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
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 5:53am
Ha. There's nothing you can say that I can't get - but if you have been talking about a study, it's news to anybody to whom you've been talking. So do enlighten us, what is this study?


Edited 12/14/2003 7:03:36 AM ET by cocoapop
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 5:59am
<>

Why? In the right context, non-compliance is not only admirable, it's the only acceptable choice. I had no problems informing John's teachers (when the situation warranted) that he was instructed SPECIFICALLY not to comply with certain instructions.

Any teacher who expected mindless, unquestioning and automatic compliance from my son would have been in for a very rude awakening had I not been upfront in telling them that my son was NOT being raised to unquestioning compliance to all adults. Yes, I expect this method was a LOT more difficult in some ways, for other adults to deal with; it certainly was for me, in some ways as well, but in the long run, I believe it was the far wiser choice, and given another child, I'd raise him or her (especially her) the same way without hesitation.

of course, it's also not the easiest path to choose, but then again, the right parenting path is rarely the easiest path. I had no real problems (a few stumbles, missteps and lots of reaffirming of when compliance was warranted and when it was not, but no real *problems*) in teaching appropriate non-compliance. And I did so as a WOHM. Seems to me that if, as you claim, being a SAHM makes parenting such a walk in the park, comparatively, appropriate non-compliance should have been the obvious choice for your parenting and far less of an issue for you, given how non-problematic it was for me.

And, ironically, the fact that I WOH...and among the WOHMs here on this board, did so for MUCH longer hours than most...my influence on John's upbringing far and away outstripped and surpassed the influence of other caregivers. Funny, that, huh? In fact, the ONLY person who has ever had anything approaching an equal influence on John in terms of "what I teach, absorbs" has been his father, which is as it should be.

I must admit, tho, that your cyber-smug posturing here about how WOHM's children are all going to hell in a handbasket is as amusing as it is wrong. Trollish and flamebaiting in its least subtle form, but amusing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 6:08am
Well, no, that sounds pretty and all, but it's NOT what compliance means.

Compliant adj. Disposed or willing to comply; submissive.

Compliance n. 1. a. The act of complying with a wish, request, or demand; acquiescence.

b. Medicine. Willingness to follow a prescribed course of treatment.

2. A disposition or tendency to yield to the will of others.

3. a. Extension or displacement of a loaded structure per unit load.

b. Flexibility.

Comply: intr.v. 1. To act in accordance with another's command, request, rule, or wish: The patient complied with the physician's orders.

Given the actual definition, instead of your invented one, I would have to answer, no, I don't always want my child to be compliant, nor is a general wish for compliance a desired goal in my parenting. obedience has its place, but so does non-compliance, and teaching one is every bit as important as teaching the other--as is teaching the ability to know which to choose when.

anything less leaves a child vulnerable and exposed to exploitation and abuse by those perceived as authority figures. Granting, teaching non-compliance is not a magic wand against abuse or exploitation, but the child who has been taught non-compliance is far better off than the child who has only been taught obedience.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 6:09am
And I suppose you think it's because SAHs are so likely to be "Type B" that you suppose they're driving their children to frenzied academic competition (see CLW Pet Theory above)?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 6:15am
BTW, her kids are not in DC, they're with a nanny.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 6:27am
During the hours the child is in school, a WOHM may well not be less available. (It may cause availability issues if the child is out sick from school and both parents work, or over vacations if one of the WOH's schedules doesn't follow a school type calendar.)
Avatar for outside_the_box_mom
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 6:28am
I'm sorry, but you aren't really spouting anything new. I haven't learned a thing from your posts that I haven't already learned on my own.

Man plans, God laughs. Jorvia's mom summed up life in four words. You should have such wisdom.

outside_the_box_mom

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 8:33am
You misunderstand. I don't think there's anything wrong with having equally involved parents. We define "equally involved parents" differently. You appear to think "equally involved" means you bring home bacon, he brings home bacon. You fry it up in a pan, he fries it up in a pan. You change a diaper, he changes a diaper. I'm perfectly content to define equally involved as making often different but equally relevant contributions to a child's life. We are not clones of each other, nor do we try to be, and I believe strongly that is a strength, not a weakness. It's far more efficient for me to contribute to my child's life in ways that do not consistently overlap the contributions my husband makes, and vice versa. If you want to do it otherwise, I don't see that as a problem in any sense, but I don't see it as any more "ideal" than my way.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 9:02am

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: 10-18-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 9:15am

Read this:


"According to scientific literature, Type A behavior is characterized by an intense and sustained drive to achieve goals and an eagerness to compete. Personalities categorized as Type A tend to have a persistent desire for external recognition and advancement. They are involved in various functions that bring about time restrictions. Such personalities have a tendency to speed up mental and physical tasks with extraordinary mental and physical alertness. These characteristics make for super-achievers and high-powered people.

Type A personalities are motivated by external sources (instead of by inner motivation), such as material reward and appreciation from others. Type A folks experience a constant sense of opposition, wariness, and apprehension--they are always ready for battle. And anyone can imagine how this constant (and very exhausting) existence would deplete reserves of contentment and happiness and disrupt personal equilibrium."

The key quotes here, as I see them, are "external recognition and advancement" and "eagerness to compete" and "motivated by external sources such as material reward and appreciation for others." All of those factors point to a higher likelihood of Type A personalities being WOHMs. Of course not all Type As are WOHMs; not all WOHMs are Type As. But, the factors that make a Type A a Type A lend themselves to WOH.

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.

Pages