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: 11-25-2004
Tue, 08-02-2005 - 6:12am

As Mr. Spock would say "The needs of the many override the needs of the few". What if her working is good for the whole family? Do her wants still take center stage?

Yes, she claims they can afford it but is she thinking about it rationally? She also said they would have to cut back but didn't elaborate. Perhaps they would have to cut back things like college and retirement savings in order for her to stay at home. Perhaps they would be sacrificing their future for her now. Having once been a new mother, I can tell you you don't always look at things logically. You can't say he's putting more emphasis on money than family without knowing their finances. Perhaps it is he who has his family's best interest at heart and she is thinking only of herself.

Mothers can and do bond with their children while holding down jobs. Show me some evidence that suggests that working mothers don't bond as well as with their children as you imply.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Tue, 08-02-2005 - 7:40am

<>


If that's how you feel about your public school system, then I can see why you would homeschool. But, if that's how you feel about your public school system, then I can't see why your dd goes there. Personally, thankfully, our school system is nothing like what you describe above.


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: 03-27-2003
Tue, 08-02-2005 - 8:04am

According to my and everybody else's definition of homeschooling, I'm NOT homeschooling. I can only claim to be homeschooling if I use your incorrect definition. By your incorrect definition, I also claim that nearly every other parent alive is ALSO homeschooling. But back in reality, where homeschooling means you DON'T send the kid to school, I'm not homeschooling and neither are you.

edited to add: the homeschooling philosophy that I wrote as mine isn't really mine. It's just the generally accepted definition of "homeschooling". You are the one who has made up a definition not shared by anybody else.




Edited 8/2/2005 8:15 am ET ET by susannahk2000
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Tue, 08-02-2005 - 8:32am

Margaritaville, darlin'.


 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 08-02-2005 - 9:15am

A mother must wear her baby. A mother's body must be the only source of nutrients for her baby, then breastfeeding (not expressed breast milk) must continue for years. Mothers must cosleep with their babies. There must be contact between mother and child 24/7. Mothers who talk to their children (who also attend school) are "homeschooling".

This is more about the needs and ego of the mother than it is about the child.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 08-02-2005 - 10:14am

"Are you denying that your point in providing information showing that children in group care get sick more often was not to provide an example of a negative to group care?"

I posted an abstract from the NICHD study that shows that children get sick more often if they are in group care. I did so in order to allow people to draw their own conclusions regarding the study. You drew the conclusion that this was an example of a positive, in that early exposure to increased illness helps protect children from some forms of leukemia.

However, my conclusion was that it "unnecessary", that it's basically a question of risk/reward here. In other words, if you're asking me if I think the risk of exposing my child to an increased number of early illnesses is worth the reward of protecting her from some forms of luekemia (which let's face it, is a rarity in the first place) then I'd have to say no. I do not think that the risk is worth the reward.

THerefore, although you view the fact that children get sick more often if they are in group care, as an example of a positive, I (for the reasons outlined above) do not.

Where as you view the fact that children get sick more often if they are in group care, as an example of a potential "reward", I see it as an example of a potential "risk".

WHere as you see your argument as a reasonable explanation of why it is beneficial to expose children to an increased number of early illnesses, I see it merely as an excuse. Why? Because I do not believe that parents freely and knowingly choose to expose their children to an increased number of early illnesses (via group care) in order to reap the benefit of protecting them from some forms of luekemia.

Again, I see it merely as an excuse in that it's more about giving parents some kind of justification, reasoning, or piece of mind, than it is about giving children some sort of benefit or protection. As, savcal put it, "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" I think this quote says it all.

All in all, I would say that both arguments are fairly logical and well thought out. However, when it comes right down to it, each individual must decide which argument he or she agrees with. So once again, it is my on-going contention, that in the end, it is basically a matter of one's subjective perception of the situation. With that said, I guess the only thing left to do here, is to simply agree to disagree, as clearly neither one of us is going to change the others mind on this issue. Can you live with that? Let me know :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 08-02-2005 - 10:33am

"Yes, IMO, children being raised in a group consisting of unrelated individuals *is* a biological imperative."

You are still avoiding the two very specific questions I have posed to you. Why? Also, just for the record, your statement above does not address:

1. the issue of INFANTS and TODDLERS (under the age of 3).

2. the issue of FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME.

BTW, here are the two very specific questions from post 708 again.

"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: 04-21-2005
Tue, 08-02-2005 - 11:30am
Have you ever thought of joining an Amish community?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 08-02-2005 - 11:34am

***In real life, have you ever seen a father have a strong opinion about his wife working and it not really be necessitated by REALISTIC (vs unrealistic) financial assessment?***

Yes.

***However, I have never met a guy wanted their wife to WORK - for selfish reasons. It incurs too much additional work for himself to do - for it to be something to ask for and not be necessary.***

I know more than a few actually. A handful who want all the bells and whistles (to be able to afford the nicest car, the biggest cable package, have the best house on the block, send their kid various classes etc. (the overscheduled kid syndrome), etc. etc. etc. and then there are a few who feel that it teaches their child something about work ethic (forgetting that SAHM's work too).

***I have also seen women lose all ability to look at the longterm needs of their family, hyperfocusing on the first year or 2 or 3 whereas the father is thinking about 5, 10, or 20 years down the road.***

Sure- but can you say that's the case here? Can you honestly say that's the norm IYO?

***There is indeed a lot to be said for a close child/parent bond etc., but those can be attained by working parents as well as nonworking parents.***

Sure, but IMO it's alot more difficult and often it's all too easy to allow other things to take higher priority.

***However, try having all those good family moments when dear old dad is gone for weeks working 2 jobs, or mom & dad are constantly fighting over the looming debt that isn't going away, and you realize that emotionally caring for your child is firmly dependant upon taking care of your family financially, first (tho there is wiggle room there as in some feel saving for college is *necessary* others don't).***

There is a difference between putting undue burdon on ones spouse and managing ones finances in order to make SAH a practical reality. And frankly, for alot of women, after factoring in the costs of working, it's almost makes more financial sense to SAH. Now granted, if someone has mismanaged their finances to the point where they're in debt up to their eyeballs, bought far too much house/car etc. than they ought to have etc. then it becomes necessary for both parents to pick up the shovel and clean up their mistakes, and certainly there are situations where both parents *need* to WOH, but when someone says "we can afford it", I tend to take them at their word rather than accusing them of being clueless or having lost sight of reality... But maybe I'm an optimist that way :)

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Tue, 08-02-2005 - 11:39am
Or how about "The Village"?

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.

Pages