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.
By the way...for an actual good blog post (albeit a devastating one) that truly raises and intelligently discusses, as opposed to whining, the very important points around this issue, society's pressures, lack of structural family support etc, read this: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-so-soon/?_r=0
Something for toenail mom to think about in her woes.
I was responding directly to someone else in regards to your statements so you are making assumptions on me beyond my points directly to them.
Yes, I stated the goal of savings for one's kids college is indirectly related to accumulating more money/things. Let's be honest and that's the goal of most today, to earn more money. I didn't say that was wrong or right, just a statement of reality. And time chasing money for anything = spending less time with their kids.
Yes, state parks, camping, etc. cost money. Again, I was giving alternatives, much cheaper alternatives then going to a theme park, summer camps for kids that many cost big $, etc. Never did I state not to spend money/live in a fort without running water or electricity and not spend money.
Correct, kids don't need undivided attention. Agree 100% as it brings them up independent. However, as I stated in the post you're responding to, the #2 death bed regret is not spending enough time with their kids, watching them grow up, and time with their spouse. That's far from hovering over them, it's being largely an absent parent which is what I'm discussing here and what many people practice out there. I've known more than a few. You don't have to justify to me what your life decisions are in this regard as it sounds like you're at peace on how you handled your life work vs time with your kids. I'm simply discussing the reality based on my observations and based on the #2 death bed regret and it shows there are lots of absent parents out there. That's the reality of the situation.
There are many woman today in abusive relationships that don't leave and in the vast majority of cases this choice has nothing to do with not having skills for a career to make money in, "means of support". Woman, with or without kids in an abusive situation, have many options today for emotional/$ support but in the vast majority of cases stay not for the reason of the inability to make $. Something you might find interesting:
yes, being able to support oneself is a good thing for sure but to imply stay at home moms are "stuck in traps" raising their kids at home? That's harsh/insulting for those stay at home moms or dads for that matter who are doing the important job of raising kids, preparing them as well rounded kids in a loving manner so they can be responsible/well rounding/loved individuals. Yikes. How about a little gray thinking.....have one's career, work all sorts of hours, pull down some $ if that's important to one and then after working in such a way, leave and have kids later in life? And as for loveless/bad relationship situations, such people shouldn't be making kids in such situations and it does indeed happen. We've known/heard of many couples having kids to help "fix" or "spark" deeper problems in their marriage. How unfair/selfish to those kids in my view as most of those kids get put in ugly spots that get uglier. And birth control is an amazing thing as many pregnancies in/out of marriage are often "oops" for people who never wanted/intended to have kids in the first place.
The point isn't to "trivialize" anything. My main point in this is what is one's priority.....do BOTH parents want to "contribute to society" in the way of chasing a career as you say as the main or major goal which in the vast majority of cases involves making money? It doesn't matter if it's to buy material things, ie "frivolous shiny things", or if one gives 100% of their paycheck to the wounded wild bird fund. Pursuing such a thing takes time away from one's kids. Both endeavors are mutually exclusive as time spent doing one takes time away from doing the other. And frankly most people like buying lots of "shiny things" with their money as our overall savings rates show that money is going out the door in the vast majority of cases soon after it's earned, not being parked in a savings/investment account. "Frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder but that's not my point.....the point is where does one want to focus their time on?
Some will split it in lots of different ways in spending time with their kids vs working......50/50, 80/20, 95/5, 10/90, etc. Is it ok for no parent to be around their kids as infants for the vast majority of time, have other people watching them for years when they are growing up? Some parents apparently think this is ok. Half the time? Some parents think this is apparently ok too. Some parents I personally know have a different view like me and wouldn't have a kid in the first place if both parents were spending lots of time career/chasing money for whatever reason but the vast majority of people I've met seem to be ok with the career as a focus in their lives. Guilt is self-inflicted and personal. If one feels guilty about something and that feeling doesn't go away, my take on that is I know I'm in a wrong place. I either continue to feel guilty or change something to not feel that way. I think it's that simple.
Yes, the reality is money is needed to at least buy shelter and food and some extra things in life once in a while is nice and someone needs to work/bring in the money in a family. My solution? To me if kids are in the picture, the ideal FOR THE CHILD is to have one parent around with them, especially in their infant years/single digit years.
I find your opinion and your assumption... interesting. It is hard to argue against saving money for college, but you managed. There seems to be a lot of black and white, all or nothing going on in this thread. In reality, it is all very gray and a balance.
My husband doesn't travel and I have a not-quite-full-time. Both of us working doesn't mean we both have high-power, long hour jobs. Because of that we have decent money but not loads of money. We drive used cars and have an out-of-date kitchen, and take camping trips in a very old trailer. Yet you paint dual income families as simply money-chasing and materialistic people sending their kids to expensive camps and taking expensive vacations.
Likewise, the family where mom stays home so dad can travel and advance his career has also struck a balance. Maybe they have one high income and we have 2 middle incomes. Maybe they get 4 hours with mom after school but 0 hours with dad, where other kids might get 2 hours with mom and 2 hours with dad after school.
The point is, there is no one-size fits all answer. There is no box where every family must fit where they make enough to feed their family but not enough to do anything fun. Where mom must be home at all times, but dad has to spend 12 hours/day at work. It just isn't as simplistic as some posters are making it out to be.
Finster had a excellent point about keeping skills fresh and being able to support oneself in the event that a spouse leaves or dies. Every family has to weigh all of their options and make the decision that makes the most sense for them. They don't need you to do it for them.
The point is, there is no one-size fits all answer. There is no box where every family must fit where they make enough to feed their family but not enough to do anything fun. Where mom must be home at all times, but dad has to spend 12 hours/day at work. It just isn't as simplistic as some posters are making it out to be.
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.
By the way...for an actual good blog post (albeit a devastating one) that truly raises and intelligently discusses, as opposed to whining, the very important points around this issue, society's pressures, lack of structural family support etc, read this: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-so-soon/?_r=0
Something for toenail mom to think about in her woes.
Super sad but exceedingly rare. Also a good argument for decent paid maternity leave in this country. Unfortunately, the same people who claim to be about family values don't support such things.
I find your opinion and your assumption... interesting. It is hard to argue against saving money for college, but you managed. There seems to be a lot of black and white, all or nothing going on in this thread. In reality, it is all very gray and a balance.
My husband doesn't travel and I have a not-quite-full-time. Both of us working doesn't mean we both have high-power, long hour jobs. Because of that we have decent money but not loads of money. We drive used cars and have an out-of-date kitchen, and take camping trips in a very old trailer. Yet you paint dual income families as simply money-chasing and materialistic people sending their kids to expensive camps and taking expensive vacations.
Likewise, the family where mom stays home so dad can travel and advance his career has also struck a balance. Maybe they have one high income and we have 2 middle incomes. Maybe they get 4 hours with mom after school but 0 hours with dad, where other kids might get 2 hours with mom and 2 hours with dad after school.
The point is, there is no one-size fits all answer. There is no box where every family must fit where they make enough to feed their family but not enough to do anything fun. Where mom must be home at all times, but dad has to spend 12 hours/day at work. It just isn't as simplistic as some posters are making it out to be.
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.
Well speaking for myself only. I would have thought very long and hard before marrying and having kids with a man in the military or any other field that regularly required him to be away from home for very long periods of time. IMO children need both parents there for best outcomes, and these sort of professions are very hard on everyone in the family.
Personally I don't discount the importance of the father figure in parenting, what's more I know some families where dad stays home and the mom works and it's great. I still do believe it is better, all other factors being equal, for one *parent* to be available to children at home throughout the day. Yes, perhaps more important than career, which is why I tend to look at earning power - it's not that the woman's career should always be sacrificed, it's that it makes sense for the person who earns less to be the more flexible one (whether it means staying home, cutting back hours, moving for spouses job etc), regardless of gender. Of course all factors are never ever equal, so each family weighs their own choices and decisions.
A crucial exception however is in the brand new newborn period, where at least for a first while, it IS about the mother much more than anyone else. Unless the baby is adopted, and until we learn to get men pregnant, a newborn biologically needs its mother, there is no arguing with that. Nothing will ever convince me that it's good, preferable, or natural to hand off your day old baby to someone else so you can go take conference calls (or paint your nails). Get help so you can sleep and eat, yes. Honestly, i didnt work but i cant even fathom worrying about my toenails one day after giving birth! Hell, getting to the shower was good. And i'm typically vain when it comes to appearance. So the fact she even mentions it confirms my feeling, that it's not "society" or circumstances that are putting this pressure in her, it's most likely her own personality - the perfectionist type A high achiever who cant let things go, and its making her miserable. And I'd be willing to bet that's the main reason she was back to work that soon too.
Having a baby is not just something you do in between appointments, checking it off like a calendar item. Like I said, that's what bothered me most about that article, that underlying presumption.
I didn't argue with that and I don't think anyone else is either.
Whether it's unequivocally better (say after 12 weeks) for a parent to be home or not is something I don't know. I don't know if there's proven research that that's the case. There's pretty high quality early childhood care out there that could benefit the child in other ways. Emotionally I would say yes, but that doesn't prove reality.
But it's if no benefit to the child if the SAHP sacrifices their life to a point where they're ill equipped to deal with a radical shift in circumstances. If you and your teen kids are out in the street because something terrible happened, and you couldn't support them, then I'd say that might wipe out any gains you may have made by staying home.
And of course, all this is an argument of privilege. (It's not a bad thing, I'm privileged, comparatively speaking). Very low income parents, single/widowed/divorced parents, even small family business owners and parents that are trying to finish their education and work two jobs so they can get out of poverty, don't have these options and certainly don't have the time to argue about it.
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.
Kibbiekat, I'm glad your situation worked out well for your situation/your kids. You don't have to justify them to me.
I think you're wrong about that. Everything is about what's best for the kids. No decision, no schedule, nothing is done without considering the kids. That's just how it is once you have them. Unless the people you know are vastly different from the ones I know.
Though often "balance" for many is what works best for mom/dad, not the kids, I agree with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat
I think you're wrong about that. Everything is about what's best for the kids. No decision, no schedule, nothing is done without considering the kids. That's just how it is once you have them. Unless the people you know are vastly different from the ones I know.
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.
I was responding directly to someone else in regards to your statements so you are making assumptions on me beyond my points directly to them.
Yes, I stated the goal of savings for one's kids college is indirectly related to accumulating more money/things and pass that mentality on to their kids. Let's be honest and that's the goal of most today, to earn more money. I didn't say that was wrong or right, just a statement of reality. And time chasing money for anything = spending less time with their kids.
Yes, state parks, camping, etc. cost money. Again, I was giving alternatives, much cheaper alternatives then going to a theme park, summer camps for kids that many cost big $, etc. Never did I state not to spend money/live in a fort without running water or electricity and not spend money.
Correct, kids don't need undivided attention. Agree 100% as it brings them up independent. However, as I stated in the post you're responding to, the #2 death bed regret is not spending enough time with their kids, watching them grow up, and time with their spouse. That's far from hovering over them, it's being largely an absent parent which is what I'm discussing here and what many people practice out there. I've known more than a few. You don't have to justify to me what your life decisions are in this regard as it sounds like you're at peace on how you handled your life work vs time with your kids. I'm simply discussing the reality based on my observations and based on the #2 death bed regret and it shows there are lots of absent parents out there. That's the reality of the situation.
There are many woman today in abusive relationships that don't leave and in the vast majority of cases this choice has nothing to do with not having skills for a career to make money in, "means of support". Woman, with or without kids in an abusive situation, have many options today for emotional/$ support but in the vast majority of cases stay not for the reason of the inability to make $. Something you might find interesting:
yes, being able to support oneself is a good thing for sure but to imply stay at home moms are "stuck in traps" raising their kids at home? That's harsh/insulting for those stay at home moms or dads for that matter who are doing the important job of raising kids, preparing them as well rounded kids in a loving manner so they can be responsible/well rounding/loved individuals. Yikes. How about a little gray thinking.....have one's career, work all sorts of hours, pull down some $ if that's important to one and then after working in such a way, leave and have kids later in life? Or vice versa? And as for loveless/bad relationship situations, such people shouldn't be making kids in such situations and it does indeed happen. We've known/heard of many couples having kids to help "fix" or "spark" deeper problems in their marriage. How unfair/selfish to those kids in my view as most of those kids get put in ugly spots that get uglier. And birth control is an amazing thing as many pregnancies in/out of marriage are often "oops" for people who never wanted/intended to have kids in the first place.
The point isn't to "trivialize" anything. My main point in this is what is one's priority.....do BOTH parents want to "contribute to society" in the way of chasing a career as you say as the main or major goal which in the vast majority of cases involves making money? It doesn't matter if it's to buy material things, ie "frivolous shiny things", or if one gives 100% of their paycheck to the wounded wild bird fund. Pursuing such a thing takes time away from one's kids. Both endeavors are mutually exclusive as time spent doing one takes time away from doing the other. And frankly most people like buying lots of "shiny things" with their money as our overall savings rates show that money is going out the door in the vast majority of cases soon after it's earned, not being parked in a savings/investment account. "Frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder but that's not my point.....the point is where does one want to focus their time on?
Some will split it in lots of different ways in spending time with their kids vs working......50/50, 80/20, 95/5, 10/90, etc. Is it ok for no parent to be around their kids as infants for the vast majority of time, have other people watching them for years when they are growing up? Some parents apparently think this is ok. Half the time? Some parents think this is apparently ok too. Some parents I personally know have a different view like me and wouldn't have a kid in the first place if both parents were spending lots of time career/chasing money for whatever reason but the vast majority of people I've met seem to be ok with the career as a focus in their lives. Guilt is self-inflicted and personal. If one feels guilty about something and that feeling doesn't go away, my take on that is I know I'm in a wrong place. I either continue to feel guilty or change something to not feel that way. I think it's that simple. Yes, some kids brought up in daycare will be great kids. Yes, some kids brought up with loving parents will turn out to be monsters. Got it. But since we all usually end up in the middle of the bell curve, I think we all agree there's an ideal that increases the outcome of a better result in how a kid turns out in life.
Yes, the reality is money is needed to at least buy shelter and food and some extra things in life once in a while is nice and someone needs to work/bring in the money in a family. My solution? To me if kids are in the picture, the ideal FOR THE CHILD is to have one parent around with them, especially in their infant years/single digit years.
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.
It's better than it was, but it's still the case that mothers need to work full time and do everything at home, while fathers just have to work outside the home. The burdens aren't shared equally.
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.
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.
That's harsh/insulting for those stay at home moms or dads for that matter who are doing the important job of raising kids, preparing them as well rounded kids in a loving manner so they can be responsible/well rounding/loved individuals. Yikes. How about a little gray thinking.....have one's career, work all sorts of hours, pull down some $ if that's important to one and then after working in such a way, leave and have kids later in life? And as for loveless/bad relationship situations, such people shouldn't be making kids in such situations and it does indeed happen. We've known/heard of many couples having kids to help "fix" or "spark" deeper problems in their marriage.
