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: 11-25-2004
Sun, 08-07-2005 - 12:14am
I'm not a history expert but I believe it's been practiced throughout history by the wealthy and when out of necessity. It would not surprise me to find that women nursed each others babies in tribal communities where women were needed to gather food. I don't know that that is the case but it makes sense given that babies were often cared for by others.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
Sun, 08-07-2005 - 12:22am

The

Mondo

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Sun, 08-07-2005 - 12:30am
I don't think PA was being snarky until at least halfway through.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 08-07-2005 - 7:52am

***I disagree based on my dh's own personal experiences.***

*Chuckle* You disagree based on the "ancient history" of what- say 40-ish years ago? ;)

***He wasn't working along side his parents, he was working out on his own on the farm doing his own set of chores. He started driving a tractor when he was 5, his older brothers as well. This was about 50 years ago and totally common among his friends in rural farm America.***

Absolutely- but what was he doing between the ages of birth and 5? What were his sisters (if he had any) doing during and after those years? 5 is very much an older child and not really what I was referring to. Once children grew to an age where they were a practical help, in most cases the boys went off with the men while the girls remained with their mothers.

***I would also disagree based on the few living history farms/villages/towns that I have attended. The children were pretty much ignored when they were with their parents or sent out working somewhere else if they were among the working class.***

Again- extremely modern history there. Not really at all what I was referring to :)

***Can you either link me to something or some personal history that supports this theory?***

Absolutely, but I'll pass on the personal history since I'm not that old ;P

http://www.rdg.ac.uk/Ure/tour/child/index.php
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/childhood.htm
http://www.rom.on.ca/egypt/case/society/children1.html
http://www2.sptimes.com/Egypt/EgyptCredit.4.2.html
http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Greek_World/women.html

I had a collection of links some time ago, but I lost interest in the subject and never bothered to transfer them to my rebuilt PC. If I come across them again I'll start a thread and share, but this should at least give you a bit to look at :)

***I am....especially if you compare the amount of work done then to now and I have been a sahm and I know what I called work being a sahm was a walk in the park compared to what my grandmother or even my mother went through.***

So what? If we're talking work now compared to work "then", NOBODY today is working- not SAHM's, not WAHM's, not WOHM's, and I'd say we can safely presume that can be transferred over to most *men* in the workforce as well! PEOPLE of today don't "work" like people of the past. Certainly WOHM's don't work either then, as you would ALSO be expected to be making your own clothes, butchering your own food etc. IN ADDITION TO whatever work you do outside of the home for pay. Or is your job SOO hard that you consider yourself to be "working" while we pampered SAHM's are laying on our laurels all day? LOL!

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 08-07-2005 - 8:09am

That does not show how the children were cared for. Certainly you are aware that SAHM isn't meant to be a literal term?

***13 She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.***

How is this WOH?

***14 She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.***

Much like our modern trips to the local grocery store which we SAHM's are well familiar with ;)

***16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.***

This shows that she has her own money, not that she WOH.

***18 She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.***

Again- this does not reference WOH. It's more like a trip to the mall with the addition of haggling ;) It also does not show where the children are or what they are doing/whose care they are in during this time.

***24 She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.***

This is more along the lines of a WAHM than a WOHM. Where do you think she does the making of these garments? Do you have other sources that show that she does this activity outside of her home while her children are in 'othercare'? This also shows that she is the manufacturer, not the merchant. Isn't it reasonable to understand from this that this woman is making these garments in her own home (where her tools would be located) and delivering them to the merchants rather than actually working outside of her home?

Note: I referenced only those verses that I thought you might feel showed a WOHM.

While I would agree that the distinction between WAHM and SAHM is a very new invention, (the distinction being work for pay by an outside source) the idea that I am trying to get across is that care of the children has primarily been the responsibility of their mothers throughout history. (Referring to young children- before the age of weaning- specifically).

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 08-07-2005 - 8:13am

Yeah- that's a stretch allright ;) I asked because I wondered if you were suggesting that taxes were a common women's occupation throughout history.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 08-07-2005 - 8:44am

***There is nothing wrong nor should a women feel guilty if they can not or do not wish to exclusively breastfeed their child.***

I'm not in any way suggesting that a woman should feel guilt *for any reason* (whether that is breastfeeding, not breastfeeding, working outside the home, not working outside the home etc. etc. etc.) I am of the mind that in general and with rare exception we do the best we can in the situations we find ourselves. If a woman feels strongly that WOH is the best thing for her family and herself, then that is what I believe she will do and should do. If a woman feels strongly that use of alternative feeding methods are best for her family and herself, then that is what I believe she will do and should do. There are benefits and drawbacks to every situation and choice and those will apply to every family and every woman differently. And while it can be argued that breastfeeding is inarguably the best for a baby as far as health and nutrition are concerned, I also realize especially in todays world where we have the luxury of taking such things into consideration that a mothers mental wellbeing and happiness are also very important to her infants wellbeing and happiness. (In other words, I don't think it does anyone any good to breastfeed when it makes them miserable, with rare exception for the premature or chronically ill child wherein breastmilk may make a significant difference in their survival/health prospects.) But enough rambling on that :)

***I don't know if they were a primary source of feeding, but for some to have survived, then that means there were many others than did not.***

As for the prevalence of alternative feeding devices- how prolific are they according to your research? Something commonly used would be extremely prolific- such as the clay pots used everyday for many purposes in ancient Egypt for example. And while it is true that "for some to have survived... many others did not" the commonality of their use would be reflected in the archaeological findings. If MANY were found, they'd be pretty common. If only a few were found, they would not have been. Pretty simple really.

***There must have been a reason why these devices were invented and have been constantly improved on throughout history, don't you think?***

Absolutely. And I'd wager that the high maternal mortality rate was the most common reason. I haven't found any historical reference to such things being used for reasons of convenience as yet.

***With the great dangers involved in birth during those ages, the work women were expected to do and just general hardness of times...women couldn't always bfeed their own babies.***

Regarding hardness of the times- that is just one more reason *to* breastfeed, and I'd think our foremothers would have known that firsthand- it's far easier and more convenient. No bottles to deal with (clean, fill, transport, etc.) Now granted, it may be easier still to employ a wetnurse, but how many would have been wealthy enough to have done so historically?

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 08-07-2005 - 8:57am

***You do know, or have read that this child also attends school fulltime during the school year and is homeschooled in addition to the public school education?***

Missed that part. Still- given what she's said about the homeschooling activities, if they're child-led as I believe was stated (?) then I'd consider that to be play as well as education... Not every kid wants to run around catching frogs in their spare time ;)

***Oh and can you break down how 3 hours a day is eaten up with lunch and class changes?***

Sure- 30-45min for lunch (in some cases an hour), 10 min to get there and 10 to get to the next class (chalk up an hour), 10 min between 4-5 class changes (chalk up another appx. hour there) and an hour of homeroom or study hall (or in some cases a half hour of each. And then there is the time in addition to that taken up to settle the kids down and get them focused on the business at hand after they *get* to the classes ;) But we don't need to formally tally that... That was the basic schedule when I was in school from middleschool through graduation from high school and is the approximate schedule that my friends who have kids in school now have as well (not in the district that I was in, nor are they all in the same school or even district/state.) Granted, every school inevitably has different ways of doing things, but that appx. 3hr figure seems to be pretty common from what I've come across.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 08-07-2005 - 9:00am

I was actually wondering whether or not *you* did. Just because you don't view her sources as credible doesn't mean they haven't been provided. She has shared her view along with supporting references to back up her view. That you do not view them as credible or adequate does not mean she has merely "stated her opinion". I seem to recall quite a few references to 'The Natural Child' or some such, as well as her logic behind her choice/position.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 08-07-2005 - 10:27am

First, (since I don't have the time right at the moment to grab anything apart from what I'd posted in my other post to you this morning) what have you read that contradicts what I've said? (And yes- I'll dig up my sources, but since I'd like to continue this line of discussion and you've mentioned that you have sources of your own, I'm hoping you'll be able to share. :)

Wytchy

Pages