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
When my children were small, they were in dc for approx. 35-40 hours per week. They were home with me 128 or so hours per week. Of course, sleeping hours are counted. ALL hours are important. As any mother can attest, there have been many sleepless night with sick kids, nightmares, insomnia (the kid not me, LOL!) etc. Besides, if nighttime didn't count, MSAHMS couldn't quote the "i'm with my kids 24/7" mantra.
Of course, we're now WELL beyond those dc years and all of the kids are in school. The nanny works 35 hours a week, but only about 15 or so of those are direct contact with the children -- getting them ready for school, being here when they get home, getting homework started for 2 out of 3 of them. Then there is the rest of the stuff that she does -- straightening, children's laundry, dishes, etc.
I can't think of a single "value" that the providers instilled (admittedly, this time period for us was 5+ years ago) either that A) we didn't agree with or B.) weren't instilling ourselves. I mean really how many "values" do you need as a toddler -- share, take turns, don't hit, learn to say please and thank you....
As for the "brand of compassion" -- WHAT IN THE HECK is that? you're either compassionate or you're not. You either care about others or you don't. We found it easy to find others who mirrored our level of compassion. Of course, with our special needs daughter, we also added much to the lives of all that we have crossed paths with.
As for now, all of my kids are in school -- and have been for 6 years. Do you think the school is "raising them"?
Carole
<>
No; she
Sabina
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
no, no, no....please don't say that....Teachers do NOT raise the children in their care. If that were the case I would have raised 1500 kids by now! aaaack....
Teachers educate. Parents raise them. Anything else is just plain wrong.
Carole
Since this is a debate board. Can you please provide some valid proof that substantiates your claim that having a sahp is the best for ALL families?
I see different families making differnt choices that are the best for their indivudal families.
There is no universal "best" when it comes to raising and taking care of children. SOMe children have personalities that make a daycare environment the best for them. There are some children for which having a sahp is best for them. BUT, and this is a BIG but, not all children are best served by ONE type of care. We are all different and therefore have different needs and therefore have different "bests".
I have two children. Night and Day. Day is my first. He is a people person. He needs to be around many different people each day to be his happiest. This was evident at three months. He would have been happiest as the 5th child in a large extended family. Unfortunately he was the first born in a family with few relatives or children in the vicinity. Daycare was the best choice for him- he was very happy.
Night is my second child. He is happiest naked and at home, playing by himself - with the occasional playdate. A sahp or longterm nanny was his best choice.
Different kids have different "bests". Different families have different best too.
so, how do you reconcile this -- that your dh can have an "active role" in raising his children, but a wohm can't??? that makes NO sense at all.
<>
All GOOD parents make it a goal to have an active role in their children's lives.
<>
and you RAISED those three boys???? I find that really, really hard to believe. why didn't the parents let you adopt them since you were the one that was raising them??
As for our nanny, she would hoot and howl with laughter at even the hint of a suggestion that she (as opposed to me) was raising our kids, ROFLOL! She's got her hands full since she herself is a wohm with 2 young children.
<>
yes, my nanny loves all 4 of our kids (3 of mine, 1 step-daughter). she can do that without raising them?
<>
amazingly, that's exactly what it sounds like you really think that wohms have almost nothing to do with their children. Mystifying since even as a wohm I spend 3x more time at home with my kids than at work. Rather baffling ideas you got going there....
Carole
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,
i believe that you have to have 100 posts in order for it to put the total up under your name. I could be wrong about that though.
I think this particular poster is WELL on her way to that magic number.
Carole
NEWSFLASH!!!! Teachers do NOT ...I repeat do NOT..."raise" the children in their care. No way, no how, no matter how many times you say it's true.
I can tell you that, as a teacher, NONE of these kids have been mine to raise -- except those which "I" gave birth too (plus my step-daughter).
Yes, your argument is incredibly silly.
Carole
<>
You know, sometimes it is about me. B/c if I don't take care of myself and I'm not happy, I can't be a good mother to my son. I don't get the whole martyrdom of motherhood thing. Sometimes putting myself first (formula feeding b/c breastfeeding was a nightmare, for example) results in a better maternal/child bond.
Children need
Pages