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
The ESL angle is different because it really is hard for some kids to learn to function in two languages equally well in school.
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
I would too, but then again my kids aren't the age of the children that I asked the question about.
PumpkinAngel
<>
No; all learners benefit from learning in a setting that's diverse in all respects.
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
Which one in particular are you talking about?
PumpkinAngel
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
It's good for kids to be spoken to and read to above their level if they can sustain any interest, IMO.
I don't really get too involved in what my kids are reading.
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
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,
<
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.>>
<>
**Up to the point when you brought Harry Potter into the mix, all of my debate points about age appropriate had always been about ABILITY both in my flashcard discussion and reading to a child comment. My point was that age appropriate recommendations not the soley the end all, be all. The child's ability should have the most weight.
<>
**To me it was the same thing. I now understand to you it was not. But you have to understand, I have a young child at this point it is all about ability. Content becomes more shades of grey as they get older.
<< I disagree. I think there is a larger difference than that. I wouldn't read Harry Potter to my 3 year old, because it's not age appropriate and I have spent many an hour researching books for my sons that went horizontal in their reading ability and not vertical....because quite frankly age appropriate does mean something to me.>>
**This comment was when you brought into the debate the concept of maturity level appropriateness, IMO. Up until this point I was never speaking about maturity level. I responsed to your, I felt, change in conversation towards maturity appropriateness, by expressing my concern with a parent limited too harshly what they feel is maturity appropriate.
<>
** With this first paragraph I was still referring to ability level. At first read, I was seeing the horz. and the vert. dimensions you brought up in regards to ability level. It wasn't until several post later that I complete understood where you were refering to content in tadem with ability.
<>
**In this paragraph I was responsed to the maturity issue you brought up about Harry Potter. I will admit we have been using the term "age appropriate" in two different lights. But I feel you are the one that change the conversation from ability to maturity/content.
"The ESL angle is different because it really is hard for some kids to learn to function in two languages equally well in school. Would you want to learn automotive repair in Chinese?"
It was EFL and the problem was that she was functioning a little too well.
"If the 10-page student is challenged and working up to her ability, then what would be the problem about the situation?"
There are various possibilities here, but it really isn't so simple.
"If her high achievement isn't celebrated, then that's just poor pedagogy. The whole class needs to see what's possible to do by those with drive, determination and insight."
It is not celebrated because then the 2-pager might feel bad. Also, there is no big drive and determination invloved necessarily.
"Can't deny that kids are sensitive to the differences among them. But when you make those differences the basis of grouping, you're saying those are the most important differences, and that they're more important than the commonalities. Those of us who don't buy into ability grouping don't believe that."
Right, so the differences that are most glaring and obvious to the kids are deliberately downplayed and glossed over. The kids do not buy it, they really do not.
<>
"We're talking about an educational system here in the US that just stinks overall; very few are actually getting their needs met. The fact that the status quo doesn't work challenges us to find better approaches, but ability grouping for mainstream students isn't one of them, IMO."
I understand and respect that, but so far the arguments against have not changed my opinion. We probably better leave it at that, lol.
Pages