For SAHM's.
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 05-01-2006 - 5:18pm |
For all the stay at home moms, yes I'm one of them. I have one question, do you plan on going back to work once all of your children are in Elementary school? Or do you like staying at home and have decided to never work again? I am just curious, my husband and I have talked about it. I am mainly home just for my kids, to be here when they come home from school is nice, but, I tend to get bored easly, so I have decided once my 3 year old enters into Elementary school, I will be going back to work. I have thought and thought about this, my husband is fine if I decide not to work or if I decide to go back and work. We are financially stable so I can choose to stay home if I want. I would be working so i won't be bored, while the kids are at school all day long. I do plan on working part time, so i can be home when they get home from school. I'm not the type to sit around and do nothing all day, right now my kids are home half the day at least my 5 year old is, so I have her, and my youngest to be home for. I just can't envision myself sitting here all day long with no children around, going gee what do i do now, ain't gonna happen.
I'm done rambling, waiting for replies!!!!

Pages
Actually, Britney Spears is succesful in the workplace. The workplace is not a monolithic place that requires a single set of skills in order to achieve. She chose a career in which reading reading past a 6th grade level is irrelevent but being able to dance, sing and entertain people is mandatory. If you measure success by money earned, she is wildly succesful. If you measure it by how far up the career ladder a person goes, she's also succesful- since she quickly became the headlining act rather than a backup singer or somebody who had trouble getting a gig.
You would not be succesful in my workplace. I would not be succesful in yours. And neither of us would be succesful in Britney Spears' workplace. So how well she would do in a career that requires frequent in-depth reading is irrelevent because that's not the career she chose. You can't measure success entirely in the terms of only some careers but not others.
Oh, there's of plenty of fodder in the WOHM camp too.
Lesser expectations and other priorities, as well.
Quite a few very intelligent people I know have opted out of corporate America for a simpler life. Probably, the smarter ones. They are pursuing activities that they find far more fulfilling. To many (including myself), money is for a protection. Not a class stepping stone.
My point was to show you how skewed the viewpoint of "intelligence = pay" is. We NEED people who teach, nurse, etc. We NEED laborers. It takes everyone. They can't all pay well.
Saying that people who are simply of a different background, or have different priorities - are less intelligent/motivated than say - a Dr. or lawyer... is not only incorrect, but arrogant in my opinion.
I was admitting to my own arrogant viewpoint (people who reach out for high pay jobs are either less intelligent or somehow greedy/immoral), to show you how skewed things can be when you only look at ONE SIDE to an issue.
Mondo
MGB,
I'm genuinely curious about something. You went to college to become a preschool teacher, right?
Did you think you could support your family with that? Or were you just so excited about teaching little kids that you were willing to live on a potentially small familial income?
Mondo
Correct on all counts, imo, BUT...
The MC, according to SM's Unabridged Dictionary, can be *present* even if not *used* directly, thus subtly influencing family money matters.
And it's not only about the "wage capability gap" (cool term, btw!)... it also has to do with how well that lower-earning or non-earning partner would do in the event of the loss of the partner's income. Even if the higher-earning partner rakes in the big bucks, the lower-earning partner might not give a hang about the MC, potentially or IRL, if he/she does okay on her own.
Edited 5/12/2006 1:41 pm ET by sabinamarianne
That's because of biology, per Carrie.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
"Saying that people who are simply of a different background, or have different priorities - are less intelligent/motivated than say - a Dr. or lawyer... is not only incorrect, but arrogant in my opinion."
I won't argue across professions, but why would an intelligent and driven person not want to achieve the pinnacle of his or her chosen profession?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Pages