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
"School and parents caring for a child are not necessary in order for a child to develop."
I think you have a very different idea of the word development than me. You see, to me a child must develope in many ways: physically, socially, mentally, speech-wise, behavior-wise, emotionally, even morally--and many other areas. While schooling and parental care may not be necessary physically, I think it is certainly necessary to other areas of development.
"I also don't have any issues about daycare and ages and both of my children started at totally different ages based on a variety of factors."
My line of logic was that it's hypocritical if you're going to chastise me for feeling that at a certain age it would be acceptable for my son to begin spending more time away from me when you made the same choice about daycare for your own children at different ages. It's terrible for me to think "Gee, my son is 5; he's ready for public school, and I can go work while he's in school" when you yourself said "My child is old enough for daycare, time to return to work." Unless your children were in daycare from day one, you inevitably made a choice at a certain age to send them to daycare. If your "parenting" didn't change for that, why would mine change for deciding to work while he is learning? Because it's not about whether your parenting changes but about how much time you're spending together for me.
"Why do you keep claiming what the board should and should be about?"
Because I'm using what this board should and should not be about to chose what I discuss here. If we're going to be discussing the SAHM/WOHM debate I'm not going to bring up factors that have absolutely nothing to do with SAHM/WOHM. The only one who keeps bringing those factors up is you, as you dig deeper and deeper into my personal life.
Yes, but age is not the only factor, as you said, especially if you have a wide variety of interests, hobbies, and support groups. I'm sure you meet more people as you grow older, but I really don't think age would determine what kind of people you're friends with unless you let it.
"Would you rather I assume to know what you meant or simply ask questions to understand what you meant?"
You've done both. You've assumed several times as well as asked several times. I wouldn't be as annoyed if your assumptions weren't always for the worst and your questions weren't always worded in such a rude manner. I also wouldn't have a tone if you didn't continuously try to pin me as a hypocrit or liar by pointing out that I used a figure of speech like "keeping me on my toes" than went on to say that he will sit still when he's entertained, when it's quite obvious that "keeping me on my toes" can't possibly mean every minute of the day or I wouldn't have the time to sleep or even sit here and type with you. Or, to act like I'm a hypocrit/liar/unclear when I say "almost 24/7." If I'm being unclear then ANYONE who ever uses the term '24/7' is a liar, hypocrit, and being too vague, because NOTHING is done 24/7 except things like, breathing, existing, and living.
Or how about this scenario? Didn't you say that once a week isn't rare? Yet now you're saying that there's no way he spends several hours a month alone with our son because it's so rare that I leave them along together, when earlier you said once a week wasn't rare!? Make up your mind. Is once a week rare or frequent? Because if it's frequent, not rare, like you say it is, then they do spend several hours a month together. And you don't think they do, despite you saying that once a week isn't rare. But if it were rare, which you already said you don't consider that rare, then how does it make sense for you to say that they don't spend several hours a month together after pointing out how frequent once a week actually is?
Yeah, I think my tone is quite deserved. Most of how I phrase things, such as "24/7" and "keeping me on my toes" are figures of speech that most people understand. And I think you understand them; you just enjoy twisting it against me to try to discredit me. No one else is having much of a problem understanding the way I'm phrasing things...and you know what else? No one else is phrasing things in your condescending tone.
"If it's none of my business, then why are you posting it on a public internet debate board for all the world to read and debate?"
Because you asked about it, and I didn't mind mentioning it until you began using it to insinuate negative things about my family.
"But since you aren't going to answer the question...oh well, that's your choice."
I'm not going to answer the question because I don't see how an exact number is going to help the situation. What are we going to have an "I have more friends than you, 88 to your 44!" contest? That's ridiculous. I'm not going to open my address book and count off how many people I socialize with.
"I disagree, a job is a lot less flexible than a career and they are usually expendable because they don't pay well nor have the benefits that many careers do."
Not the jobs I've got... It really depends on what you chose to do for a job.
"All I did was ask a question about one of your comments."
"it was in a paragraph about your dh trying to find a time with your son."
Right... not about how my DH has only been a father for 2 months, but about how it's been harder for hiim to find time since he began working 2 months ago. It was pretty obvious, being that we were discussing the effects of his second job on their time together, that I was talking about how long that situation had been going on--not how long he'd been a dad.
"Otherwise you really need to stop implying things that were never said."
You don't have to say something flat out to imply it. :) That's what imply means, and I'm not implying anything other than that YOU implied certain things.
"Ahhh so only parents who co sleep parent at night."
I didn't say that. :) I said that I, being that I co-sleep and am interacting almost all night, spend more of my night time with my child than do parents who sleep in seperate rooms from their child and go to parent their child only when the child wakes.
"(I know many working parents who co sleep, FTR)"
As do I. And as I said, I don't know if she co-sleeps or not, but if she doesn't, I doubt she spends as much of her night hours with her child as I do.
"I'm still not getting why it's important to be with your child all day at some times, but not others, like when preschool or school starts."
Because there are many factors involved, such as age and maturity. Because I think lots of parental interaction during their younger years is quite beneficial and that children need even want less time with their parents as they grow older. Because they NEED school in order to be functioning adults, but they DON'T need daycare to grow up healthy.
"If it's that important, you should probably homeschool."
I've already stated that I do plan to homeschool.
"No school isn't a developmental milestone."
For something to be necessary to an area of development doesn't make it a developmental milestone. The first word, first day of school, etc are milestones. Adequate care is necessary to development, but that doesn't make it a milestone.
"I think the person who is teaching my children math needs to have the same value of education that we do as parents. I agree however that they don't need to be of the same religion to give my child a bottle, but they do need to have the same core values as my dh and I if my children were to spend regular time with them on an extended basis."
Agreed. :) I just think that to teach something you have to understand it. I think someone who's good at Algebra would teach my son Algebra a lot better than I ever could!
"....just didn't understand why you addressed it at me since you have no way of knowing how I feel one way or the other about homeschool."
These posts are public. You aren't the only one reading them or responding to them. The sarcasm wasn't meant for you, just for anyone who happened to read that and have that reaction, which is a common one that I have encountered. Of course if I experience something often enough I'm going to eventually assume it will probably happen and be ready for it.
"I haven't twisted words nor attacked anyone...just debated on a debate board."
If you say so.
"there is no pattern therefore you feel it's rare? Didn't you say that your dh spends several hours alone with your son each week as well?"
It doesn't happen often, therefore I consider it rare. You, however, don't consider once a week rare, though I do. I say my husband spends several hours alone with my son each week, but you say he doesn't--even though you don't think once a week is rare. Yet for some reason, despite my considering once a week rare, and you considering it frequent, you don't believe he spends several hours alone with my son each week. Oh, and wait, weren't we talking about several hours a MONTH before? Now we've gone to weeks?
I'm really not following you. Either once a week is rare to you, or it's frequent. If it's rare to you (though you've said it's not) then I can understand you not believing my son gets several hours alone with my child. If it's frequent to you (as you claim) then I do not understand how you, despite believing once a week is frequent, don't feel that the number of hours they have alone together are "several."
Rarity is relative. Because my son is with me day and night, I consider our seperations rare. However, I do not feel that a few hours a week does not equate to "several hours" a month. I think 2 hours a week does equate to "several" hours a month. In any case, they do not have to be alone to bond and spend time together.
"Perhaps you could curb the insults, especially since I didn't ask for the exact amount of time"
I wasn't insulting YOU, but insulting the practice of being completely technical. I think you and I sitting here pinpointing everything down to the millisecond is stupid.
"Again, it's hard to picture how you can concentrate on your job that requires both hands and keep an eye on your very active 14 month old at the same time....all on your own. Now I can certainly picture the guests at your party helping to keep an eye on him while you work."
My job doesn't require both hands. He sits on the floor for a few minutes, occupied by a few toys. I set up, give everyone a sample. He sits in my lap, bounces, talks, is entertained by toys, as I explain the products. He sits on the floor for a few minutes, playing with toys, while I clean up and take orders. My job doesn't take both hands but for a few minutes, and he's usually quite content to be still for the few minutes I'm required to set hiim down beside my chair. Being very active doesn't mean a child NEVER EVER EvER sits still and is incapable of being entertained quietly. It just means that MOST of the time he's running around--not that I don't know how to calm him when it's necessary. You can picture what you like, but what you picture and what happens in my life are two very different things. Believe what you like, but having the guests at my party helping me do my job isn't exactly my idea of a pampering session for them. Therefore, I do it myself. If it required both hands, I wouldn't be successful. :) And you are the one who thinks it requires both hands. Maybe for you, but not me--just as cooking, typing, etc. doesn't require both hands, nor does it require both hands for me to do many things with my child.
"When you speak of young men, what age ranges are you talking about?"
Most of my husbands friends are under 19-25, and the ones that are a bit older than that but have kids have very young children. Therefore, I think it makes perfect sense for them to still not be extremely skilled at balancing and managing everything in their lives. Either they are still young, or they just haven't been parents long.
"Wouldn't the most important thing that is demanding attention, be the child? Shouldn't all of this be taken into consideration before planning on having a child? Shouldn't both parents, by the time a baby is born (after all, accidents do happen) be dedicated to spending their time and energy on that child versus preferring to play video games and go out with their friends?"
Absolutely. And this is indeed true of our situation, as it should be true of all situations! Though I certainly don't think it means no parental fun. :)
Our son was planned, just for the record! We felt ready. Sometimes you can think someone is 100% ready for something--and be wrong. My husband and I are not the perfect parents...but we're trying. We were unprepared for many things, but I don't think there's a single new parent that was prepared for everything. I certainly wasn't prepared for poopie "blow outs" that sent dookie right up the back of his shirt! But I've handled it as best I can. :)
My husband spends little time playing video games and usually, when left alone with our son, does a combination of gaming and one-on-one interaction with our son. I think his personal time is just as important as his time with his son. It's necessary for everyone to have a break; it makes them perform better. If it didn't break time at jobs wouldn't be mandatory. Now, despite the fact that his gaming time is low, I'd still prefer him to spend his alone time doing nothing but interacting with Corbin and game at other times. However, we're still adjusting to the new job, and Corey is still young and learning how to manage and balance everything. I also think he seems to feel that if Corbin is happy playing alone, he shouldn't interfere or that Corbin need's his undivided attention every second that they are alone together. He parents differently, and while I don't agree with him, I understand and would certainly never purposefully imply that he isn't dedciated to his child.
My husband quite rarely goes out with his friends. The only reason he's gone out lately is because he is in another state. Usually, he's in home with us, all together as a family. The reason they have so little time alone is mainly because I don't have anywhere that I need to go that requires me to leave them alone...and we'd all much rather spend ample time together, as a family, than have me go out often so that they can be alone.
In any case, I think it's quite different to chose to be away from your child many hours a day when you don't have to than to chose to spend an hour or so a day playing a video game. My husband choses to be the one to work for various reasons, including that he likes the job, feels like he should be the main breadwinner while my part is to be the primary caregiver, that I'm the one who's been able to find a job where Corbin can come, etc. That's his choice. And the two-jobs-for-each-of-us situation is only temporary so that we can prepare for his unexpected discharge next year. At least we were given time to prepare! If we didn't take the oppertunity now to go ahead and prepare, we'd be in a MUCH worse situation next year...probably requiring full-time jobs of both of us and even less time for us all to be together as a family!
"What makes you think a mom with a career doesn't put her family first?"
I don't think that and never said I did, though I certainly think that some do just as some SAHMs put things before family. My statement is not that any mom with a career is putting that career first. My statement is just that family should be first. So long as family is coming first, it doesn't really matter what a woman is doing with the rest of her priorities. I also never said that she or anyone here wasn't putting family first, and I even specifically stated that earlier. I didn't say "You are neglecting your family, and you should be doing ___!" I said "family first," which didn't mean (as I said in that paragraph) she doesn't put hers first just that I agree with any of her choices if she's putting her family first.
Pages