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: 07-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 11:14pm
I ALWAYS use natural and logical consequences with my children and I am a SAHP, or actually I guess I am not because I earn a living in my home based business, but regardless I am home with my children almost all of the time. And they are compliant. In your mind that is a bad thing and it happened because I SAH. In my mind it is a good thing and it is because I discipline them so that at 4 and 5, they are age appropriately responsible, and they are compliant. They are self reliant - again because they have been disciplined. They most certainly are assertive. Do you think compliant children are not assertive?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 11:17pm

Again Steak and Shake food is really not worth getting worked up about....I would never consider it *eating out* for dinner.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 11:17pm
Again, your beliefs are based on your biases. Why do you think a SAHP has nothing to be driven about, has nothing to accomplish or achieve? Do you think that there is nothing more to being an AHP than changing diapers and playing peek a boo? You really need to get out more, or visit neighbourhoods of higher SES than yours. You are an incredibly black and white thinker. Why would being a Type A personality change my views on child rearing? It wouldn't. By your logic there are more Type A's in the work force than there are Type B's and it simply isn't true.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sat, 12-13-2003 - 11:19pm
I don't think most SAHPs are Type A personality. That would be downright foolish to think such a thing. I am aware of your limited beliefs on what there is to challenge a SAHP, but there are a good many things.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 12:26am
>>Have none of you ever heard of "meal comping? Come on, arent's you a lawyer, lukeslawmom? That would be where a meal is rung up, then paid out through comping, so the balance due is zero.<<

Yes, I am a lawyer and I'm familiar with *employees* being comped part (or all) of their meals that they eat while they are working at a restaurant as part of *their* perk for working.

I'm not familiar with policies like your SIL's where an employee's (not owner's) family gets to eat for free whenever they want. I've never even heard of such a thing. SteaknShake 101 was not part of my law school curriculum.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 1:11am
Whoa! You are talking about a study now?? So when did your theory about the differences in investment in kid's grades between SAHMs and WOHMs become a study?!?! Just last night it was your own personal pet theory.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 1:24am
I think we all forget that our own particular situations and points of view at times influences what we see in the debate. I tend to forget that sometimes people are debating about babies and toddlers in dc, because I have only experienced toddllers/preschoolers in dc.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 1:38am
You are offering an explanation for something you see. I don't have an alternative explanation because I don't see the differences that you do, even on this board. I have seen plenty of WOHMs on this board express how important the kids grades will be and what they expect them to accomplish. I have seen that in real life as well. I have seen that in WOHMs and SAHMs...in fact, I'd say it breaks down to pretty much an even split between the two, ime. Should we ask Eileen if she has seen any differences in the kids of SAHMs and WOHMs? That level of investment and pushing must surely show some effects by middle school. Here is some speculation and a possible explanation for you: kids who are pushed as you are suggesting will likely react in one of two ways 1) they will end up over-achievers and consistently get top grades and ask for more work or 2) they will rebel and drop to the bottom of the class as a way to gain some control over their lives again. If there is no difference in over- or under- achieving between the kids of SAHMs and WOHMs at that age, then it seems a pretty good guess that there is no difference over all in how much SAHMs and WOHMs are personally invested in their kids grades. Personally, I can remember Eileen stating quite frequently that in all her years of experience and the thousands of kids she has seen, she has never noticed any differences between the kids of SAHMs and WOHMs. Somehow, it is hard form an opinion about why a difference occurs if one doesn't see the difference in the first place (and I don't, based on my IRL experiences or on the experiences of the board).

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 1:48am
ITA. There is no difference. There are different kids, different parenting styles, different learning styles... I could go on, but none of it has an iota to do with work status. Funny though that MOST teachers don't see there being a big difference, but CLW's child's K teacher does, of course in favor of the dc kids. I actually asked my son's K teacher if she notes any differences in kids who go to dc vs those whose parents are AH. It surprised me to learn that many of the parents who I though were SAHPs aren't! They obviously are able to schedule their work around the kids. I thought we were about 50/50 SAH/WOH, but apparently it is more like 70% WOH, 20% farmers (which would translate to dual WAH)and 10% SAH. That aside, my son's teacher told me she sees nothing to distinguish a dc kid from any other kid - except that they catch the dc bus.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 2:18am
Ok, having read all the type A thread...here's an alternative theory based on the idea that WOHMs are more likely to be competitive about their children's grades and success in school (not that I think this for a second based on my personal experiences, but this is all just speculation and is certainly possible without proof to the contrary): WOHMs are more likely to be personally invested in their children's performance at school because their basic personality is "someone who is driven, often likes to be in control and is accomplishment oriented." (your words). I could well imagine, absolutely no stretch as far as I am concerned, that such a person would be more likely to bring that level of drive, control and focus on accomplishment to the home and family than the type B personality you think is more likely to stay at home. One doesn't change types the minute one walks into the door or starts dealing with kids. Why would the usual type B, likely to be a SAHM according to you, suddenly turn into a type A when it comes to her kids and their school work? Why would a type A, likely to be a WOHM, suddenly turn all laid-back and hands-off when it comes to the kids and their school work? I most definitely have seen classic type A men who cannot let go of their competitiveness in their private lives or with their family. It is so common it is a sitcom cliche. Since your theory is that more type As are WOHMs, I would speculate that, if a study were ever done on the level of personal investment in children's grades, WOHMs would turn out to have a bigger focus and investment in their children's accomplishments than SAHMs.

Laura

Pages