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
Jennie
Jennie
I don't know if aggressive is the word to describe that passage...maybe unfair. And unsupported by fact.
God forbid that they, as a society, form an opinion about whether or not mothers should work based on research they've conducted! I suppose they're just not as intelligent as us. Yes, I'm sure they are the ones who are biased. It couldn't possibly be that they see danger in children being placed in daycare for long hours a day when they are terribly young or the benefits of having a surplus of parental involvement, supervision, and time with the child. No. It's because they just think women working is an evil idea. It couldn't possibly be because they value family more than career, self-satisfaction, and the pursuit of happiness. It couldn't possibly be because they believe something is better for the children. It must simply be that they think WMs are just evil, and I'm sure they formed that opinion based on nothing and then managed to do a bunch of research that proved it in their eyes. But we, America, are perfect. We couldn't possibly form a bias based on our own ideals and then do a study trying to prove an opposite hypothesis, center the study around proving that hypothesis, and then conclude that the opposite hypothesis was proven. No. We did the research THEN decided, and they must have decided THEN done some biased research.
I'd be curious to know what kbmammm has to back up this accusation, that they are biased and created biased research on purpose and that we are not biased and created our views based on unbiased research? Is it because she thinks universities do not have agendas? Any organization can be run by a group with an agenda. Look at Walmart, so conservative it won't even publish a humorous book written by Jon Stewart. But, universities are perfect, uncorrupted by the bias of human minds, because the boards of directors, alumni, and others that run the universities have absolutely no opinions or ideas on anything. Is that her logic? Well, it's not proof. I'd like to see some proof that Canada & UK's research is biased, rather than them being biased because of that research. Wouldn't you? I doubt we'll get any. :/
Jennie
I would venture to disagree. I'm sure there are neglectful, abusive parents, parents who don't watch what they say and do around their kids, and parents who set a bad example. I'm not the perfect person in the world; no one is. However, no one else has the exact same values, principals, ideals, and beliefs as me. Everyone's personality and view is different, even in some small way. Therefore, the best person to teach my child what I want him to learn is me. I don't think that a parent who is doing their best is going to do a worse job than daycare. I mean, so now the majority of parents adversely affect their kids more than daycare? Well, why would we ever want children around their parents? Why not send them to daycare all day so they can't be negatively affected by their parents, but raised by the perfect DCPs?
And no, being that my son is 14 months old and has no need to be out of my sight, I don't think it's impacting his personality. When he's five or six, maybe. Right now? No. In any case, he's not in my sight every moment of the day, just most of it. I don't believe in leaving him for 8-10 hours a day in daycare, or even 5 or 6. Better to have him constantly in my sight, especially at 14 months, than drop him off with a stranger to frolick with a bunch of other kids with a several kid to one DCP ratio. Yeah, he'll be so much better off there. A person with several kids to one provider ratio is going to be SO much better at supervising and attending to a child than a mother who has the one-on-one ratio. Even when I have 3 kids, I'll probably still be able to give them more individual attention, better supervision, etc. than a daycare provider who has to watch several kids, as well as make sure things stay neat and tidy. At 5 or 6, he'll spend even less time "in my sight," I'm sure. I never said I plan to stare at hiim all day 24/7 for the rest of his life. ;)
Pages