Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you put it that way, of course a parents' interaction with their child is important. However, if I follow that logic (that a parent's interaction with their child makes a difference in the end) then a parent who doesn't WANT to be at home with their child shouldn't be. Parents aren't slaves- if they prefer not to be home with a baby, they shouldn't. Not everyone likes babies/toddlers- lots of parents prefer to be at home/more available for their kids when they're older.
I didn't say it shouldn't be considered. i said it shouldn't be the ONLY thing that is considered.
I mean, at the end of the day, what else is there but financial security?
I'm not talking about having a parent at work so that you can go on vacation or buy a new car. I'm talking about a parent who makes a significant amount of money, or who lives in an expensive part of the country, or who has excellent benefits and career progression. I think in that scenario, it's kind of selfish to the family for that parent to quit and stay home, especially in these uncertain times.
Obviously no one would think it was a good idea to quit your job if your husband was already out of work. Just like no one would think a single parent should stay home instead of working. No one ever said that.
If you put it that way, of course a parents' interaction with their child is important. However, if I follow that logic (that a parent's interaction with their child makes a difference in the end) then a parent who doesn't WANT to be at home with their child shouldn't be. Parents aren't slaves- if they prefer not to be home with a baby, they shouldn't. Not everyone likes babies/toddlers- lots of parents prefer to be at home/more available for their kids when they're older.
They may like babies and toddlers just fine but find that 24 x 7 results in them wanting time away from baby/toddler. What kind of childhood would it be to be home with a mom who just wants a break from you? Far better for her to take that break and actually want to spend the time she does with you. Working is a nice break. One of the reasons time spent on children is so close between WM's and SAHM's is that SAHM's are looking forward to time with their kids at the end of the day and on the weekends and spending more of those available minutes on their kids.
I love my kids and adore babies/toddlers but if I were home with them 24 x 7, I'd go nuts (it also makes no sense for me to SAH from a financial perspective). My kids do not need to be home with a mother who needs a break from them and the monotony that is doing anything 24 x 7. Fortunately, there's so little actual work at home now, we have time for full time jobs and can still do more and spend more time with our kids than a 1970's SAHM. Not bad....
Obviously no one would think it was a good idea to quit your job if your husband was already out of work. Just like no one would think a single parent should stay home instead of working. No one ever said that.
Really??? You have no idea how many times I had my maternal instincts questioned because I worked during that year. Yet no one ever questioned dh's paternal instincts... I really want to know why fathers get a pass and mothers don't.
I mean, at the end of the day, what else is there but financial security?
I'm not talking about having a parent at work so that you can go on vacation or buy a new car. I'm talking about a parent who makes a significant amount of money, or who lives in an expensive part of the country, or who has excellent benefits and career progression. I think in that scenario, it's kind of selfish to the family for that parent to quit and stay home, especially in these uncertain times.
ITA! If you are not financially secure, you can end up with nothing really fast. The one thing we have to do, as parents, is make sure our children are supported. I worked a lot of years I didn't have to and, as a result, we were in position to weather later storms. I'll admit we're not sitting where I'd like to be WRT college savings but I shudder to think where we'd be if I'd SAH even for a couple of years after dd#2 was born. We just don't know what the future holds. I have a sister who SAH (militant variety) who is now divorced after 25 years of marriage and has no idea how she'll ever retire or how she'll eat after her alimony runs out as she has been unable to restart her career. She'd like a do over on SAH but has to lie in the bed she made instead. I have a bad feeling that if one of us doesn't take her in, she'll end up homeless.
Obviously no one would think it was a good idea to quit your job if your husband was already out of work. Just like no one would think a single parent should stay home instead of working. No one ever said that.
I'm not talking about a parent who was out of work, I'm talking about a parent who made a high salary quitting, even if the other parent was employed. Children have very expensive needs, and I'm not talking about toys. Health care, college, as kids get older needs become more expensive. We can't predict what those needs will be, unfortunately.
I mean, at the end of the day, what else is there but financial security?
I'm not talking about having a parent at work so that you can go on vacation or buy a new car. I'm talking about a parent who makes a significant amount of money, or who lives in an expensive part of the country, or who has excellent benefits and career progression. I think in that scenario, it's kind of selfish to the family for that parent to quit and stay home, especially in these uncertain times.
There is emotional security. There is the satisfaction a parent feels knowing she did what she felt was best for her family, whether that is staying home or working. There are obviously situations where both parents should work. There are other situations where it makes more sense for one to stay home. Do we really have to keep going over and over this?
I am a product of 2 working parents. Because they both worked non-stop, they retired early, and have been able to visit and help with the kids, and generally, enjoy their time to the fullest. When my kids are both in school all day, I feel that my time will be best spent working and starting to contribute to our retirement again. I totally get that. I'm just saying it isn't the right choice for everyone. Heck, the only reason I quit my job is because we relocated. If we still lived there, I'd probably still be working 1/2 time, looking to go back to full time soon. I'm not saying it's wrong to work. I'm saying it is an individual choice, and none of anyone else's business.
ITA! If you are not financially secure, you can end up with nothing really fast. The one thing we have to do, as parents, is make sure our children are supported.
Who's actually arguing that point? I don't see anybody saying that either spouse should stay home at the risk of losing the roof over the family's head.
I think that goes without saying, and is not in question by anybody.
ITA! If you are not financially secure, you can end up with nothing really fast. The one thing we have to do, as parents, is make sure our children are supported. I worked a lot of years I didn't have to and, as a result, we were in position to weather later storms. I'll admit we're not sitting where I'd like to be WRT college savings but I shudder to think where we'd be if I'd SAH even for a couple of years after dd#2 was born. We just don't know what the future holds. I have a sister who SAH (militant variety) who is now divorced after 25 years of marriage and has no idea how she'll ever retire or how she'll eat after her alimony runs out as she has been unable to restart her career. She'd like a do over on SAH but has to lie in the bed she made instead. I have a bad feeling that if one of us doesn't take her in, she'll end up homeless.
I think that every intelligent person knows that if you aren't financially secure, you can end up with nothing fast. No one is arguing that. What is wrong with someone choosing to be a SAHM if they are financially secure, have money for their childrens college educations and enough left over for retirement? Especially if they have planned for emergencies, loss of a job, etc? Just because your family wasn't in that position, and your sister didn't plan ahead for something like her divorce, it doesn't mean other SAHMs and their families haven't planned for these things. Also, where is it set in stone that once a woman is a SAHM, she is always going to be a SAHM? Life is messy. Most people plan for that. Most people also know that sometimes you have to change your plan when something happens. Someone who is a SAHM today, may be a WM tomorrow because their plan changed. It is not all black and white.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet no one ever questioned dh's paternal instincts... I really want to know why fathers get a pass and mothers don't.