U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-20-2016, 01:43 PM
 
12,926 posts, read 19,812,959 times
Reputation: 33967

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
Most of what I have observed is the opposite of that. In most families that I know, the husband is expected to make all or most of the income, but is still expected to do 50% of the housework and childcare tasks, while the wife spends most of her day posting on Twitter. I am not denying that what you have observed is true in some families, as long as you do not deny that what I have observed is true in many other families.

I once posted about this in the Work and Employment forum. One male poster said that he is willing to earn 100% of the income and do 50% of the housework and childcare tasks, since it gives him access to better looking women than he would otherwise have access to. Unfortunately his attitude is bringing down the entire male gender. It does seem that many of the men who earn 100% of the income and do 50% of the housework and childcare tasks have wives that are out of their league, either financially or as far as looks. But don't these men realize that their wife's looks are going to fade eventually, so marrying based on looks is not a smart idea?

Going back to the article: while I did not at all like her crass writing style, I do agree with the overall theme of the article. Despite what a woman's 2nd grade teacher may have told her, yes women (and men) can do anything, but no woman (or man) can do everything. That is a distinction that is lost on a lot of people. The woman (or man) who is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company is not likely to also be the PTA president.
It's unusual that a conversation about how housework and child care will be divided took place before there were any children to take care of. That's a rather enlightened poster you are referring to. Unlike yourself, who seems stuck in the 50s. I did the bulk of the housework, but my husband did 100% of the outside work, mowing, raking, maintaining the cars, etc. It evens things out. And he was absolutely hands on with the kids when he was home, as are the vast majority of fathers I know. They don't see their children as a chore, nor should they.

During my years as a PTA officer, the president was always a working parent. Not a CEO, but a full-time worker outside the home. They still wanted to be involved in the school their children attended.

Last edited by Mattie; 02-20-2016 at 02:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2016, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,581,069 times
Reputation: 7672
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
Firstly, I didn't say that or anything like it. Yes, in the past (which is what I was talking about) women have been stuck in horrendous situations domestically because they did not have the means to support themselves or their children if they left their spouse. Given that the large majority of them were uneducated beyond grade school and did not stay in the workforce after marriage, I don't see how you can argue otherwise with a straight face. Women have been working hard to make sure that no longer happens. It is imperative to either keep up your skills in some way or keep yourself employable. It's all very well and good until one finds themselves on their own with kids to support. Given that more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, why wouldn't a parent consider that that's a very real possibility?

And the rest of your post insinuates that if a person (either sex) does anything of importance that "takes time way from their kids", they should give it up. I don't think that's warranted nor wise. Do you have any actual data to back up this assertion that kids would be better off if that's the case?

Of course people that outright neglect their kids' emotional needs because their careers come first are wrong and have their priorities screwed up. I don't think anyone here thinks that's a good plan. But you can stay at home and be the same way, if that's how you're wired. I don't think that's as much about work as it is about people that really shouldn't have kids when they aren't going to give themselves to it wholeheartedly. And you don't have to be a SAHP to give your kids your heart.

You keep insisting that the only reason there two working parent families is to provide material things. I can assure you that is not the only reason people work. Working is not all about money, to everyone.
I think you missed the point from the experts who are well versed on the topic more than us on the reasons why people stay in abusive situations, regardless if it was last year, 10, or 50 years ago. From the url, the vast majority of reasons are beyond money on why people remain in a abusive relationship/situation:

Compelling Reasons Women Stay | Domestic Abuse Project

It's an ugly mind game/control thing for the most part by the other side that goes way beyond money. Plus with welfare/social programs today, a woman/her kids will get $ support right out of the gate if she leaves for the benefit of her and her kid(s). And in such situations, this $, other family, or other groups who provide such assistance is enough to do what I feel is by far the most important goal.....to get the spouse, usually the woman, and especially her kid, out of such an ugly/often dangerous, both physically and/or mental, abuse situation. $ is the easy part in these situations. The mental part is the tricky part as the URL outlines.

Totally agree, some SAHP aren't fit to care for a rock. But assuming we have a fit/decent parent(s), isn't the part about "wholeheartedly" require one to be present or are we at the point where some parent who lives at their job considers texting and skypeing are just as good in being a quality parent? I think you'll agree the consultants I know who aren't home for weeks/months at a time to see their kids, drop in a few days here and there and off to their next gig aren't in the "wholeheartedly" category? There are many careers out there that require such commitments and millions of people who do such work have kids and it's not uncommon to have both parents working very long hours like this. Though a few are honest in their less than idea title as "parent", some have told me what wonderful parents they are.....the few times they see their kids, in their mind, they are in your "wholeheartedly" category. I see them in a boat on the de-nile river but that's my view.

Yes, I think you make a great point in there is gray there for sure as there are indeed people out there who work for much more than the money. But if this were the reality in the vast majority of cases, and money was very low on the list of importance, we'd see far more people in their 20's, 30's, 40's volunteering and not taking a salary in said work/job wasn't mainly about money, right? Or they'd give all that money they'd earn away to charity and not buy material things with it if those material things didn't matter in their life? I see a big disconnect there between words and actions. For myself? The overused saying "actions speak louder than words", and "show me don't tell me" rings very true. And again, my main point isn't to condemn them in their want for material things....it's just to make the point many indeed have chosen to chase money and/or a career time vs spending more time with their kids as both endeavor's again are mutually exclusive. We are free to define that as selfish or completely ok or something in between to justify one's actions in life. Personally, I have a great deal of respect for people who chase money/careers for whatever reason and hold off having kids or not having them at all because they are honest about their goals/know what they want. They realize their priority in life, know they can't be the "having it all", "jack of all trades master of none" types and such a situation is not ideal/healthy for bringing up kids and are honest about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2016, 02:11 PM
 
12,926 posts, read 19,812,959 times
Reputation: 33967
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
I think you missed the point from the experts who are well versed on the topic more than us on the reasons why people stay in abusive situations, regardless if it was last year, 10, or 50 years ago. From the url, the vast majority of reasons are beyond money on why people remain in a abusive relationship/situation:

Compelling Reasons Women Stay | Domestic Abuse Project

It's an ugly mind game/control thing for the most part by the other side that goes way beyond money. Plus with welfare/social programs today, a woman/her kids will get $ support right out of the gate if she leaves for the benefit of her and her kid(s). And in such situations, this $, other family, or other groups who provide such assistance is enough to do what I feel is by far the most important goal.....to get the spouse, usually the woman, and especially her kid, out of such an ugly/often dangerous, both physically and/or mental, abuse situation. $ is the easy part in these situations. The mental part is the tricky part as the URL outlines.

Totally agree, some SAHP aren't fit to care for a rock. But assuming we have a fit/decent parent(s), isn't the part about "wholeheartedly" require one to be present or are we at the point where some parent who lives at their job considers texting and skypeing are just as good in being a quality parent? I think you'll agree the consultants I know who aren't home for weeks/months at a time to see their kids, drop in a few days here and there and off to their next gig aren't in the "wholeheartedly" category? There are many careers out there that require such commitments and millions of people who do such work have kids and it's not uncommon to have both parents working very long hours like this. Though a few are honest in their less than idea title as "parent", some have told me what wonderful parents they are.....the few times they see their kids, in their mind, they are in your "wholeheartedly" category. I see them in a boat on the de-nile river but that's my view.

Yes, I think you make a great point in there is gray there for sure as there are indeed people out there who work for much more than the money. But if this were the reality in the vast majority of cases, and money was very low on the list of importance, we'd see far more people in their 20's, 30's, 40's volunteering and not taking a salary in said work/job wasn't mainly about money, right? Or they'd give all that money they'd earn away to charity and not buy material things with it if those material things didn't matter in their life? I see a big disconnect there between words and actions. For myself? The overused saying "actions speak louder than words", and "show me don't tell me" rings very true. And again, my main point isn't to condemn them in their want for material things....it's just to make the point many indeed have chosen to chase money and/or a career time vs spending more time with their kids as both endeavor's again are mutually exclusive. We are free to define that as selfish or completely ok or something in between to justify one's actions in life. Personally, I have a great deal of respect for people who chase money/careers for whatever reason and hold off having kids or not having them at all because they are honest about their goals/know what they want. They realize their priority in life, know they can't be the "having it all", "jack of all trades master of none" types and such a situation is not ideal/healthy for bringing up kids and are honest about it.
Money is not the easy part of breaking up a marriage, not by a long shot. I have a close friend, who remained at home with her 3 children while her husband supported them, and beat her up. She finally decided she had had enough, and walked out, but she had to borrow thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to protect her interests in court, and to fight her husband for custody.

Things may have been different if she had filed a police report, but she didn't want to subject the kids to seeing their father jailed, nor was she willing to face a future without child support. He would have lost his job if he had been arrested for assault. Money is a huge consideration in these types of cases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2016, 02:16 PM
 
Location: here
24,473 posts, read 28,761,114 times
Reputation: 31056
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Again, I'm not talking about your kids/situation in particular, you're personalizing my points to only your situation.

I think you need to experience things a bit more in our society if you've not noticed such a common thing out there. Work as a/get to know a therapist, psychologist, orphanage, teacher, or a cop for a dose of this reality who deal with the end result day in/day out.....big time.
If you had read past the first sentence of my post you would see that I wasn't talking about myself, but my experience with people that I know, just like you were using your experience with people you know.

How dare you suggest that I need to get out more and get to know people in those professions? You are being extremely condescending and making really stupid and shallow assumptions. You must think I live in a freaking cave to not know a therapist, a teacher, a cop. What a load of crap. You are the one with the narrow view of what is and isn't and what should and shouldn't be, not me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2016, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,581,069 times
Reputation: 7672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat View Post
If you had read past the first sentence of my post you would see that I wasn't talking about myself, but my experience with people that I know, just like you were using your experience with people you know.

How dare you suggest that I need to get out more and get to know people in those professions? You are being extremely condescending and making really stupid and shallow assumptions. You must think I live in a freaking cave to not know a therapist, a teacher, a cop. What a load of crap. You are the one with the narrow view of what is and isn't and what should and shouldn't be, not me.
Based on your answer in your previous post statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat View Post
No decision, no schedule, nothing is done without considering the kids.
It sure sounded like you were referring to your situation, ie "the kids".

Yes, you are entitled to your views as I am to mine. See, we agree on something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie View Post
Money is not the easy part of breaking up a marriage, not by a long shot. I have a close friend, who remained at home with her 3 children while her husband supported them, and beat her up. She finally decided she had had enough, and walked out, but she had to borrow thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to protect her interests in court, and to fight her husband for custody.

Things may have been different if she had filed a police report, but she didn't want to subject the kids to seeing their father jailed, nor was she willing to face a future without child support. He would have lost his job if he had been arrested for assault. Money is a huge consideration in these types of cases.
Your friend made the choice to subject herself and her kids to that kind of violence because of money, because it wasn't "easy" to leave the money and future child support after he gets out of jail in a relatively short period of time in such cases? And not choose instead to go to a battered woman shelter that would have allowed her to stay with her kids right away in a moments notice, find family support that might have taken them in, even a religious entity, eventually getting on welfare/public support until she finds her footing, etc. And it's ok to have the kids see violence like that in the home against their mom and not call the cops which teaches the kids there are no consequences for dads actions beating up their mom? This is often what teaches kids their later habits in life, the way to solve future problems when they are adults as it leaves nasty scars/imprints since they see no consequences to unacceptable actions by a parent.

Wow......

But I think you've made the point that I've made in several previous points.....money is indeed as you say a "huge consideration" in the life of more than a few parents, even in situations of violence like this, vs what's best for kids and the mother in such an ugly environment in which they should not be subjected to in any manner. And abusive to subject the kids to such ugliness in the name of money when there are so many other options that would have benefited mom and the kids much more.

I'll say it again.....wow.....just when you've thought you've heard it all.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2016, 03:15 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
27,306 posts, read 15,063,243 times
Reputation: 20875
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciesmom View Post
I think this is really key and bears repeating. There is no one size fits all. Interestingly, when I was a young mother (back in the dark ages - my kids are grown), I remember one colleague telling my proudly, that he worked 3 jobs so his wife could stay home with their kids. I asked him when he got to see his children, and how much actual family time there was with him working all the time. Guessing on HIS deathbead, he'd have maybe wished his wife would have worked a bit to take some of that load off of him and he too could have spent some time with his kids.

There is not one "right way" to have a family or to be a family or to make your family work.
This is so true. I also want to add - that no matter WHAT one does or does not do - it is likely we will ALL have deathbed regrets. With any death, including our own, comes regret. I've spend a fair amount of time with dying people.

Some women are not hardwired to stay home all day. My mother should have worked. She was unhappy about being dependent, probably depressed and being home alone all day wasn't good for her and her unhappiness wasn't good for ME. I never knew what I would be coming home to.

You can have great SAHM's and lazy SAHM's. A working mom can be a great Mom or she can be a lousy Mom. It really depends on the individual and everything else is just total BS and a way for everyone to justify their choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Though often "balance" for many is what works best for mom/dad, not the kids, I agree with this. I'm not implying this to your choice/everyone's choice but in my observations of other parents in their actions. And that #2 regret.

As for college, my point again is working a job to obtain money for goal #1, ie saving $ for college for a kid that might or might not go to college in first place, takes away time from goal #2, spending more time with their kids. It's an interesting assumption that every parent thinks their kid out of the womb is college material, either via attitude or ability. I give great marketing kudos to colleges to build this thing up in so many parents mind.

Kibbiekat, I'm glad your situation worked out well for your situation/your kids. You don't have to justify the details/specifics to me.
If your child doesn't go to college this day and age, I hope they have a trade picked out. I grew up in an educated family ~ so going to college was just assumed. Same with my son. Had he been a incredibly poor student - then that would have been a different story - but he was a smart kid.

I can't imagine not having any plans or any savings for my kids' future. Seems irresponsible to me. Counting the minutes in every day isn't everything.

I've already shared my opinion on regret. It's like caring for elderly parents. No matter HOW MUCH you have done, there is still guilt when they die. Often the person who has done the most - feels the most guilt.

So, deathbed regrets are always going to be there even IF you have spent 365 days a year/24 hours a day with your kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2016, 03:20 PM
 
15,762 posts, read 13,191,044 times
Reputation: 19651
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCookie View Post
Because when I brought this up before, people jumped on me for it with things like "not all moms bond with baby", "they sleep 20 hours a day anyway", "childbirth is not surgery", "it doesn't matter who the baby is with, they won't remember it anyway", "women can't just sit around and cuddle babies for months", etc etc. Trying to make the author's choice appear fine and natural. Which it just isn't.
Once more, read it slowly this time.

The author was home with her baby, breastfeeding her baby, what does it matter if she took a conference call during one of the 17 hours a baby sleeps a day?

The fact that you keep talking about how important it is to be home and physically there, and then keep taking this woman to task for doing JUST THAT, show that you real issue is with the fact that she WORKS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2016, 03:22 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
27,306 posts, read 15,063,243 times
Reputation: 20875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat View Post
Excellent point. It all starts very innocently with a low-cost rec team and before you know it, you're having 3-5 practices a week, off season leagues, games and tournaments out of town, and paid instead of volunteer coaches. My son's most recent "thing" was out of state. I looked at my husband and said "there will be kids who can make this team who can't afford to go." I was sad for them and glad that we didn't have to make that choice.

It has taught him to be a team player, manage his time, win and lose gracefully, and, yes, it is what we do as a family. We spend almost every weekend together going to games, hanging out between games, etc.

It's easy enough when the kids are young to say you'll never spend that kind of money or invest that kind of time. Just wait. When they're good and they love it, why deny them that experience?

My time is much better spent earning the money to pay for these experiences than it is sitting at home waiting for them to get home from school. It is really narrow-minded to try to simplify it into prioritizing these things over time spent with the kids. It is much more complicated than that; and it is experiences, not just materialistic possessions that my income pays for. Experiences are what make life worth living.
All that time spent together with friends and family ~ are experiences that your son will never forget. I never planned it either - but, like you said, it just happens and before you know ~ you are reeled in. I thought I was ready to quit getting up at 4 and being at some pool by 6 am but . . I miss the people and the friendships. The parents all helped each other other; getting kids to and from practice every day; to and from meets; it was special. The kids encouraged each other and cheered each other on.

My son quit swimming after his freshman year in college; but neither one of us have any regrets. It kept him busy, focused, out of trouble, and a group to belong to throughout middle and high school. It shaped the person that he is today. He is very determined and I know exactly where that came from.

Enjoy this time! You will never regret it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2016, 03:24 PM
 
15,762 posts, read 13,191,044 times
Reputation: 19651
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Though often "balance" for many is what works best for mom/dad, not the kids, I agree with this. I'm not implying this to your choice/everyone's choice but in my observations of other parents in their actions. And that #2 regret.

As for college, my point again is working a job to obtain money for goal #1, ie saving $ for college for a kid that might or might not go to college in first place, takes away time from goal #2, spending more time with their kids. It's an interesting assumption that every parent thinks their kid out of the womb is college material, either via attitude or ability. I give great marketing kudos to colleges to build this thing up in so many parents mind.

Kibbiekat, I'm glad your situation worked out well for your situation/your kids. You don't have to justify the details/specifics to me.
Bizarre. Parents who save for college for their children are about giving them opportunities. What if your child wants to do something that requires a college education? Mine wanted to be an oceanographer since she was tiny and would go flipping rocks over at the beach.

And once more, once they go to school, why does someone need to be home the hours they aren't even home? Flex times (something close to 50% of salaried positions are flex time) makes it quite possible for parents to arrange for one to be home to see them off in the morning and the other to be there when they get home. So how is that remotely detrimental?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2016, 03:44 PM
 
12,926 posts, read 19,812,959 times
Reputation: 33967
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Based on your answer in your previous post statement:



It sure sounded like you were referring to your situation, ie "the kids".

Yes, you are entitled to your views as I am to mine. See, we agree on something.



Your friend made the choice to subject herself and her kids to that kind of violence because of money, because it wasn't "easy" to leave the money and future child support after he gets out of jail in a relatively short period of time in such cases? And not choose instead to go to a battered woman shelter that would have allowed her to stay with her kids right away in a moments notice, find family support that might have taken them in, even a religious entity, eventually getting on welfare/public support until she finds her footing, etc. And it's ok to have the kids see violence like that in the home against their mom and not call the cops which teaches the kids there are no consequences for dads actions beating up their mom? This is often what teaches kids their later habits in life, the way to solve future problems when they are adults as it leaves nasty scars/imprints since they see no consequences to unacceptable actions by a parent.

Wow......

But I think you've made the point that I've made in several previous points.....money is indeed as you say a "huge consideration" in the life of more than a few parents, even in situations of violence like this, vs what's best for kids and the mother in such an ugly environment in which they should not be subjected to in any manner. And abusive to subject the kids to such ugliness in the name of money when there are so many other options that would have benefited mom and the kids much more.

I'll say it again.....wow.....just when you've thought you've heard it all.....
"Wow" right back atcha. First of all, the husband in this case was never abusive to his children. He saved that special "love" for his wife. Why are you giving men a pass here? Because you think a shelter is equitable to a 5 bedroom 6 bathroom home in an area with excellent schools? Get real. This mother put up with a lot to keep her children safe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top