how do i convince my husband
Find a Conversation
how do i convince my husband
| 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
I agree that finding a middle ground is the way to go. And I'm lucky-my dh and I work very well as a team and have rarely had trouble getting to that middle ground. He never forbids me to do anything, but does point out the disadvantages to it.
On the other hand, I dated a guy who totally forbade me to do something that was very important to me, even though I was doing my best to find some middle ground. I finally just told him I was doing it whether he liked it or not. (btw it was taking some college courses) We were living together so I suppose he was my SO.
Sometimes reaching that middle ground is tough but it's best for the family...I suppose both have to put aside their emotions and look at things logically and rationally.
"trying to 'forbid' her like a parent rather than a partner, then she needs to do what she can to preserve her mental wellbeing and remind him that he doesn't have the final say, nor is she asking his permission, but rather his *input*. "
How would she feel if her DH just quit tomorrow and said "I really can't bear to be away from the baby...I want to SAH. You're just going to have to work. Sorry! It's for my mental well-being"
Why does the man have to be the default provider? Why does she get to make the choice for HIM that he's going to have to make with less and be the sole provider?
Sorry I'm so late on this, it's been a busy day....
"If this study were really given great weight by the medical community, shouldn't we have seen a rush of responsible parents (both sahp families and those using nannies and relative care) registering for group dc"
It was published in (iirc) the British Medical Journal, it doesn't really get more mainstream than that. I'd publish the whole article but unfortunately I don't have access to this journal ($$$). In any case, should I really list off the number of things that are given great weight by the mediccal community and soundly ignored by responsible parents :-)? Let's see....breastfeeding, no juice before age one (and then limited), no citrus before age 1 etc. etc. No, I'm not really surprised that this particular connection hasn't caused parents to rush their kids off to group dc before age 1. I'm frankly not sure that it should cause parents to rush their kids off to group care (in an overall cost-benefit analysis, it may not necessarily be the best choice for the family). It's an interesting view on the whole "I don't want my kids exposed to all of those germs in dc when they are too young" feeling, though.
" This is your area so maybe you can explain how repeat exposure to colds, the flu, stomach viruses and other illnesses common among younger children in dc would decrease the incidence of leukemia? IOW, what does the cold and flu have to do with cancer?"
Actually I think this is more exactly Susannah's area since she's a microbiologist (I'm more of a cell biologist and don't have anything to do voluntarily with bacteria or viruses (they ruin my beautiful cells :-)). But I'll see what I can do....
I think Jennlfg gave an excellent answer to this question. Basically, the theory is that the earlier certain kinds of cells are activated the less likely some mistake will happen during the activiation. One hot topic in this area, for example, is the idea of programmed cell death (apoptosis). All cells in the body eventually die, hopefully via apoptosis because this is a much less destructive method to the surrounding tissue than other kinds of death.
One theory about cancer is that cancer starts with cells that suddenly have lost the ability to die via apoptosis...essentially, they have become immortalised and just never stop growing. One of the mistakes that might happen with cells that are finally activated rather later than expected (from a biological point of view) is that the apoptotic switch (for lack of a better term here) somehow got shut off or wasn't activated.
"Also, I'm confused about the exposure to illness in group care and increasing the child's immune system. Aren't cold and flu viruses always mutating? (I remember a winter 2 years ago in the US where parents panicked because they couldn't get the flu vaccine for their kids. Later, we were told, the flu virus causing so many illnesses and a few deaths that particular year was not even preventable by the vaccine - the deadly virus that year had mutated from an earlier flu virus.)"
Cold and flu viruses do mutate all the time and there are hundreds out there, but the mutations don't always affect the immune system's ability to recognise and deal with the mutated viruses. Basically (ok, this is going to be a bad analogy, but it's the best I could do as I couldn't find any good links in the quick google search I did) it's like building up a set of skeleton keys. Each time a young child is exposed to a virus, the immune system reacts and remembers what that virus looked like so that it can more effeciently deal with an invasion the next time (this is the basis for vaccines to certain kinds of illnesses, those don't usually mutate much are relatively easy to design vaccines for in general). If a virus then mutates in such a way that it still looks familiar to the last version (kind of like the way a skeleton key works on a new lock that it wasn't originally designed for because it sort of fits), the immune system will be able to react much more quickly and supresses the virus before symptoms start.
Young children on average get 8-10 colds per year (many without symptoms). By the time they hit school age or older, they have built up a nice set of "skeleton keys" in their immune system. Even though viruses are constantly mutating, with any luck most of the mutated versions will look similar enough to what the immune system has already encountered so that an actual illness does not occur. Unfortunately, not all of the mutations are so nice....which is why adults still get colds (2-3 per year on average) and why entirely new strains of the flu can suddenly show up and previous vaccines become useless. Vaccine production for influenza is pretty much a crap-shoot in any case, scientists have to guess what's going to hit big the next year in order for companies who produce the vaccine to have enough time to build up production. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it spectacularly wrong (and sometimes an entirely unforseen version of the flu turns up out of nowhere.....).
"Soooo, accepting that a child's immune system will be strengthened in dc, won't they be just as open to the new viruses that are newly mutated as will the child whose immune system wasn't strengthened in dc?"
Not necessarily. As I explained above, the child who has been exposed more to illnesses from an early age will have more tools (on an immunological level) to deal with future viruses and bacteria than a child who wasn't exposed as much because the mutations do not always fool the keys that have been built up by the earlier exposures.
"(complete with footnotes and references to the latest studies)"
I'll see if I can dig this up for you sometime, but dh is desperate to set up a new internet system and is hanging over my shoulder waiting for me to be done with this post :-).
These hilarious
Haikus are making me laugh
so hard, I may pee
Most often (not always) when one becomes a sahp they are requiring the other parent to assume total financial responsibility for them and the children. That is a responsibility that one has to take on by choice not one that another adult can force on another. In my mind that gives the person who is going to continue working the greater say. I am an adult, my dh has agreed that for our family it is best that I sah and he support me financially, if he were to decide he no longer wanted to do that, as an adult I am responsible for my own financial support, I would go find a job.
I agree that working this out together is the best way, but she really cant tell him he has to support her, as an adult that is her responsibility. Perhaps she should have discussed this before having a child.
Jennie
I'm not saying that she should just quit and spring it on him as your example illustrates- but it *is* ultimately her decision. Just as it is ultimately *his* decision whether he stays in *his* current profession or changes career paths (and salaries). Why should it be her to SAH? Well, I don't see her saying anywhere that he's expressed an interest in doing it himself, and in fact she says that he wants her to work for one more year- as opposed to what? Seems to me the alternative is *not* working.
Wytchy
<>
First of all, I disagree. However, she isnt' want to change career paths and salaries but get rid of said career path and salary.
The JACKAL
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.
Jennie
Maybe I'm missing something here, but her post says he wants her to work for one more year... As opposed to what, exactly? Sounds to me as if they *have* discussed it. That the issue is really *timing*.
Wytchy
Jennie
Pages