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: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-18-2006 - 9:18am
Ok, I misunderstood since he didn't list giving until the last step.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-18-2006 - 9:20am
Ok good idea.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-18-2006 - 9:21am
Do you mean to include families with parents who aren't both FT WOHPs?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 12-18-2006 - 9:26am
I think SAH is great!

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-12-2003
Mon, 12-18-2006 - 10:36am
I know gloating isn't nice, but I'm off today.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Mon, 12-18-2006 - 11:20am

<>


For me, the purpose of books throughout a child's life is to foster the love of reading.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Mon, 12-18-2006 - 11:26am

So the purpose was for him to gain skills in an area that he choose not to focus on?

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Mon, 12-18-2006 - 11:34am

<>


I have to agree on this point.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-03-2006
Mon, 12-18-2006 - 11:38am

If that's where they need to be yes. I have one child who started out in this school as a low achiever but is now grouped with the higher achievers. She needed to go back and shore up her foundation before she could move on.

Where children are grouped, in this school, is based on their latest round of testing. Kids move between groups all the time. I'm sure some stay but if they do, it's because their test results indicate they should.

Being grouped by ability doesn't mean they are not challeged. Just the opposite. It means they are challenged but they are being challenged at their level. That's how my oldest moved from being considerably behind grade level to being above grade level. She was grouped where she needed to be and as her testing indicated changes were needed, they were made.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-08-2006
Mon, 12-18-2006 - 12:56pm

completely disagree. Most testing remains fairly static for children. For example, children who score low (basic or proficient) on our CT Mastery Test rarely will all of the sudden be in the Advanced range the following year. Overall, there's just not as much movement within groups that you would think.

I think it's a huge mistake to keep all low-achievers together -- for lots of reasons. They, especially, need a greater pool of thoughts and ideas to draw from than each other.

Carole

Pages