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: 11-14-2006
Sun, 12-03-2006 - 8:40am

<>

You're right. My children don't have time to learn because of the daily parties. Where did I say that? Your K-5 classes didn't each have a Thanksgiving party at school?? My 3rd grader and Kindergartener had an after-lunch party with goods baked by the parents.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2006
Sun, 12-03-2006 - 8:55am

I agree with Phoenixmom that an at-home parent is best *FOR THE CHILD.* Unless the parent is abusive of course.

But FOR THE FAMILY, daycare is often an adequate substitute to allow the parents to work and earn the money needed for the family.

When (other than abuse) is it best for anyone other than the parent to do the bulk of the daily caregiving for the young child?

Have you had some bad experiences SAH where your children would have been better off in regular daily daycare? Do you know of SAH situations where the SAHM's daily caregiving is worse for the child than if she were in daily, regular daycare?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-03-2006
Sun, 12-03-2006 - 9:00am
What if money benefits the child? Aren't outcomes for children tied to family finances?
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2006
Sun, 12-03-2006 - 9:02am
LOL, please explain. (And I agree Headstart is best for those in the program.)
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-03-2006
Sun, 12-03-2006 - 9:02am
I need reasons too. If you don't have a reason for making a claim something is better, it's just wishful thinking.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2006
Sun, 12-03-2006 - 9:08am

I agree that having a sahp is best *for the child.* Unfortunately, that's not always possible in this expensive society.

But I agree it is not beneficial to have children in full-time 9 to 5 daycare like an adult would be at work. Even full-day Kindergarten is controversial in my area, with the next town over having just 2.5 hour/day Kindergarten! Ideally, children would have a lazy, carefree childhood before school.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2006
Sun, 12-03-2006 - 9:23am
I agree with that.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 12-03-2006 - 9:23am

I understand that you and Phoenixmom *think* that a sahp is best for ALL children, I want to know *why*. I do not believe that sah is *best* for all children. I have stated this before and at least once in this particular thread. I have two children- one where a daycare situation was best and one where sah was best. No abuse involved. Just personalities. My eldest was happiest in a situation where he had many varied people with which to interact - and not just for an hour or two at the park. A sah siutation was not best for him - he was too lonely- even at a very early age. IF he had been born in a LARGE family (like the 5th of 8 or 9)- then perhaps sah would have been *eqaul* to a daycare.

THat is *my* reason for stating that not *ALL* children are best served by a sahp. WHat is/are your reason(s) for believing the opposite.

I am not saying that *most* chidren would be best served by a daycare. I am saying that there exists children for which a daycare is the best situation for them

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 12-03-2006 - 9:28am

No, our K-6 classes did not have a Thanksgiving party at school. NONE. We have a Thanksgiving lunch where parents come and eat lunch with their children. It takes place during their normal lunch time so does not interfere with normal learning hours.

Classes have two parties ayear.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 12-03-2006 - 9:32am

LOL. I said my reason in the post in which you originally responded on this sub-thread.

I have cut and pasted it below.

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

Pages