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: 01-10-2006
Sat, 02-04-2006 - 6:59pm
Ok, when put that way, it does make sense.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-18-2006
Sat, 02-04-2006 - 10:42pm
Maybe the WOHP wants to work those extra hours in order to have a SAHP? Isn't that what we all talk about here. It is about quality not quantity.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 3:06am

Personally I never considered any of my teachers to be 'intimately involved' with my life (with one exception). They were there to teach- and they did their job well- but I would not have said that I shared a relationship with them, regardless of how well I got on with them in class. (Again- with the one exception- who was a great mentor in my life, but who I would never have considered as 'having helped to raise me'.)

***if someone is taking over a part of your childs life do you really not feel that person is helping to raise the child.***

Helping *me* to raise them? Yes. Helping to raise them? No. I don't. Nor do I feel that the people who fit into those positions in my life growing up were helping to raise *me*. Nor do my parents. Are they influential? Certainly. Mentors? Absolutely. Helping to raise? Not IMO.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 3:13am

***I don't see the difference, and I'm not the only one.***

Seems the board is pretty split on this one since I'm certainly not the only one who disagrees with the 'helping to raise' concept either.

***In the same way, if I'm having trouble as a parent, I might consult with a counselor or child development specialist for help in parenting.***

Sure- but that doesn't mean you're asking for help raising your child. It means you're asking for help in a given parenting situation. I think that's helping *you* AS a parent, not them helping to raise your child.

***If the advice I get is helpful, I don't think anyone could deny that person is helping me to parent. But that in no way suggests that professional is co-parenting with me.***

IMO helping to parent and co-parenting are the same thing. It means the same whether I say that I helped author a book or whether I say I co-authored a book, right? Same here IMO.

***I would suggest that rather than rely on this dubious distinction you're making, you might as well just say you think parents in their role of carrying primary responsibility are way, way more important than any kind of help they could possibly get.***

Nothing dubious about it- and not my distinction. Again, there have been numerous other posters who have agreed with my 'take' on this distinction. The board seems fairly split actually, at least as far as the vocal posters go. But I'd say if you want to say that others are helping you raise your children, that's your call. Some of the rest of us see it differently. No big deal.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 3:21am

***Why would one parent (a SAHP) have to decrease their hours with the child/ren in order to allow "more time" with the WOHP?***

Some claim that if the SAHP started WOH then the WOHP might be able to spend more time with the children. (Which I suppose could be true if the WOHP half of the WOH/SAH duo were working excessive hours to make up for the lack of income from the SAHP...) In my personal situation my DH would be WOH the same amount of time whether I WOH or SAH. If the SAHP started WOH then they would generally tend to have to decrease their time with the children because they would then be WOH. (Unless the children are in school etc. and the SAHP wouldn't be with them anyway.)

***If a dual WOHP family can make enough time for their children, then certainly the WOH part of a SAH/WOH family can too, right?***

I know mine does.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 3:38am

***So, it's not about how much time a parent needs to spend with a child to be a good parent, it's more about avoiding othercare? Why?***

It's about time in that time is necessary- yes. I don't think that one can be a good parent and only spend an hour or two a week with their child, for instance. (Time is important in that the child needs to have enough of it to have a strong relationship with the parent.) As for why one might want to avoid othercare? There are various reasons- some mothers want to exclusively breastfeed. Some parents feel homeschooling is most beneficial for their situation/family. Some parents feel more comfortable having one of them (a parent) with the children because (when speaking of loving, caring responsible parents) no one loves a child like their own parent. Some parents want to avoid the increased rate of illness in a group care setting. Some parents don't want to pay someone for something they can do and prefer to do themselves. Some parents had a very hard time getting pregnant and want to spend as much time with their infant/toddler as possible to enjoy what they worked and fought so hard for. Some parents feel that childcare costs are excessive (especially when dealing with multiple children). (Just because one WOH doesn't mean one earns a fabulous paycheck). There are SO many reasons why one might want to avoid othercare it's just not possible to list them all.

***Sure, but then what's the point of SAH? Just to avoid othercare?***

For us that's one of the reasons- yes. There is also the fact that DH works long hours (leaves at 5:30am, gets home at 5pm) and we'd both rather he spend his time enjoying our children rather than putting in his time with half the domestic chores. (Which would be necessary if I were WOH f/t). It's nice having one of us focus on the domestic angle because then when the other gets home from work, the evening is more enjoyable and relaxing (rather than spent tackling chores etc.) Another reason is that I *enjoy* taking care of my home and family- I find immense satisfaction from being with my children every day and keeping up our home. Dh finds this arrangement particularly beneficial and enjoyable as well. Call it old fashioned and not very take-over-the-world-I-am-woman-hear-me-roar-feminist, but that's what I enjoy. ;) If I were to WOH I'd want to apply the same skills in a career I find enjoyable- nursing comes to mind in that I enjoy caretaking obviously. However, I'd rather focus on my own family right now and since we don't need the income- here I am.

What is the point of WOH? Just to earn a paycheck?

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 3:42am

"Some claim that if the SAHP started WOH then the WOHP might be able to spend more time with the children. (Which I suppose could be true if the WOHP half of the WOH/SAH duo were working excessive hours to make up for the lack of income from the SAHP...)"

Well, it turned out to be true in our case, though dh never worked remotely excessive hours (I'd say that he always averaged about 40 hours per week). Mind you, I didn't go back to work for this reason at all so it was more of a surprise side-benefit, so to speak.

Once I started working, dh took over half the sick days (quite a lot in the first year) and took most of the parental leave we had left over. The last few years, he's taken about 9-10 weeks vacation/parental leave whereas I've only taken 7-8 weeks vacation/parental leave. This year I only managed 6 weeks compared to his 10. Part of the reason is that we can afford the dip in income when he takes parental leave, thanks to me having a job as well.

We also had a pattern of one early day for dh per week when I was at my old job. I worked late Mondays and he left early to pick up the kids and had a couple of hours with them before I came home. Now, he leaves earlier to pick up the kids when I am travelling and gets the them to their activities, something he would never have done had I been at home. He makes up the hours in evening at home when they are in bed or else takes partial vacation (of which he has a ton). It's not so much that he has cut back his hours as that he has shifted them and taken more leave time, which has resulted in more time with the kids.

But again, it's probably thanks to our personal situation and certainly wasn't the motivation for me working.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 3:49am

***Both parents, or can it be just one?***

I'd say it would almost have to be one doing the bulk of it, unless we're talking about parents splitting shifts or some other arrangement, wouldn't you? But then I think one often runs into other problems such as the parents not seeing much of each other which isn't a good thing IMO.

I know I notice a clear and absolute difference in how my children interact with their father over the weekend compared to weekdays, and from days when he isn't able to spend much time with them to days where he can/does. The amount of time makes a HUGE difference for them as to how they interact with and relate to him.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 3:56am

And unless you are totally obtuse- using your words- you'd know that I didn't say that raising stops at age 3 or school age. However, one can certainly talk of any given developmental period in reference to the raising issue. I'm sure you should be able to understand that children might need/do well with different things at different times in their life/development. Much like younger children need almost constant supervision whereas teens need to be allowed a good deal of freedom. I speak of what I feel is most beneficial for children up to the age of 3 or school age because my ideas/opinions of what is most beneficial for a child is largely dependant on their age.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 4:12am

***I'm pretty sure you don't think anyone can actually be said to be helping you raise your kids unless they have a role that totally parallels yours.***

Mine and their fathers- yes.

***A word like "intimately" is just as vague as "helping to raise"; it's open to interpretation.***

Right.

***That may be why you're not convincing too many posters with your false distinction between "helping to raise" and "helping parents to raise", which is absurd on its face.***

As I am certainly not the only one who recognizes and difference and has said as much in this thread- I hardly think that the idea is absurd- on its face or any other part. As for convincing- it's more an issue of defending rather than convincing. I don't care whether someone wants to think their postal carrier is helping to raise their children- that's between them, their child and the postal carrier. Think what you want- do what works best for you.

***However, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the word "raise" is actually the problem. I think what you're driving at is that you object to the use of the word "raise" in connection with anyone but parents.***

Not exactly. After all- sometimes the parents aren't in the picture and someone else is responsible for raising the child/ren. But yes- whomever is acting in the parental role is whom I would say is raising the children- not the clergy, not the librarian, not the band director, etc.

***Also, that only the parental role is important.***

Not at ALL what I am saying. I am merely saying that IMO the parental role is *most* important, and other influential persons, while important and certainly beneficial, are not on the same level as that of the parents. MHO and certainly I'm not the only one out here who's said as much.

Wytchy

Pages