In today's economy, how can U stay home?
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 08-07-2006 - 2:46pm |
I am 33 and am basically now sadly coming to the conclusion that we just can't have kids. I just don't know how people do it. In order to afford our mortgage, my husband and I both have to work full-time. And we bought a home in the least expensive market we could find in proximity to our jobs, so we commute up to four hours a day to make this work.
However, we both agreed, long long ago that we would only have kids if we could raise them ourselves. We just can't in good conscience reconcile the idea of having children and then handing them off to some stranger who is making close to minimum wages to rear them, and who can't possibly care about them as much as we do. And what would be the point? We would miss all their development and "firsts" and wouldn't be a close family, and they would grow up with attachment issues due to rapidly changing daycare staffing. No, if we can't do it the right way, we don't want to do it at all. We feel it's selfish to have them because WE WANT them; we decided long ago only to have them if we felt we could give them a wonderful life filled with love, hope, and opportunity.
So I am getting up there in age now, and I don't see things changing. The only people I see around me having children are people who 1) have family who live close by and can take care of their kids, 2) rich people, or women who marry rich men to be more specific, and 3) people whose families help them out financially.
Is there a chance for two people like us to have a family, when we don't have any of the above advantages? It doesn't seem like it should be THIS impossible! We're both hard workers who make decent money TOGETHER. Separately, it's not enough, but together, it's a good amount.
HOW could we make it happen? I have heard that having children after 34 the risks just go up and up and up, that they may not be healthy...

Pages
Both started cereal at around 5 months old (when they could sit up on their own)
PumpkinAngel
What I am confused about is how one would know what is historically correct or not, if one is using "long before 1500BC" as a historical reference and then claiming access historically.
PumpkinAngel
<<I breast fed both of mine until they were 13 months and enjoyed it.>>
I enjoyed it as well, mostly because it was easy for me.
PumpkinAngel
<<You may not remember the thinks but it help creat who u are today. >>
No, it didn't, at least if I understand your statement correctly.
PumpkinAngel
"Long before 1500BC? LoL, then a lot of things we are doing currently in regards to our children we didn't historically have access too either."
Certainly, like sonograms or Exersaucers, for instance, but babies' understanding of technological changes have not "advanced" in 3500 years. That is, babies have not evolved to adapt to self-weaning before age 1 year. On the other hand, when provided regular bottles and sippy cups of formula/expressed milk/juice/whatever, they're smart enough to deduce that nursing is only one of many feeding/drinking methods.
In that event, I suppose many babies wean even before a year old, requiring Mom to either use formula or exclusively pump. But this isn't true "self-weaning," as the parents helped the situation along by providing regular alternatives to nursing.
I'll give two IRL examples of this. One, my nephew's girlfriend, who declared her baby weaned himself at 2 months. He did, but only after she had provided many bottles of formula (thank you WIC) and her supply had plummetted. (sp?)
Another, my SAHD-friend's wife, whose DD self-weaned at around 10 months. The mother pumped at work, SAHD gave bottles during the day, and eventually the daughter would only take bottles. Understandably, Mom quit pumping at 1 year.
Let me emphasize that nothing is inherently "wrong" with exclusively pumping or formula feeding--but "self-weaning" at under a year is largely a myth. Instead, weaning is assisted by excessive solid intake (solids on an empty stomach rather than after breast feeding, for example), regular bottles, and supplementation which leads to reduced supply.
Ten years ago I imagine the recommendation was probably 3 or 4 months! In fact, I believe the range is actually 4-6 months, 4 months for ff babies, 6 months for bf babies. 34 years ago the pediatrician told MIL to add cereal to DH's bottle at about 3 weeks.
And FTR, I think it's awesome you nursed 6 and 9 months, especially when breastfeeding wasn't being promoted as much by pediatricians and movie stars alike.
Forgive me, I'm losing track of who said what and on what thread. DS has enjoyed feeding himself (with his hands) since about 9 months. At 13 months he'll grab a slice of bread and cram the entire slice in his mouth if I'm not careful! He's not using a spoon yet. . . although judging from what others say he's lagging behind in table manners.
Pages