how do i convince my husband

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2004
how do i convince my husband
1841
Mon, 07-18-2005 - 4:09pm
how do i convince my husband to let me at least job-share so i can take care of our 3 month old dd? he grew up with his mom working & all his friend's moms working. we can afford it if we cut back on some things, but he doesn't want to cut back & just doesn't understand someone wanting to be a stay at home mom...it doesn't help mycause that the grandmothers will babysit. i'm so unhappy about having to go back to work...he wants me to work full time 1 more year & just doesn't get it! i feel like my heart is being ripped from my chest every time i hink about it.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 08-06-2005 - 8:49pm

Proverbs 31.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 08-06-2005 - 9:00pm

We as in people who figure and collect taxes.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Sat, 08-06-2005 - 9:04pm

Faulty Logic! Try the reverse to make sense.

The article compared today's working *and* sah mom's (blended together) to yesteryear's stay-at-homes. What about today's working moms to today's stay-at-homes? I think I recall on this board seeing an article stating that current stay-at-home moms spend 90 minutes more per day with their children, which over a week's time is over 10 hours, (right on the math?). That exceeds the 6 hour a week gap of the 1997 moms (which included both sah and wohm) to 1981 sahms. Seems your logic is quite illogical.

Did you get the last lines of the article on which you based your statement? Nice cherry-picking .

<<<

"No one else is going to be able to love the child as well as a parent," she said. "A parent can provide guidance the way a baby sitter never could.">>>>

And if one doesn't think s/he can provide the best love and guidance, and a babysitter is better suited to spend the better part of the majority of days with someone's children, the kids are better off that way probably.

By the way, I woh, wah pt and am going to school to finish up the last courses needed for Licensure (psychotherapy). My husband and I plan our schedules so we are the ones with our kids. We feel this is optimal for our children for many reasons. Fortunately, we have choices and planned ahead to have flexibility with work and career goals while still doing what we think is optimal for our kids.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Sat, 08-06-2005 - 9:13pm
Actually, in colonial America, the dads did most of the nurturing and comforting, and the moms and older siblings did most custodial child-rearing tasks. When it wasn't harvest season (and as you may know, 90% of people were farmers), people worked about 4 hours a day.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 08-06-2005 - 9:19pm

*Sigh* yourself and I didn't realize that we were waiting for you to get through this thread?


But I found it funny, still find it funny

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 08-06-2005 - 9:20pm

***Do you think the queen allowed her servants to bring their kids to work? Do you think she CARED?***

In most cases, so long as the children kept to the servants areas, they were either cared for by or worked along side their mothers or the rest of the servants (which acted as an extended family in many cases.) It was never an issue of whether "the queen" cared whether children were "brought to work", as in those situations, most often the servants not only worked at but *lived in* the estate, and it was expected that children were going to be around (such is the nature of biology with the lack of effective birth control at the time- and I'd say it was viewed as a tolerable perk in many cases because more children meant additional servants. It was accepted that children were just there- so long as they weren't seen/heard or bothersome, that was all well and good. As for breastfeeding- servants in that position often were often on light duty (so they could tend to their infant offspring) until the child was weaned (meaning they were given light duties- such as knitting/weaving/mending etc. so as to enable the woman to feed her child/ren while still getting things done that needed doing.)

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 08-06-2005 - 9:28pm

...It was also a different world then. One didn't *need* 24/7 supervision. Heck, even when *I* was growing up it was nothing to let the children run around even after dark on their own. Who does that now??? Perhaps things haven't changed that much, maybe it's just the media playing on our fears with stories of child molestation, kidnapping, gangs etc. etc. etc. but I don't know many responsible parents who are comfortable with even what *my* generation grew up with as far as supervision is concerned...

As for "the very real work of mothering"- that went on alongside the day-to-day grind. Children learned from a young age what it took to run the household because they were *doing* it- right alongside their mother. It wasn't just that Mom was busy from dawn until dusk, it was *the whole family* was busy during that time- including the children from as soon as they were able to do anything useful. So the "real work of mothering" would have quite probably have been even more involved *then* than what we consider it to be *now*.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 08-06-2005 - 9:35pm

Perhaps if you weren't so obnoxiously snarky in your posts she'd be more likely to *converse* with you in a reasonable give-and-take. I mean- really... This is a debate board, not a pissing contest. :(

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 08-06-2005 - 9:39pm

No I am not suggesting they were primary sources of feeding, I don't think I was suggesting that at all.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 08-06-2005 - 9:43pm

***You know I'm a SAHM , right?***

Actually, whether you were or weren't never really crossed my mind :) I was just responding in general to the comment "and 99% of it wasn't conducive to directly supervising small children. Which means somebody else probably did. ...and were not taking care of their children at the time that they were working, unless the children were working too."

***In reading a lot of history, I would think the children were either working their tails off or were totally unsupervised.***

Yes- I'd agree. But I'd say it's pretty safe to say that small infants *weren't* left totally unsupervised. :) Older children? Yes- after their work was completed ;) But I was commenting on the care of small infants. "Nurslings" if you will ;)

***I would not even *think* about thinking that the work I have to do even compares to what my *grandmother* had to do, much less what a woman 200 yrs ago had to do. I feel very lucky that there are some days that I can do nothing at all, if I want to.***

Amen to *that* :) I also feel very blessed to not only be a SAHM but to live in this period of history ;) Still- looking at our *own* time period, we still *do* work- it's just not the same as what our foremothers would have been doing :) (And thank Gods for *that*! ;)

Wytchy

Pages