How does this relate to the debate?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
How does this relate to the debate?
2771
Wed, 08-20-2003 - 7:56pm
Hey I rhymed! lol

Something occurred to me earlier and I wanted to see how others thought it might relate to the whole "which is harder SAH/WOH" portion of the debate that crops up so often.

I think that, when you look at either group *as a whole*, the WOHs might have it harder. And this is why ...

There are virtually no SAHMs who SAH because they "have to". There are virtually no SAHMs who are forced to SAH. A woman that SAH wants to SAH.(I'm sure there's a few exceptions out there; controlling dhs who MAKE their wives SAH, disabled children, etc) A woman that SAH doesn't hate her "job", or else she'd go get a WOH job. A woman that SAH is generally getting what she wants.

There are LOTS AND LOTS of WOHMs who WOH because they "have to". A single mom, or one whose dh doesn't make enough to support the family, or one with a disabled dh, whatever the case may be ... she may long, with all her heart, to SAH, but *can't*. Many WOHMs hate their jobs, but can't quit.

Anyhoo ... just wanted to stir up something new

Hollie

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 5:56pm
Yes my children drink cow's milk. They are 10 and 13 (14 in 2 days), so I don't think it's prudent to insist on breastmilk for them. They also have been incredibly healthy their whole lives, with doctors visits pretty much restricted to check-ups. Great immune systems, so weaning them at 10 months to a cup with cow's milk didn't have any detrimental effect on their immune systems.

Cows milk is good for their teeth too.

Why would you think that I thought bf'ing was sexual for anyone? When I said some women get off on it, I didn't mean sexually, I meant get off as in they might think they are ubermoms for nursing an unusually long time, or get off on the reaction that people have to 3 and 4 year olds nursing, sort of like a militant in-your-face breastfeeding attitude.

Just curious, if you are allowing your son to wean himself, and he really, really likes nursing, is there any age when you would want to put a stop to it, or will you allow him to continue indefinitely?


Edited 8/28/2003 6:01:39 PM ET by islimshady

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 6:00pm
That post was NOT intended for you, nor for all WOHM's. It was directed toward P&J. Why do you continually think I'm talking about YOU?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 6:06pm
LOL! So true!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 6:09pm
Imagine...a post a person can understand...how's that for an interesting concept.

I agreed with your post 100% about debating with PJM (hey, can she "hear" me talking about her? ROFL)...even though the two of us are from opposite ends of the spectrum, I have learned alot from her and think she has some major kick butt strength when it comes to standing up for what she believes in.

It's amazing how two people, who rarely agree on anything can have a stimulating conversation and actually understand each other.

Avatar for akpennington
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 6:12pm
"Perhaps that's not what it's about, but a byproduct of letting children decide when they (and you) will sleep is that you ARE being manipulated."

I'm not one of those that thinks babies manipulate, so I disagree. Cosleeping - here - started at birth with two of mine. Now that they're older, they fall asleep at pretty "normal" times. I didn't need to put them in a crib for that to happen.

"Perhaps you just don't like that term, but it's the truth. You aren't trying to get the child to adapt to your schedule, you are letting them dictate the schedule. That is the very definition of manipulation."

That's funny. My life isn't ruled by a strict 1pm naptime. But I'm the one letting their schedules dictate my life? Interesting. Being tired at x o'clock instead of being tired at y o'clock isn't manipulative. My children have created their own sleep schedules. As babies. So what? It's not affecting anyone negatively.



"I'm sure that that isn't the reason you don't want your kids on a schedule,"

I don't NEED them on a schedule. They don't NEED to be on a schedule. They (my children) have no need to be told when to be tired. When they're tired, they go to bed. And, surprise, they go to bed at reasonable times. So what?

"I'm sure you believe that it's wrong to coax kids into a regular sleeping and napping schedule,"

Why are you sure of that? We had no reason to coax them into a regular sleeping and napping schedule.

"and that letting them sleep where and when they want is a better option for some reason,"

My oldest liked sleeping in her crib by about 6 or 7 months? Amazingly, she was tired at pretty much the same time every day. My second started in a crib once she finally left the hospital. We weren't comfortable with an infant that size (I think she was barely at 5 pounds when she finally came home) in our big bed, she'd had episodes of apnea, and she wouldn't have been comfy in a bed anyway as she was already used to sleeping alone in an isolette. She slept in a bassinet right next to us until she was much older, and then she slept in a crib right next to her sister. She came home with ready made sleep intervals. She to started naturally sleeping at the same time every day. Number 3'll sleep anywhere he's tired. That's fine too. He stays up later that the older two but we're up anyway... so who cares? Everyone gets plenty of sleep. Everyone's happy.

"but the bottom line is, they're calling the shots, and you're along for the ride."

If I put my kids in their beds at 7pm everynight, they'd still fall asleep when they're tired. I don't have a problem with my kids sleeping when they're tired or not sleeping when they're not. I don't have a problem with other people putting their's on strict schedules. A schedule was unneccessary to us.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 6:13pm
Well, not even trying to bf is just plain gross imo LOL. Btw, I'm not implying that you didn't bf. I don't know if you did or not.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 6:15pm
well, we've gotten two kids through two years of college, so we're not doing badly, and we do have retirement put away. why would you ask such a thing. we're not rich by any stretch but if i had to be miserable to accomplish rich, i would rather "evaporate".

have i implied we have nothing? if i did, i didnt mean to. we're comfortable, and will be fine when we retire.

i dont understand the attitude one should sacrifice a lifetime of happiness for money.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 6:21pm
that and i think it has to do with when our parents(mine and tinzer's) were growing up. they only knew the chauvanistic lifestyle, and although they both worked, mom was a teacher, so we still only saw that side, and my parents were/are for the most part more passive than aggressive, and if the future was in math and science, they supported it. that is not to say they discouraged me from going into art, but the general attitude of the time is people who went in that direction were odd, not paid, and lived like paupers. i was not interested in that and could not see the forest for the trees.

the general attitude in society has come a long way, and it is hard to "break out" when your whole upbringing was geared in one direction.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 6:24pm
Just a helping hand here...

When slim said "we"...she meant some of us on the board who have stated over and over, ad naseum that your posts are hard to understand (which is not a bad thing, but it does place a requirement on you to keep explaining yourself) and I am really curious...

Are you not silverunity? You posted the following as if you were talking about another person:

<<(I can not believe how hot and bothered you are getting over silverunity)>>



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-28-2003 - 6:24pm
No. Because when SU said the OP's points were valid, she was implying (at that time) that she agreed with those points(wohms work for SUV's etc.). Even if she agreed with some of them, she was still buying into the stereotype of the WOHM. Hence, the "Stereotypes R Us comments.

Let's say a poster writes SAHM's are lazy, non-ambitious, overprotective women hiding from the real world yadda yadda. If I then chirped in with "you have some valid points", what do you think my postion would be? Do you think it would be too far-fetched for someone to say to me that I had been shopping at "SAHM Stereotypes R Us"

I don't think it would be far-fetched at all. As a matter of fact, it would be right on target. Because, within the example post I gave, I essentially agreed with the OP thoughts on SAHMs. And, by doing that, I am just as guilty buying into the stereotype as if I said it myself.

Pages