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
Thu, 07-28-2005 - 11:34am

"Why not do both?"

Because it isn't necessary. BTW, from post 566.

Again, What is the benefit of exposing infants and toddlers to an increased number of illnesses via group day care? Clearly, NORMAL (as opposed to increased) rates of minor illness is sufficient. Likewise, clearly exposure to minor illnesses via sibs and other family, the playground, the grocery store etc. is also sufficient.

Again, What exactly is the *BENEFIT* of increasing the number of actual illnesses they contract via group day care? Do young children somehow NEED to contract an *increased* number of *actual* illnesses? Do they somehow NEED to contract an *increased* number of *actual* illnesses via group day care specifically? I don't see any reason why.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Thu, 07-28-2005 - 11:35am

<<"Well, considering that on this board we're not allowed to give kids' names (**snort**) ..."


Really, well I happen to know that P&J's ds's names are Petey and Joey LOL. Also,many posters have their children's names in pics beneath their posts. >>


It's a reference to an earlier ridiculous discussion. Thus the *snort*. Obviously it was lost on you. No suprise.


<>


I do. She's talking about the older one. It really wasn't that hard to figure out.


<>


Her twins are both girls.


Choose your friends by their character and your socks by their color.  Choosing your socks by their character makes no sense and choosing your friends by their color is unthinkable.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Thu, 07-28-2005 - 11:36am

" Do they somehow NEED to contract an *increased* number of *actual* illnesses via group day care specifically? I don't see any reason why. "

Jennlfg posted a study a while back that addressed this exact point. I think it may have been related to this one

http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/leukemia_cancer_news.aspx?id=34016

The risk of one type of leukemia (acute lymphocitic leukemia) was found to be significantly decreased in children who attended dc. If it's the same study that Jen found, then the researchers found a nice dose response curve (if Jen is reading this, could you perhaps repost the link?) for time in dc vs. rate of leukemia. In other words, the longer the exposure to groups of children, the less likely the children were to develop ALL. It seems that increased exposure to illness (regardless of how often the kids actually exhibit symptoms) *is* critical for minimizing the risks of ALL.

Specifically group day care? Not necessarily...but it does seem to require fairly constant exposure to groups of children, not the occasional 1-2 hour playgroup or playdate, trip to the grocery store, occasional visit with family etc.. An older sib who is regularly in some kind of group care (preschool, school etc.) might do the trick. More to the point, though....the whole argument about nastiness of exposing children to more illness in dc is simply bogus. There are, in fact, advantages. Do they have to go to group care to get those advantages? Again, not necessarily. But I'm quite sure that ds did not get anywhere near the exposure to illnesses he probably needed when I was at home ft with him. Dd probably got better exposure since ds was in preschool when she was a baby and he brought home everything.

I personally thought the increased exposure to common illnesses was a good thing for my children. But then, I'm the sort of parent who doesn't own a single container of bacterial soap or carry wipes around for constantly cleaning hands.......

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 07-28-2005 - 11:37am

I really don't think you can compare the work you do now with the work that mothers did 100+ years ago before the technology figured in heavily in the majority of the households.


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Thu, 07-28-2005 - 11:38am

<>


You know, I don't think I know a single mom who actually put their child in daycare for that purpose. Actually, I don't even know a single mom who proactively considers that a benefit. However it is a very good, factual rebuttal when a superior SAHM insists that "Oh, but if I put my baby in daycare they'll be exposed to such nasty awful germs. That is so bad for them."

The JACKAL


Go to fullsize image

Choose your friends by their character and your socks by their color.  Choosing your socks by their character makes no sense and choosing your friends by their color is unthinkable.

Avatar for laurenmom2boys
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 07-28-2005 - 11:42am
<<(continual mother/child contact, exclusive bfing (no bottles), extended bfing, child-led weaning, co-sleeping (no cages/cribs), baby wearing, little to no use of substitute care)>> I didn't do any of those things. Please tell me how not doing those things have harmed my children? They're both very healthy. They're both very compassionate people. They're both intelligent. They're both affectionate. They're both really nice, normal kids. How much *better* (and define "better") is your child than mine just because you did those things and I didn't?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 07-28-2005 - 11:42am

<>

"Yes, it is natural for children to be cared for in groups situations, humans are afterall, biologically determined to be social creatures."

But I didn't ask if, "it is natural for children to be cared for in groups situations."

I asked if it, "it is *natural* for young children to be in group care, CARED FOR BY SUBSTITUTES WHO ARE UNRELATED TO THEM, FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME?"

Is there a reason why you answered only 1/3 of the question? Again, I think you need to read the link I posted again which clearly states that this type of care is NOT natural.

http://www.naturalchild.com/peter_cook/ecc_ch1.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 07-28-2005 - 11:44am

"i can understand designated parking spots for staff only but to prohibit the parking lot from parents and make it exclusive only to staff seems a bit extreme."

ITA! It does seem a bit extreme.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Thu, 07-28-2005 - 11:45am

I've had my hand smacked by mom3texas for putting my kid's first name in posts : "keep your throne cyducksmom and count all the times you have to include *John* in your debate.....some don't have to take it that low."


Apparently just *using* John's name is a low blow.....


It's been a running gag ever since.

Karen

"A pocketknife is like a melody;
sharp in some places,
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Thu, 07-28-2005 - 11:45am

<>


Why is that the point?

PumpkinAngel

Pages