Scenario
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 12-06-2003 - 11:17am |
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
Edited 12/14/2003 7:27:22 PM ET by cyndluagain
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.
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.
outside_the_box_mom
Edited 12/14/2003 7:33:19 PM ET by cyndluagain
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
Pages