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
Sat, 02-12-2005 - 12:27pm

That is not what I'm talking about when I say spoiled. What I am talking about are those that say that such things are *necessities* ("some people need those 'things'") or that they would "die" without them. THAT is what I call spoiled. If one can afford to live where they desire and have a lifestyle that offers them a higher degree of luxury than others, great for them! :) My point is that if one *can't* afford that or something happens where they need to downsize, it's not the end of the world.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 02-12-2005 - 12:30pm

Actually, lol, O123/quiet's children seem to have remained the same age over the years. Which kind of puts a damper on the believability factor.


Dj

"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 02-12-2005 - 12:30pm

Then one might want to consider other job options and relocation elsewhere.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 02-12-2005 - 12:34pm

If someone says that they would literally *die* if they had to live anywhere else, then that's not reading into things. (Or was it someone else that posted that one?) If one has the option of living where they like in a manner that is comfortable for them, *great*. My point is that if they *don't* have that option, there are more important things than trying to maintain some ideal lifestyle.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 02-12-2005 - 12:49pm

Then it was a misunderstanding. My intent was to reference the only statistical marker of poverty that I am aware of- the national poverty level.

As I said previously, while there are many areas of the nation where one could live comfortably on 40,000, there is nowhere to my knowledge where one can do so at 12,000- well under the poverty level.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2004
Sat, 02-12-2005 - 12:49pm

<>


Absolutely! It's beyond debate. Even if one is willing to take on the risk of financial instability, that's a valid choice. After all, we're not talking about depriving anyone of basic necessities but rather of living out one's *values*.

No, I must admit, I didn't read quite all your posts. This thread has become unmanageable. We should think about starting parallel threads when they get over 500-600 posts.

I'm 50 years old, and I have met SAHP parents in the US and elsewhere for whom it is not even a question. From all income levels. I find it odd that one should have to defend such a choice.

I was just pointing out that some locations seem to be more welcoming to SAHP on, shall we say, a shoestring, than others. Some places are way expensive without actually offering as much in the way of support for rich family life. While other places are more affordable but still offer decent things for families.

Sabina

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2004
Sat, 02-12-2005 - 12:50pm
Reading "dying" as "literally dying" was your mistake. There is such a thing as spiritual death as well.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sat, 02-12-2005 - 12:55pm
Well of course there is virtually no where a family of four could live comfortably on $12K. But did anyone here claim that?

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2003
Sat, 02-12-2005 - 12:56pm

ITA.


And isn't a spiritual death often a precursor to a physical death?

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sat, 02-12-2005 - 12:57pm

No, that is still a 'want'. The need is 'an education'. The 'want' is a *good* education in a district that you are happy with. Even in a poor school district one can provide their children with a good education if they involve *themselves*. Other parents choose to homeschool when the option is available to them based on the quality of the local district. The point is, a "proper" education is highly subjective and doesn't entitle one to a private school if one can't otherwise afford it. It also doesn't raise that perception of "proper" to the level of "need" as opposed to desire.

Wytchy

Pages