Working for Lifestyle/Extras
Find a Conversation
| 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
Kids with different ability levels are usually well aware of that fact.
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
<>
How are those examples though?
PumpkinAngel
<<i think you have to let them read above age level to continue their progression - but i agree you have to watch the content.>>
That's why I have spent time finding them books that would interest them that kept them horizontally on the content that I felt was appropriate but interested them and was to their reading ability which was already vertically higher to begin with.
<<with my oldest that was the hardest thing, finding books that were challenging enough to keep her interest yet not to far out there. i spent alot of time explaining things much earlier than i had hoped to because of her reading books that were above her age group.>>
Exactly and while I still explain things, there are just some things I don't think they are ready for, even though the ability is there.
PumpkinAngel
Jennie
The bilingual component makes for a different debate, IMO.
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
<>
How can you not?
PumpkinAngel
i agree that parents should give their opinions. i have told my dd the school i would like her to go to, to date she is not interested in going there at all. the school she wants to go to, well, lets just say i hope she changes her mind :)
she has two ap classes this semester along with two other classes and she does about 10-15 hours of homework a week. a plus to her job is that since she works for mcdonalds, they have a mcstudy program where they are actually paid to study at work for up to three hours a week.
Jennie
I thought we were talking about difficulty level, not appropriateness of content.
My parents read us the original books by the original authors, not abridged versions. I'm not a fan of abridged books: most of the beauty of a significant work is in its style rather than its content. Don't you find the charm of a book like Anne of Green Gables would be completely lost if written for "ages 3-5"? OTOH, while a young child won't comprehend all the vocabulary of a more advanced book, she can enjoy and learn a complexity of syntactical possibilities when hearing the work as it was written.
There are many great children's authors: no need to "dumb down" Shakespeare. (ex: Julius Caesar: they stabbed this guy in the back, fought a bunch of battles, and then they all died. The end.) Do you see my point? There's nothing special about the content of these works; it's how the content is shaped that makes it worth reading.
<>
You haven't, wan't this what you said?
<>
But I do we have got lost on this, I was never talking about content maturity level I was strictly speaking about reading ability.
I don't see the corrolation because I was talking about reading to a child in regards to going beyond their ability. By the time they're 8 and 10, if they are at that high of a level, I don't expect to be reading to them anymore. Heck even if I was there are tons of classics I could go though. Mostly though reading would be limited to their ability because it's no longer having to teach them a love of reading and keeping them entertain as with a younger child.
<>
Do you mean WITH the high schoolers. Because I think most 8 and 10 yo play football, baseball and other "high school" games. But my cousin WAS on the HS varsity swim team while she was still in middle school. Of course she was later being scouted for the olympics too buut she turned it down because she wanted to enjoy HS.
Pages