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: 08-29-2002
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 4:52am
Brilliant! You nailed how I feel about this whole "homeschooling" business.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 5:00am
Because your daughters' pseudo-studies are boring enough without us having to read about her 'studying" her own menses.

Karen

"A pocketknife is like a melody;
sharp in some places,
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 5:07am

"I never said breastfeeding was unlikely to happen because it's more difficult for the wohm- I only said that a mother can't possibly breastfeed her child *at the breast* if she is unable to be with her child at her place of employment. "

But you are setting up an "either or" here (either 100% of the time or not at all). Just because a WOHM can't bf at the breast during work hours doesn't mean a baby isn't getting plenty enough of "skin to skin" hours outside of working hours. Are you saying that either the skin to skin contact has to be 100% of the time or the benefits are lost? I have a WOHM friend who nursed each of her children for well over 3 years. Do you honestly think that the few feedings they had a dc during the day in the first 10-12 months or so negated all of the benefits of the skin to skin contact and fresh antibodies they got in over 3 years of mostly nursing directly?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 6:48am

So going by that logic, children should be permitted to attend what amounts to unsupervised parties where one knows that drugs, sex and alcohol are very likely to be experienced? Realizing that a child will be exposed to these things and being responsible about addressing them is one thing- throwing that child 'to the wolves' and forcing them to fend for themselves in situations where they shouldn't be in and that could be considered dangerous is another IMO. (Of course not every bus situation is like that- I'm optimistic that more *aren't* than are- but if a parent has reason to be concerned that such goings on are a common occurrance in their area, IMO it is the responsible thing to keep ones child away from such situations. Further, would you allow your child to ride in your car without a seatbelt? Why is it an unreasonable concern then that some parents might be cautious about their child being unbelted in a bus driven by what often amounts to a distracted driver?

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 6:58am

How did you get him to do that, or was he just an "easy" baby in that regard? (I ask because while DS has slept perfectly since he was 2mo., DD (7mo) *never* goes down before 11pm, wakes up at least twice and is up for the day around 6am... The kid just doesn't sleep. No matter what I try...) And yeah- that's just a desperate plea for advice after a night of 3hrs of shut-eye and into my 3rd cup of coffee LOL! ;) No bearing to the conversation at hand ;)

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 7:03am

ROFLMAO! *wiping coffee off the monitor* Good Gods would you at least *warn* a person? LOL! ;)

Hey- I *like* the haiku.... Maybe I'll bring up the subject if you *don't* haiku.... *mischievious grins* ;)

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 7:06am

Maybe I need more coffee, but all I've been hearing is how SAHM's don't work compared to yesteryear. NOT that people in general don't- unless I'm "half of us" since I was the one who made the comment she quoted... If it had been made clear that people in general 'don't work compared to...' I don't think this would have been made into an issue.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 7:15am

It would tend to be considered more of a morality play than a general work of fiction. Stories that have purposes to educate rather than merely to entertain are often included under a different classification than simple fictional literature. Further, while many aspects of the Bible could certainly be argued to be fictional/non-literal/etc. even in today's modern fictional literature you see reflections of the reality of modern life. While the character of Harry Potter (just finished it- but use any book written in and about characters acting in modern times as a reference) may not be a real person and the situations of the story are unquestionably fantastical, there are still aspects of reality- the manner of interplay between the characters is very reflective of our modern relationships toward others- and while one could not look back 100yrs or more from now and use the writing as a historical reference for interpersonal interactions of the times, one *could* hazard guesses that certain behaviours etc. were commonplace and not unordinary among the culture. Does that make sense?

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2005
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 7:18am
I think what is recent to history is the idea that a mother would turn down a convenient feeding option on principal of 'breast is best'. Quite frankly, until fairly recent times the breast was the most convenient method for feeding a baby. Only with fairly recent auxillary inventions and conveniences has any other way become more convenient. Its a fairly well established and accepted fact that nursing baby was in many societies a task shared by available lactating women.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 7:22am

***Oh I disagree. 5 or 6 years of lost earnings, with compounded interest, could be well into six figures depending on earning, spending and saving of the worker and family. Nothing to sniff at IMO. If mom wants to SAH, you have to balance the lost earnings against that desire, but the financial ramifications could be significant.***

Yes, you do- but again, different people have different priorities- for some working only for a savings account isn't worth being away from their babies for those first months/years. If it's a higher priority for one to put their earnings into investments etc. than it is to provide primary care for their children during those years that's their choice and I'm not saying that's a bad thing- merely that it's also not a bad thing if they *don't*.

Wytchy

Pages