Working for Lifestyle/Extras

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-22-2005
Working for Lifestyle/Extras
3621
Mon, 11-20-2006 - 11:13am

Hi Ladies :)

This is my first time on this debate board and I have been dying to jump into some of the topics, but I feel as though they are sooooo long (one in particular is over 1000 replies, yikes!) that starting my own specific one might work out better.

Anyhow, a recurring theme here seems to be what Moms should and shouldn't be going to work for. It seems some are of the opinion that is OK for Mom to work if she must to pay her bills but NOT if its to afford a nice car, house, good neighborhood. This is considered keeping up with the Johnses (who are they???) and thats bad.

Well, I want to know what in the heck is wrong with a women working to have nice things? I don't mean working and leaving baby in child care 16 hours a day, everyday...thats pretty extreme.

I enjoyed a certain lifestyle before having a child, should I have downsized that lifestyle once baby came so I didn't have to work? What about me *wanting* to maintain a certain lifestyle for myself, my husband, and my child makes me a (a) workaholic or (b) striving to keep up with the Joneses?

Don't some people (like myself) simply enjoy living in a nice place with nice things and want their children to have the same experience?

So please, anyone who thinks a women is wrong for WOH if she is not doing so to financially survive but does it to maintain a certain lifestyle...whats wrong with this?

Thanks all :)

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 12:12pm
hahaha you have got to be kidding me - you have insulted 50% of this board on a daily basis since you showed up. the list of things you have accused them of is endless and yet you have the nerve to accuse anyone of being "caustic" - did you learn a new word over the weekend. i wil stand by the fact that those who can reply do and those (like you) who cant reply have no reply that would hold water. and by the way it is not that i have any desire to hold a converssation with you it isk just my so far very successful attepmt to show you to be what you are - soemone who can not back up their mouth with facts. while i know there are pepole who tend to run at the mouth they dont normally show up at debate boards. since the medium is written it helps if people are able to write their thoughts -assuming they have any.
Jennie - sahm who totally disagrees with everything you have posted.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 12:26pm

"So, you don't read any educational value into K'nex or Legos? I think there are loads of value in both if you care to find them. I used to make homemade counter and matching games for the children in my pre-school out of things like clothespins which I spray painted different colors and gave them a tin pie plate to clip them to. This was the same type thing as Legos so far as ed. value is concerned only for a smaller set of children who couldn't play with the small Lego parts. I also did the same with puzzle pieces and other things from around the house."

It honestly never occurred to me to think of legos as "educational." I see them as a fun, open-ended toy, which is the best kind, IMO. Children do learn from fun, open-ended play, obviously, but if you take that POV, kids tend to learn, period. Have you ever seen documentaries from third world countries and observed how the kids will build toy cars out of scraps they find in the garbage? Legos are really just a luxury implement for doing the same exact thing.

The painted clothespins were probably fun too, although I don't really see the connection to lego. Before dd had the dexterity for legos, she used to play with simple wooden blocks, cups, jars and the like. She also loved anything with wheels on it, which seems to be pretty universal for little kids.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 12:27pm

My guess is that if you are able to save enough cash to buy a house outright, you probably don't need David Ramsey's advice.

Jessica

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2006
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 12:29pm

I was trying to recall what we used to call kids who went home to empty homes. Latchkey kids. There was a lot of research done on them when I was growing up in the 80's.

Here is a sampling of a few stats as well as some statements:

"According to the U.S. census, one third of all school age children in the United States are, for some part of the week, latch key kids; that is, they go home to an empty house or apartment. The total number may be between five and seven million children between five and 13 years old. Marian Wright Edelman, the director of the Children's Defense Fund, thinks it's close to 16 million children. The Census Bureau found that 15% were home alone before school, 76% after school and 9% at night. Presumably, the 9% have parents who work night shifts.

One-half of all children in the country age 12 to 14 are home alone an average of seven hours a week. The very poor in America are less likely to leave their children alone at home, or allow them to go home alone, than families who earn twice the poverty income. This is probably because the very poor live in less safe neighborhoods, and have fewer friends or family who can step in, in case of emergency. In spite of the hours spent on the job, working mothers spend an average of five-and-a-half hours a day with their children."

What are the effects?

"When latch key children are functioning well, we don't hear about them. But we do hear about the one-third of all complaints to child welfare agencies which involve latch key children. We know about the 51% who are doing poorly in school. Most teachers believe that being alone at home is the number one cause of school failure. The afternoon hours are the peak time for juvenile crime. In the last 11 years, juvenile crime has increased 48%. The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development found that 8th graders who are alone 11 hours a week are twice as likely to abuse drugs as adolescents who are busy after school. The Council also found that teens who have sexual intercourse do it in the afternoon in the home of boys whose parents work. Unsupervised children are more likely to become depressed, smoke cigarettes and marijuana and drink alcohol. They are also more likely to be the victims of crimes. When home alone latch key children generally watch television, eat snacks, play with pets and fight with siblings. "

So, the assertion that there is no research because there is no problem is incredulous at best ridiculous any way you look at it, imo. Given how poorly our school systems are already managing to turn out highly educated children into the work force, I'd say this speaks volumes to the argument that children need and want their mothers at home. What child wants to look back and say "yeah, it was cool, mom worked and I sat around and got stoned all afternoon and she never knew. and dad....he never knew either because mom and dad both worked and didn't pay attention to what I needed....supervision"

I agree with the idea that it cuts across woh/sah lines. However, I think it is far less likely to occur when the mother is at home. I think we have to stop dealing with bests and worsts in scenarios and go with the average. Bests and worsts can't help in showing what can be done....they only show what can be done when extremes are taken. IMO, and in my own experience, we have taken extreme measures because of our past experiences. I don't know if this is making the sense I would like for it to. I'm trying to keep a sad, sick baby happy until her naptime, if there will be one this morning....;)

"Besides this we have our living prophet, for whom I am grateful, and I hope to follow after him all the days of my life.&

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2006
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 12:34pm

yes, but some people have found following his advice enhances what they already know or enables them to advance beyond where they are currently into the population who have the ability to purchase outright.

I don't think it's fair to assume that only those in dire straits have taken to following DR's advice. We know a lot of fine folks who have found he actually has helped them fine tune what they already deemed to be a financially sound lifestyle. I guess it's all in what one wants or needs, as with anything else.

"Besides this we have our living prophet, for whom I am grateful, and I hope to follow after him all the days of my life.&

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2006
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 12:39pm

More on latch key children from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchkey_kid

What do you think?

"Besides this we have our living prophet, for whom I am grateful, and I hope to follow after him all the days of my life.&

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 12:41pm
ditto
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2006
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 12:46pm

Here is another take on it:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/beyond_latchkey_kids.php

What do you think?

"Besides this we have our living prophet, for whom I am grateful, and I hope to follow after him all the days of my life.&

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 12:52pm
I will be happy to read it, but it really is not a given that kids of WOH are either latchkey or unsupervised. Even when they are latchkey they are not necessarily unsupervised either.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-03-2006
Sun, 12-17-2006 - 1:09pm

I have to disagree. Grouping by ability has allowed my kids, and their peers, to work where they need to be. Everyone doens't have to be on the same lesson or learning the same thing. Tweaking a lesson to "accomodate" varried learners deosn't do anything except fluctuate about a point. You simply cannot fully meet the needs of the kids who are not near the target audience of the lesson plan. Which is where ability grouping comes in. You group kids so that within each group you can tweak to accomodate those above/below the target.

This does not, however, result in all kids being brougth up to some minimum level as defined under NCLB. If they're working below that level, they're working below that level. It makes no sense to me to push kids on before they are ready for the sake of higher test scores. Which is one reason our school doesn't have great test scores but I didn't choose this school for test scores. If I wanted a district with great test scores I would have stayed in the one that was failing to meet my kids needs miserably.

Pages