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
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 3:58pm
So when your kids were in daycare, you weren't as equally involved as their provider. By your definition, you must be secondary to the provider. You and your DH were the paychecks and your daycare was the primary caregiver. But according to YOU, that's ideal because only you and your DH have to be equal -- meaning, it's all about the PARENTS, not the kids, in a SAH household.

I just don't see how it's better for the "kids" to have dual WPs. And how is it worse for the "kids" to have one SAHP and one WOHP?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 4:06pm

"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."


Why is it more "efficient"?


And don't you ever get tired of hastening to explain that the demands of your DH's career made it a virtual impossibility for you to WOH, not that his natural talents lie in the work arena and yours lie in the domestic arena?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 4:31pm
When one SAH at the expense of the other. Sorry, but I think equal parenting is best for kids. It's kind of hard to be equally involved with the kids when one parent SAH and the other works for a living.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 4:34pm
Well, since you never personally tried it, you might be interested to hear the experiences of those who have. Ime at least, it isn't very hard to have two equally involved parents even when 1 is SAH and the other is WOH. But then dh never worked insane hours (not even close) and has always had 6-8 weeks vacation every year. You might be thinking of families where 1 SAHP was supported by insane work hours or excessive travelling of the other.

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 4:35pm
When you have a SAHP/WP combination, the WP is secondary by comparison to the SAHP by virtue of the time differential. If one party spends 24 x 7 with the kids and one party is gone 50 hours a week, I think that is unequal by comparison. It's kind of hard to be an equal parent when you're competing with someone who never leaves and you do on a regular basis. It's much easier when both parties SAH or both parties WOH. Both parties SAH, for obvious reasons, isn't very likely. For dh and I there is no real time difference with the kids. We each have roughly 10 hours a week solo with the kids and about 5 hours a day on week days and all weekends. It's very easy to be equal parents this way. I don't think things would be equal if one of us SAH while the other worked to support the household.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 4:36pm
Um, no, the provider is secondary to me since my kids spent more time with me than with her and yes I do consider her secondary by virtue of spending less time with my kids than I did. Dh and I are equal in that we spend roughly the same amount of time with the kids and our dcp is secondary by comparison.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 4:39pm
No, I used to be a SAHM and time studies back up that dads are more involved when mom WOH.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 4:48pm
Yes, I remember those. And that may have something to do with the number of men working longer hours when there is a SAHM then they would if there was a WOHM. I am confused about one thing though...you have repeatedly stressed that the total hours difference between time spent by a WOHP and time spent by a SAHP averages out to about 23 minutes per day over the course of 18 years. If this is true, how can you at the same time claim that the difference between the amount of time spent by the SAHP and WOHP are so different as to constitute a "primary" caregiver and a "secondary" caregiver? As you like to point out...23 minutes per day difference isn't much. And even assuming double that time per day (less involved dad maybe), it still isn't that big of a difference. Ime, the WOHP comes home fresh and ready to really focus on the kids after work, while the SAHP has done a lot of other things besides childcare that day, and maybe hasn't been as focused on the kids. These have been your own arguments as well. The SAHP gets maybe 2-3 hours of really "focused on the child" time during the day, about the equivalent of the WOHP's time (about an hour in the morning and a couple of hours every night). Again, these are things you have argued to be true in the past....so what is changing your mind here? Are WOHPs in general really spending such significantly less time with their kids than SAHPs or not?

Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 4:51pm
Okey dokey then. I was referring to what is generally meant when one speaks of compliant children. Same as a compliant animal - they are under control. Non-compliant children are often unruly and disrespectful. I prefer a compliant assertive child thank you very much.
Avatar for mygriffin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 4:57pm
Wait a minute now...How is it that when mom stays home and dad works, dad is secondary in care to the mom. But when mom works too, both parents are not secondary to the daycare? Please explain.

<>

But two paychecks and a different primary caregiver is fine, because only the parents need to be equal to *each other*?

If mom is primary to dad when she spends all day with the kids, the daycare is primary to both parents when the kids spend all day there.

Pages