In today's economy, how can U stay home?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2004
In today's economy, how can U stay home?
1500
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2004
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 2:09am
Have you checked out Primerica (and other such financial companies), Avon, Mary Kay? I think there are also a lot of home data processing jobs as well out there. Just beware of scams, like survey-taking.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 2:10am
Your perspective is hardly new. And I never said anything about not having an opinion. I'm just surprised that you have such a hardcore and cemented opinion, having only been a parent for 14 months and having had not much longer than that much time for "research". My opinions at 28 yrs old change when I learn new things.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2004
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 2:46am

"I'm just surprised that you have such a hardcore and cemented opinion, having only been a parent for 14 months and having had not much longer than that much time for "research". My opinions at 28 yrs old change when I learn new things."

My opinion isn't what everyone seems to think it is. My opinion is: what's best for the family should come first and that we overuse daycare as a society. I really doubt that any amount of time is going to make me decide that what's best for an individual family shouldn't suddenly come first or suddenly decide that a child is better off being at daycare full-time than at home with a parent. I don't think being a young person or a new parent mean that I cannot have a hardcore, cemented opinion about priorities and where a child's time is best spent. Moreover, being 21 and only having a 14 month-old doesn't mean that I do not have siblings, in-laws, cousins, neices, nephews, childhood friends, friends with children, and that I have been unable to make observations about parenting and its results. My opinions do change when I learn things that disprove them. However, no one has proven that I'm wrong about family first or about long hours of daycare being inferior to family time. And my age doesn't inhibit my ability to locate and read the most up-to-date information about any subject.




Edited 8/25/2006 2:47 am ET by punkalicorn
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2004
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 3:01am

Some research, since you keep asking:

"It's best for a child to be with its biological parents as much as possible during the first 24 months of life," but parents routinely "parachute" their children into day care at too young an age, says Dr. Jean-Francois Chicoine, a pediatrician at Sainte-Justine Hospital in Montreal.

Chicoine argues that dropping months-old children off at day care prevents both them and their parents from forging the strong maternal and paternal bonds needed for healthy development."

From http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/health/article.jsp?content=20060503_144917_4472

"The younger the child, the greater risk of getting whatever is going around. In a smaller setting, such as homecare, there obviously is a lower rate of illness....At 6 months, your baby's immune system should be fairly proficient as compared to the first three months of life."

http://www.bluesuitmom.com/health/pediatrician/daycare.html

"He continued to say that during this period a child is responding and absorbing the world around him/her at a rapid pace, concluding that a child’s personality is not predisposed at birth, but grows and develops throughout the early years of life. "

"For all parents, this research validates what we already know: bonding during the early years, especially the first year is extremely important to the growth and well being of our children."

from http://www.nurturecenter.com/bonding.html
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fulltimemothers.org/ccres.htm / http://www.familieschildrenchildcare.org/ These sites are full of detail, citing what they base their studies on, what factors were included in the research, the reasons for the conclusions, and other variables and their conclusions. In summary:

"Children under three are clearly better off being cared for by their mothers.

Mothers going back to work early leads to slower emotional development in their children

Children in daycare from infancy are less compliant, more aggressive and more likely to have behavioural problems.

Away from mother's care between 1-5 increase chances of problems later in life

Less affection and verbal communication for children away from maternal care

Sending babies to nurseries can cause them distress and hinders their language development

Sending infants earlier for longer periods of childcare can result in them managing less well socially and at school.

Away from parental care can effect young children emotionally

Child away from home more likely to be withdrawn and fearful.

Quiet and inhibited children tend to receive less attention in daycare situations

Undesirable effects of early childcare don't go away."

For full details, and I do mean full, see the site.

-----------------------------------------
"... studies found evidence that suggests the longer a child spends in child care, the more stress they may experience, and that could lead to the young to become aggressive and disobedient."

"Two years ago, he says, some preliminary research was published by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which found children who spent most of their time in childcare were three times as likely to exhibit behavioral problems in kindergarten as those who were cared for primarily by their mothers. "

"In the study, there was a direct relationship between the amount of time a child spent in childcare and that child's negative behavior. But, the quality of child care didn't seem to matter. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/16/earlyshow/living/parenting/main563639.shtml

---------------------------------
"placing children in an average nonmaternal care facility for long hours does seem to be associated with some (modest) developmental risk, especially with respect to the mother-child relationship and problem behavior, and such outcomes are not merely by-products of low-quality of childcare. Second, in keeping with more than two decades of research, cognitive-linguistic development seems to be (somehwat) enhanced by high-quality child care. But third, in no case are these child care effects, or those pertaining to the type of care...particularly sizeable in magnitude."

http://www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca/documents/BelskyANGxp.pdf#search=%22negative%20effects%20of%20daycare%20on%20child%20development%22

I'll post more tomorrow. There are other things that lead me to believe what I do, even a few passages from What to Expect In the Toddler Years. Most of what I believe about daycare is about younger children. I do not think it is as big a problem for older children who are usually more prepared for the seperation and not effected as much by the long seperation.




Edited 8/25/2006 3:12 am ET by punkalicorn
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 6:39am

Hmmm, interesting. According to the "The Columbia Guide to Standard American English" (which I accessed via bartleby.com), the distinction between "less" and "fewer" is the following:

http://www.bartleby.com/68/20/3620.html

"Standard English still usually requires this basic pattern: use less with mass nouns and fewer with plural count nouns, as in less employment, fewer jobs. But Common English—and even some Standard—increasingly uses less with plurals, especially after than. Edited English still follows the basic pattern rigorously, however, except in a few idiomatic locutions, as in in ten words or less; in certain phrases involving money, such as less than a thousand dollars; and in some phrases involving plural measures of time and distance or other measures, also with than (less than four days, less than ten miles, less than five cups of coffee). Even in these, Edited English prefers fewer, and for many conservatives, the use of less where fewer is expected remains a strong shibboleth."

Since the OP was referring to "children", I would have assumed from this that "fewer" would be correct since I assumed that "children" is a plural count noun. Perhaps I'm wrong about that?

In any case, thanks for the link! For some reason I missed that particular online resource and I'm always desperate for up-to-date grammar help.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 6:39am

But co sleeping isn't parenting. It's sleeping. The only difference is I didn't have to walk down the hall if my children woke up in the night. That few seconds counds for nothing IMO.

Children know where they are and who is there for them. They don't wake up in the night and cry for their dcp or ask "Who's there?". IMO, sleeping in different rooms ought to count as much as cooking in the kitchen while your kids watch TV or any other activity that results in children being in one room and mom and dad in the other. I'd put cosleeping in the same category since you're involved in separate activities each lost in ther own dream world.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 6:43am
Actually, I sent my kids to dc in part because I thought they would benefit from dc socially (particularly in ds's case) and linguistically (particularly in dd's case). Both children did end up gaining the benefits from dc that we had anticipated. Dc can certainly have more to offer than "hugs and cups of milk".
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 6:45am

Most of what you have posted here is opinion not research.

As to the research, the jury is still out. Yes, we know that infants have higher stress hormone levels if they are in day care, however, we don't know why or what consequences, if any, will result from this. It could turn out to be a benefit. Maybe babies who experience more stress grow up to be adults with brians better equipped to handle stres. It could be a chicken and egg thing. Type A mothers are probably more likely to work and more likely to have type A babies. Perhaps they simply have more stress responses.

You really need to know what the consequences of the research you are posting are and the jury is still out and likely will be for a long time on this one.

As to the behavior issues, I'd need to read the actual research. If it's what I'm thinking it is, it's already been peer debunked.

I'll review the rest later (except for biased citings like familyandhome.org, etc, etc, etc...I don't bother with such sites. They're worthless because they twist things to say what they want.). I have to get ready for work now.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 6:48am
Well...I do find discussing grammar to be extremely productive, but that's probably because I spent a lot of time writing and copy editing for my job. I am very grateful for the grammar links people have provided in this thread. My grasp of the subtleties of certain grammar rules is, at times, shakier than I would like it to be.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2006
Fri, 08-25-2006 - 8:10am

"pedofiles"

Sorry, it's not just you but this is driving me nuts. It's "pedophile".

Pages