WOH/Kids/Feminism: WDYT?
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 02-08-2005 - 9:06am |
Okay, let's debate something else. One morning a few months ago, I was crabby to DH about having to get ready for work. DH said, "Well, if you don't want to go to work, quit!"
Later that day, I told him I was just venting, and then I told him some of the reasons I really do like WOH. One reason was something to the effect that I wanted to WOH as part of at-home feminism for our DD's. He said he had no idea what I was talking about.
I thought about it some and decided that although this is a heartfelt idea for me, it's still fuzzy. I suppose I meant that I want to show my DDs how to live independently of a man, in the sense of income, ability to make one's way in the world, and so on, even if they choose marriage & kids. My feelings of pride in my own mom, who was a WOH mom, come into it, too.
Caution: I don't mean in any way to suggest anything the least bit negative about SAH moms. That's not what this is about. Nor do I mean to suggest that anyone has to WOH to teach their kids feminist or gender neutral values. That's not what this is about, either.
Do you think there's any value in WOH as part of raising kids? Please help me clarify my thinking.
Sabina

Pages
But shouldn't there be a balance between parent-centric and child-centric? At 13, a child should understand that situations change and that one isn't entitled to have everything they *want* or are accustomed to having. Lucky them if they're able to live the dream childhood until they're off on their own, but if not- what doesn't kill us............ Granted, I do see what you're saying about change in the face of major life trauma, *but*- you're making it sound like it's something awful if Mommy can't continue to provide everything the kid is accustomed to and wants. How spoiled is *that*?
Wytchy
They don't have any debt.
True- but often (perhaps not always, but often) there are options within a fairly reasonable commuting distance. (Say, an hour)
Wytchy
Well I think some people choose their locations on earning potential, job variety and availability.
When starting out in life, its just plain stupid to choose to live in the lowest col area, unless the income to col ratio is in favour. In fact, if its just the entry level income to col ratio that is in favour, the lower col area is a stupid choice. Generally being somewhat more foward thinking pays off in terms of income advancement, job description advancement, career advancement opportunities with other employers. Also, if there are two careers invovled, and one is really second fiddle...people will, rightly, choose to live in an area that maximizes income to col in terms of the most important income. Right there, another good reason to have two balanced incomes - leads to better chance that a location that is favourable for both is chosen. And if there are two incomes...of course you want the area that will let both earners be employable. The lower col area, that may support only good employment for one spouse - whats the point.
How is it spoiled to try not to change a child's surroundings or extra cirricular activities after the death of a parent? It is the prudent thing to do, really, for the child's mental health.
Can you cite me one pyschologist or grief counselor that suggests moving into a smaller home and taking away extra cirricular activities because of the standard of living has changed won't cause stress and possibly depression and trauma in a child?
I have read grief books for
&nbs
Exactly! In most middle-class US families, death of a parent causes a windfall, because most of us have sufficient life insurance to retire the mortgage, and often also enough to cover the children's educational costs. There is really no point in having it at all if you don't have that much, unless all you are trying to cover is a funeral. Standard recommendations for life insurance say that you should have enough to do both those things, plus pay all funeral expenses, and replace the primary breadwinner's salary for at least 5 yrs. Our income is about on par with that family's, and we have way more than $350K in life insurance, even though we don't have a mortgage and we have only one child. That family was both overextended and grossly underinsured. Obviously, Prince Charming wasn't as good at caring for his family as he wanted his wife to think that he was.
For people who cannot stretch to maintain life insurance, death is a sure ticket down, economically speaking. However, if you have life insurance, it should not be.
So you would literally keel over and die if something were to happen where you could no longer afford to live near the ocean? ;) Again- I call that pampered/spoiled. It's wonderful that you've had such wonderful experiences and memories etc. but you'd put your "soul" over putting food on the table for your son if you couldn't find gainful employment near the ocean? Or would you prefer homelessness- could you provide food, clothing and shelter living homeless on the beach? There is nothing wrong with choosing to put location over sah, but when you say you'd "die" and you "couldn't" live anywhere else, IMO that's a bit.... strange.
Wytchy
Owning horses does not make one a princess. Owning horses but not being willing to work ones little own self, in order to make that lifestyle element a reasonable expenditure, does.
The more financial means the second spouse has, the more of a mere sq ft downsize that home downsize is going to be.
I grew up in a 1600 sq ft home. Lived with babies/toddlers/preschoolers in a 1000 sq ft home and toddlers/preschoolers in 1200sq ft home. I think you are viewing your friend's situation through rose coloured glasses.
As far as demographics go, I guess since this lady couldn't afford to pay off the mortage and live on $350,000 + $37,000/yr, her demographics are mine, not yours.
Pages