What would you give up to stay home?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-08-2004
What would you give up to stay home?
1422
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.

Lilypie Baby Ticker

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2005
Thu, 08-10-2006 - 3:37pm
I know quite a number of couples who work together in the same field. I'd love to work again directly with dh someday, but unfortunately I don't see it happening any time soon. We do work well together in spite of our constant debates :-).
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Thu, 08-10-2006 - 4:02pm

Point taken, however, I did say SAHM's I know. However, all you need to do is look at the income levels of households with a SAHM (census is a good place to find this) to see that many are living on low incomes. That pretty much precludes any significant amount of savings, at least during the SAH years.

And, actually I know several dozen SAHM's through the moms group at my church and my dd's schools and most haven't even considered their futures. Many scrimp and save and do without in order to SAH.

When I first came to this board, I read some of the archives and there are many threads that argue about how SAH is worth sacrificing to achieve even if it means using welfare programs like WIC. If mom is sacrificing to SAH, she's unlikely prepared. Seldom do I hear it argued that SAHM's, enmasse, are financially well off and well prepared for retirement. Looking here, I'd get the impression, they don't think of retirement. When it's mentioined, it's by a WOHM and she gets told that there are more important things than money. IMO, that is telling.

I'm willing to bet based on income levels, what I've seen posted on places like this board and what I see IRL that SAHM's aren't sitting on a pile of money when they SAH.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Thu, 08-10-2006 - 4:10pm

But why was it encouraged? It's encouraged where I work too, because the men don't think women belong in the work force. It's not out of respect for motherhood or because they believe it's a good thing.

When I got pg, my supervisor asked me "When" I was quitting. It's not that they respect mothers or think SAH is good, they just don't think we can manage both working and motherhood. It's because they see us as incompetent.

Don't take encouragement to SAH as support for SAH. It very well could be lower expectations for women in general.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Thu, 08-10-2006 - 4:20pm

Depends on her situation. If she's "sacrificing" to SAH or doing something disgusting like using WIC because she can't feed her kids, I won't be too happy with her and I'll let her know it. If she is educated, has worked in her field, has her retirement and college for the kids handled and is financially secure without working, she can do whatever she wants.

Actually, she can do whatever she wants anyway but I don't feel obligated to help a child I consider to be living irresponsibly. That's just being an enabler.

I would be very disappointed if one of my girls shirked her responsibility to take care of herself and always be prepared to take care of her family. I don't have much respect for people who take risks with their children's futures. But it's their decision to do what they want. I don't have to help them do it or suppot it though. If one of my dd's foregoes college in order to SAH, I'm sure I'll find something worthwhile to spend her college fund on.

However, given how much they have loved going to day care, that they adore their dcp and are immensly proud of my professional career, I doubt I have much to worry about here. If one of my girls did decide to opt out for a while, I'm sure she'd have her ducks in a row first.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-07-2006
Thu, 08-10-2006 - 4:29pm
I don't define myself solely on what I do for a living.

Wake me gently
If you can
Wake me gently
Just touch my hand
Wake me gently
Pull my sleeve
'Cuz where I'm at
Is where I wanna leave

"Wake Me Gently" Alice Cooper

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 08-10-2006 - 4:42pm

Again, your view is so incredibly biased, its not worth debating.

Personally, I dont know *any* sahs who have been sahs all their life, nor any that plan to sah all their lives. I dont know too many women who had children before their late 20's-early 30's. The sahs I know are educated with excellent work history, and plans to re-enter the workforce in some capacity later on. Even if they dont save as much *while* they sah, those 5 or so years that they sah do not significantly impact their retirement. And of course, my experience is as anecdotal as yours but I'd say the two sufficiently cancel each other out as far as your extreme generalizations.

Funny, I've been on this board for over 7 years now and have yet to see any but the most militant sahms say that its okay to use welfare or WIC. But it doesnt suprise me that you would try to spin things in that direction.

Its always the same old tired arguments with you. It gets old and rather boring to be quite honest.

dj

Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-08-2003
Thu, 08-10-2006 - 4:51pm

Well, I guess her workplace was different than yours, because they thought it would be a good thing for her family. She was a very hard worker and highly respected (before and after she became a mom).

But, I do see your point.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 08-10-2006 - 5:07pm

"It's encouraged where I work too, because the men don't think women belong in the work force."

Oddly enough, most of your other posts claim that in your workplace, the men are upset that their wives aren't in the owrkforce. What an odd workplace. On the one hand, "the men don't think that women belong in the workforce" and on the other hand, they are upset that their wives aren't in it. The only thing that is consistent about your posts is that they are anti-SAHM. The hilarious part of this is that being consistently anti-SAHM requires you to contradict yourself throughout the various threads based on what post you are answering.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-1997
Thu, 08-10-2006 - 5:56pm
I said I'd do the math and make it work. In my case, my husband and I lived on one income for seven years and completely banked the smaller salary -- mine -- before our kids were born. When I had my first child, I was keeping staying home as an option, and I found out I didn't really want to stay home. So we had a nice nest egg and no debts by the time we had our first. Either one of us could have decided to stay home. In fact, DS took a semester off work after DS#1 was born, but turns out he hated staying home. Your sister-in-law sounds more financially irresponsible, in that she doesn't seem to have done the math.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Thu, 08-10-2006 - 6:10pm
n/t

Pages