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
No, I saw the part where you talked about time.
PumpkinAngel
No problem. I'll just stand by my statement that this is incorrect- since you don't have anything to say otherwise.
"You have made a couple of those yourself regarding sahp's and spending more time with their children than parents of dual wohps."
Wytchy
Okay?
PumpkinAngel
It's safe to say your right to *feel* your basic requirements are being fulfilled wouldn't be successfully challenged here.
But sometimes we like to debate just for the privilege of learning whether anything concrete, factual or plausible *lies behind* a person's feelings on these matters. Usually, when a poster can't clearly state much with regard to that, they revert to discussing their feelings, which aren't especially debatable. Sort of like what's going on in this thread ;-)
Mom and Dad may be two individuals- but as far as parenting is concerned I don't feel it's a great idea to view them as completely seperate individuals... I find it immensely beneficial to take on parenting as a unit- to provide a united front for our children.
Wytchy
My reason is that I don't have time to dig through. Your reason is simply that *I* won't, so why should you? Which is fine, but it's not a double standard if there's a legitimate reason why I'm not doing it. After a thousand posts or so I just don't have the time in my day to do it. But you seem to, so I figure you ought to have no problem doing so since it seems so important to you.
Wytchy
***Moving to a rural place where not one single person is acceptable in my childs life and then not having any outside contact to mentors if pretty remote and not the tiniest grain of sand possibility or truth in happening to my family.***
Oh, but we're not talking about mentors, PA- we're talking about people to help you raise your children. Remember- I've said that I see a large difference between one who is an influence/mentor in a child's life and that of someone who *helps to raise that child*?
***Yes and you results have included death and losing custody. If that's not your point then why do you keep using them?***
Because you say you couldn't raise them. If that's the case and you were in that situation- WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THEM?
***Not true, I answered your hypothetical if something were to happen to my current network....you just went farther into the extreme, which has no possibility of happening.***
If that's what you want to believe- that's fine. Little possibility? I could go with. NO possibility? Well.... For your and your children's sake I hope that's the case.
***How many times do I have to say this to you for you to understand? NO, I have a network of people helping me raise my children, it's not possible without them.***
We definately disagree on what it means to 'help raise a child' apparantly.
***No. Are we counting yet on how many times I have said this?***
I guess I overestimated you and your level of dependance on others. My mistake.
***Any number of things. You don't know how to go out and make friends, find a network of support? It really quite as simple as walking out the door.***
Here's hoping you're always in a situation where that is readily possible.
***Your opinion, not mine.***
Really? You don't see the difference between 'couldn't' and 'wouldn't'? The difference of one being a matter of *choice*? Interesting.
***You don't get one when it comes to raising my children, but thanks.***
I don't *want* one, but thanks anyway.
***I wouldn't raise my children in less than an ideal situation.***
So you're changing it now from 'couldn't' to 'wouldn't'. Nice back pedal. That's fine and it certainly makes more sense that way.
***Why on earth do you care about detailed explanation in what it takes to raise my children when you can't even believe my methods?***
I've never said anything about not believing your methods. I don't *know* your methods- thus the question here.
***I have talked about the village, which you think doesn't have a part in raising my child....why would I share a more detailed and personal explanation when you can't even have belief in the basics?***
Oh I believe your basics- in fact I hold them in high regard for my own situation as well. I just have more confidence in my ability to parent in less than ideal situations than you apparantly do for yourself. Just because I believe that I could still raise my children were the village not accessible to me doesn't mean that I don't believe the village is important or that I don't value it for my own family.
***Its a personal thing that I really have no intention of sharing with a stranger on an internet board. No offense.***
None taken. I just find it interesting that you'll go on and on about your village and your inability to function in any capacity as a parent without them and yet not be willing to clarify what that means for you.
***No, that is not what I am saying. I have said what I meant, I mean what I say. You can spin it however you want, but I do not agree with you.***
Then what IS what you're saying? You say you *couldn't* parent in the many times aforementioned situation, and then you change it to *wouldn't*, and now you're saying that wouldn't isn't what you meant.... You're talking out of every side of your mouth here and aren't making any sense whatsoever. Either you *could* parent in that situation and just don't *choose* to, or you legitimately *couldn't* and the question remains as to what would happen to your children if necessity required it. If you say that necessity would never require that because you would choose your situation, then you are saying that you WOULDN'T parent in that situation- not that you couldn't. But since none of that is what you're saying- What is it that you ARE saying?
***I have no idea. I was only speaking for myself.***
And I'm asking you to *answer* for yourself. You say you couldn't one minute then you say you wouldn't the next. Which is it? I asked if it was wouldn't and you said no. I asked if that meant that you *could* but that you choose not to and you said no. You aren't making any sense and I think you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreement without understanding what you're disagreeing *over*.
***I can't speak for everyone in the general terms you are asking for.***
That wasn't what I was asking.
***I have seen it twice now, all today. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything else beyond that.***
So with a quick search and twice in one day you think it hasn't been clear?
***All of them, I don't recall anyone specify age at any time. I know I didn't.***
But yet you saw that I mentioned it twice in one day...... Hmmmmmm....
Wytchy
(Me) "Do you (1) disagree that you (2).? That you (3) are far more intimately involved in their lives than those people? Do you (4) not see a difference between 'helping to raise' and helping *you* (5) to raise?" ***(You) What age are you talking about now?***
(Answer:) However old your children are since I doubt I could be any more clear that I'm talking about your situation. Do I need to use more 'you's? Wasn't 6 enough?
Wytchy
Pages