Scenario

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-26-2003
Scenario
934
Sat, 12-06-2003 - 11:17am
I see a lot of stories on this board about sahms refusing to work when their family is in need of a second income.

Well picture this scenario and tell me if you think it's appropriate for this mother to stay home-

As a single and childless woman, she always lived frugally, and worked hard. He is the same way- both the husband and wife manage to get out of debt and save up a few thousand dollars by the time they meet. They date for a couple years (or whatever amount of time YOU think is reasonable for a couple to date before marrying). By the time they get married, their combined savings is at 8,000 dollars. As a childless couple, they continue to live frugally and work hard. His income goes to pay the rent, utilities and necessities while all of her income goes into her savings. They have a few setbacks here and there like car repairs or illness or emergency out of town trips. But altogether, they manage to save up say, 20 grand by the time their first child is born X amount of time later. The husband gets great insurance at his job. They are already used to living off of his income anyway since her income was mostly going into savings. There is still no credit card debt and no auto loan debt. This being said, is it TOOOOO much to ask for this woman to stay at home for at least a couple of years, maybe between 3-5 years to take care of the baby at home? What if she planned on going to work once the child or children got to elementary school, and just wanted to stay home for the baby years? Is that reasonable?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 6:23pm
Hell, im 46 and miss my mom. I needed her really badly this past week. i just had a tough week at work, and would have loved a little "mothering" myself when i got home from work, but it didnt consume me, it was a small *wish*. it is really wild to see how people interpret the smallest comment on this board, dontcha think?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 6:25pm

Choose your friends by their character and your socks by their color.  Choosing your socks by their character makes no sense and choosing your friends by their color is unthinkable.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 6:31pm
And exactly *how* pray tell, do you *make* a child "less aggressive"? sometimes it takes someone outside the home to accomplish this. A mother very often is her own worst enemy!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 6:38pm
I'll say it again. Lauren woh since her boys were babies, and not only are they extremely well behaved and loving, but they get straight A's (with an occasional "b"). if woh is so disasterous to the outcome of our children, i would venture to say, lauren has a secret and is not telling anybody....
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 6:40pm
AMEN!!! aint that the truth!!! my kids too. all waaaaay different from each other.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 6:49pm
Right! They are our *kids*, not damn laboratory rats!!! i have one child who could not wait to go to school. he was bored out of his mind at home. and dont think i didnt try to do things with him. i did, but he wanted to go to be around other kids, so we put him in nursery school the *minute* he turned 3yo.

and what about moms like me who sah with her children, but the clinical depression worked me. going to woh, was the best thing for *all* of us.

how can you make a blanket statement about what is good for our children across the board, when every single situation is different.

i did not raise my children by studies but by instinct, and at 21, 20 and 16 i will venture to say, dh and i did a damn good job! and it had nothing to do with my work status(of course we all know dads are exempt from criticism, as they have penises!)


Edited 12/13/2003 6:57:31 PM ET by almostfreeof3

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 6:56pm
Not a response to this post, but this line reminded me of the time i was laid off. >> <> <<

it was march of 2000, which means my ds1 was ready to turn 18. i came home and said, "hey, kids, mommy's going to be home with you all summer!!!(big smile on my face)", to which lee said, "well, if you're going to be home everyday, im working 60 hours a week!!" ROFLMAO!!!

i dont know about how they react when they are gone, but i sure know how teenagers react when mom is there!!! LOL. that was so funny. i told him, "you're supposed to work 60 hours a week when your 18 if you can!!!!". God, he was something.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-06-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 7:00pm
What historical perspective are you using for the basis that children are better off when Mom is at home? How do the SAHMs of yestyear correlate to the SAHMs of today? Unless we are talking about a specific class of people, the SAHM of the past based on sheer volume and intesity of work would probably qualify as substandard daycare by today's definitions. Wouldn't the historical lesson then be that that substandard daycare produced "The greatest generation?"
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 7:08pm
LOL. I guarantee my kids would be performing at MUCH higher levels if my self esteem were tied to their academic performance. While I'm very concerned about my younger dd being different, she is who she is and it is not a reflection on me. There is nothing I did that made her the way she is but if I wanted to I could push her at home and have her performing at even higher levels. I choose not to because I don't want her to stick out too far from her peers. No, my self esteem isn't tied to my kids performance. Trust me, if it were they'd be performing at MUCH higher levels.

My kids accomplishments are their accomplishments. My contribution is genetic. The fact that I have one dd who excels is a reflection on her not me but if I wanted to, I could coach both of my girls well beyond where they are. I see no advantage to them in doing that so I leave well enough alone. If my self esteem were tied to my dd's school performance I wouldn't be spending $37/hr a Sylvan to have my dd taught math the way it should be taught which is actually dragging down her grades at school (Sylvan isn't doing anything wrong. We have a new-new math fuzzy math program that started this year which is too weak in the basics. I'm making sure my dd gets her basics in spite of the fact it runs counter to what they're doing at school because I know how much they mean.)

And if I really wanted to tie my self esteem to my kids performance, I'd force dd#2 to practice the piano every day. You should hear her play when she practices like she's supposed to. I don't however as I think her developing her own love of music at her own pace is more important. No, don't think so. I'm glad my kids have talents but they are theirs not mine and have nothing to do with me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 7:10pm
BRAVO!!!! i agree with everything you say except the first paragraph. i opt not to be put into the same catagory as funsahm. she has waaaaaaay more to learn than i. and frankly, i think she "shelters" her children from the world because she is afraid of whats out there. i have learned there is lots of bad, but the good outweighs the bad and its worth it to "shove" our kids out there.

Pages