If you hadn't had kids...
Find a Conversation
If you hadn't had kids...
| Thu, 05-20-2004 - 10:34pm |
And your dh made enough $$ to support both of you comfortably, do you think you would be working?
| Thu, 05-20-2004 - 10:34pm |
Pages
Thanks for your permission.
"But don't use your dd "needing" you to SAH as your reason and then turn around and spell out how she does everything by herself."
Just for the record, I can use any reason I want. BTW, surely you realize that the needs of an infant differ from the needs of a 7 year old right? In other words, surely you can acknowledge that a 7 year old would obviously be more independent than an infant?
"You are the one that said she NEEDED you to SAH."
Actually, I said that my SAH benefits the both of us.
Sure they can, but some of us militant SAHM's just so happen to feel that giving our children our *time* is more important, rewarding, fulfilling, etc. than giving them our *money*. I guess it just depends on what you value. In our case, my dh's salary provides us with plenty of financial security and stability. It simply isn't necessary for *both* of us to provide financial security and stability when it's already effectively and efficiently done by *one* parent.
In other words, we specifically arranged/designed our family situation to have a Primary Breadwinner and a Primary Caregiver/Nuturer, rather than two WP's, as we place a great deal of value on this type of arrangement. Simply put, a second salary would afford my dd nothing she doesn't already have. Sure, I could WOH to provide her with more *stuff*, but why? What purpose does an overabundance of material things serve? BTW, I'm not saying that every family with two WP's does so simply to provide more stuff, but in our case, that is what a second income would be used for. Therefore, it simply made more sense to have a Primary Breadwinner and a Primary Caregiver/Nuturer, rather than two WP's.
"Dc becomes a benefit if both parents working will increase SES."
I would have to disagree. As I have already pointed out, an increase in SES, is simply not necessary in all situations, and as such, dc would not always be a benefit. In fact, if you look at dc realistically, an increase in SES, is not the *only* factor to consider here. You do realize that the majority of dc situations are not considered to be *high quality*, but rather of *low quality*, due to a number of factors: high child/caregiver ratios, high turnover rates, large group sizes, lack of caregiver education/training, etc. BTW in case you're wondering all of these factors = inconsistent/low quality care.
"One of the reasons my kids will be able to go to college is that they went to dc as babies. Because I didn't break employment when they were born, they're set. "
Hmm, my dd's being "set", has nothing to do with my employment. Again, in our case, my employment isn't necessary to provide financial security and stability, nor is it necessary in order to be able to send my dd to college. Clearly, having two WP's is simply not necessary in all situations.
"We wouldn't live where we live if I had quit my job. We'd still be living in the city in a neighborhood where you can't go out and play because it's too rough and you can't use the parks because of broken glass and needles in the grass."
I understand what you are saying here, however as I have already pointed out several times, having two WP's is simply not necessary in all situations.
"My dd's have benefitted from having attended dc from the time they were wee babes."
And my dd has benefitted from *not* having attended dc from the time she was a wee babe.
Umm, that would be Chinese :)
Do you not see a huge difference between an *infant* or *toddler* in FULL TIME (40+ hours per week) YEAR ROUND dc/substitute care, and a 6 or 7 year old in school 6 hours a day 7.5 months of the year? Don't you think that *AGE* and *TIME SPENT IN CARE* are significant factors here?
BTW, just for the record, DC is NOT school, it's dc/substitute care. In other words, children under the age of 3, do NOT go to school. They go to dc/substitute care.
"Actually we have had a discussion along this lines, to have a debate you would have had to make actual points and answer all questions of you but alas you didn't. What we left it at was you DON'T homeschool, but closer to unschooling"
And your point is ??? Yes, we homeschool/unschool. Call it whatever you want, we still do it LOL.
"and when it boils down to what you do....most of us don't need to give ourselves a lofty title or call it by any other name than involved parenting. If you remember....myself and others do the EXACT same thing you call homeschooling."
I don't need to give myself a lofty title either (btw, what lofty title would that be anyway)? Why should I, why not simply call it what it is: homeschooling. And yes, EVERY parent should do the EXACT same thing.
Because I don't want to be a substitute. I prefer to volunteer my time, on my schedule.
"Why? I work 30 hours a week and I volunteer more than that for school alone..its not a big stretch."
Because my volunteer time is spent IN THE CLASSROOM, and I can't very well work and volunteer IN THE CLASSROOM 3x a week.
"How? Maybe your dd WANTS to go to camp or WANTS to go the aftercare program....have you asked?"
Sure, I've asked her if she wants to go to dc aftercare. But alas, she said no. Why would a child want to go to dc, when they could be at home instead? Don't kids generally go to dc because their *Parents* need them to? How many kids do you think would actually choose dc over home? Furthermore, what are the implications of kids choosing dc over home? How many kids do you think *actually* get to make the choice themselves? Things that make you go hmm....
<>
Of course I see the difference, not huge but a difference and difference does not always mean negative you know.
PumpkinAngel
<>
<>
Okay...and your point is?
PumpkinAngel
Pages