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: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 9:20pm
Why? What do you see wrong with a child having two equally involved parents? IMO, that would be ideal.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 9:23pm
No, the default position is you support your kids. Period. They are your responsiblity on all fronts INCLUDING financial support. As for pawning kids off on someone else, who's doing that?? Do you think your dh is pawning his kids off on you when he goes to work?? I'm certainly not pawning mine off on our dcp. Our arrangement is by mutually beneficial agreement.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 9:26pm
So what's wrong with kids having two equal parents? I'm not talking about what YOU want. I'm talking about what benefits kids and I do think that having two equally invovled parents is as good as it gets.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 9:28pm
I agree. I was just trying to make sure you didn't mean, or others didn't interpret, it to mean the other way. Just clarifying I guess.

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: 12-06-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 9:30pm
Again, why? Do you think that SAHM do not derive a sense of accomplishment from the things that they do? Do you truly believe that the only worthy sense of accomplishment and the only way to define "drive" is measured by a pay check?

And yes, I was aware of the definition.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 9:31pm

No, the assumption is that a Type A personality is bound to pick a lifestyle that better suits the Type A personality. And WOH has more of those components that a Type A personality seeks, be it subconsciously or consciously.


It doesn't imply that SAH is easier or less stressful, per se. Just different.

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: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 9:35pm
No, I don't think so. Otherwise you'd get why type A's are more likely to be WOHM's. Although type A SAHM's would explain those moms who claim things like their children walking early was a result of their work, lol. Given a choice, I think a type A would choose to work. We tend to have a hard time with things like dependency and miss the challenges and accomplishments of work when we don't work.


Edited 12/13/2003 9:39:27 PM ET by cyndluagain
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 9:37pm
Which explains why Freud said women suffer from penis envy, lol.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 10:14pm
That just makes me LOL. You want to see comparison charts to measure how your child is doing in comparison to the other children in her Kindergarten class for god's sake! And your child's K teacher must think you feel your child's progress, and even the progress of the entire dc population is a reflection on you since she had to communicate to you how far behind the kids of the SAHMs were. If anyone comes across as feeling their children's accomplishments is a reflection on them on this board - YOU WIN THE PRIZE.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 10:18pm
Oh brother! You are totally amazing. I guess this newest theory ties right in with the lazy drunken SAHMs in your neighbourhood. LOL. You are opening yourself up to a big ole can of worms by admitting that dc kids are more aggressive. Personality type of mom has squat to do with personality type of child, and of course there are type A personality SAHMs. Gosh don't you have any in your school? We certainly do... one in particular comes to mind. She is on every darned committee, she organizes all the special events, PTA meetings, luncheons, bake sales, etc etc. She was on the playschool executive last year, but her youngest is now in K so we lost her. We sure missed her at the concert last night... took about 3 of us type Bs to get done what she'd have done herself! LOL

Pages