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
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 6:44pm
No, lol. I use studies to back up my DEBATE! That's what one does. You take a stance and defend it. That requires proof. My personal choices were made based on my personal reasoning. Any studies supporting them came later. I can honestly say the decision to WOH was made before I read study one on the subject. Yes, I use studies. They come in quite handy in a debate, lol. I don't need studies to tell me my decisions are right for my family as I understand our situation and why what I've chosen is right for us.
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 6:53pm
Comparing different things there. They're not comparing mom to dad in the study and there isn't enough information to glean what the split would be other than the 18 year average (65/35 for SAH/WP and 60/40 for WP/WP). The 23 minutes a day difference is couple to couple, WOH to SAH. What the studies say is that WP's do a good job of concentrating parenting into the time they have. As to my comments on primary vs secondary, that's based on availability not parenting time as counted in the studies. From a child's perspective, a SAHM is always there and daddy comes and goes. By comparison to mom, that makes him secondary. Studies also support mom doing a higher percentage of the parenting when she SAH and dad WOH compared to DWP's again making her primary and him secondary. Unfortunately, even there we haven't yet achieved equality. Last study I read had dads whose wives SAH doing 35% of the parenting and dads whose wives WOH doing 40%. Still, I'll take a 60/40 split over a 65/35 as I think kids gain when dads are more involved. I'd love to see 50/50 though. Now that would be good for the kids.




Edited 12/14/2003 7:27:22 PM ET by cyndluagain

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 6:55pm
Spending more time with their dad is good for them. It's important that we both have time with the kids not that one make it possible for the other to spend all of their time with the kids.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 7:02pm
Eileen, where are you? ;-)

My silly DH is kinda under the impression that his WOH is an important part of parenting! You're not saying that the only parenting that counts is when you're actually interacting with the child, are you, 'cause isn't that a little MSAHM of you to say?

Do you mean SAH is at the "expense" of the WOHP, "expense" meaning monetary cost? Or time "expense?" Because if a WOH is going to be gone at work anyhow, I see no way that the other partner SAH is taking anything away from the WOH. And if you mean financial expense, I could see that as a potential source of parental conflict if you have a resentful competitive begrudging spouse, but if you don't, what does that have to do with the kids? Don't "sorry" me anything, I don't care if you do think that everything has to be halvsies between spouses, you just haven't given anything to support your contention that your way is better for kids in any way whatsoever.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 7:03pm
Did you flunk math? In order for the dcp to be primary, she'd have to spend more time with the kids than the parents. She doesn't. Therefore she isn't. She has the kids M-F from 8:00-4:00. That's 40 hours a week or 30 waking hours a week. The other 54 waking hours are spent with parents (assuming some staggaring of shifts here). How do you figure the dcp is primary? The way I see it, this makes the parents primary.

In the case of the SAHP and the WP, the children spend 84 waking hours a week with one parent and roughly 49 (allowing for commute and no staggaring of shifts) with both parents. They spend 35 waking hours a week alone with one parent and the rest of their time with both. What would be needed to even the playing field would be for dad to spend a lot of time soloing with the kids with mom not around when he's home and if you're going to do that, mom might as well work and contribute financially.

Dh and I both have about 49 hours a week of waking time with our kids per week but neither of us has a significantly larger portion of solo time with the kids so dh and I have no need to try and even the playing field. It's even already.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 7:04pm
Nope, this has nothing to do with competitiveness. It has to do with the fact my kids have two parents and they benefit from both of them being very involved in their lives. How could they not?
Avatar for outside_the_box_mom
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 7:22pm
That's a bunch of hogwash. You have said on more than one occasion that you *know* your working is best for your girls *because* the census data has proven high SES benefits families.

outside_the_box_mom

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 7:25pm
Nope, try again. I've said that I know my working benefits my kids because of the impromvement in our standard of living. That's a no brainer when you're the primary bread winner. I use the census data to show that WM's, in general, improve their family's SES with regard to this debate! I didn't need a census report to tell me that my contribution to my family is significant. It's rather obvious. As I said, my decision was made before I read study one and I don't think you're in position to tell me otherwise. I know exactly why my WOH improves my kids lives. It wouldn't have mattered what the studies said wtih regard to that because what is true in general would not change my situaton. My situation is that my WOH greatly improves my kids lives because of my income. Even if the census said WOH had lower standards of living than SAH it wouldn't change that I don't. I just happen to fit what the census says which is neither here nor there when it comes to personal decisions.


Edited 12/14/2003 7:33:19 PM ET by cyndluagain
Avatar for outside_the_box_mom
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 7:27pm
I'm sorry, I'm not following your um, logic.

It is better for children to have two working parents versus a SAHP to prove that both are "equal"? I'm sure a six-week old baby *cares* about that. Yep, in fact, I'll go scour the Internet and see if I can find a study to back it up.

outside_the_box_mom

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-02-2003
In reply to: the_boss_plus
Sun, 12-14-2003 - 7:30pm
No need to compete when the playing field is even to start with. The one doing the competing would be your dh if he cares to compete. He, after all is the secondary parent. My kids don't have a secondary parent. Just two primaries.

Pages