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
Thu, 02-02-2006 - 10:13pm

"i have seen people post that to be a good mom one must sah - and it is that sentiment that for me raises the question then how can their spouse be a good parent when they are not following their own edict. and they all claim what wonderful involved spouses they have - yet moms who woh cant seem to be involved, only dads. while i find that sentiment interesting i also find it very hypocritical."

I agree

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2005
Thu, 02-02-2006 - 11:36pm
Totally, OT, but hey...check out my boys :) They are getting along SO well; except for dealing with Ricki's abuse issues, you'd never know he hasn't always been part of the "gang".

Karen


" says, "Navy makes a very strong statement." I guess so. It says, "I'm boring." Or, "I'd like this job here at the bank.""


Jeff @ TelevisionWithoutPity, Project Runway



Image hosting by PhotobucketImage hosting by PhotobucketImage hosting by Photobucket

Karen

"Veronica: "I hate fake deer too. Every time I see their stupid fake-deer faces I want to grab a shotgun and go all Cheney on 'em." Sure, but since fake deer don't talk, they won't

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2005
Thu, 02-02-2006 - 11:38pm
Because tinder's attempting to hold PKA to a standard tinder herself refuses to meet. duh.

Karen


" says, "Navy makes a very strong statement." I guess so. It says, "I'm boring." Or, "I'd like this job here at the bank.""


Jeff @ TelevisionWithoutPity, Project Runway



Image hosting by PhotobucketImage hosting by PhotobucketImage hosting by Photobucket

Karen

"Veronica: "I hate fake deer too. Every time I see their stupid fake-deer faces I want to grab a shotgun and go all Cheney on 'em." Sure, but since fake deer don't talk, they won't

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2005
Fri, 02-03-2006 - 7:07am

Excellent point. Some debaters, upon reflection, would have you believe what they really meant to say is that night is actually day, black is actually white.

But as you point out, when put into the context of the debate with Sahm2LB, PKA's response that it's "better" that parents have "equal" time with the children, instead of having a sahp and wohp, left no room for mis-interpretation. Also, her repeated use of the words "score card" and "equal" time gave away her true meaning that all FOUR of us picked up on.

I would love to know why 2 days ago, PKA thought it was "better" to introduce the 3rd person into the parenting arrangement ~ the dcp, nanny, Aftercare, etc ~ to ensure one parent doesn't get more time with the children, but is *now* trying desperately to retract what all FOUR of us read correctly. Oh, well.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 02-03-2006 - 7:11am

ROFLMAO! So because I think that someone can raise their child without an extensive network of other adults helping to raise them, you think I don't have a strong social network for my own children? I guess I'm merely more optimistic regarding human ingenuity and creativity and believe that a parent will generally do the best they can in whatever situation they find themselves- whether they have a network available to them or not- meaning that I disagree that one *couldn't* raise their children without "the village". Not that I think the village is irrelevant or useless.

As for youth directors/pastors- I wouldn't know- I don't attend church. When I did, growing up, that was the case- I don't particularly remember anything more than that. I guess my point was that just because one has a pastor/youth director doesn't mean one automatically gets an intimate caring relationship with them merely because they're *there*. If one does- that's great- but it's a bonus- not an automatic.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 02-03-2006 - 7:16am

Time is a VERY large part of raising a child when they're young- thinking before school age- which as I've stated repeatedly throughout the thread and elsewhere- is the age group I am primarily speaking of. But overall I'd say the younger the child, the greater the issue of time. MHO.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-10-2006
Fri, 02-03-2006 - 7:31am

"So, part of why the wohp can be a good parent is the fact that they have a sahp as a partner? So now both parents are dependent on working status (or lack there of) in order to be what they think is a good parent?"

Yes, while our cildren are young, we are most certainly basing part of our parenting on a SAH/WOH situation. Why? Do you think that is a negative?

"If for some reason the sahp has to go back to work or if they choose to go back to work when the children are in elementary school, then the basis of being a good parent is now.....what?"

For what reason would we be forced into a dual WOHP sitatuion against our will?

Death/Disability? Actually insuarance would guarantee that the surviving spouse could SAH until a minumim of school age.

Divorce? Ther is no guarantee that would force me to return to work either. With Child Support and my extended family, I would still make SAH a priority for my family until school age.

Job Loss? Well, first of all, if DH lost his job and I returned to work, then wouldnt he just be a SAHP, while I was the WOHP?

I'm not getting the philosphy that we have to make our choices on parerting based on hypotheticals. I'd really rather live my life and face adversity when it arises. However, I wills say that hypothetically, if we *were* forced into a dual WOHP sitation before the children were all in school, we would be extremely dissastified with not being able to raise our children the way we want to. Could we still raise them? Absolutely. But not the same way in which we would like to. Kind of the same thing you were trying so say about what would happen if your "village" dissappeared. Right?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2005
Fri, 02-03-2006 - 7:37am

It truly is and I give Sahm2LB a lot of credit!

<>

Meow! I've never seen "the other posters" say that they are living in a cave. The distinction has been do you rely on the network to raise your kids or not?

Do these wonderful people you claim are helping to raise your children *know* that they are raising your children? LOL. Don't these people have lives and families of their own?

Just bringing reality into the discussion for a moment...If the worst were to happen tomorrow and you and DH were no longer in the picture, you are confident any one member of this wonderful, indispensable, loving network would step in and continue raising your children the way they are currently helping to raise them?

After much discussion with our designees, DH and I put in writing the family members who would adopt and raise our children just as we would want them raised. But we were never under the naive, mistaken impression that the librarian, soccer coach or pediatrician would volunteer to "continue" (LOL) in helping to raise our kids.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 02-03-2006 - 7:40am

Ahhhh- OK. I see now.... That's where you're misunderstanding things- The issue has nothing to do with being a *good* parent- it's only about being the sort of parent one wishes/chooses to be and being able to provide for ones children what one desires to provide for them and feels is best for them. Sure- I would be a good parent whether I WOH or SAH or anything else under the sun. BUT- I wouldn't be the sort of parent that I choose to/want to be in that I wouldn't be able to provide the things for my children that I think are best for them (having a parent home with them, homeschooling them, doing various things with them during the day that aren't offered at times convenient to a WOH schedule etc.)

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-03-2005
Fri, 02-03-2006 - 7:44am

<>

That's unrealistic. Child support should NOT NOT NOT be used to support the custodial parent. And it shouldn't be enough to fully support the child either.

Pages