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: 03-29-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 12:24pm
can you do me a HUGE favor? i could not follow any of that post. i'm guessing that you were quoting a previous poster then responding. It would be helpful if you put direct quotes in either <<...>> Or "...."...that way it will make a whole lot more sense.

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 12:29pm
Oops. Mistyped there. That should be I'm NOT talking about a study. Sorry.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 12:32pm
Now THERE'S a reason to SAH!!! If only that were true. I'd be quitting my job in about 2 years. I swaer my 8 yo is already PMS'ing.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 12:37pm
And why would you assume that just because someone misses a person, it makes them unable to enjoy the activity they happen to be involved in? I miss my dh every day while he is at work, doesnt mean I dont have fun on my own. Dh and I are planning a weekend away next month, I am sure we will both miss our children terribly, but that doesnt mean we wont have a great time. I think you are confusing the feeling of missing someone, and pining away for them. Totally different things.

dj

Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 1:26pm
Ah, the good old freudian typo...I've made a few myself.


Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 2:38pm
"f you do believe that the parent who stays home has the stronger bond with the child, isn't that rather unfair to the other parent?)"

If one parent might arguably have a closer relationship with a child due to being an AH parent, why would that be unfair to the other parent, who would presumably have exactly the same relationship with the child he or she would if the child were in some sort of nonparental care?

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 2:48pm
Don't know if it's Freudian but I wouldn't mind having a study to support what I see. I just don't buy that our working status is the determining factor. I think it's likely something else they didn't control for.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 2:50pm
Since when do WOH parents merely "play the part of the paycheck"? I'd think a lot of WOHs here would find that comment offensive. Aren't parents parents no matter what they do? Hmmm?

"ou can't change the fact that one parent is primary and the other secondary in particular areas." I don't want to, that's a large part of my point. I'm satisfied when the sum total of those areas in which I may be "secondary" balance out quite nicely with those areas in which I may be "primary," and so is DH. Unfortunately for you, you can't change the fact that in any parental relationship, one parent is bound to be primary and the other secondary in particular areas either, no matter how you strive for it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 3:04pm
I absolutely don't believe everyone has as bloated a need for public approval as you think. What in the world makes you think that work or kids are womens' only avenues for achievement, anyhow?

"ype B's . . . looked to others to fullfill their sense of accomplishment." That's a new one on me. Perhaps they are fulfilled by things than you can't even conceive of as being accomplishments.

"I get the impression both here and IRL that many SAHM's are looking for justification for their decision to SAH in their kids. Some kind of recognition for a job well done." I get the impression from your previous huge string that you were looking for, and got, a pat on the head from your daughter's teacher for your decision to WOH and put her in DC. I wonder why she felt the need to reassure you about that? Again, all these SAHs that you supposedly see that are pushing their kids so to achieve, are they the same ones, or different ones, from all those SAHs that apparently never showed their children a book? I'm confused as to how they all can be so far at BOTH unflattering ends of the spectrum in Whoville, and/or your ever-so-scientific SAH sampling of this board. I thought you didn't know your childrens' classmates' parents anyhow, so how is it you know all this about who is doing whose homework?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 3:23pm
I am a bit confused by this. Are you suggesting that when one has a SAHP and a WOHP that the SAHP is the primary caregiver and the WOHP merely a secondary parent? But isn't this essentially suggesting that a WOHP can't be a primary parent and isn't this the point of MSAHMs? If working fundamentally alters the relationship between parent and child compared to the relationship between a SAHP and a child, or makes it less possible for the WOHP parent to be equally involved in a child's life, then MSAHMs may well have a point (I don't think so, but that is the logical conclusion of using that argument). FWIW, when I was a SAHP, we considered ourselves to be fairly equally involved in the children's lives. I was providing additional care during the day, but this didn't result in me being primary caregiver and dh secondary caregiver, any more than dc is dd's current primary caregiver.

In terms of equality, dh and I see equality as having to do with performing about the same amount of work overall, not splitting every task exactly down the middle so that we are each sharing all tasks equally. This has been true of most aspects of our lives together. For example, we share the housework about equally, but dh absolutely hates doing laundry so I do all of it and I have trouble doing vacuuming and moping (a nerve problem in my hands that get exacerbated by those activities) so dh takes care of all of that. As long as we end up spending about an equal amount of time on the house work, we feel we have a fair and equal division of labor. The webster dictionary defines equal as " (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation" We are perfectly comfortable with the first definition. I have been the main (nearly sole) breadwinner at times as has dh, we have swapped those roles according to what was best for us as a family over all, keeping always in mind long-term goals. Neither one of us has just sat on our hands doing nothing while the other was the main breadwinner...we had other tasks to perform that were eventually to the benefit of all. Had either one of us insisted that splitting everything down the middle was the ideal to strive for at all times, we would all of us have lost a number of important opportunities.

Laura

Pages