RTA to mygriffin and OTBM

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
RTA to mygriffin and OTBM
8
Wed, 03-26-2003 - 11:53am
In yesterday's board, OTBM said to mygriffin that we (I presume WOHMs) will never "get it."

Is what we're so dense about the fact that different mothers have different preferences for how they organize their lives - how much they work, where, at what time of day, etc.? Or is it when we probe why, for instance, you'd rather work at night from 8-11 instead of use more or any daycare, that we don't understand because we have "cookie cutter lives"?

I am not criticizing your choices, trying to understand them. My position is that if you want to work or have to work, you should enjoy some things as a result of that. Like for instance hiring a cleaning service once in a while or regularly, if not now then when you are older (or have the financial option of doing so). Or knowing that you have unexpected expenses better covered. I know there are WOHMs who work just to put food on the table, not for any financial cushion. And I know that some SAHMs have a financial cushion without working. I was making a point about a perk of working that I enjoy and that I hope more people could enjoy.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Avatar for outside_the_box_mom
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-26-2003 - 1:18pm
Well, that is what you don't get.

I work part-time to enjoy my son MORE.

I don't want to work full-time and see him LESS just so I can have a housekeeper.

A housekeeper is not what I consider a "perk." My perks are 1) flexible schedule 2) sitting in my own office I painted myself 3) taking a break in the middle of the afternoon to walk my dog 4) picking my son up at 3:00 and sitting on the couch and eating popcorn together after school.

Do you understand now?

outside_the_box_mom -- who just spent 30 minutes outdoors with her dog

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-26-2003 - 1:26pm
Yes. You are making two different points. I know you don't want to work FT just to have a housekeeper. I dare say no one works FT just to have a housekeeper. No disagreement there.

And secondly, you don't even consider affording a housekeeper a "perk." I did not get that before. What I thought you were saying was that you were willing to make other tradeoffs so you wouldn't have to pay for a housekeeper, not that you didn't even consider being able to afford a housekeeper a perquisite.

Thanks for explaining. We don't agree, but at least I get your point now.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 03-26-2003 - 2:39pm
I think you're talking apples and oranges. I think what petey was saying was that if you DO work full-time you might as well have a perk from it.

I, too, would work pt if I could. But I can't (due to lack of pt jobs in this area and the cost of pt dc vs ft dc). So, since I work fulltime, I might as well get a perk or two out of it.

I don't think petey meant that people work FOR the perks. But that if you are working ft, go ahead and get the perks. And in the case of a housekeeper, the perk is double. One, you get your house cleaned and two, it gives you more free time (or family time.)

Anyhoo,

Hollie

Avatar for mygriffin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 6:18pm
Your probing comes off like you just don't see HOW we could want to SAH for ANY amount of time. "Go to work. You get perks!! Your kids don't really need you! And you spend the same amount of time with them if you work anyway....etc., etc."

What don't you understand about my not wanting to use daycare? About my not wanting to spend 50+ hours a week away from my young children? Maybe you just DON'T get it. And that's fine.

I don't come up with theories and studies to prove my SAH is better than working. I simply apply what the FT WOHMs say about SAHMs to the WOHMs' lives as well. (ie: If WOHMs say that cleaning takes a SAHM's attention from her kids. Cleaning must also, in turn, take a WOHM's attention from her kids. If SAHMs spend more time fostering friendships and doing hobbies, it makes sense that any friendships and/or hobbies a WOHM has must also take her attention from HER kids.) See what I mean? That's all I was pointing out. I just really have a hard time with the "WOHMs spend as much time with their kids (minus 24 minutes) as the average SAHM." I just don't see it, but I'm not going by any "study" I've read. I'm going by my life.

My husband doesn't spend as much time with my kids as I do. It's ridiculous.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 7:10pm
Here's a WOHM that agrees with you. Only with a slightly different perspective.

<>

I agree that it goes both ways. And totally understand what you're trying to say. I too don't want to provie my WOH is better than SAH; only that it works best for my family right now. However, I don't necessarily believe that a mom spending time doing something other than direct-kid-involvement is taking anything *away* from the kids. Sure, if you're out bowling (could be a SAH or a WOH activity), you're not spending those moments with your kids. But that doesn't mean you're necessarily taking something *away* from them. Especially in the sense that because a mom does that (or works, or volunteers, or goes drinking with the gals), that her kids are missing out on something or suffering.

<>

I do too. Of course I'd spend more time with my kids if I SAH. Whether that would benefit them in their overall raising (we do after all, have 18+ years to consider here), I don't know. I tend to think not.

Hollie

Avatar for outside_the_box_mom
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 7:34pm
Well said. nt
Avatar for mygriffin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 7:34pm
I think I used the wrong word when I said "take away."

<>

There are plenty of times when I don't have direct-kid-involvement. I don't think kids need their parents 24/7 so I don't think not having 24/7 kid involvement matters. It was a WOHM who said "Well, you might be physically near them, but you're not interracting with them any more than a WOHM because, on the average, SAHMs spend more time cleaning, fostering friendships, doing hobbies, sleeping, etc." My response was solely to point out that SAHMs have X amount of hours each weekday with their kids. WOHMs have X amount. If cleaning, friendships, hobbies and sleep cut into a SAHM's time with her kids, then those activities must also cut into a WOHMs time with her kids. There was no mention of kids suffering. They don't suffer when I clean OR when I go out with my friends.



<>

Right, but no where in my point was there mention of more time with mom being beneficial to kids. It's beneficial to ME to be with my kids more, but I can't prove how it benefits them. But again, I was just NOT understanding how it can be said that WOHMs spend the same amount of quality time with their kids as SAHMs on weekdays. It's such a generalization, and one that my family doesn't match.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 03-28-2003 - 7:50pm
I don't think we disagree at all here. :) nt