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
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 3:05pm

"Is it "a biological imperative" for INFANTS and TODDLERS (under the age of 3) to be have constant mother/child contact? to be exclusively breastfed? To be cared for only by relatives?"

Did I say that it was?

Perhaps you're referring to jennlfg's statement in post 626?

"I would say that not only is it "natural" for children to be cared for in groups by/with unrelated individuals, it is a biological imperative."

Avatar for myshkamouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 3:22pm

If the issue is money, sit down and take a look at the finances and then cut back where he's least likely to notice."

So your advice is deceive him? That's a great example to set for the child..not to mention horrible for the relationship!

"(Also- are you breastfeeding? That would be a very good reason to stay at home- you don't need to worry about finding time to pump during your workday or whether you'll respond well *to* the pump, or whether baby will even *take* a bottle...)"

I worked part time for 7 of the 14 months I BF my twins. They didnt touch formula ever.
Pumping isnt a big deal.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 3:29pm

I didn't say, or imply, that you said it was a biological imperitive. However, you keep stating it is *natural* to do so. Then in the post I responded to, you substituted *biological imperitive*. So, can we substitute biological imperitive for your posts as well?


The point reall is this ... if you ask us for proof or support that it is a biological imperitive to have (in your words) "other care", then you should be willing to provide us the same proof or support for *your* view. Which you obviously aren't willing, or are unable, to do.

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 3:31pm

"Hmmm....interesting that you forgot to add that your "homeschooling" is in addition to an entirely unecessary 30+ hours per week of regular school."

Ahh, but she didn't ask whether I send my dd to school, now did she ;)

BTW, could you please explain why you think homeschooling, in addition to the 30 (not 30+ btw) hours per week of regular school my dd attends (during the regular school year of course), to be "entirely unecessary" for her LOL?

Surely, you can acknowledge that there are many, many learning opportunities and experiences available to children, both at home and in the community? Surely, you aren't suggesting that "learning" can and should only take place within the classroom?

Is there any particular reason why she shouldn't be homeschooled, after school, on the weekends, and over breaks and holidays when school is not in session? If she enjoys it, I enjoy it, and her dad enjoys it, what exactly is the problem here? I certainly can't of any reason(s) as to why it would be a problem LOL :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-21-2005
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 3:38pm

"Yes, not only are these practices more "natural", but there is also considerable reason to believe that they are also more "beneficial" as well. "

Do you have any proof other than articles from this very biased source? I'm sorry, but I need more than "a considerable reason to believe".

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 3:43pm

"I didn't say, or imply, that you said it was a biological imperitive. However, you keep stating it is *natural* to do so. Then in the post I responded to, you substituted *biological imperitive*."

Where did I make such a substitution?

"So, can we substitute biological imperitive for your posts as well?"

No, you cannot, which is specifically why I addressed this topic as two separate questions in post 708.

BTW, here is post 708 again.

"I would say that not only is it "natural" for children to be cared for in groups by/with unrelated individuals, it is a biological imperative."

Again, let me be more specific then.

Is it "natural" for INFANTS and TODDLERS (under the age of 3) to be in group care, CARED FOR BY SUBSTITUTES WHO ARE UNRELATED TO THEM, FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME? How so?

Is it "a biological imperative" for INFANTS and TODDLERS (under the age of 3) to be in group care, CARED FOR BY SUBSTITUTES WHO ARE UNRELATED TO THEM, FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME? How so?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 3:44pm
I don't think she meant cut back and not tell him, I think she meant cut back in areas where it is least likely to affect him.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 3:46pm

Actually, you read that sentence wrong. The "unecessary" part referred to the 30 hours of public school. Since (as you often have stated in the past) she doesn't learn anything at school (that's what she does at home with homeschooling, right?) and the teachers are in no way responsible for providing her with any kind of care (teachers don't take care of children at all they only teach them), her attendance at a regular school serves no purpose that could not be fulfilled by you with her at home. If I recall correctly, the only reason you send her to school is so that she can play with her friends. I can't imagine what is stopping you (and her) from making sure that she can play with friends after school hours...especially since there are many families who are perfectly able to fulfill all of their children's social needs while homeschooling ft without the added hours in a regular school. Hence her entirely unecessary attendance away from your presence for 30 hours per week.

Nothing wrong with unecessary if she enjoys it, but school is clearly neither biologically necessary nor does it fulfill any function for your daughter....it merely makes *your* life easier so that you don't have to do the work that would otherwise be needed to fulfill your daughter's social needs(work that loads of ft homeschooling families manage without much effort).

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 3:53pm

"The point reall is this ..."

"The point reall"???

"if you ask us for proof or support"

I didn't ask you. I asked jennlfg.

"that it is a biological imperitive to have (in your words) "other care","

What do you mean (in my words) "other care"?

"then you should be willing to provide us the same proof or support for *your* view."

And what view would that be?

"Which you obviously aren't willing, or are unable, to do."

Why would I offer proof or support of a claim that I did not make?

Surely you can acknowledge the difference between "natural" and "a biological imperative"?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 3:59pm
Ok Humpty Dumpty. Everybody knows that there are lots of educational opportunities outside the classroom. But when everybody ELSE uses the term "homeschool", they mean "instead of" not "in addition to" public/private school. When you use it to mean "in addition to", you ought to understand that literally every single poster on this board and nearly all parents also "homeschool" according to your overly broad definition.

Pages