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

Avatar for mygriffin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 7:13pm
No, I don't include myself in that group. We need my income. Sure, we could use more, but I *choose* to work part time because 1) I CAN right now and 2) because I value spending time with my kids more than that extra income.

You said <>

That was your reason why some WOHMs here make such a big deal out of some SAHMs who work a few hours a month calling themselves a SAHM.

I say, IF you have a choice (most do not) and you choose to work when the alternative is to spend more time with your children, then you prefer to work. Is that not true?

And I wouldn't be offended if someone said "Some MOMS beat their kids" so why would I be offended if someone said "Some SAHMs beat their kids"? They're both true.



iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 7:15pm
Depends on where you start. 10K may or may not constitute higher SES. In our case, the contribution from my working is more like 100K by the time you toss in benefits. So, yes, I'd say my WOH results in higher SES for my family so I'll speak to what we have because I WOH.

We live in a safer neighborhood, my kids go to better schools, we can afford things like piano lessons (early musical training is linked to higher math/science ability later on) and probably the having the most impact of all, my kids are growing up in a household that has zilch in the way of financial stress. Better educations and safer neighborhoods speak for themselves. No finacial stress? Now THAT is priceless. I've had my turn raising kids on a shoestring and I'd NEVER go there again voluntarily. Dss#2 was rather PO'd at me for waiting until he was out of high school to go to college. He would much rather have grown up as things are now than as they were back then. The difference in our lifestyle now and then is the difference between lower middle class to middle class. Not night and day but it is significant.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 7:25pm
I asked first. Where's your research showing that increased stress levels in babies is a bad thing?

Unfortunatly, my best link for dc kids adapting to school better is gone (link no longer works). It was a great article entitled "It may cause stress but daycare can benefit kids". I'll have to find another one. Shouldn't be too hard.

I keep coming up with articles talking about how dc use results in higher school performance but nothing on adapting to school yet. I know it's out there and I will find it but it's a tough search because what you get when you search for daycare and school readiness are hundreds of ads from dc's touting how their program will help your child be ready for school. This may take a while.

Not quite what I was looking for but this one is interesting as it mixes dc and aggression and dc and increased school readiness:

<

· Is increased time in non-parental care associated with poor behavior for children entering Kindergarten?

In short, the answer to both questions is: Yes!

Several patterns emerge from the multivariate regression models estimating the cognitive school readiness measures for the Kindergarten sample. First of all, the demographic variables generally point in the expected directions. For example, higher SES kids have higher scores and are perceived by teachers to have better behavior. With respect to the variables of interest – the pre-K care variables – the results were consistent with initial hypotheses: more non-parental care was related to higher levels of cognitive readiness.

Children who entered into non-parental care both before age 3 and after age 3 had higher direct cognitive assessment scores on each of the three measures than did children who had no non-parental care.

Children who participated in non-parental care in the year before Kindergarten, regardless of the number of hours, had higher direct cognitive assessment scores on each of the three measures than did children who had no non-parental care.

There were no differences on the direct cognitive assessments between children with stay-at-home mothers versus those with working mothers.

Children who participated in center-based care as the primary type of non-parental care had higher direct cognitive assessment scores on each of the three measures than did children who had no non-parental care. There were no clear differences related to the other types of care.

Overall, these analyses suggest that, even after controlling for important demographic variables, children who spent more time in care – and particularly in center-based care – enjoyed modest significant benefits on the direct cognitive assessments. Thus, data from the ECLS-K do support the hypothesis that non-parental care is associated with increased school readiness. >>

It's from policy.uark.edu/ritter/researchpapers-childcare.html


Edited 12/13/2003 7:46:38 PM ET by cyndluagain

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 7:32pm
"No,this isn't stereotyping" HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAA."I'm not out to show my lifestyle is superior" HAAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.Truly clueless.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 7:38pm
Yes, I agree. You are, lol. Making a suggestion for a possible alternate reason for a difference is allowable in a debate, lol. Never said I could prove it but neither can it be proven that working status alone accounts for the difference. Where did I say all SAHM's are like this??? THAT would be stereotyping. I specifically talked about the militant variety of SAHM who comes here time and time again to claim her way is superior. Yes, I beleive she has something to prove and her presence in the SAH camp in a research study could produce a difference. It IS possible to coach kids to higher performance if you're inclined to do so. I'm simply speculating that there may be more SAHM's doing this than WM's for obvious reasons.


Edited 12/13/2003 7:40:21 PM ET by cyndluagain
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 8:01pm
See, this is what I find annoying about you as a WOH trying to define what a SAH is. You and many others persistently see what you do as everything a SAH does "plus" something more, your paid work. According to that theory, my own DH is "more" than I am (which I suppose some of you do think.) However per us, what we do is no more and no less than each other for our family, just different. I view a WOH as someone who is available to their child nights, weekends, holidays and otherwise as needed. I view a SAH as someone who is available to their child nearly all the time, whether or not it's "needed."
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-06-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 8:06pm
But if an SAHM were spending 37.00 an hour at Sylvan how would that be different? If a SAHM encouraged their children to pursue their talents why is that tying their self esteem into the children's accomplishments? How come the fact that you work makes your explanation a valid one? If your children's accomplishments were truly their own maybe you wouldn't be spending 37.00 an hour. You wouldn't be comparing her to others in her class, you wouldn't have to sign them up for private music lessons.

My neighborhood schools provide one of the best elementary music programs around, including one of the only stringed programs. I didn't have to sign dd up for anything to promote her rades/learning, she CHOSE to do it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-06-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 8:07pm
Why would you think that WM's are "more likely" to be anything?
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 8:11pm
Basic personality differences. Yes, I think it more likely that a WM would be a type A personality than a SAHM. Why woudln't I?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 8:13pm
I agree that saying that women who work only do so out of greed *except* for her was totally hypocritical. However, neither 4 hrs. of work a week nor her being a hypocrite made her a WOHM either. . . .

Pages