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: 11-03-2005
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 11:02am

Not only have I known someone with preemie twins, but her dh went back to work fairly quickly and she didn't have live-in help. Had no hired help at all.

I don't think your experience .. two SAHPs plus a nanny ... is the norm for anyone. Preemie twins or not.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-03-2005
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 11:03am
No, for some it obviously wasn't the right balance.
Avatar for myshkamouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 12:03pm

Not only have I known someone with preemie twins, but her dh went back to work fairly quickly and she didn't have live-in help. Had no hired help at all."

Neither did we for the first months. But my mother was with us to help. Did your friend not have any relatives or friends assist? I find that hard to believe. Every *single* woman in my twins club, rich or poor, had family or hired help with their twins in the first months.

I don't think your experience .. two SAHPs plus a nanny ... is the norm for anyone. Preemie twins or not."

Did I say it was? But it *is* the norm with newborn twins to have some help.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 2:07pm

Not really. I've said numerous times that I feel that a parent SAH is ideal. If your idea of what is ideal is different than so be it. But my opinion is simply that since a loving caring parent would tend to love and care for a child better than anyone else in the world, that they are the ideal person to care for that child at least through the early years. I don't believe I've said anything about children who are of dual WOHP households doing "less well" in an objective sense. I just think that being surrounded by the comfort and love of a responsive caring parent would be the best thing for a child in the early years. Not that anything else is bad- or that children who don't have that do 'less well' etc. The thing that many people misunderstand about my opinion here is that I don't see anything *wrong* with dual WOHP's- I merely think that a child being cared for by a loving responsive parent is ideal- not that anything else is *bad*.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 2:20pm

***BUT neither wanting to spend more than a couple of hours per day with one's kid, nor BF, nor homeschooling, are precluded by WOH, which seems to get posted here most days;-)***

Barring a very family friendly work environment or special circumstances I'd think it almost impossible to return to work at the expected time (appx. 6wks in most cases) and maintain an exclusive breastfeeding relationship. One certainly would be hindered from feeding on demand in most cases, wouldn't you think? How is one to hold down a ft job and maintain access to the breast for the child? Do you know of many employers that facilitate that sort of environment for their employees? I've rarely heard of such things. Certainly mums can usually manage pumping and using bottles to provide breastmilk, but exclusive *breast* feeding (as in, at the breast) would be uncommon among WOHMs I'd think.

***The piece about nobody loving one's child like a parent also gets addressed often, and quite honestly it doesn't convince me one bit. Not that it isn't true, but that IMO it's more important for a parent than for a kid.***

Perhaps for some kids. For instance- it would have mattered a great deal to my two. DS would now be fine with an othercare situation, but DD would still not do well. They want mama or daddy- that's just the way they are. (And yes- they get the experience of othercare as often as is feasible- I get them into the gym daycare an hour or two a day a few days a week. More often than not I have to cut my workout short to come get DD.

***I've used group care (small family dc) and illness wasn't a problem, although I'm aware there seems to be a slightly greater rate of illness among kids in dc centers.****

My best girlfriend has her DD in a group care setting. The poor girl rarely *isn't* sick. Of course, I'm sure different kids have different levels of immunity and after a certain point it's beneficial to have them exposed so they can build that immune system- but IMO it's not worth the risk for young infants. They are at greater risk of serious complications from illnesses.

***The pieces about cost effectiveness and about wanting to hang with your kid a whole lot are about factors in parents' lives and not so much about what's optimal for kids, right?***

Yes- but the question wasn't about being child-centric- it was about why one might choose to avoid othercare in preference to SAH.

***I suppose I was expecting more in the way of *child focused* reasons to avoid othercare from you.***

Aside from the issue of being surrounded by the comfort and love of a parent and avoiding illness I'm really not convinced that there *are* many other child focused reasons to avoid othercare.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2005
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 2:45pm

I just think that being surrounded by the comfort and love of a responsive caring parent would be the best thing for a child in the early years. Not that anything else is bad- or that children who don't have that do 'less well' etc.

So, basically, using othercare, according to you here, makes absolutely no negative difference whatsoever to the child, using a parent is "best" and use of that word, "best," is based on.....what again?

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: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 3:22pm

When they are older they will have more influential people in their lives- yes. Right now, it's primarily DH and myself. At no point do I believe I will ever consider someone else as being in the position of helping to raise our children. I certainly don't think that anyone other than my parents helped to raise *me*- although certainly I had many influential persons in my life.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 3:27pm

***Hold on there - the debate hasn't been about who's raising them. It's about *helping to raise* and *helping the parents to raise*. Has anyone claimed teachers are raising their kids?***

Sure it has. If someone is helping to raise them, then it's certainly about who's raising them because if they're 'helping to raise them' then they are involved in raising them- thus they are a part of the 'who is raising them' equation. IMO the only people helping to raise a child are those direcly responsible for their care- meaning that generally speaking, Mom and Dad are helping each other raise their children. Aside from that- there are influential people, mentors etc. but no one else IMO is on the same level as the parents as far as the children being raised are concerned. DH helps me raise our children. I help DH raise our children. No one else is helping us to raise our own childen although certainly they have others in their lives who care about them and interact with them etc.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 4:41pm
Yeah, but when you say "they'd do better" there's the implication that with othercare they wouldn't do as well. That's what sometimes poses a challenge.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Sun, 02-05-2006 - 4:47pm

<>

I tend to agree. Although, with both my adoptions, I SAH about 9 months (they were infants) and enjoyed it tremendously. If they had been born to me, I probably would have BF, too. But if I hadn't been able to take a LOA, I don't really know how I would have felt about that. Probably I wouldn't have been worried about using othercare for their sake, just that I would have felt I was missing out.

Pages