What would you give up to stay home?
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 08-05-2006 - 8:36am |
Hi everyone.
I have always said that staying home is so important to me that I would give up many things to be able to do that. We live in a very small home, I have no jewelry and we buy all our clothes at Walmart. I know that if I went back to work, we could afford more. But I would never trade being at home for a larger house or more luxuries.
However, after reading this board I have started to suspect that there are things I would not want to give up. If I couldn't send my kids to preschool a couple of hours a day, if I couldn't afford any after school activities like ballet lessons or if I could'nt afford any kind of summer program for them, I think I would have to find a way to go back to work. So basically, I'm perfectly happy to deny myself "things." But I would not want to take much away from the kids.
Of course I would probably have to find a new career becuase I could never work the 80 hours a week my old career entailed.

Pages
"I understand taht you are a feminist, and that is why you look down on a woman's choice to stay home "
Feminists in general do NOT look down on a parent's choice to stay home.
Actually, I don't think I have been all that vehement. I have conceded many of your points, many times in this long thread. I agree that SAHs will most likely earn less the WOHs. I agree that retirement planning is essential, not just for SAHs but for everyone. I agree that all these economic decisions should be considered before making the decision to stay home. They should probably be considered before making the decision to have children at all. I have plainly stated that I would never be able to pick the SAH vrs. WOH kids out of a line up.
My only point has been that while the economic factors are not trivial, people make many decisions based on valid emotional concerns. Not all of those decisions are bad ones. The man who decides to be an artist rather then a lawyer may never recover the economic loss but his life may be more fulfilling. I can't possible know how my childrens' lives will be impacted by my staying home. But they are happy and thriving and our arrangement works for us. If you go by purely statistical measures, I could probably have given my children up for adoption at birth and they would not turn out "different." As long as they had loving people caring for them, who cares who it is? Then I could make tons of money and the kids would end up the same so we'd all be better off right?? Now before you jump all over me, I am not saying that WOH is tantamount to giving your children up for adoption. I am merely making a point that the "end result" is not the only important issue to be considered.
I worked hard before I got pregnant so I could buy myself time with my children. I saved, I invested and I budgeted. Moreover, my husband is working the same hours he would be if I worked. But his life is made easier by having me at home so he is more productive. We are not just a group of indeviduals sharing a house. We are a family unit and we fuction as one.
I "feel" that my life is more fulfilling being my childrens' full time caregiver. What about that is objectionable to you?
Totally agree
ROTFLMAO. You pointed out something that goes one way for boys and the other for girls. It's a wash dear. Why are you so quick to simply ignore that acting out, whatever that means, happens more for boys and less for girls when mom WOH and more for girls and less for boys if she SAH? It goes both ways.
And I've already explained why any negatives due to WOH are to be downplayed. It's not just a simple issue of there being negatives. Those negatives have to be negative enough to offset the benefits of the income mom brings to the table. Even if there are negatives, they have to be major enough to offset the benefits of WOH.
What was your purpose in listing something that goes one way for girls and the other for boys? Did you think that proved something?
Edited 8/8/2006 9:18 pm ET by kbmammm
Pages