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: 08-08-2004
Sat, 08-12-2006 - 9:59pm
I am lucky that my mother lives very close by and was a tremendous help to me. My in laws also live only 45 minutes away and helped. I think I was able to enjoy the infant months becuase I SAH. It didn't matter if I was up during the night becuase I didn't have a set schedule to make during the day. Becuase of that, I was tired, but never anxious about my lack of sleep. I could sleep when the baby slept and rest when I needed too. Of course the housekeeping deteriorated to a great extent.
Lilypie Baby Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 08-12-2006 - 10:00pm

A baby can tell you that they are being neglected or

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-08-2004
Sat, 08-12-2006 - 10:13pm

As I stated before, statistics are meaningless when applied to indevidual cases. In my case, I assure you, there was NO risk from my childrens' parents or grandparents. It amazes me that you believe you can read a three month olds' non-verbal cues of neglect but that you don't believe I know my own family well enough to know they are not abusers.

Of course, the ability to speak does not completely prevent abuse. But by the time my children were old enough to speak, I felt that the benefits of some time in school outweighed the small risks. I saw no benefit to MY family in putting my infants in care so I had no reason to accept those risks.

Lilypie Baby Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 08-12-2006 - 10:36pm

<>


Considering I never stated anything about your own family, I would certainly say you should be amazed, as I am by your comments.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2006
Sat, 08-12-2006 - 10:39pm

How is my post consistant with your point?

Your posts stated "The positives were...I didnt come home to an empty house" and "Well that's not my experience. I can't think of anytime I came home to an empty house, and I had a SAHP" but now it has changed from it never happened to it rarely happened.

"Yes again, you've just proved my point. A couple of times isnt something the kids can count on. In fact, the opposite. They assume you'll be there. Just like we assumed my mother would be there. Just like my kids will assume their dad or I (depending on what we are up to at that time) will be there.

Again how does that prove your point. Your prior posts said nothing about kids assuming that a parent would be there. Whether or not you assumed your mother would be there when you got home did not change the fact that sometimes she wasn't.

Your original point was that having a SAHM means a kid does not come home to an empty house after school, my post was not consistant with your point nor did it prove it. It disproved it by pointing out that there are many cases where a kid with SAHP may come home to an empty house.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-08-2004
Sat, 08-12-2006 - 10:50pm

I suppose I'm confused by the relevance of your statistics. It may be true that more children are abused by family members then by child care providers but what does that information bring to the decision to woh or sah? For any indevidual family making the choice, each has to weigh the risks and benefits. What the statistics have to say about other families really has nothing to do with me becuase I know my family personally. I assume that is true for every family making the decision.

When you chose to put your child into childcare, I'm sure you didn't do so becuase you felt that they had a greater chance of being abused by you or your family. So what good are those statistics? What do they add to the discussion?

As to being able to read my infants' verbal cues, I have to admit that with dd1, I really wan't any good at it. She was collicky and difficult as an infant and it was hard for all of us to figure out what she wanted and needed. I doubt that I would have known if anything were wrong at daycare. If anything, I might have wrongly blamed her difficulties on daycare.

Lilypie Baby Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sat, 08-12-2006 - 10:58pm

I disagree with that. While much of the personality is formed in the first 5 years, that's true no matter what situation a child is in. The first five years don't require some special environment to allow for that. It happens in any reasonable environment.

As to morals, I don't think they have them down pat by 5 by any means.

Could you please link to the aggression study. If it's what I think it is, it's been debunked on peer review.

I'm not talking about putting children into poor care. That isn't required to WOH. However, I disagree on the number of children to caregiver being the criteria for poor quality. My kids thrived in a 6:1 setting. I agree on training and education. I think that makes a difference in a quality caregiver. But, the levels of aggression seen in kids who go to day care aren't anything to be concerned about because they are normal levels of aggression. You just see it sooner in kids who go to day care. Other kids wait until they're in school for a bit.

Personally, I think much of a child's personality is inherited genetically. I used to think that I had something to do with it but my kids are too much like other people in my family they've either never met or rarely see. While I agree children need quality time with quality people, I've read nothing that indicates the quantity of time spent with a child changes their personality. In fact, I just picked up "The Nurture Assumption". Since I really don't buy into the parents form children mantra, it should be a good read.

One thing I agree with the author going in is that my peers had far more to do with how I turned out than my parents did. I can also see where genetics played a big part. My morals, while drilled into me as a child, went through readjusment in my teens and again in my 30's. They certainly were not set.

According to the author of "The Nurture Assumption" some of what we've been taught is just plain wrong. What is real has been filed away in that place where we put things that fly in the face of common belief, to paraphrase the inrtroduction. Sounds interesting. I used to think that I helped shape my kids but after being a mom for 11 years, I've come to the conclusion that they are who they are and I'm just along for the ride. My part, IMO, really comes later. I believe it comes in the form of directing my kids towards learning situations that will help them cope with/change if they wish, characteristics of themselves that may create problems for them later.

My view on child rearing is more eastern though I've never studied eastern child rearing. I just know they consider the years after a child starts school to be the ones that are more important for parental involvement. It makes no sense to me why parental involvement would be more important when a child is learning to play patty cake than it is when a child is learning about the opposite sex. So, I just don't buy that the first 5 years are critical. Seems to me that kids from all kinds of different situations weather those first 5 years just fine and turn out with normal personalities. Now the teen years? Those I can see needing to really watch the environment and outside influences.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-01-2003
Sat, 08-12-2006 - 11:25pm

>>I disagree with that. While much of the personality is formed in the first 5 years, that's true no matter what situation a child is in. The first five years don't require some special environment to allow for that. It happens in any reasonable environment.<<

i never said they need a special environment, only that experts agree that birth to age five is a critical time for children. if you want your kids to be raised with your ideals, then you either need to be there, or they need to be around people who will uphold those ideals in your absence.

>>Could you please link to the aggression study. If it's what I think it is, it's been debunked on peer review.<<

it might take a bit to find, but i do remember that it was stated from the AAP (not easily debunked) and was not questioned by peers on the board either.

>>I'm not talking about putting children into poor care. That isn't required to WOH. However, I disagree on the number of children to caregiver being the criteria for poor quality.<<

you may disagree, but those criteria are not mine, they are the AAP's. states do not require daycares to uphold the standards of the AAP either, but through research they have found that their requirements best suit the needs of (young) children, resulting in fewer behavour problems in older children, and that there are approximatly 50% of daycares that rate poor to mediocre. that means that while you may not be talking about poor care, 50% of children in daycares are actually in poor care, which makes it rather relevant to the development of children. and, for many families, it IS a requirement to WOH if that is the only choice they have.

>>But, the levels of aggression seen in kids who go to day care aren't anything to be concerned about because they are normal levels of aggression. You just see it sooner in kids who go to day care. Other kids wait until they're in school for a bit.<<

actually no, they've been studying groups of children for a while now, (various qualities of daycares, starting from various ages) and the aggressive behavour goes beyond the norm of children in high quality, on site, nanny, at home parenting or (highquality) othercare. usually starting in about 3rd grade if i remember right. again, these are not my studies, opinions, or numbers.

>>Personally, I think much of a child's personality is inherited genetically. I used to think that I had something to do with it but my kids are too much like other people in my family they've either never met or rarely see. While I agree children need quality time with quality people, I've read nothing that indicates the quantity of time spent with a child changes their personality. In fact, I just picked up "The Nurture Assumption". Since I really don't buy into the parents form children mantra, it should be a good read.<<

i've cited numerous (over twenty) articles that say the exact opposite you are. (i'll look for them, i promise) while some personality traits are genetic, its no secret that children mimic. and the only thing they will mimic is what they see on a regular basis. child psychologists are saying that yes, if you want to have an influence on your child you must put the *time*, not just the effort in.

alas, its movie time! i'll post more later.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 12:50am
is that the same study that says kids who spend too much time with their fathers are more aggressive? did you believe and worry about that part too or just the part that advocates your position. and by the way, can you explain what you find offensive about being more aggressive? i have a 7 year old who i wish was more aggressive, i just dont see that as a bad thing. i have two kids who have passed the age 5 mark and i can say with absolute certainty that they are completely different people now than they were before that age mark, in thought, action and outlook on life. i have seen an almost complete personality change in my oldest in the last couple of years, between the ages of 13-15
Jennie
Avatar for myshkamouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 1:14am

Dd#1 has a friend whose mother also out earns her dad. She says, proudly, that that makes her mom the boss. Having a mom who has financial power has a powerful impact on girls from what I can see. "

So why is this a competative sport?

Pages