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
You stated, "Unfortunately, that has reduced our friendship to a phone call every other month because my friend has neither the time nor the money to go out and do anything."
I believe that your friend deserves more from you then one phone call every other month. If you care about her and admire her as much as you claim, the least you could do is exercise enough self restraint to be there with her. You could keep her company in her own home and attempt to ease some of her burden. The fact that you can't control yourself in order to do this is very sad for both of you.
It's better than the average nursing home by a mile. No, it's not completely sterile but they can keep out people with a cold or the flu and make sure it's kept spotless and cleaned with disinfecting cleaners. Most of the nursing homes I've been in are anything but clean.
The issue with SAH is I consider SAH a poor decision when financial planning isn't in place. Read through the archives here. There are several threads on the topic of how it's worth sacrificing to SAH....on how there are things more important than money....etc, etc, etc... Talk like that tells me that there are women out there deciding not to work who haven't planned and they should rethink that.
You can be an idiot with finances while working too. IMO, it's just as stupid to run up debt, spend all your income, when you don't need all your income to live off of as it is to quit your job when you don't have your future secure. There are lots of ways to be stupid about your financial future.
She knows she can call if she needs me. She hasn't been abandoned.
Before she was caring for her mom, we used to get together just about every weekend.
Edited 8/12/2006 9:33 pm ET by kbmammm
Aren't luxuries things you have if you can afford them and you want them? That describes SAH.
No, SAH/WOH have nothing to do with good parenting. That you let yourself go on a guilt trip is a personal issue. It has nothing to do with your working status.
And no, infancy is not the most critical time in a child's life. What infants need is good care. Period. Who provides it, even if there are 4 other babies in the room, doesn't really matter.
If this is such a critical time and being in group care an issue, what differences will we see in people who were in group care as babies?
Both of my dd's were in group care as infants. Dd#1 in a center with a 4:1 ratio and dd#2 in a home based day care where there were 6 children. What should be wrong with them because they were in care with other children while I worked during this "most critical" time in their lives?
Personally, I don't think there is a most critical time WRT how our kids turn out but if I had to pick one to be an involved parent, it would be the preteen years. The ones where they're making decisions like whether or not to have sex or do drugs and could be hanging out with the wrong crowd. The baby years are the easy ones. You love them, play with them, feed them well and provide them with an enriching environment. Done. My 11 OTOH is another story alltogether.
>>on how there are things more important than money....etc, etc, etc... Talk like that tells me that there are women out there deciding not to work who haven't planned and they should rethink that.<<
do you disagree that there are things out there that are more important than money? i can think of a lot of things out there more important than money. it doesn't mean that i have no plans for the future, or that i should rethink the decisions i've made or am actively making. all it means is that i think there are things out there that are more important to me than money.
*shrug*
"the greatest risks to children come from family members not dcp's. what is it about age 5 where you suddenly think it is okay to leave your kids with strangers?
Jennie"
You are talking about statistical risks which have absolutely nothing to do with my situation. The only people who ever watched my chilren when they were infants were dh and I and her grandparants. I know for an absolute certainty that the danger to my children from their grandparants was 0.
I never said that I suddenly thought it was ok when the children turned 5. In several posts I said that I put my children into nursury school starting at age two. I knew that that entailed risks but I felt more comfortable with it becuase my children were verbal and could at least tell me if they were unhappy. I understand that such reporting is not fool proof, but I felt that the benefits they received from being in nursury outweighed the risks.
I saw no benefits to my children from being cared for by a nanny or daycare provider as infants so there was nothing to outweigh the risks.
By the way, the risks I'm talking about are not only news making things like shaken baby, but neglect, and lack of affection. If you were able to find a loving Nanny for your children thats wonderful. I stated quite clearly that I believed that infants did not care who looked after them as long as the person was loving and attentive. I don't think everyone is able to find that for their children and I had no reason to take that risk.
that is why to *me*, its not all about "economic sense". Heck, kids dont make economic sense!
my "economics" are fine (I know that may be shocking to *you* since I am SAHM) - so i live my life, have a baby, SAH for a while and be happy. Ahhh, isnt life grand! (better then being without my son because he didnt make "economic" sense. And, for me, better then WOH while he is small simply because people like u think it doesnt make "economic" sense.)
It is NOT all about money, economics ect... It's about life.
do u have kids? why did u have them? ....they surely dont make economic sense.
Josee
Edited 8/12/2006 9:56 pm ET by noah2004
actually in a thread a while back (was it this board? i can't remember) i posted numerous articles about how pediatricians and child psychologists agree that the MOST critical time in raising a child is from birth to age five...
things like their core personality, how they filter new information, morals, values, and even core behavours are all mostly devloped by the age of five (some say to age seven). the experts also agree that both quality AND quantity of time spent with a child in this age group makes a difference in the personality and behavour of a child. basically what you've taught them in the first five years will stay with them and influence them through their pre-teen and teen years (thats not to say they won't need some reminding LOL).
they have also found that children who spend the majority of their time in poor to mediocre day cares or child care centers during this age are more agrressive upon entering school. (the AAP considers a poor to mediocre day care to be that which has more than four children to one staff member, leinent training of staff, and overall low ratings).
if you would like the studies i might be able to dig them up...although they might be on one of the old boards (you can still read the threads i think).
Pages