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
***I'll vehemently disagree here. A good education is not a *want* it is a *need*.***
And just how do you define *need* and *good*? For one person a public school education may be *good* whereas for another in the same school it may not be. The point being it's a very subjective issue.
***It is a need for our children to grow up and be able to support themselves.***
Absolutely. But one can do that coming from a fair-mediocre school district or one can do that in the best districts in the nation. While one may take more work/effort on the part of the student, that doesn't mean that one is somehow entitled to a perfect education in a perfect school district just because *you* (general you) don't think that your school district is "good enough" for your child (again- general 'you's' throughout). If one can provide it- *great*. If one can't, one can take measures to increase the quality of education through other channels or try to change their situation, but it's not the end of the world if one doesn't have their kids enrolled in the best schools in the country.
***It is a need for our nation to raise a youth that will be capable, in 20 years, of running this great country. It is a need for our economy to continue to thrive. It is a need in just about every sense of the word.***
Absolutely. But that's more an issue once they get into college as far as what college they get into rather than what public school they attended. If a student is motivated to learn and the parents are involved and able to provide additional educational experiences for their children, even in a questionable school district one can receive a *good* education. I know this from experience on both sides of the proverbial fence.
***Nope. Involvement can't replace lack of textbooks and lack of proper teachers. Often the poor districts are ones where the parent are finanically and otherwise lacking the resources to get involved.***
One needn't have expensive resources to get involved and provide wonderful educational experiences. Textbooks and teachers are great, but they aren't the be-all-end-all of education. Parents can be wonderful (and often superior) teachers. Textbooks can be replaced with hands-on experience, library materials, internet resources etc. etc. etc. One just has to be creative and know how to *find* the resources. Often these resources can be had at very little cost or free of charge. I know this because I am intending to homeschool so I've done quite a bit of research regarding what resources are out there and how much expense we're looking at. One doesn't have to homeschool full time or in place of public school- one can certainly supplement a so-so public education with an education at home and come up with a *good* education.
***Not all parents are qualified to homeschool. There are regulations in many states that prevent many parents from homeschooling.***
Site your sources. Again, full time exclusive homeschooling needn't be the only form of homeschooling that one undertakes. But what regulations do you speak of specifically that would prevent a parent from homeschooling? I don't know of any states, even the ones that are highly regulated, which require a parent to be a certified teacher. Some states require that parents *work with* certified teachers, (mostly to administer standardized tests or have quarterly assessments or some such) but that's hardly a preventative requirement.
***And often, parents can't give, by themselves, a better education than the public school system and instead choose private.***
But that doesn't make them somehow *entitled* to private school education. It's not a *need* it's a *want*. It's a *choice*, as you say. If they can afford it and choose to go that route- great- nothing wrong with that. But if they can't- there are many ways to provide quality education even in sub-optimal public school situations.
***Yes it is. But usually a *poor* education is not subjective.***
And your point is?
***But what is your definition of "otherwise can't afford it"? How do you determine who can and can't afford it? And who made you the judge?***
Seems pretty simple to me... If a family says "Gee, we can't afford this" then they can't afford it. Despite your assumptions to the contrary, *I* have no part in that. A child *needs* an education good enough to qualify them to get into college. Do you know of any public schools where students are, across the board, incapable of receiving that? Some may need to work harder at it than others and those in less than great schools may need to take some individual initiative to supplement what they get in the classroom, but just because some may have to reach to optimize their education, is there truly anywhere where attending a given public school makes one ineligible to attend college?
***I'll refer to my first paragraph. A *good* education is a *need*.***
Yes- it is. We just disagree on whether it's necessary to only attend a great public school (or pay out the nose for a good private school) in order to get that and whether it's an entitlement or not.
Wytchy
Trust me, you are speaking to someone who very *clearly* understands the difference between need versus want.
Where you're going wrong is using *your* definition of need versus want and applying it to everyone else.
mom_writer
You picked a bad day to mess with me .. i'm in a pissy mood.
<>
Crap. Come through a lousy school system and you might not have the ability to get into college, much less a decent one.
<>
Tell that to a single mom working 2 jobs in an urban area without transportation to libraries, without access to the internet, without the resources of time and money and a good education herself.
<>
(btw that would be *cite* your sources)
for the Commonwealth of Virginia --A. When the requirements of this section have been satisfied, instruction of children by their parents is an acceptable alternative form of education under the policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any parent of any child who will have reached the fifth birthday on or before September 30 of any school year and who has not passed the eighteenth birthday may elect to provide home instruction in lieu of school attendance if he (i) holds a baccalaureate degree in any subject from an accredited institution of higher education; or (ii) is a teacher of qualifications prescribed by the Board of Education; or (iii) has enrolled the child or children in a correspondence course approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction; or (iv) provides a program of study or curriculum which, in the judgment of the division superintendent, includes the standards of learning objectives adopted by the Board of Education for language arts and mathematics and provides evidence that the parent is able to provide an adequate education for the child.
i) many parents *don't* have a baccalaureate degree ii) even more are not certified teachers iii) if the public system is bad, then using a course approved by the state isn't much more desireable, and also (and I speak from experience) getting said approval is hard and iv) that process is quite lengthy and the systeme does *not* like to give approval so they make it very difficult to get approval
<>
I never said anyone was *entitled* to a private school education.
<>
I've seen reports of such schools. Have not witnessed it myself, thank goodness.
<<***I'll refer to my first paragraph. A *good* education is a *need*.***
Yes- it is. >>
Well, I'll be damned. Earlier you said a good education was NOT a need.
<>
For *some*, because of their particular system and the educational needs of their child, private school *is* a need. Many do fine with only public school (mine do!) and some even do well with poor schools. But not all. And you don't always have to pay out the nose for private school.
<>
Don't disagree there because I never said, nor implied, that anyone was entitled.
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.
Then you can take back your "spoiled" comment about me. I am NOT spoiled. Grew up very poor, put myself through college, and have worked all of my life. Started my business from scratch and in fact, have just come through some *very* lean years. I work my a$$ off, every day.
The fact that I need to live within an hour's drive of the ocean for my own spiritual fulfillment does not make me *spoiled.* What it says is that I know myself very well and that I'm incredibly grateful to the universe for allowing me the opportunity to enjoy and appreciate her incredible abundance.
mom_writer
Maybe I'm slow, but I don't see how a family of 4 can be comfortable on $37k a year. Let's assume that they have $30k year after taxes (and considering that FICA alone is almost 9%, that's generous). That's a net of $2500 a month.
Assume that rent is $750 a month; electric, gas and phone are another $250. Food has to be $150/week, or $600 month. That leaves $900. These days everyone has to pay some medical insurance costs. 100% of my family coverage is $13,000 a year. Let's be exceedingly generous and assume that this family pays only $300 a month. You said that saving a minimum of 5% was reasonable, and I'll even assume that you meant 5% of net, so that's another $150 a month. They certain have at least one car and on this income they're not paying cash for it, so call their payment, gas and maintenance another $300 a month. There's now $150 left each month, or about $35 a week, to cover clothes, medical, dental, sports, entertainment, diapers.
I assumed very modest costs and covered only the absolute basics. I assumed a 4 week month when many are 5 weeks. What happens if the car or the refrigerator break? What happens if someone needs root canal? What happens if the wage earner is sick for 3 weeks and exceeds his paid sick days after the first week?
What am I missing? Tell me how I'm wrong or how thrifty you are that you can make this work?
Your geographical bias is showing.
In certain locales, small town Oklahoma being one, you can rent a 3bd house for about $400-500 a month. Groceries for four, with good planning and shopping, can be about $75 a month. If the employee is covered by their employer, the added family coverage could be about $200 a month or less. (xh pays $72 per payperiod for him and the kids).
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.
***These are medical costs ONLY.***
That's too bad. IMO it's ridiculous that many companies don't offer better insurance benefits. Just curious, but doesn't your plan offer in-network anesthesiologists and assistnat surgeons?
***Unfortunately, she didn't calculate the cost of not having life insurance, inadequate health insurance, and not saving enough for emergencies.***
However, that isn't the case for all sahp's. Like I said, I'm not suggesting that *all* moms sah- just that one needn't necessarily sacrifice these things in order to do so, and that one can live on less of an income than some might find preferrable.
***She assumed the time with us was worth more than working to pay for such trivial things.***
For someone making 100+,000/yr (original discussion) there is no reason why one couldn't have ample insurance coverage, savings, etc. etc. etc.
***When Dad died of cancer at 42 w/no life insurance (too expensive for a single income family, you know..)***
I'm sorry to hear that. :( That isn't the situation for all or even necessarily most single-income families anymore, however. Granted, when most of us were children, there was still the widespread idea that life ins. was optional and mostly for covering funeral expenses. :(
***Not all SAHs do this, but ones who piously tout how they can live on so little, often at the expnese of LONG RANGE goals, are very unwise IMO.***
I agree. Thankfully I am not one of them.
***Your reply shows me the derision you hold for people who look longterm, rather short term, at their parenting objectives.***
Then you misread me.
Wytchy
Pages