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: 03-27-2003
Wed, 12-20-2006 - 10:41am

That sentence is fascinating enough that somebody actually fluffed it out to an entire book.

"Top of the Class: How Asian Parents Raise High Achievers and How You Can Too" by Soo Kim Abboud.

In sum, the biggest cultural difference seems to be (according to the book) that American kids are encouraged to choose their own life path (so long as it isn't a criminal or horrifically lazy) while Asian kids are encouraged to follow the life path that will bring the most honor to the family. They go into things such as homework vs. TV and extracurriculars (other than classical music training) vs. all homework all the time. But the big difference as they spell out at book length is that American kids are raised to be rugged individualists choosing their own best-fit career while Asian kids are raised to be an efficient cog in the family machine. Or so the book says. There are doubtless numerous exceptions on both sides.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 12-20-2006 - 10:50am
I had not seen that book, that is pretty funny. I found the original statement funny, because it implied that Americans were basically doomed due to cultural shortcomings.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-30-2006
Wed, 12-20-2006 - 10:53am

<>

Not sure that's true. The pictures certainly help illustrate the text, but most kids don't need cards to explore and understand textures smooth, soft, rough, etc.

Sabina


Oh, lifeis a glorious cycle of song, a medley of extemporanea:


And love is a thing that can never go wrong; and I am Marie of Roumania.


Sabina

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Wed, 12-20-2006 - 10:55am

If I recall correctly, the link you posted stated that those cards were

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-30-2006
Wed, 12-20-2006 - 11:02am

<>

I disagree. Books of course are important. But rhymes are, too. If a child had all the books in the world, complete with warm 'n fuzzy atmosphere and so on, it would still be a loss not to have learned rhymes, which are proven in the literature to be important to pre-reading skills. And the rhymes can be learned with or without books.

Sabina


Oh, lifeis a glorious cycle of song, a medley of extemporanea:


And love is a thing that can never go wrong; and I am Marie of Roumania.


Sabina

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,

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

<<Since when did your post have to state it for it to be the case? >>


Are you really saying that details, actual

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Wed, 12-20-2006 - 11:09am

Actually I just reposted the link for them and it's 2-5yo. But show me a little one that is 2 and not playing with things that are recommended for 3 and up or 1 year old that doesn't have a toys that's recommended for 2 and up and I will show you a parent that is way too obsessed with "age appropiate toys" in my personal opinion.

Not trying to be sarcastic - sorry if it comes off that , I just believe it's the same thing as reading to our children one or two levels above their reading ability.

I really think anyway that we chose to expose our children to reading is a good thing.




Edited 12/20/2006 11:13 am ET by piraterose

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 12-20-2006 - 11:16am

"<>

I agree that gifted kids should have some sort of special programming. If your dd is gifted, then she's entitled to it."

It is not a question of being "entitled" to special treatment. It is a question of meeting the needs of all learners, gifted, talented, LD, bright, not so bright and all the rest. I use my own experiences for illustration, but I don't necessarily know that dd is "gifted" by US standards, because she has never been tested. I do know that her needs were not met in elementary school and that the teachers refused to accommodate her learning style, teach her and generally were frustrated with her. Gifted students have some unsual learning styles, but at the same time, some of their needs do overlap with the needs of that upper quintile.

"I believe high performing kids should be well served. But I don't think that necessarily means grouping them by ability. If schools aren't providing for their high performing kids well, I don't think ability grouping is the answer (still talking about little ones here)."

In many cases, as you acknowledge, they are not well served. Now, I have not tried to argue that ability grouping is THE answer, it can be one component. All I am really trying to say here is that it has been my repeated experience that when there is an ideological opposition to ability grouping, it usually translates into the better students being under-served. I am also curious as to why ability grouping is considered such a terrible thing in elementary, yet a fine thing in HS. What makes the difference there?

"Second, if you were always in mixed ability groupings, that's not necessarily a problem unless you weren't getting a good education. If you weren't, that's not necessarily the result of the grouping strategy itself, but rather the way the grouping strategy was used. Some teachers think that just mixing kids by ability magically works by itself to bring everyone along, and that's not how it works at all. There has to be differentiated instruction along with it."

I did not say we got a bad education. Overall it was fine, but the upper quartile was held back for the sake of the others. So, there were kids in there who could have learned far more than they did. Differentation usually means, in practice, that extra efforts are made to help the lower quartile along. Since the upper quartile will learn the set curriculum anyway, there is no need to help them after all. The lessons we learned from the mixed ability groups were not good lessons for the most part, nor did they have any academic component.

"I think it's just that the approach used must have been half-baked. Mixed ability grouping isn't antithetical to high quality differentiated instruction. The two go together, when it's well done."

How exactly do you differentiate for the upper quartile, say?

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

<<how can time spent at school be any different than time in a dc? >>


LoL.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Wed, 12-20-2006 - 11:26am

What's the difference in a parent providing those things for a child and a parent providing expensive equipment and/or toys?

PumpkinAngel

Pages