Kids as an "excuse" to stay home
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 08-15-2008 - 2:16pm |
No one would likely ever admit to this...but what percentage of women who stay at home, and have no plans to ever return to the work force, or to do more than work PT...stay home because of the kids, but also for the major fact that they simply don't want to work?
I don't love my job every second, and there's definitely jobs out there that I don't think I could get out of bed for every day. But the idea of never working again, and being completely dependent on my spouse...kind of blows my mind. I realize not everyone's of the same ilk, and one's not better than the other.
I do wonder how many of the women who go on and on about how great it is to be home with the kids, are primarily just relieved to not have to punch the clock every day in addition to being mom.

Pages
>>So I'm really curious as to who said nothing occurs while parents are at work?
And I'm pretty sure that there's no post for her to point to. I felt as though it was pretty clear that she was being tongue in cheek and using hyperbole for effect, to counter the statement of SAHMs who act like all these first ONLY happen during working hours.
So I do not see the need to ask her to directly attribute/support her quote.
However, given the answers Rhonda gave to my other questions, what I am questioning is why even say it to begin with? Sure, there's an element in hyperbole in the original statement too, but her response about WOHs seems to imply that she falls down on the side of the debate that there ARE meaningful, significant things being missed and all these WOHs are in denial. Which is not true, apparently, given her other responses to me.
Rhonda, I should have written this to you, I guess, in the other post I directed towards you. I am thinking that while, yes, you *have* been participating in debates on both sah and woh 'sides' (I use the term sparingly), your positions don't always seem congruous. Sometimes you seem to be making a point to support your broader view, and in others its just to make the point (or to say 'gotcha' to someone) and the gotcha contradicts a position you espoused earlier in that thread or a different one. Which, frankly, is none of my damned business either way, but it is confusing, particularly when different messages come in the same thread.
My point I suppose is that you seem to take very seriously the places where you view others on the board tend to 'overreact', intentionally take a statement to its extreme interpretation when it is pretty obvious that the extreme was not intended, etc. And, frankly, I agree with you. But then you seem to fall in to using those exact same devices yourself. And sure, I guess you could be telling me it's all a training device for the rest of us to show us what you meant, but I think there are better ways to make the same point.
Just my 2 cents and absolutely none of my business. Never stopped me before from blabbing, though...
'I
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>>On this board there seems to be a "need" (for a lack of better term) for a little more balance (JMO, by the way) for the sake of debate.
And I do see your point. Although, I would take exception with the attitude that others (and frankly I can't remember if you too) have taken that suggest that the big, bad, evil WOHMs on the board drum out all legitimate debate.
In my opinion, too few of the SAHMs who appear to feel strongly about SAH put much effort into reasoned, effective debate. Certainly some of the people you've been 'jumping in with' are easily seen as consistently going with the hyperbole for attack, parsing of phrases and wording to an excess while ignoring the crux of the argument, ignoring counter arguments and questions from anyone that makes a rational counter point, etc.
I haven't been posting here long, but have been lurking and reading for years --- I'm pretty darned confident that I've seen strong, well-articulated SAH debate points in the past, but most of the current crop of strong position holders are long term, multiple identities, same-old-hate-laden, I-like-to-bait-but-haven't-said-anything-new-in-years people --- they eventually degenerate into spewing invectives, get kicked off iV for TOS, and then come back under new names and start over, pretending all the while that none of us have any idea who they are. There are at least 2, maybe 3 active posters right now of that ilk.
So, again, not even sure why I am writing all this since it really is none of my business, except that I really do like your posts and I do think you put more thought in to the debate and nuance than that other 'crop'. It just --- what am I trying to say ---- 'reduces' (?) your otherwise effective arguments when so tightly associated with posters that aren't ever going to benefit from another person on their 'side' - they LIKE being spiteful and intentionally obtuse whenever anyone challenges them.
(written FWIW with the intention of just relaying my thoughts, not trying to come across as somehow judging...)
I do understand. I had always interpreted your posts to mean you had not missed anything with missed being an emotional thing--you had not missed anything meaningful. I misunderstood bizzy mom's post to mean she was claiming someone said they never missed anything at all, logistically speaking.
My misunderstanding apparently. I did not realize not missing anything on an emotionally level even though you acknowledge missing things logistically was so far-fetched.
>Actually, I believe there is another poster here who has said pretty much the same (that they didn't miss anything) but since I don't have the post number, I won't name them. Maybe later I'll find the post ;)<
I don't remember if I was one who posted that I didn't miss anything but I could have. I really don't feel that I have missed anything. As far as I'm concerned, the first time I saw anything was the first time even if I knew that dh, the other siblings, grandparents, or dc saw the actual "first". And I'm that "unsensitve" parent who, while I won't necessarily say "cool" would say "it's about time; he's been practicing that forever". I was more excited about Dylan's Kindergarten experience than I was about any of his first. But then, his Kindergarten experience was also my first Kindergarten experience.
Chris
The truth may be out there but lies are in your head. Terry Pratchett
Wait a minute.....no one said it?
PumpkinAngel
Well at first that is what I was thinking, but then she stated a poster by name and perhaps another one, than backtracked on that...so now I'm not so sure.
PumpkinAngel
"(As an aside, 0-5 is much shorter than 5-18. And I'm not saying its less important when they get older, just that when they are YOUNG, they are into being with Mommy. Now that they're older, they still like me to be *around*, they just don't want to be *with* me LOL!). "
I have to say that this is not the way it has panned out with my now 16yo (well, 16 in a few weeks). When she was little she wanted to PLAY, be outside, be with friends, LOVED preschool and her daycare provider's house. I never remember her being "into" being with me, as long as she had food, shelter and play mates, the caregiver was not that important. Now she is much more insistent on having specifically my company, my opinions etc.
Pages