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: 03-31-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:33pm
As long as you don't continue to use your, "50+ hours a week argument" I have no futher argument with your argument. When you tried to use it on the other board, I called you on it. When you tried to use it on this board, I called you on it. If you contiue to try to use it, I will continue to keep calling you on it. Just for the record, I don't think your argument is accurate in either situaion. In other words, I don't think it's accurate currently, or when your children were younger. As I've already stated, time spent not WOH doesn't necessarily equal time spent with kids. Clearly, you recanted your argument, saying that it did NOT apply currently. If you re-evaluate the ACTUAL time you spent with your kids when they were younger, I think you will realize that it did NOT apply then either. BTW, YES, I think we DO finally agree LOL. Younger childrern need more parental interaction time, where as older children need more peer time.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:34pm
But, in a way, it IS mean. Or can be.

If my child needs me, or wants me, I want him to know that I'll be there for him. And, as long as he doesn't appear to be crossing that imaginary line into manipulation, it would, IMO, be mean of me not to comfort him. Part of my job as a mother is to make sure my kids are *emotinally* safe and secure, not just physically.

But as I said, the other extreme is just as unappealing. Kids need to learn to comfort themselves at times. Kids need to learn that if they just relax and calm down, they can drift back to sleep.

The middle ground can be hard to find. I found it quite easily with dd. I still struggle at times with ds.

Hollie

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:36pm
Ok, this is beginning to bug me now. I didn't use CIO with the kids (ok, tried it for a week with ds and the crying went on for 3+ hours that week from beginning to end with no abatement...it wasn't worth the battle). The kids did sleep with us, at least they started in their own bed and came into ours at some point in the night and yes, I did nurse for 2+ years each kid (who each self-weaned around 2.5 years). There are a lot of good reasons to nurse past one year, not the least of which is the nutrition and the antibiodies (which don't just disappear after they turn one). And guess what? My kids get disciplined and denied things aplenty...remember me? I'm the one who would walk out of a restaurant with a crying child in a heartbeat, who doesn't think that my darlings have a right to inflict their tantrums on an unsuspecting public, who seriously limits access to tv and who has NO problem saying no to all sorts of hair-brained schemes the kids can get up to. Ask my 8yo ds and he'll tell you he NEVER gets to do what he wants or any fun things :-).

I don't actually have a particular problem with CIO methods, but I found that it didn't work for me the way it has worked with others so I dropped that battle. I didn't feel the burning urge to forcefully wean the kids (there was no way they were goin to happily wean on their own at that age) just because they turned 1...I did move they towards weaning when they were around 1.5 and they were done by 2.5. I scheduled them with sleep to a degree, but frankly, both kids fell into a pretty scheduled routine on their own without too much nudging from me. There is absolutely no relationship between extended nursing or lack of CIO and failure to discipline later. Both kids got plenty of "nos" from the time they were crawling.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-28-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:41pm
Very true.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 12:43pm
Well, I agree with you personally, because I did it somewhere in the middle too. But I wouldn't imagine telling someone else they are doing it wrong because they did it different. Just like, I can't imagine even *wanting* to use a bottle (because I'm lazy.. haha) but I wouldn't tell someone else they shouldn't. I couldn't imagine putting a baby in dc, but I wouldn't impose my ideas as what everyone should do. If that makes any sense.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 1:01pm
So, basically you're saying that CHILDREN are the ones who should be manipulated, rather than the other way around? Hmmm, children are young, what's YOUR excuse? It's disturbing when parents think it's completely unacceptable for CHILDREN to manipulate their parents, yet perfectly acceptable for PARENTS to manipulate their children. Kids at 6 months of age don't know any better. YOU, however SHOULD.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 1:26pm
If someone said based on their personal experience "almost all" women who bf past 3 years are doing it for some kind of non-sexual self gratification..... I would ask to see the data. There are so few women in this culture who do nurse past 36 months that it's difficult to find research on them or their children even if you want to. Since weaning before a year is considered "early weaning," and since pediatricians recommend that babies before a year be given formula to replace lost breast milk if they wean before a year, and since cross-cultural studies have shown that almost all babies in almost all cultures nurse past a year, I think it's reasonable to assume that almost all babies in normal circumstances are "wired" to nurse for at least a year.

I think my kids were around 10 months old when I introduced the cup. My kids did get diluted juice and probably water (can't even remember) from aIt's not the cup itself I had problems with, it was the suggestion that EBM from a cup is prefereable to delivery through the human breast.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 1:29pm
Nah, in this case it's me and the medical establishment. Ask an IBCLC.
Avatar for cyndiluwho
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 1:39pm
I have to agree. I can't even find where I was posting in this thread. I've given up. I'm sure whatever debates I was involved in will come back around, lol. This format makes it really tough to follow large threads. Too bad the powers that be didn't think to give us the ability to split threads apart.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Fri, 08-29-2003 - 1:44pm
No, they only ignore their babies when NOTHING is wrong. Many infants do NOT sleep through the night until well over the age of 1. Why do parents try so hard to achieve something that is biologically unnatural? What exactly are infants suppose to do, when they wake up and aren't sleepy, just lay there so their parents can get some sleep. I'm sorry, but having a child means that you are responsible for them at ALL times, even when you're exhausted. IN other words, infants DON'T NEED to sleep through the night, PARENTS NEED infants to sleep through the night. Sure there's a difference between a "hungry" cry and a "hold me" cry. Are you implying that there is something WRONG with a child's legitimate need to be held? It makes me angry, that parents are so willing to just flat out ignore their children. Not only that, they convince themselves that they are doing it for "the good of the child", when in fact, they are doing it FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. It's just plain disturbing, that parents come up with all kinds of convenient excuses, from manipulation to encouraging independence, as to why they choose to ignore their children. Basically, what it comes down to, is that parents think THEIR sleep is more important, than an INFANT'S need to be held. Guess what, I didn't "run in immediately every time my child made the slightest whimper." SHE WAS RIGHT NEXT TO ME. SHE didn't HAVE to "throw a fit", and "I" didn't HAVE to "run" anywhere. You seem to be forgetting, that NOT everyone puts their child in a crib. NOt only that, you don't seem to understand the underlying reason WHY people choose to co-sleep in the first place. Basically, mom gets what she wants (more sleep), and baby gets what she wants (to be held and/or comforted). Do kids really NEED to be independent at an early age? Is there some reason they NEED to learn to comfort themselves at 6 months old? Or is it all about what PARENTS NEED? GEEZ, kids are only young once. It's perfectly NORMAL as well as ACCEPTABLE for them to be DEPENDENT for a few short years. Why is it so hard for adults to understand and accept this? How selfish and egotisical can parents be? It's downright disgraceful.

Pages