SAHMs: can't do anything right
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 12-06-2006 - 8:11am |
I've noticed in the lifestyles thread that almost everything SAHM's do is immediately knocked down or one-upped. I don't see that the same is true for the WOHM's on the thread. Some examples:
If a SAHM cleans the house during the day, she isn't spending quality time with her children, or any more time with her children than do WOHM's. If she doesn't clean the house, she is being overinvolved with her children and interacting too much with them; she's not giving them time for free play.
If a SAHM teaches her children, she is an overachiever who is trying to produce an Einstein, not allowing her children to develop at their own rate, buying into commercialism. If she doesn't teach her children, she is just leaving them to their own devices while she gets "me time" or isn't providing them with the opportunities that daycare or preschool provides.
If a SAHM tries to socialize her children by letting them interact with other children on a regular basis, that's very nice, but kids of WOHM's in day care get MORE interaction, which is obviously BETTER. If a SAHM doesn't plan plenty of socialization activities, she isn't preparing her children for school.
If a SAHM tries to schedule regular activities and outings for her children, she's producing "jaded" children, forgoing a routine, "working too hard," wasting time driving around, and not providing enough time for her children to explore and investigate their own environment. If she doesn't schedule regular activities and outings, then her children are deprived of the many wonderful, exciting experiences that all day cares have to offer.
***
So tell me, WOHM's, is there anything short of returning to work that SAHM's could do right?

Pages
>>Then you aren't looking at the right things. The most obvious place where an organization like the aap weighs in on this topic would be the effects of poverty on children.<<
and the studies that i am seeing right now WRT poverty and children are more focused on single parent families, as well as poverty level dual income families. its interesting to note that poverty is not unique to any one group (single parent, dual income, or one income families) - where as problems with child care, health care, certain disorders, etc are unique to families where both parents are working. (or in the case of a single parent family, the one parent is working).
>>For the at-risk kids you are talking about, a lack of parental involvement is not due to a working mom, it is most likely due to an absent father (and, it would then follow, a working mom). <<
actaully, according to the research, it has to do with lack of parental involvment of BOTH parents, lack of parental supervision due to work status, and lack of parental availability.
>>And the poor environment has nothing to do with fast-food-for-dinner stereotypes and overcrowded daycare; it is poverty and a lack of education and all the burdens that come with them.<<
i said nothing about fast food for dinner OR stereotypes....where did you get that from? the problem with DC is that according to both teh AAP and the NICHD less than 50% of DC's make the grade (so to speak) - meaning 50% families are putting their children into substandard DC's, which has been directly linked to poor cognitive skills and youth aggression.
>>Your historical perspective is interesting, but trends can be plucked from any data one wishes. I wrote a sociology term paper about Broadway musicals as a reflection of society's changing values in the 20th centuries. I chose that topic based on a 5 minute scan of titles and then choosing a handful that made my point. Got an 'A', too.<<
i'm not sure what you're trying to say here? do yuo disagree with the overall progression of child care and child rearing from prehistoric to present?
>>One bit of data to counter your proposal, however, is the fact that many at-risk behaviors have been steadily declining since the 90s - the same time-frame in which WOHMs continue to rise. So I can't see the connection you are trying so hard to make.<<
they haven't declined as much as we are led to believe. if you read the surgeon general's report you will note that comparisons are made about present day, back to 1983, at the peak of youth violence. while there has been a slight decrease in heinous crimes, there has not been teh dramtic decrease in moderate crimes and there has been an increase in risky behavour. part of the report is dedicated to warning parents about the inherent risks associated with youth violence and the biggest detterent thus far has been parental time and interaction combined with supervision. families with dual income parents are "warned" to be overly aware of this aspect.
>>My personal thesis, since we are sharing, comes down to three things: family income, maternal education, and an involved father. <<
and i agree, and would go so far as to add not just maternal education but patenal education as well as the need for child education. but some factors that are also make a huge difference is proper health care, inadequate sick leave for working parents, inefficient organization at home, substandard day care/othercare, and insuffuficent time spent with children overall.
Edited 12/13/2006 1:12 am ET by monarchangel007
if you say so.
*shrug*
>>What's so interesting about it?<<
what interests me about it is teh focus on the financial side of things only - when in order to be financially independant as a parent, one must depend on someone else to provide care for their child...while achieving financial independance.
ie, you can't be indpendant without being dependant.
>> You may be a team but you are the part of the team that needs supporting right now. You are dependent on him for a source of support.<<
yes and no - like i said i could go solo if i chose to. it seems to me that you are confusing the role of a SAHP with a totally dependant person, one who is incapable of taking care of one's self at all. a SAHP can re enter the work force if needed, in fact it happens all the time.
>>In a day when so many who are actively working can't find jobs, that's amazing. So what special skill do you posess that you can just jump back in when others are struggling with unemployment?<<
if people are activly working....they're employed, are they not? that would imply that they have found a job! but if you're talkng about finding a secondary income, you might be right. its much harder to find a second job that can work its hours around the primary job. but that has less to do with unemployment rates, and more to do with scheduling and availabilty of the employee.
sometimes i feel like you don't actually read my posts. you must have missed the part when i spoke about the home business i run.
that said, there are many, many people out there finding employment. that and there has always been an unemployment rate - yet people still find emlpoyment on a regular basis be it newly employed, those re entering the work force, or those simply switching jobs.
*shrug*
"No, to live an normal, functional life."
Right. So the pill is used to treat a condition that will allow them to have sex. So, the pill sells sex.
"ho is opposed to sex?"
I don't know, who is?
"o, they are all taking Viagra to have phone sex?"
I never said that. Although, I'm sure some of them are, who knows?
lol,funny post..........you seriously think woh benefits are unique? i disagree. wohp have a paid job to do. hopefully,part of that compensation includes benefits. but that is so not one of a kind,by any stretch of the imagination. those benefits aren't exclusive to you - they're exclusive to a wealth of people who woh,therefore not unique...now if you said there was a new plan in place to create full f/t benefits for the p/t employee or an installation of benefits for the sahp who does it all,that would be unique. there's probably not another one like her for miles!!
my child would have a hard time with her vocabulary word,unique if it only meant what most woh people have...it's not about being like everyone else,but different.
Edited 12/13/2006 7:54 am ET by egd3blessed
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
On a tangential point, I have a real problem with the hypocracy in the medical (insurance, to be more exact) community that is willing to label erectile dysfunction a "medical problem" and therefore offer insurance coverage to offset its costs but insisted that DH and I pay out of pocket for infterility treatments that treated my inability to conceive as a direct result of endometriosis - presumable because those treatments were a "choice" and not medically necessary.
Pages