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

Avatar for nativcalgal
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 6:19pm
Smooches to you too. I didn't mean to suggest anyone here said she should have married that weirdo. I was meaning to say to her that no one should be slamming that she had to soul search in order to ditch the guy. Sorry it didn't come out that way....I should have worded it like I just did. :)

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 6:25pm
I'll agree with that. That piece of paper is meaningless. In fact, sometimes, it's a determent. I don't think dh would have pulled what he did if we were just living together. He didn't think I'd ever divorce him so he had no initiative to do anything but complain about how I wasn't changing to meet his needs. Honestly, I think we would have had a better chance without that paper.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 6:26pm
No, that's TMI as it is, lol.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-14-2004
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 10:50pm
Thanks! Other ppls disbelief really isn't that shocking to me. It's not like I don't wonder, "What in the world was I thinking?" After him, I made a good life for myself. I bought my first home, ventured into other areas of nursing that had always intrigued me, maintained close relationships with friends and family. I worked out every day, took a few trips with friends, rode motorcycle, dated casually just for fun. Getting seriously involved with anybody then was the farthest from my mind. I was livin' it up...having fun and taking care of myself and then...BAM. Just when I thought things couldn't get any better, they did. I met dh and there was an immediate powerful connection. We were married by the minister in the church I grew up in and now attend with my dh and kids. Several sessions of premarital counseling with the senior minister are required prior to marriage in the church. At the time, we had known each other for six months and the minister commented on how compatible we were. He said he'd seen couples married for decades who didn't have the level of understanding and communication with each other that we had after only six months. I can't begin to explain the level of complete freedom I feel now. I can do anything I want and he will support me. If tomorrow I decided I wanted to go back to work, he'd be just as supportive as he has been of my sah. I know it's rare. The relationship with my ex-fiance just makes me appreciate him all the more. I truly hit the jackpot and never will I take him for granted.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 1:56am
That was roughly my life with dd1 too - minus the nanny. Well, she had an in home caregiver for a while so I suppose we could call her a nanny. It seemed great to me at the time, but like this lady's supervisor I regret it now. Time is very precious to me. Four hours a day just wouldn't cut it for me - especially 4 hours that included *other* stuff besides the kids. Maybe when they are school age, but those pre-school years are something that *I* wasn't willing to miss a second time.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 2:08am
I don't understand why it irks you for a SAHM to say her decision to SAH is so she can be the primary caregiver. I guess I don't have the language to describe why this was a decision that we made becaue anything I say will be offensive. I can't say I wanted to be a full time mom and now I can't say I wanted to be primary caregiver? Give me the words then because I surely don't want to offend. I am simply trying to explain how I can relate to this lady's supervisor because I had some regrets with dd1 and didn't want to repeat them with my *new* family. I don't do SAH very well quite honestly. I have been home for most of their lives, but have worked part time and full time on temp basis. Otherwise I have WAH, but all in all it was important to us that our children have one of their parents caring for them MOST of the time.

When I speak of time being a drop in the bucket, I am referring in relation to a child's life. Whether you are talking 6 years or 11 years, IMO it is a drop in the bucket by comparison to the entire life of a child. Proportions we are talking here. And of course, again this is just my feelings - for me, my family, nobody else.

Also, I don't think my situation is the norm by any stretch, but I think it is fairly common for SAHMs to keep their skills up. I have several relatives and friends who are in fact teachers. Some who have taken time off to raise children. They may not be at the same salary they would be if they had not taken the time off, but they are doing ok. I have a cousin who subbed for 10 years or more while her kids were at home.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2004
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 8:02am
LOL. i guess i'll throw it right back to you and as you why it bothers you when i say that yes, even as a ft wohm, i AM the primary caregiver??? WHY does that bother you so much?

I guess it irks me because I AM their primary caregiver. It's what I do and who i am since the days each of them were born. It irks me because it is a short step from "why didn't you sah when you had kids" OR "why did you even HAVE kids if you weren't going to sah (be their primary caregiver)". AND while that may NOT be your attitude, it's been seen ad nauseum on this board before. The FACT is that but for the 40 hours per week that I work, I am THERE with my children -- and i only work 40 weeks per year.

i guess simply that the best way to say it is that you are a stay at home mom because you wanted to stay at home.

<< Otherwise I have WAH, but all in all it was important to us that our children have one of their parents caring for them MOST of the time.>>

so how don't you "get" that even as a WOHM my children have one of their parents caring for them MOST of the time? I mean let's be real honest here...they're home 16 HOURS per day -- gee, who do you think takes care of them then? they're home 24/7 2 weekend days per week, PLUS all holidays and vacations. Who do you think takes care of them then? Oh, and who do you think does all the "other" stuff that has NOTHING to do with physical caregiving?

sure the time is a drop in the bucket and that's why i've still been able to continue working AND raising my kids. there is PLENTY of time to do both given a parent who is unconditionally loving and involved.

and as for teachers -- my best friend was a teacher (but she didn't have tenure) before she sah for 7 years. now she can't get back into teaching without MAJOR amounts of college course work (what's required NOW)-- and she doesn't have the money to do that. As for not being at the same salary -- i detailed the consequences of what would be MY reality if i had sah. I THANK G-D that i made the decision i did because there would be no way in heck that i could survive, nevermind raise THREE kids, on a first year teacher's salary of about 35K here in CT.

eileen

Avatar for outside_the_box_mom
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 8:16am
But it's also been pointed out that you have a more flexible schedule. You don't work the "typical" 40 hour a week CORPORATE job where you don't get vacations and summer holidays.

When *I* worked FT, I worked more than 40 hours, plus I had commute. So *my* child was in daycare from 7:15 AM to 5:45 PM. I was NOT his primary caregiver. His daycare provider was. *I* was at work all day. The fact is, this person allowed me to work -- the same way my SAH/WAH allowed my husband to keep a job that involved 60% travel and long hours. That is a simple fact no one can dispute.

It wasn't until I quit working FT that I realized 1) what I was missing and 2) that two hours a day with my baby did not equate to the 11 hours a day I was now suddenly enjoying. And I'm talking infants/toddlers/preschoolers here, not school aged children. Because of course, now that my child is in school, I do see him less, and even if I did work FT, I would still feel I was his primary caregiver.

But when he was in daycare at six weeks of age for 10 hours a day, I was not. And I don't see how anyone can argue that.

You enjoy a wonderful schedule. But it's just not the same if you work 8:00 to 5:30+ every day and all you get is holidays and two or three weeks of vacation. You can't tell me that it is. I'll be working at a school this year -- I get all Jewish holidays off plus two weeks in December, plus a Feb. vacation plus Passover (or spring vacation). Plus all state holidays! Plus 10 weeks in summer! You can't tell me corporate gives people this much time. My clients don't take all these days off, that is for sure.

outside_the_box_mom

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-09-2004
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 8:37am
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree and tell it like it is. My sisters both have much more demanding schedules with much less time off and YES, the WERE/ARE their children's primary caregivers. I don't know how you can ignore the fact that, even given 10 hours per day of dc, your child was STILL with you for 14 HOURS per day PLUS weekends, holidays and vacations AND that you are the one that loved him unconditionally and has the RESPONSIBILITY for raising him -- Just like my sisters, me and every other Good MOM out there.

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 08-19-2004 - 9:42am
Re: your last paragraph.

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

Pages