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: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 11:51am
Your post outnumber mine at least 5 to 1. So, apparently, this board is taking up much more of your thoughts than mine.

I think you and your "internet friends" need to do some remedial math as well as english.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 11:51am
So you're sad, disgusted and offended. Like I care.

BTW, you're damn right I got my children to adapt to my schedule and guess what, I feel absolutely ZERO guilt for doing so. I wasn't going to be run ragged by my children. Don't be too upset, I have great kids whom I love and who love me very much.


Edited 8/29/2003 11:56:47 AM ET by islimshady

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 11:54am
I stand by my statement. I think it is just plain gross that many mothers NEVER even consider the idea of bfing. Likewise, I think it is just plain gross that many mothers NEVER even attempt to try to bf. Why is that? Why is it, that eventhough breastmilk is the best possible source of nutrition for babies, mothers still choose to ff? Why would anyone WANT to give their baby an inferior source of nutrition? I just don't get it?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:03pm
It's kinda "creepy" how *her* thoughts are consumed by us! Given the sheer number of responses she has given each and every one of us, I would venture to say it would be borderline obsessive. Oh, and don't forget her "internet friend's and onlooker's" thoughts. Apparently, "they" are keeping tabs also.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:08pm
Infants and children are perfectly capable of manipulation. It's like when a toddler asks for ice cream, and you say no, and they throw a tantrum. If you ignore the tantrum, they likely will only throw one 2 or 3 more times. If you eventually give in, they learn that throwing tantrums *works* when trying to manipulate your parents to give you ice cream. (Or whatever) Sometimes infants cry at night because they are hungry, or have a wet diaper. But once they are an older infant, they figure out that if they cry, mommy will come in and hold them. You may say it's "mean" to not come in to a crying child, but I think it's unkind to not let a child learn to comfort his or herself by the time he/she reaches a certain age. It helps them to not be frightened when they wake up, and also they sleep better because they no longer have to throw a fit every time they wake up slightly in the middle of the night. If you don't like CIO, at least "wean" them from night waking by going in and patting their back instead of picking them up.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:12pm
Absolutely. It's that same attitude that results in parents who think it's mean to dicipline and deny their children. They'll find out, eventually.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:15pm
I know some kids like that. The poor things practically beg for discipline. (If you can imagine that) Children really don't like not having boundaries. It makes them feel unsafe.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:22pm
But there IS a middle ground.

I don't/didn't let my kids CIO. But I didn't run and carry them back to my bed at the slightest whimper.

I think the key is finding a balance between the two extremes. IMO, the extreme at the far end of the CIO road is just as bad as the extreme at the far end of the give-in-every-time road.

Avatar for akpennington
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:26pm
There are so many ways to deal with sleep in babies/toddlers.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:28pm
I don't know, I don't think people who CIO necessarily ignore their babies if something is really wrong. But as you probably know, there is a difference between the i'm hungry/something is wrong cry and the I just want mommy to come get me cry. I really don't have an opinion on what people *should* do, I was just trying to counter the opinion that anyone who doesn't run in immediately every time their child makes the slightest whimper is mean to their children. (She was borderline implying that it is abuse)

Pages