SAH IS HARMFUL!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-12-2002
SAH IS HARMFUL!!!
2888
Thu, 07-08-2004 - 11:32am

Or at least this woman thinks so.

Okmrsmommy-36, CPmom to DD-16 and DS-14

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:32pm
Fair enough.

Karen

"A pocketknife is like a melody;
sharp in some places,
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:41pm
Not necessarily. If the WOHP needs to avoid all possibility of having to deal with sick kids or caregivers, odd schedules etc., or if the WOHP has an extremely unflexible schedule or a great deal of travelling to do, the SAHP may not be so easily replaceable. A day and night nanny would certainly be possible to find, but extremely expensive and likely completely unaffordable for many WOHPs. In other words, not all WOHPs have a variety of choices available for childcare....many possibilities either don't exist where they live or are simply unaffordable. Thus a WOHP may well find him/herself feeling just as dependent on the SAHP for childcare services as the SAHP is for financial support.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-14-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:47pm
I never said it didn't require as much work, and if anything, it was probably harder. But still, deciding to "live together" is far different from making a lifetime commitment and the law recognizes this. Couples who cohabitate without marrying don't have the same legal responsibilities to their live-ins that spouses have to each other. The level of commitment to the relationship isn't the same if the partners aren't willing to say "I do". It's like they feel the need to have an easy escape if things don't always go their way. When there are disagreements in a marriage that commitment alone is a lot more motivation for both parties to talk things out, and to work through things rather than ending things right there. Marriage is making the commitment to see things through, to work through issues without abandoning the relationship. And yes, a lot of marriages end in divorce, but most do not without much effort at resolution. With live-ins, you can disagree, get mad and split up, end of story. Whether you see that as a positive or a negative depends largely on the circumstances. Not being married to my ex made it MUCH easier to kick him to the curb. On the other hand, my husband has a co-worker who has had several live-in girlfriends over the years we've known him. When it ceases to be "fun" and conflicts arise, he's outta' there.



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:56pm

But that kind of WOHP could also just not have kids.


You can't as easily dispense with needing financial support.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 4:03pm
Precisely. It would be waaaaay easier for many SAHPs (including myself) to find alternative means of financial support (if they are in immediate need of it anyway) than it would for many WOHPs (including my DH) to find child care which would cover the odd hours that they would be in need of it.

I don't think it's at all correct to assume that financial support is any harder to replace than any other kind of support. Felicia, I realize that in your family, the dynamic would be such that the SAHP would sense more dependency on the WOHP than vice versa, but that is not the dynamic in all, or I would guess even most, households with a SAHP.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 4:05pm
I'm being nit-picky here but wouldn't a WOHP ( "P" as in parent) by definition already have kids? I assumed we were talking about families with children...I personally have actually never met any couple in my life that had a spouse SAH without kids being involved. Every couple I have ever met without kids have both had jobs supporting the household. In the case of families with kids, my argument stands: the WOHP may well not have the myriad of choices you expect and the SAHP may well not be nearly as easily replaceable as you assume.

Ok, actually I can think of one couple whose was the exception to the above....she did end up SAH before they had kids because of complex immigration and tax reasons.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-14-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 4:08pm
Some ppl don't take that commitment as seriously as they should, but never the less, they initially made the commitment regardless of the outcome. Your xh once loved you enough to make that commitment to you. Of course success isn't guaranteed, but it's a lot easier to leave without the commitment, which is probably why some ppl don't want to make one. My dh and I are married which means we are commited to loving each other forever, working through the conflicts, talking through disagreements, sticking by each other for better or for worse. We love each other unconditionally and that is A LOT more than shacking up, maybe making a baby or two, staying together through the good times and then bolting when it ceases to be "new" and "fun" and "romantic". It's the commitment to nurture the relationship and each other. It's considering each others needs to be just as important, if not more so, than your own and mutually doing whatever it takes to nurture the other, to support them through the tough times as well as enjoying the good times. It's the dedication to keep the love alive, to be each other's best friends and to protect the relationship. That is far different than mere cohabitation and sharing the same bed. It's not about revolving-door relationships, it's a lifetime commitment.
Avatar for nativcalgal
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 4:11pm
cyducks...once again -- IT HAPPENS. BTW...is this (indigo??) Thought I read something about a change in names? Just wondering.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 4:14pm
But a WOHP working long/irregular hours could be married to a WOHP who worked PT or a regular 9 to 5 schedule and could thus cover the irregular hours.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 4:15pm
Good point, that's true, the person is already a parent if we're calling him or her a WOHP.

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

Pages