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
<>
Gee, xh and I both WOH and our children WERE STILL surrounded by the comfort and love of a responsive caring parent. Two of them actually.
<< I merely think that a child being cared for by a loving responsive parent is ideal->>
Many can still have that while WOH.
***More beneficial? If dual WOH gives a family more personal and financial resources to benefit all family members, then that's a big advantage.***
So in your opinion, more is generally better as far as money goes? Isn't there a point at which more *isn't* necessarily better? Much the same with the previous argument regarding time? Personally I feel that it's a big advantage for a family to plan ahead (long before children enter into the picture) to provide a stable financial base that allows one parent to SAH with the children if that's what they want. Money is nice- it's necessary to the extent that the bills have to be paid and to have some extras (and things like retirement/college funds etc.) but much above that and I don't really see where more is any sort of big advantage...
***If othercare provides more in the way of social opportunities for kids, that's good, too.***
Again- is more necessarily better? Aren't we seeing various experts speaking out now about the importance of 'down time' and letting kids just be kids- rather than being so overly scheduled with 'social opportunities'? Wouldn't that mostly be an issue only if it were a situation where an at-home parent *weren't* providing adequate social opportunities? That also doesn't take into consideration the point that 'othercare' doesn't necessarily mean a group care setting that provides said social opportunity.
Wytchy
Personally I don't see any difference between WOH or SAH while the kids wouldn't be there anyway (because they're in school).
But in my case (when they get to that age), and in the case of many if not most homeschooling parents, it would make a significant difference...
Wytchy
I just mean it seems like quite a complex schedule to juggle- meaning that going into the situation, one might not be able to guage how well or whether it was going to work out or not so planning for it would tend to be more difficult. It's nice that it has (worked out so well), but I know that many dual WOHP families really struggle with the issue of what happens when the kids are sick or have an unexpected day off etc.
Wytchy
***Wow, that's a lot! It does surprise me a bit because every bottle fed baby I ever knew usually went 3-4 hours between feedings and I was always told that that was the big advantage of formula (babies supposedly sleep longer at night because their tummies are full longer).***
Maybe it has to do with the fact that they've always been off the height/weight charts for their ages. (More with height, 50th for weight, but off the chart for height). Still- of those bottle feeding parents who I've known to feed on demand, I haven't found it to be that unusual. I think frequently bottlefeeding parents try to get children to finish the bottle etc. (because face it- formula isn't cheap) so that leads to a fuller tummy and a longer period between feeds.
***I really wonder how many that actually is. The impression I've had is that 2-4 months is more the norm, especially since FMLA.***
FMLA doesn't apply to every employer or every employee. Employers must employ 50+ employees. Employees must have been working there for 12 months and have accumulated 1250hrs of employment for said employer. The 12 wks of leave is not for each event- it's for the entire year- meaning that if the employee needed to be off for something else using FMLA they wouldn't have that whole 12wks available to them (thinking here of women who might run into the bed rest issue etc.) Bottom line is- I know plenty of women who had to go back long before that 12wk mark because they didn't have another option.
***In any case, the question was whether bf and WOH is possible to combine and for a baby over, say 3-4 months old who is on a fairly routine schedule it could easily work....especially with on-site dc. Not everyone has those circumstances, of course, but it certainly is possible.***
Right- I'd agree with that. Provided one is able to SAH and establish that nursing schedule before rocking the boat ;) I'm sure it's *possible*. I just wonder how many nursing WOHM's actually *do* it. (And sure- a handful will probably post and say 'I did it' etc. but overall- I wonder just how common it really is.
Wytchy
IMO more is better where money is concerned, but only up to a point. Dual WOH has let us do a lot more as a family and for the kids than we would have been able to with SAH. Of course, I'm on the materialistic side, so it's important to me to have a big fancy house, to be able to afford to live in a place with highly rated public schools, summer camp and music lessons for the kids, and so on. We would have gotten by okay with one of as SAH, but not with all the bells and whistles, no way.
IME, day care was an ideal combination of social life and downtime for the kids. They got instant, all day pals to play with in a very relaxed setting. They just loved dc, and I loved having them there. But dc settings really do run the gamut, that's for sure.
Pages