Militants - are they for real?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Militants - are they for real?
3449
Tue, 04-14-2009 - 6:59pm

Someone on another board posted this link.
http://blogs.babycenter.com/celebrities/2009/04/12/dr-laura-says-all-moms-should-stay-at-home/?scid=momstodd_20090414_A:2&pe=2U8vYLf
It's about Dr. Laura saying that all women should be SAHMs until the child is at least 3 years old.

Whether we're talking about working or staying at home, I can't quite wrap my head around what is going on inside the brains of people that apply the phrase "all women should".

Do you think militants are actually serious, or just trying to get a rise out of others?

Photobucket

pregnancy calendar








Photobucket

Photobucket




Pages

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 11:07am

Ah, sure, even if it is only temporary. Taking the long view, it may still be a gain if you count over ten years, for example, rather than just the years when the kids are small and in daycare.

But I do know what you mean. Something else that took me aback when dd was small was the huge variation in cost (and quality) of daycare arrangements. Decent daycare cost anywhere from 275-400 a week (back then), but it was possible to get center care for around 150 as well (with untrained helpers who screamed at the kids all day long) and unlicensed home care with way too many kids and other problems for about 100. In that situation the mother in our example might be able to make a "profit" from working, but only if she were willing to put her kids in substandard care.

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 11:11am
Again, that would really depend. It is hard for me to imagine how a family of 4 making in the low 40s could be financially secure, i.e. 6 months of living expenses in liquid savings, retirement for both spouses, college funds for the kids, housing, clothing etc for 4. However, it may be possible in certain low-COL areas.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-06-2009
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 11:13am
I'm a family of two and when Iw as making in the low 40s a few years ago ti was really really hard.
Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 11:16am
Yes, that is what I would think. But it may be that it can make sense if you are not in CA or the north-east and you are not in a metro area.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2009
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 11:18am

Whoovillereject's whole attitude seems to be that every family needs to make in the high $50s rather than the low $40s to be financially secure, and I just don't agree with that view.

That all depends on where you live, also. The estimated median household income in my zip code in 2007 was $89,828.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2009
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 11:18am
At what level of household income would a family begin to see value in a SAHP, IYO?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 11:22am
I think NCLB is a far more likely culprit for this phenomenon than Mommy Olympics. Curriculum policy changes come from the top down, not the bottom up. For your hypothesis to be true, kindergarten teachers would have to be the ones making curriculum changes based on the skill levels they had been seeing of upcoming kindergartners. But kindy teachers don't make curriculum changes. And in this day of NCLB, I doubt that they have much leeway at all in curriculum regardless of what the kids know or don't know when entering kindy. NCLB is a more likely culprit because it affects all schools, not just those with Mommy Olympians in the parent pool, and it causes changes from the top down: all students are required to take the tests regardless of what public school they go to. That's going to drive curriculum change as administrators scramble to make sure that as many kids as possible can pass the test. I think that what we're seeing is because administrators are fearful of the tests and push as hard as they can as young as they can in the hopes of pushing up scores.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2009
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 11:24am
I think it all depends on the family and their expenses.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2009
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 11:26am
I stand by my opinion that a family would have to be pretty darned poor to see no value at all in having a SAHP, even if that was not the family's choice and even if choosing dual WOHPs was an easy choice.
Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Wed, 05-06-2009 - 11:38am

I don't think you can put a number on that and it depends on so many things other than just numbers.

But if we stick with numbers, to be secure and to be prudent a family should have, IMO, the aforementioned 6 months of living expenses in liquid savings, long-term retirement savings and savings to pay for college or other training for the kids. In addition they need health insurance and a decent place to live. The latter varies especially in price. There are places in Nebraska where you can buy a perfectly ok house for 40K. In NY, OTOH, 40K may get you a parking space if you are really lucky. So, are they in a house that cost 50K, 300K or 800K? Is rent for a 2BR apartment in their area 200 a month or 2000?

As for the non-number stuff, I have to say that I never had any desire to SAH. I did try it here and there because circumstances so demanded, and it always seemed pointless to me. OTOH, we also have a tailor-made work set-up that is non-traditional. In any event, my family would be one that would never consider having a SAH any kind of tenable long-term arrangement regardless of the financial situation.

Pages