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
Perhaps. I'm thinking in terms of survival, whereas you are thinking in terms of what's "needed" to make you happy/comfortable etc. Of course, having seen how those in other nations live, IMO we Americans as a *whole* are spoiled as far as what we consider "necessary" for our "survival"..... But- whatever...
Wytchy
Okay...I would buy the rent and the lower medical insurance and even some of the other...but $75/month in food for 4 people?
PumpkinAngel
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.
I responded to *jorvia's* post ... she used rent of $750. So I used rent. But rents are actually typically higher than mortgages, so the monthly figure there easily stands. The only difference would be the maintenance costs, which would probably be offset by tax savings.
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.
Each way?
PumpkinAngel
In my situation my former landlord opted not to raise our rent the entire time we rented from him.
DH and I have about $2500 worth of expenses every month. I was just working on our budget the other day.
Okmrsmommy-36, CPmom to DD-16 and DS-14
Okmrsmommy-36, CPmom to DD-16 and DS-14
***You picked a bad day to mess with me .. i'm in a pissy mood.***
No need to make things personal. If you can't keep your emotions out of the discussion, perhaps you'd do well to take some time away to regroup and relax.
***Crap. Come through a lousy school system and you might not have the ability to get into college, much less a decent one.***
I disagree. While it may prevent one from getting into an Ivy League school, very little prevents one from getting into a decent college unless their SAT scores aren't up to par. And while a lacklustre school may risk lower SAT's, again, one can supplement their child's education at home in order to improve that.
***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.***
In an urban area one would have access to transportation to libraries and libraries offer internet access. A single mom working 2 jobs in an urban area isn't going to have much choice *other* than to supplement their child's education at home if they want to provide a better education. A single parent working two jobs in an urban area isn't going to be able to afford private school or likely a home in a more desireable district.
***(btw that would be *cite* your sources)***
Yes, I am aware of that. Please excuse the typo. I frequently do that when typing as fast as I do *chuckle*. Some words get mangled more often than others ;)
***i) many parents *don't* have a baccalaureate degree***
One isn't necessary according to these regulations.
***ii) even more are not certified teachers***
Again, not necessary.
***iii) if the public system is bad, then using a course approved by the state isn't much more desireable***
Just because one has to *use* a given curriculum does *not* mean that one has to stick to it exclusively. One can easily pick/choose what one takes from the curriculum or touch lightly on it and go more in depth on the subject via different resources.
***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***
Legally one *can* fight that. Generally speaking the threat of legal entanglements is enough to win easy and timely approval.
***I never said anyone was *entitled* to a private school education.***
"Need", to me, implies entitled. Our culture is heavily grounded in the idea that basic needs are something that all citizens are entitled to.
***I've seen reports of such schools. Have not witnessed it myself, thank goodness.***
Please cite your sources.
***Well, I'll be damned. Earlier you said a good education was NOT a need.***
Actually, I believe the full statement of what I said was something along the line of 'a good education in a school that you find acceptable/desireable' or something like that. I believe I also went on to say that college is more what needs to be "good" than public school.
***For *some*, because of their particular system and the educational needs of their child, private school *is* a need.***
So you are suggesting that children in certain districts are incapable of receiving an education "good" enough to attend (any) college (not any that they want, but any at all) thus making them incapable of earning a living wage as adults? What educational needs are you referring to?
***Don't disagree there because I never said, nor implied, that anyone was entitled.***
Again, 'need' to me implies entitled. Or, perhaps not *entitled* exactly, but....... 'Need' as I use it puts something in line with food, water, air, shelter etc. "I need a new heart or I will die." versus "I need to live near the beach or I will die". Understand the difference?
Wytchy
Question.....do you own your own home, put 5% away for savings and would have money left over to help out college age kids?
PumpkinAngel
Pages