WOH/Kids/Feminism: WDYT?

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
WOH/Kids/Feminism: WDYT?
1456
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 02-11-2005 - 9:08pm

You're missing the point. I'm not saying it wouldn't be traumatic or that one shouldn't try to avoid the situation. I'm merely saying that changing a child's surroundings and having to have them give up things that they're accustomed to isn't going to kill them. They'll get over it. Regardless of whether one is looking at a 350,000 home with horses and ballet or a 120,000 home with a modest yard, the death of a parent is going to create a hit in *any* family's budget and circumstances if that parent were a wage-earning parent. With prudent financial planning, one could manage to keep the house in many cases, but most people are going to deal with *some* level of downsizing or hit to the budget. While the timing may be poor as far as the teen also dealing with the death of a parent, I think the point is that such things are only that- "things" and aren't the be-all-end-all of life/happiness. Put another spin on the situation and say that Mom and Dad have to downsize because one or both of them has decided that they want to simplify their lifestyle and change career paths. Would you view this in the same light if we weren't talking about these changes right on top of the death of a parent?

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 02-11-2005 - 9:16pm

I'm not understanding your question. Please clarify. Stuck how? What are you referring to?

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2000
Fri, 02-11-2005 - 9:20pm

<>


And you can't be sure that your friends are not secretly accruing lots of debt.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 02-11-2005 - 9:22pm

Oh absolutely. So do I- so does any parent. However, as I said before, some things when presented as a "need" (such as living near the ocean, having horses, maintaining a 350,000 home on a 90,000 income) are just ludicrous. Just because we *want* to provide our children with more than the basic necessities, that doesn't change the fact that most things are still just "wants". Not that wants aren't important, but let's be realistic here...

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 02-11-2005 - 9:24pm

If we were talking about the changes without the death of a parent, then yes I would view the situation differently.


I think it is very callous to say that the girls are spoiled because they have horses and they

"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 02-11-2005 - 9:27pm

Yet again it all boils down to priorities. If having a SAHP is the higher priority for a family, they will almost certainly find a way in which to make that situation a reality. If it's not the higher priority then they won't, and like you- may not understand those who would do something like that. *shrugs* There are alot of things that people do that I just don't understand or find to be practical or reasonable, but they seem to work for those who do them. So long as *they* understand them and are happy with their circumstances, who am I to gripe about it? ;) What you also don't seem to be understanding is that I'm not saying that anyone *should* do this or that- I'm just saying that it's one of many possibilities. If that's what one wants to do, it can often be done. Just because you or I wouldn't do it or choose that path doesn't make it any less valid or reasonable for those who *would*.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 02-11-2005 - 9:34pm

The poverty level is measured on a national, rather than local, basis.

2003 Poverty Guidelines, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services state that even for a family of 8, the poverty level is (for the 48 contiguous states) 30,960. For an "average" family of 4 (two adults, two children) that level is 18,400.

Certainly there are areas where one could not live on 40,000, but that doesn't put them at or below the national poverty level. For a married couple even without children, the aforementioned 12000 puts them below poverty level.

Wytchy


iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 02-11-2005 - 9:42pm

Absolutely. I agree. But there is nothing wrong with living a more modest lifestyle in order to provide a sahp if that is what one wants/chooses to do. Just because one chooses to live on 40,000 rather than 100,000 in an area where they can provide a reasonable living, that is nothing to look down on.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 02-11-2005 - 9:45pm

LOL! ;) I'm a rare person as well, but according to a few financial reports that I've seen, we're the exception rather than the rule.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Fri, 02-11-2005 - 10:05pm

I bet there are several areas of the country in which a family of four living on $40K has the same SOL as a family of four living on $18,400.


It *has* to be considered on a relative basis in discussions like these.

Choose your friends by their character and your socks by their color.  Choosing your socks by their character makes no sense and choosing your friends by their color is unthinkable.

Pages