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
A writer who uses anything and everything they can find to help imrpove their writing skills is just that... a writer who uses anything & everything they can find to help improve their writing skills.
A writer is someone who writes. A writer doesn't have to use anything and everything to do anything and everything they can with it. A writer can use whatever methods they like of developing and practicing.
So a writer has to be constantly practicing, and everything they write has to be a work of art. And any person who, in her spare time works on novels, writes poetry, and hopes to one day become an author is not a writer.
Gotcha. Well, I'm not a writer then, by your definition. In any case, I've stated that I hope to one day be a writer--not that it's my job now. I list it as my occupation because it is something that occupies my time. (Of course...now I'll be called a liar, because I included it on my profile as my occupation despite not using it to make money currently!)
I'm not going to discuss this anymore. You don't consider me a writer? Fine. You don't think I'm a good writer? Fine. You think I should be doing something I'm not with my writing? Fine. That's your opinion, and I don't really care--just as you all don't have to care about my opinions.
"One sentence is not on and on. "
I said "go on" not "go on and on" Go on usually just means talk about, complain, question...not necessarily carrying on and on and on. You know, it seems we debate wording, grammar, and exact meanings of words a lot more than we debate ideas here.
"You are the one who seem concerned about getting the credit points for the parenting you do."
Again, I've never said anything about credit points for 'parenting.' Those are the words of others.
I was comparing the situation of a person who works, then sleeps in seperate rooms, to my own more unusual situation. I am not concerned about getting credit points, and getting/giving all this equal credit wasn't even my goal. Pointing out how much family time a person gets when they have to work compared to how much family time a person who doesn't have to work gets was my goal. I stated that while I do co-sleep, many SAHMs don't. Therefore, night time hours is family time for me, but not to those who aren't together at night. It's not about 'credit points for PARENTING.' I was talking about what I consider family together time. I'm not exactly concerned about getting equal credit, and I didn't make a big deal out of it until that other person came along wanting to know why I counted night hours for me, then didn't include them when counting up the family time other people have. My response was meant to explain that I considered co-sleeping 'family time' but not down-the-hall sleeping arrangements, and to explain WHY I did it. I chose questions not to be a whiny little brat, demanding equal credit, but to ask why SHE disagreed with my allocation of family time hours. I never used the word PARENTING to describe it. PARENTING is something you do 24/7. Family together time isn't.
In any case, this is something I think is stupid to debate. I never said anything about parenting hours, only about what I consider to be family time hours. I don't care about getting credit, because this is an internet forum of strangers. I was only trying to explain why I saw things a certain way and inquire why they felt I should see it differently. And that's that.
"The only thing we know about your DH is what you have chosen to share with us. "
Some of which were jokes... as I though twas clear by the "LOL" following this statement:
"You've obviously never met my husband! LOL. He can barely take care of himself, much less a child."
As with this statement, "If he spent more time with Corbin, then he might be just as capable, but I'm not sure."
You'll see that I attribute that to him not getting as much time with hi, not to him being incapable. Because, again, when I stated he was incapable, it was a joke--which, again, I thought was clear from the LOL.
"He's not as in tune with him, doesn't know him or understand him as well. He's not as good at figuring out what he wants, keeping him out of things, much less keeping the house in order while watching hiim a few hours so I can go to the gym."
And how is all of this negative or critical? I don't see why him NOT being "as good" would cause someone not to think highly of him. I personally wouldn't think high or low of someone based on a few things stated on the internet anyway. In any case, this is stating that I don't feel he's "as good" as me--not that I think he's bad.
"If he watched him as much as I do, Corbin's main diet would probably be steak and french fries. :)"
You'll note I said probably. Which goes along with a line above where I said "I'm not sure" how he'd do...which I think would make it obvious not that my husband is a neglectful idiot, only that he doesn't do enough childcare for me to really know.
"And you wonder why many on the board do not think highly of your DH. Piece of advice, if you do not want your DH trashed on a debate board then do not trash you DH on a debate board."
No, I think it's obvious that I have to be very clear on this board and that I'm being too vague. Actually, this is the first board I've ever been on where people have had a hard-time understanding me...probably because most people I'm with aren't so technical and also do NOT use a few statements made to pass judgement on people they're not even talking with. It's clear that if anything negative is said you're going to assume there is no positive, when really the positive just didn't seem relative to whatever particular post was being made.
I haven't trashed him at all. I even showed him the board, and he agreed with me--but we both had a giggle at how you all assumed, because I made a statement and then put LOL after it, he's a bumbling fool whom I don't hold in high-esteem. How about this... a peice of advice for you... don't trash people you don't know, don't take everything so seriously especially when LOL comes after it, don't assume that if someone mentions someone's flaw that the person has no good points, etc. My husband and I joke about each other all the time, but we know we respect each other. We're just able to laugh at our own individual flaws.
"You don't consider being fed and changed to be a need?"
Why yes, yes I do consider being fed and having a clean diaper to be needs! Needs that my husband meets. :) I don't however consider perfectly clean clothes for an evening in the house to be a need, and I don't believe a child "needs" to eat his fruit, vegetable, and meat all at the same time--just as long as he gets them.
Read again very carefully.
>
"Not had a full meal." Which means that the baby has eaten and is content, just hasn't had his whole dinner yet. And "changed" which doesn't specificy "has a dirty diaper." As I said before, what I meant was that the baby's outfit needs to be changed--not that he's running around in a dirty diaper.
I don't consider changing a baby's diaper, but not his outfit, and feeding a baby a fruit, then letting him down without a meat and vegetable because he seems full to be not meeting a child's needs. As long as the child isn't wearing an outfit covered in poop and isn't starving to death, who really freaking cares what he's wearing and whether or not he gets his fruit, veggie, and meat all at once rather than eating a fruit then having the vegetable/meat the next time he acts hungry?
"Again, I've never said anything about credit points for 'parenting.' Those are the words of others."
Really, how many times did you mention credit in this paragraph you wrote.
"So, a woman that sleeps next to her son, cuddling him, entwining their fingers into each others hair, their breathing synchronized, waking frequently to nurse should get as much credit for sleeping hours as a woman who is sleeping down the hall from her child and only interacting them when they wake? Or, a SAHM that does all of the night care (as is the norm for that situation) should get equal credit for sleeping hours as a WOHM who shares the night care with her working husband? Or, a SAHM that doesn't have to do much night care at all should get equal credit for sleeping hours as me, a person who co-sleeps and is still woken every few hours for numnums? I have to disagree."
If you don't think that there are credit points for parenting then why compare how much credit each of the mothers in each situation should get?
"Or, a SAHM that doesn't have to do much night care at all should get equal credit for sleeping hours as me, a person who co-sleeps and is still woken every few hours for numnums? I have to disagree."
If there are no credit points then why do you disagree that a SAHM who doesn't do much night care shoud get equal credit for sleeping hours as you, who co-sleeps? If there are no credit points then there can be no equal credit.
"But you also have to remember that if a child is in daycare, unless they have an older sibling, there isn't any homework involved. No one has been home, so the house may not need cleaning and cooking/eating has to be done regardless of working status."
Good point. I didn't think about that. However, the homework thing isn't always true. Some kids go to school, then daycare until the parents get off work, then there would be homework though.
"You haven't proved that one of a child's needs is being with a parent for massive amounts of time."
And I don't believe they need massive amounts of time. Just more than the time left behind after being in daycare 8-10 hours a day. I think that would be beneficial, not that doing otherwise is damaging.
"That's just your opinion, which may or may not be true."
Exactly! That's all I'm saying :/
"What shortcomings should I be looking for in myself, dh and my children?"
Our shortcomings are usually more easily spotted not by ourselves or even our parents but by others. I know a lot of people and parents unwilling to recognize anything as a shortcoming. I don't think this is a question you should be asking me. I stated that I do think there can be shortcomings, not that I think anything specifically is associated with it. I think there's a wide range of issues that could result, considering different people react in different ways to different events, and I also think that in some cases there will be no shortcomings at all.
But again, I haven't stated that your child's needs aren't being met, therefore, I don't believe you should be looking for any shortcomings.
Once again... FINALLY another post that actually addresses/answers my question posed in my original post. Thank you for the helpful suggestions, I copied your email to keep, so I can go through your list and consider everything!
(What I meant by the "wanting kids" comment is just that I dont' think WANTING them is, alone, in itself, a good enough reason. It's the first reason you SHOULD consider even having them, YES. But I think we need to be able to know we can give them what they need before taking the plunge. Too many people have them because they WANT them, unawares of how much energy/time/$ it will take to have them, and end up surprised and in difficult, even poverty situations.That's all I meant. We DEFINITELY WANT them! ;-) )
Thanks Paulard!
That should read,
A writer uses anything and everything (they) he/she can find to help improve (their) his/her writing skills.
I delurked to help you with your uhm, typos in the interest of maintaining the excellence of the excellent writers here. ;)
Pages