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
Too funny! And from what I understand, divorces are not handled in family court. Divorces are handled in the lower State Court of original (general) jurisdiction. But far be it for me to question JD or whoever she/he is!
40% of divorces ending because SAHMS are on the computer all day? Funny, I thought most people divorce because of money problems. Oh, well.
How can one way be best for everyone? I am amazed. I have never seen a one size fits all theory be actually one size fits all. There are always exceptions (yes, you did make the exception for abusive relationships, but come on- add something to the debate). Since this is a *debate* board, can you provide some reasons (since you declined on proof), I will take your reasons for feelings that sah is best for ALL children in non-abusive relationships.
Feeling that something is right isn't good enough. I need reasons.
<>
I can't even fathom how. Certainly if the parent is abusive or suicidally depressed or something awful, the child shouldn't even be living with the parent. The child doesn't suddenly have an easy time of it come 5 pm when the parent gets her from daycare, does she?
Are you talking about impoverished children? I believe the poorest children in the inner cities are better off in Headstart than at home. But, for the children not covered by the Headstart program, do you really think their parents are going to put them in quality daycares either? They won't be better off in a bad full-time daycare than at home.
As far as the rest of us, I also can't imagine a situation where even the most social of children would be best-served in full-time daycare. Again, maybe it's a question of not understanding what it's like to SAH day after day. Our society is so child-focused now, it would be impossible not to find plenty of things (many of them free) to do every single day. In my area alone, we have 3 different parenting newspapers with 100 things to do with the preschooler during the week. And there's always the municipal playgrounds. We've gone to them all many times. As you have seen, these are not the concrete, rusting municipal playgrounds we grew up with.
<> No. But they all know what it's like to wake up to an unstructured day, everyday, and how it's "on them" to fill it with meaningful activity or not.
Honestly, unless you're into self-flagellation, if you know you are going to SAH for a few years and you have a child that, according to you, is so social she would best-benefit by full-time dc, then as a SAHM you do something! You find some activities and get the child out of doors often. I had 2 very, very social DDs at home for their first 5 years, and I wouldn't think of torturing myself and being the kind of SAHM who sits in front of the tv watching Soaps and talk shows.
<> I wasn't trying to suggest that at all.
<>
More mind-numbing than "mentally taxing." LOL. But those periods of time (sleep-deprivation, colic) were comparatively short in duration. (I'm a SAHM.) And WOHPs experience the bad times too. IMO SAH is a piece of cake after the child starts sleeping thru the nite. I found work deadlines and quirky bosses to be much more stressful than SAH.
I understand getting some adult-interaction at work. But I know from experience it's possible to get together with other mothers daily if that's your priority. The one thing I have to point out about working though, is that work-friends don't always become real friends for everyone. Often, when you leave a job, you lose touch. Do you do anything outside of work on a regular basis with your colleagues? Have you met their families?
But my social life is much better (and just easier) SAH. It does strengthen my friendships that we do get together during the day, and I'm so lucky my mom friends will still often visit during playdates.
<> Is "old" supposed to be bad? Wouldn't you have to change jobs if you're that personality-type? For me, every year SAH has been a little different because the children grow so fast, and they want to do different things. But I've never found SAH "boring" like lots of WOHMs here say they did/would.
<> If you can't adjust, then you just can't adjust. But I knew I'd be SAH for quite a while so I resigned myself to it, and I've never felt it's "gotten to me." I enjoy it. I have made our home a comfortable place just like one might make her office more enjoyable.
That's why I have a career not just a job. Careers change over time on their own. If all we did was the same thing we did yesterday, we wouldn't move forward.
I adjust just fine. I just don't see a need to do anything so much I get bored with it when it isn't necessary. If I had to I could but I don't have to so why choose to? It's not an quesion of can't. Just because someone chooses not to do something doesn't mean they couldn't do it. I choose not to do many things I could if I wanted to.
<> I would feel guilty if I SAH at the expense of saving for my 5 children's college full tuitions, room and board. I honestly could not sleep at night.
I hate to oppose some of your posts because I do believe SAH is best for children. But I don't agree with the way you're getting your message across in some posts, though I know what it's like to be backed into a corner on this board.
Yes we do but I get a break from it when I go to work. A sleep deprived break but a break non the less.
Not that I looked forward to going to work on days I had had 2 hours sleep but looking back, I can see how that break helped. I think it is difficult to do the same thing all the time without significant breaks.
Yes, work friends tend to stay at work unless you work at it. I think there is a tendency not to because you see them every day and don't have to. I'd have to make it a point to hang on to my friends from work if I left for another job. Like anything, you take it for granted if it's always there. These are people who are always there for me without me having to work at it. Good point. If you don't do something to keep those friendships you do lose them when you move on.
Pages