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: 03-31-2003
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 2:51pm

"It would tend to be considered more of a morality play than a general work of fiction."

I agree that the bible is not generally considered nor classified as a general work of fiction. I'm simply trying to point out that many of the myths and/or stories included in the bible are fiction/fictional.

"Stories that have purposes to educate rather than merely to entertain are often included under a different classification than simple fictional literature."

So, what about stories such as: Little Red Riding Hood, The Three Bears, and The Boy Who Cried Wolf? WOuldn't these stories also "have purposes to educate rather than merely to entertain?"

Also, how exactly are stories such as: Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, The Tower of Babel, The Story of Creation, Jonah and the Whale, The Rainbow and the Promise, The Christmas Story, etc. examples of "morality plays" or "Stories that have purposes to educate rather than merely to entertain?

What exactly do these stories have to do with morality?

Likewise, what is their "purpose to educate"?

What exactly do these stories "teach"?

"Further, while many aspects of the Bible could certainly be argued to be fictional/non-literal/etc."

Yes, indeed they manyaspects could be argued to be fictional.

"even in today's modern fictional literature you see reflections of the reality of modern life."

I agree. However, modern fictional literature doesn't claim to be anything other than modern fictional literature.

"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-"

Again, I would agree with that.

"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."

Very true.

"Does that make sense?"

Yes, it does. However, again I'm simply trying to point out that many of the myths and/or stories included in the bible are fiction/fictional, thus making parts or aspects of it fiction/fictional as well.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 2:54pm
What have you got against Christianity?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2005
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 3:07pm

My kids speak accentless English too. Their Dad doesn't. Their mother does. I don't think we can take this as any sort of indication, whatsoever, that moms influence children more than dads.

The very fact that the children can and do continue to speak a non English language fluently, at home, even when they get out into the world where most of the communicating they do in life, is in English, plays to the strength of parental influence - not the lack thereof. Kids will speak English inspite of their parents. But they will speak, and will be able to speak, the other language, only because of their parents.

I do agree with the premise that the impact of parental influence on childhood development in all kinds of ways is a misunderstood (overrated) beast. But I think the argument presented by Harris is a little on the backwards side.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 3:32pm
Where's the incredulous icon? Surely it is not news to you that a great many people throughout the world believe in the historicity of some or all of the parts of the Biblical narrative that you have mentioned?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 3:44pm

"Perhaps it was wishful thinking on my part."

Hmm, I think "inaccuare thinking" would be a better term :)

"it is certainly annoying to hear ordinary childhood activities relableled as homeschooling,"

Why is it annoying? I'm simply following up on a poster's request to share an outline of my dd's homeschooling activities.

Also, why does it matter to you how *I* define homeschooling and what *I* consider to be a homeschooling activity, in the first place? Why does it bother, concern, threaten *you* so much? Why are you so worked up over something so silly?

"In my (wishful thinking) version, the dd goes about her business with momofhk trailing after her, notebook in hand, scribbling down the title of every book she reads."

How many books do you think she reads in a day LOL? Right now she's on the 8th chapter of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (a book which has 37 chapters btw). I'd guess that she won't finish this book for at least a good month or so. BTW, she logs her own books :)

"In your more micromanaging version, the dd has her childhood snatched away and then handed back to her piecemeal in tightly wrapped packages of education."

Actually, both versions are inaccurate as my dd *chooses* and *directs* her own activities based on her own personal interests as I have explained time and time again. But clearly it isn't the accurate version that you're interested in here, now is it ;)

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 3:45pm

Just a couple of observations in answer to your question about the morality and educational purpose of some of the parts of the Biblical narrative that you mention:

The Creation Story, like most ancient myths (historical or not; some stories with a mythical purpose are indeed retellings of actual events) explained for an ancient people the age-old question of how and why the world came to be. It explained, in a rational way, the order of creation and how the world came to be; that it was "good" and that it was mankind's job to care for the Creation.

The Adam and Eve Story tells the story of ancient ancestors -- "adam" simply means "man" and the name Eve implies a priordial "mother of all living." In addition, it explains the sense of separation that many people (evidently not you) feel from the "Golden Age" or perfect state of existence that most cultures posit (most religious systems include some sort of delination myth to explain the existence of evil) and offers hope for an eventual reconciliation of mankind and creator.

The Flood/Rainbow and Promise stories all contain warnings against evil; a sense of God growing as a character in the narrative; and a promise he made to Creation to limit his own power -- it gave people a sense of security in, by the way, an area prone to severe flash floods.

The Tower of Babel story explains, for ancient peoples, the existence of separate peoples and languages. It also contains a warning against overweening pride and arrogance. A warning lost on many, to their detriment, I might add...

Jonah and the big fish (the narrative never calls it a whale, btw) is a very complex story that illustrates God's mercy; his desire to call all people unto him; the fact that he chooses to use human beings to accomplish his purposes -- human beings who have the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to his call; the futility of "hiding from God" and finally, mankind's smallness and God's hugeness.

And yes, most myths/fables/fairy tales have didactic purposes as well. All ancient stories are "real" in that sense -- in order to survive as ancient stories/myths, they have to have some inner truth and reality that makes it worthwhile for people to keep telling them and passing them to their offspring. Most ancient stories are true. And some of them actually happened.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 4:14pm

"You nailed my issue here. It's not about the child at all. It's all about glorifying the mother."

So, it's not about the child at all? The child receives no benefits at all? How so?

Do you really think that mothers breastfeed (especially exclusively and on an extended basis), babywear, co-sleep, SAH, etc. specifically to glorify themselves with absolutely no regard to the benefits that child receives? Sorry, but you are clearly and utterly misinformed here.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 4:16pm

"I'd say it's *still* the most convenient- it is our modern lifestyle and the commonality of mothers working away from their infants that makes other methods more convenient- not the nature of the method itself... :)"

Hear, hear!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 4:25pm

***I agree on both counts. But what is the long term detriment to children who aren't 100% breastfed?***

It depends on the child really. I'd say, if the mother is otherwise responsive and nurturing that there would be no long term detriment to the issue of breastfed-at-the-breast versus fed EBM via bottle. There *may* be some detriment to those who have been formula fed, depending on the child and their genetic susceptabilities etc. etc. etc.

***How much of life is really "ideal"?***

Not much ;)

***Why is the mother's convenience less important than what is ideal, to you?***

I don't think it is, necessarily- but in the case of best nutrition and immunologic benefit etc. versus mothers convenience, I'd say that need trumps 'want'- wouldn't you? I try to think of things as 'my children's -needs- come before my 'wants' but my -needs- come before their 'wants'...' And of course, there will be exceptions to almost everything, but generally speaking, that's MHO. I may argue the position of SAHM in the SAH/WOH debate, but in reality I am of the mind that everyone has to do their own thing based on their own situation ;)

***I personally would be bored and not challenged at all if all I did was SAH. I need the intellectual stimulation of WOH.***

I personally find being with my kids *extremely* intellectually stimulating and rewarding. (Of course, we're not literally "at home" most of the time, but that's another convesation alltogether and probably one I needn't go into ;) I find office work etc. to be boring and unchallenging ;) To each their own. (Meaning that sincerely, not as a smart-ass ;) I can only think of a few career options in which I'd find the satisfaction that I have with my kids, and those are out of reach until the kids are grown in my situation ;)

***If you WOH, you'd hire out some of the home work, your DH would do some of it, and/or it simply wouldn't get done at all or the same way it is now.***

I don't know many WOHM's who can afford to hire out the house work ;) You must move in more upper class circles I guess ;) My DH has enough on his plate with his own job- his involvement wouldn't change much. (He's extremely involved with the kids, but when it comes to the house- not so much- mostly the traditional "guy stuff"- repairs and so on...) More likely in my case it wouldn't get done or wouldn't get done as I like it to be- meaning it would be a large stressor for me.

***I don't care to cook, clean, sew, be the family chauffeur for every errrand, etc.***

:) Different strokes for different folks... I *love* to cook, do most cleaning etc. (Sewing isn't my forte, but hey- whatever ;)

***Yes, WOH FT has its stresses, but also great rewards.***

For those who find it rewarding, yes. I don't happen to be one of those people (for me). I'd constantly be thinking about the kids, what needs doing at home, etc. and preferring to be there and with them...

***I thrive on more stress than some people feel comfortable with.***

;) I like to keep things simple and relaxing. I'm not a fan of stress.

***You might have been a "stress ball" if you'd gone to law school, even without kids or husband - many people feel that way about advanced education.***

I'd feel that way about law school, but not necessarily about other avenues of advanced education. ;) University wasn't a big stress for me- I actually enjoyed it. But then, I enjoy education in its own right- not necessarily as a means to an end (career) but for personal enrichment. I'm picking my way through to my degree and eventually a Masters, just for the sake of doing it. ;) Some people skydive, I take classes... *chuckle* ;)

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 08-09-2005 - 4:27pm

Along that same line, should we just go ahead and give fast food the green light simply because it's more convenient, despite the lack of nutritional benefit and the poor nutritional value? ;) Do you feel it's OK to grab a Happy Meal for ones toddler because it's convenient? ;)

Wytchy

Pages