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
<<>>
There's not much that could be considered noncontroversial on this board. You could get a good fight going about oatmeal if you wanted to ;)
<<>>
I didn't realize English was not your first language. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to debate the nuances of an issue like this in something other than my native tongue. I'm impressed that you've taken the time to respond to so many posts.
Well, it's fun for some reason. And if I start a thread, I have to post on it, isn't that the etiquette?
But these women get so into the "nuance" of every teeny thing, you get confused about who said what, who thinks what, who thinks who thinks what, and so on. This debate here, for example. One poster said no way could I teach my DD how to be independent about money someday by working because it was not working "in itself" but my attitude about working. Did not "get" that at all, because actually how can I have an attitude about working without having a job in the first place? Isn't that called "splitting hair" or something like that? Putting nuance where there is none. Good for debate, I guess. But why would I have a bad attitude about working if I already said I work because I like to work? My DH makes plenty of money, so I don't have to work, strictly speaking. But I love it, I help a lot of people, so it works for me. Whatever!
Anyway, this is a pretty decent way to improve my English. A couple of posters have already complained that they find my posts hard to understand. Which is funny, coming from them.
Take care! Sabina
It would be a good help if people started new threads for "parallel" discussions - much easier to follow what is being said! I had to give up hundreds of messages before the end of the thread, and I am sorry I might have missed interesting arguments about the *real* topic of discussion.
Anyway, I wanted to tell you, Sabina, that I, at least, don't have a problem understanding your posts. Perhaps because English is also not my native language? :-)
Over the last 6 months, out of pocket expenses for the new baby were over 5K, car repairs (our cars are older and payed for) were over 1K, and gosh knows what it will take to fix the leak in our roof and the foudation we found during the rains.
Our non-ordinary expenses in the last 6 months alone add up to at least 10K.
Mondo
THANK YOU SO MUCH! I really appreciate that. You know, English is such a difficult language. There are so many ways to say everything, and they all mean something a little different. For instance, I got in trouble for saying "live off somebody else". To me, that's about the same as "depend on DHs income" but to another poster it's a negative. To me, it's the same, like "eat dinner" and "have supper". But it's about subtle shades of meaning, it turns out. Like a lot of these discussions.
I think this thread changed to something else a few days ago. Parallel threads would be great. But I am pleased to have begun such a lively debate. Hundreds and hundreds of posts, dozens of different people sharing. Such fun! Even if half the people did not know what I was talking about...
Do you know, is there a way to retrieve the first part of a thread? Is it in "archives"?
Sabina
Several times lately you've written posts where I really feel sorry for you, even though I'm sure I don't know you very well.
It saddens me that you believe you can outsource everything when it comes to parenting. I don't believe soccer, gymnastics and skiing have much to do with parenting, so I agree those can be outsourced. But you are practically afraid to parent and afraid to get your hands dirty again because your 11 yr-old goes through "emotional thingies" that cause you to get sucked in and start feeling those emotions yourself. You want to be "proactive" to prevent the same thing happening with her next time.
I don't think it can be done. There is no one better than a loving parent to handle such a situation. That IS parenting, not soccer and skiing. Parenting can get ugly, and if your oldest is only 11, it may even get uglier.
<> Yes, there very much is.
No, I don't disagree. I'm just saying that I don't view having to downsize in that manner as the life shattering issue that some make it out to be. Traumatic when coupled with the loss of a parent? Absolutely, but unlike what others here have said, I don't believe that anyone, teen or no, loss of a parent or no *needs* to hold onto "things". Would anyone *like* to hold on to everything? Sure- human nature- but some around here are putting keeping the horses/ballet/house/etc. on par with *real* necessities, and *that* is what I disagree with. The real issue I have with this is the confusion some seem to have between *need* and *want*.
Wytchy
The point is, the comment that I made that caused you to respond was based on the concept of a national poverty level. Certainly there are areas where one couldn't survive on an income that elsewhere would give one a comfortable living, but that's not the point here.
Wytchy
Edited 2/12/2005 6:52 am ET ET by sahm2littlebean
Oh, for heaven's sake. Let's scrap Social Security, bring on privatization and let the chips fall where they may! PKA, you can't be this out of touch with the common folk, the little people. The average, individual income in the US is $35,000. I'm sure that includes single parents raising children.
A private school is not a need!
Pages