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
"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?"
It's not because he's NOT a great parent, I'll tell ya that. What I LIKE to do has nothing to do with how great a person is/isn't at doing something. There are other factors, as I've stated (which you seem to want to ignore). But sure, okay, because I don't LIKE being away from my child, coming home and cleaning, and sacrificing FAMILY time to go off somewhere I don't truly need/want to go...that means my husband isn't a great parent. Gotcha. We've already established that my husband is evil because of our temporary situation. Let's move on! :)
"Maybe if you want people to believe your husband is an attentive parent, you should stop describing him as neglectful."
I haven't described him as neglectful. I haven't used any word even resembling 'neglectful' in appearance or definition. I've never stated that he fails to meet our son's needs; only you did that. So apparently, if my husband doesn't feel the need to put our child in a new outfit after a meal, when they aren't going anywhere and he doesn't need to be clean to impress anybody, he's neglectful and unattentive. Like I said, I got it. My husband is neglectful and unattentive because I don't like being seperated from my child or my husband without necessity, coming home and having to dress the child and pick up toys that were scattered on his watch, etc.
"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:
<>"
That meant that training is once a month, not that the only time my son is alone with our father is when I go to job training. That was in relation to how often my son comes with me to work, not how often he's left with his father. The subject we were discussing was bringing my son with me to work. I stated that he usually comes with me to work, but occasionally when I work he's left with his fater. It has nothing to do with how often my son is left alone with his father in general, just how often I go to work without him. I guess you're not good at using context to figure out what a statement means.
Uh... I also don't see how that has anything to do with whether he's in Mississippi or Colorado. That was a statement that applies, quite obviously, to when he's here in our own state. My husband is only stationed there for the month and will be home in a few days. And I did make that clear, when in an earlier post I said "he is stationed somewherelse." You obviously missed that and came back with a rude remark, so I typed it again in capitol letters. Glad you finally picked up on it.
"Which gives the clear inference that your dh shares your home."
And he usually does, just not THIS month. He's been gone 3 weeks and will be home in one more. In any case, what you inferred is not my fault. You could have just asked...or you could have paid attention to the more recent post that stated he was stationed somewhere else. You see, to me, it would be logical from my posts to infer that obviously he does usually share our home--otherwise, I wouldn't come home to them, now would I?--but that he's just not here right now, as I stated which explains why he's going to class during the day and goofs off at night, rather than coming home. Because, I did make it very clear that we share our homes. And then, I did make a post stating that right now, we're not sharing homes and are in different states. That you decided I must have been LYING about usually sharing our home and that our situation must be a permanent long-term one, therefore making my statements contradictory, is because of your own inability to read. If you had read, you'd have heard me talking about us sharing a home, and then you'd have heard me stating that right now our situation is different than it usually is. :) And the reason I use the present tense is because I don't consider a one month seperation grounds for suddenly using past tense. It's not like he's dead.
"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."
I wasn't the person who originally stated that working should be a priority in support of the family; I just agreed with it when someone else said...and you know what? I have every right to have my own beliefs, just as you do, regardless of my position. If I chose to believe that the only acceptable motivation for chosing to be away from your kids for long hours of the day is need, that's my right. You can believe otherwise; fine with me.
"And frankly doing so exposes your true feelings on the topic of WOHMs"
Not really. My true feelings on the topic have never wavered, that I think one shouldn't seperate themself from their kids unless they feel its necessary and benefits the kids moreso than the alternative, that I think one should maximize fmaily and put it first, etc. I never said that all WOHMs aren't putting family first, aren't doing what they think is best, etc. These are your concoctions and accusations.
"You didn't have to state WOHM, because the first part of that quotation reads:
<>>"
This doesn't mean I'm against WOHMs. It means that I'm happy more people are staying at home, because it obviously means less kids are going away for long hours a day to daycare and spending more time with mom rather than nanny. It does not, however, mean that I think anything negative about WOHMs.
"<>
clearly condemns WOHMs"
You can infer what you like; it makes no difference to me, but I was talking about society in general devaluing children and not seeming to care who raises them as long as they are fed and quiet. The mention of SAHMs wasn't to imply that either choice was better, only that I'm glad for the increase of a situation that means less kids in long hours of daycare and more of them home with mom (or dad, though the SAHM situation is more common than the SAHD one)
"Spin and revise your comments however you wish"
Spin and construe my comments however YOU wish, but the meaning I intended is not what you claim. And a revision is changing the wording...I haven't gone back on my phrasing of that particular paragraph at all.
"I would not want to spend 24/7 with my child."
I don't want to either. I'm just saying that I do right now and that I doubt I'd be spending as much time with him if I had a career. If I had a suitable sitter, I'd probably have a few more date nights with my husband and quiet trips to the library. I sooo rarely get to bathe alone. I do miss that, sometimes. :) Most of the time though I have fun splashing with my kiddo and don't think about it much. Only when I'm really exhausted and tired of babytalk am I like "GET ME OUT OF HERE!" and then... I go to the gym. That's the only time I get to soak in hot water alone! :)
"Yes, I have needs and I will fulfill them. It is not at the expense of my child."
Good :)
"You know the baby stage is so cute...but eventually they talk and they just don't seem to stop!!! lol"
LOL. Mine won't seem to START talking, but if it's anything like walking, once he starts, he probably won't stop unless I give him something better to do!
"It's not as simple a decision as you make it out to be (or as yours is)"
I know it's not. :) It is for me, but not for everyone.
"I would be bored at home."
What? Bored? With the endless monotonous cycle of laundry, dishes, and diaper changes? Are you crazy? I never get tired of vacuuming.
(I'm JK. That's sarcasm...since apparently a lot of my sarcasm/jokes/not serious things aren't being picked up upon by all readers)
It takes a lot of creativity, resourcefulness, and...a great deal of patience and tolerance to NOT be bored out of my mind. Some days, I'm just like...ahhhh, save me! But I try to include lots of activities in our day so that we're both stimulated. It's hard.
"I don't think being home with our nanny benefits the boys "more than the alternative" of one of us SAH with them, but I don't think they are worse off either."
Agreed. Like I said, sometimes there's an upside without there really being a downside, you know? It's just kinda like...level ground, and then an upside, lol.
"I am unwilling to wait 14 more years to be "satisfied and fulfilled."
I understand completely. :)
"But if that child is always attached to you, if you are around, he is always going to gravitate toward you. "
Not really. Most children raised in attachment parenting families become independent on their own.
"If dad needs to bond with that child to make it better then it would be best if you left the house to do it."
I disagree. I don't think being alone together is necessary to form a strong bond. I was never alone with my father as much as my mother, yet I was always closer to him. I have enough fond memories of fishing trips, and I don't even remember being 14 months old with him.
"You have all these friends that you mention, wouldn't you like to go have a few drinks with them so you can have a little adult conversation that is not geared toward children? "
I sure would if they all lived in my state. A lot of my friends are back home or in other places I lived as a Navy brat, and the ones here that I know are usually quite busy. Even when I get with them we end up chatting motherhood though!!!
"You don't have to stop living because you became a mom and it will not make you a bad mom if you crave a little interaction w/o your child."
I know. And I do crave it. :) I've just had a hard time meeting people here.
"You are young and should still be able to have fun and be a great mommy too."
Hey, I have fun... it's just...not always as adult as I'd like, LOL.
"I bet you 100 bucks my nanny could care for your son better in all ways that your DH could. Not love him more than your DH would, but provide better care."
To me, loving a child with all your heart is part of providing excellent care. That's why I consider nanny care to be substandard to parental care, because a parent would do anything for their child even die. Would your nanny die to save my son? If she would then...well, maybe she could provide care that was just as good. I'd have to meet her to agree. :D I'm sure she could, indeed, feed, diaper, and clothe him just as well.
Hey Im a lurker here. Don't even have kids yet, though Im interested in the SAHM v. WOHM debate. Im a law student and intend to be a WOHM when I do have kids, so the topic interests me.
I have a question for you though. From what I have always read and heard, moms used to pay quite a bit less attention to their children in previous generations than they do now. SAHM's had a lot more to do in the 50's for example then many SAHM's do now in terms of cooking and housework. They didn't have Swiffers and all of the other modern cleaning products we have/use nowadays that really cut down on the amount of work it takes to keep a house clean. And they certainly didnt have the amount of food choices we have now in terms of quick, easy, frozen and pre-fab'd foods that can be thrown together in 15 minutes. So while yes, more women stayed at home with their children, I really don't think they spent the same kind of intense, one-on-one time with their kids as we do now. I've always heard from women of my mother's generation and older that they simply weren't so "kid-centric". Parents were the parents, and kids were the kids and they kind've operated in their own spheres.
Now of course, we have a different view of children. We've lost that "children should be seen and not heard" mentality. We value them more as individuals at a much younger age, and most parents are way more involved in their children's lives than in previous generations. So I guess my question is this:
If SAHM's in previous generations really didn't spend as much one-on-one time with their kids as we do now, and pretty much spent their whole day trying to keep up with a tremendous amount of housework, laundry and cooking, how are we damaging our children now by not spending massive amounts of intense time with them? I just don't think "we" (by we I mean society) spent that much time in years past so why is it so necessary now?
And please, before I get super flamed.....Im not undermining the amount of cooking, cleaning and other housework people perform! I may not have kids, but I have a healthy respect for how much freaking work it is to keep a house clean, the laundry done and non-take out on the table day after day when you have a heck of a lot of other things to do. Im just saying that in previous generations, housework was much more intense than it is now and people had to spend a lot more time than we do now.
In our case, since we don't need all of both of our incomes for day to day expenses, we are definitely more secure with two breadwinners than we would be with one.
We'd be more secure if I was a full-time breadwinner as well, and I doubt I'll always be a SAHM. :) I think it's beneficial for a young child to be around his parents more than others. I don't think he's really ready for that 8 hour seperation daily. Your relationship with your parents may not be something you remember from your very early years, but it does affect your personality, self-esteem, etc. especially when you consider most children have developed their personality quite a bit by the age of 3 and are pretty close to the person they are going to be. (Well, that's what some psychologists say.) By the time we move there will still be plenty of toddler time left!
Pages