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
<>
Yes. Just because they aren't parenting like YOU are parenting doesn't mean they get no credit for their parenting.
I mean, if we're to use your standards here, your dh is no parent at all, is he?
Yours is not the Gold Standard of Parenting. No matter how much you choose to believe it is.
Well, if he's such a great parent, I wonder why you originally claimed you don't like to leave your child in his father's care?
>
Maybe if you want people to believe your husband is an attentive parent, you should stop describing him as neglectful.
Similarly, if you want people to understand your dh is in Mississippi while you and the baby are in Colorado, you shouldn't write things like this:
<>
Which gives the clear inference that your dh shares your home. that bit was written by you in Post #280, dated Monday. Two days ago. Two days ago, you described your husband's familial duties in and around the house in the present tense. And without so much as a hint that he was no longer in the same state as you.
If people aren't understanding your situation, the reason is that your posts are confusing and contradictory.
<>
Nonsense. You are in no position to determine the motivations for anyone working, let alone to decide there can only be ONE motivation for someone to work and that if that motivation includes personal satisfaction that it can only come at the expense of the family.
And frankly doing so exposes your true feelings on the topic of WOHMs. And it is not one of "let each family decide for itself."
I've never yet met an author who failed to remember one of the primary rules of writing: Know your audience. it's a rather basic axiom.
It would be like a mathematician forgetting the transitive property of equality.
You didn't have to state WOHM, because the first part of that quotation reads:
<>>
That statement clearly places the Halo Of Mommy Goodness™ on SAHMs and the comparison in the quote I used originally:
<>
clearly condemns WOHMs. By comparison. "SAHMs increasing because it means there are more children being raised by their mothers...." If you believe WOHMS raise their kids, SAHMs would not need to increase in order for "more children being raised by their mothers." Your statement openly and clearly condemns and insults WOHMs by accusing them of 1) failure to raise their children, 2) placing them in "kiddie raising farm", and 3) compares the care of children by WOHMs to the care of dogs and other pets.
Spin and revise your comments however you wish, but all the smoke and mirrors in the world doesn't change the insulting and crass comments you made.
"If I'm going to chose to send my child away for any amount of time I'm going to do it for a reason that benefits him more than the alternative. I think staying home with him is much better than sending him away so that I can feel satisfied and fulfilled."
It's not as simple a decision as you make it out to be (or as yours is).
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Or the choice of both parents together who prefer to spend time together as a family rather than send mom away for the sole purpose of father and son being alone--as if parent and child can only bond when no one else is in the room
But if that child is always attached to you, if you are around, he is always going to gravitate toward you.
"Because I think all childcare is substandard to the care of a parent."
I vigorously disagree.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Pages