exist....I don't see either of that in your scenario. I have no idea of where such a place would exist or any possibility that we would move to an area that doesn't exist except in your mind.***
If I recall correctly you've been doing the same in regard to me and various hypothetical scenarios elsewhere that would necessitate my need to go back to work. How is that any different?
***Then why do you keep coming back to my children dying or losing custody? Why, if that's not your point?***
Because I am saying that you *could* raise your children in the hypothetical situation, whereas you say you *couldn't*. I'm asking what would happen to them that you couldn't raise them in that situation. You've said you would choose *not* to raise them in that situation- and that's fine- but I've been asking what if you found yourself in that situation by necessity and you had no other choice. You refuse to consider the hypothetical and thus return to the 'I couldn't raise them'. I again say that sure- you *could*- but perhaps not in the manner in which you find preferrable. I am giving you more credit than you're giving yourself here. I think in that situation you would do far more than just keep them alive and maintain custody- even if you didn't have your village. Or perhaps the village means something different to you than it does to me- but I ask you to clarify that later in this post, so we'll see.
***Yes, that was me creating a fictional rural area with no acceptable people about. It's me who keeps mentioning the fact that if I lose my resources my children will die or I will lose custody. I am the one who can't see any middle ground at all. Ah huh.***
So then you *could* raise your children without numerous other adults helping you?
***I have answered this multiple times, but perhaps this time it will stick. One finds a new village.***
So how does one do that exactly if one isn't readily accessible?
***Depends on the family. Again, perhaps this will stick with you this time. I believe that that village is part of raising my children, I wouldn't do it without them.***
There is a world of difference between 'wouldn't' and 'couldn't' IMO.
***Well, I don't know where you are coming up with 20 or so folks or why you are coming up with that number? I couldn't/wouldn't raise my children without my village....why on earth is that so hard for you to accept?***
It's not if you're saying you wouldn't- but you had said you *couldn't*. That's what I'm disagreeing with. Believe it or not I think you're a far more capable parent than that and would find a way to raise your children with or without your village, even if that wasn't your idea of an ideal situation.
***Oh, I could go on and on and on, but don't have the time, it's not a simple thought I can put into words, much of it is actions, beliefs and faith.***
OK- that's fair. I'll be awaiting a more detailed explaination when you *do* have time.
***Basically, I think I need to provide a safe, loving and firm foundation for which they can grow and build their lives. Think of it as a stool with three legs. Family is one leg, community is one leg, and the third leg is our faith. With 3 legs the stool is very strong, remove one of them and it's just a broken stool.***
That's a beautiful explaination- thank you. Now- in regard to community- what level of involvement does that entail exactly for you? What level of interaction, intimacy etc.? What specifically does that *mean* for you? I assume you'll find time to answer that when you are able? I look forward to it. (In all sincerity).
***Then perhaps you can explain why you keep using death and losing custody has the alternatives to me losing my network then?***
I believe I explained it above. The difference between 'couldn't' and 'wouldn't'? I believe that you *could* raise your children, whereas you say you couldn't. The death/custody is merely in response to that idea that you couldn't- as in- what would happen to them if you found yourself in the situation to *have* to raise them in that position. You say you wouldn't do that- and that's a fair answer- but that changes the statement to 'I *choose not to* raise my children in that situation' or 'I wouldn't raise my children in that situation'. Or even, as I'd said before 'I couldn't raise my children in the manner in which I would prefer in that situation'. Understand now? Again- I find you to be a far more capable person who would *make* a way to raise your children if you found it necessary to do so in that situation.
***No, I didn't say that at all. In fact I didn't say anything about anyone else nor did I say anything about not raising children. Perhaps you need to go read that line again to get a better understanding of what I said?***
OK- so they can but you couldn't? Literally *couldn't*, or 'couldn't in the manner in which you prefer'? Or is your definition of community and 'helping to raise' alot different than mine (which is why I asked for specifics along that line above).
***You were school age at what 5, so are you just talking about the first 5 years of life?***
At that time and in our district it was 6. I've said throughout that I've been primarily speaking of the 3 and under set, but yes- up to school age.
***Why did your parents introduce others in your life at school age when they were doing a fine job of raising you without them?***
Because school attendance is compulsory and homeschooling was basically unheard of at that time/in that area- they *had* looked into homeschooling, but homeschooling isn't often feasible in a rural area without the access to the greater resources that most sububs/cities have to offer.
***Did they need help in what they believe to be their goal of raising you?***'
Sure they did. But again- I've stated elsewhere that there is IMO a big difference between 'helping to raise' and that of 'helping the parents to raise'. 'Helping to raise' puts one on equal footing IMO with the parents, and that isn't the case IMO. 'Helping the parent to raise' puts one in the position of assistant to the parent, which is what I believe is the case.
***Which is a very small part of a child's life. We aren't limiting this discussion to the under school age set, because raising children is more than just to school age.***
Which discussion, because in this thread alone there are about four going on at the moment. Specify which discussion you're addressing and I'll tell you whether I'm talking of the 3 and under set, pre-school age set or just children in general. To try to be more specific- I think it would be very do-able to raise a child completely on ones own (parents) until the age of 3. It would be very possible, even if not preferred, to do so until school age. As children get older, they benefit more from more/different influences. I wouldn't say that these influences are *critical*- in the sense that food/clothing/shelter/education/etc. are critical, but I would say that they are absolutely beneficial and to a great degree. Should every child have them? Yes- I think so. Can a child's parents still raise them if they aren't available? I'd say that yes- they could, even if it would be more difficult doing so.
***That's your point for your life, but as others have said.....it doesn't fit their life and it doesn't fit mine as I have stated to you more than once. You are making a general statement which is not true for everyone.***
If that's the case- then it brings us back to the question of what would happen to your children if you found yourself in that situation? If you literally *couldn't* raise them- what would happen to them?
***Now we are up to oodles, why the continued drama here? How many are actually in an oodle? Just because YOU don't believe it's essential, that doesn't make it true for anyone but YOU and YOUR family. You can't speak for anyone else.***
No drama- merely trying to understand. I *don't* think that anything is necessary for everyone or that anything is or isn't essential. I'm the one who DOES think you could raise your children in whatever situation you found yourself in, remember?
How many other adults do *you* feel it necessary to have in your childrens lives in order for you to be able to raise them? How close do they need to be? How often do they need to spend time with your children, etc. etc. In other words- what *exactly* IS the village in your opinion? What *exactly* do you need from them in order to raise your children and how much *of* it etc.? I'm asking for specifics here.
***I disagree as I have said.***
So once again- that brings us back to what would happen to them if you found yourself in said situation- since you couldn't raise them, and since if you'd simply choose not to, that would be an issue of 'I wouldn't raise them' or 'I'd choose not to raise them' in that situation etc.
***What I am saying is that many of us who find ourselves in non-preferable situations, CHANGE THEM, we don't just accept them.***
And sometimes that takes time and effort and one has to do what one has to do until that change can occur. What does one do in the meantime- and what happens to the children if one can't raise them until that change occurs? ;)
Wytchy
Do you disagree that you spend significantly more time with them than do their sunday school teachers, coaches etc.? That you are far more intimately involved in their lives than those people?
Do you not see a difference between 'helping to raise' and helping *you* to raise?
Wytchy
Pages