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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2017, 03:34 AM
nng nng started this thread
 
26 posts, read 10,976 times
Reputation: 34

Advertisements

I just don't get it. I am a woman and if I ever had a child I would have to be a working mother. I just think it is too risky to rely on someone else for survival. I would only be comfortable having a baby if I could provide for all my baby's needs. Anything could happen in life. Your spouse or partner can suddenly drop dead, or leave you. I am not knocking stay at home moms. I think everyone should do what they feel is right for themselves and their families. I actually am in awe of women who are comfortable being SAHM's. I am just not one of those people. I just think it is sad some people, mostly religious people, think that working mothers and feminism has ruined the family or society somehow. I think that is ridiculous. I think working to provide for your baby and family is never selfish. I just want some of your perspectives on this topic. honestly not trying to start a flame war. Do you think that babies need at least one parent to stay at home or do you think two working parents is ok?

Last edited by nng; 03-25-2017 at 04:54 AM..

 
Old 03-25-2017, 05:07 AM
 
10,027 posts, read 6,136,063 times
Reputation: 23444
I don't personally know anyone who looks down on working moms...but it is a hot topic in the mom world. But I think your post is more about trust issues then actually being a SAHM.
 
Old 03-25-2017, 05:34 AM
 
973 posts, read 1,628,458 times
Reputation: 3425
A hot topic that has been discussed to death on these forums. Search for it if you want to see what others say.
 
Old 03-25-2017, 08:49 AM
 
5,069 posts, read 2,998,851 times
Reputation: 12339
There are good reasons many countries require employers to provide extended maternity leave of up to a year or more, instead of placing six-week-old infants in full-time day care.
 
Old 03-25-2017, 10:09 AM
 
Location: here
24,149 posts, read 27,933,813 times
Reputation: 30008
Quote:
Originally Posted by nng View Post
I just don't get it. I am a woman and if I ever had a child I would have to be a working mother. I just think it is too risky to rely on someone else for survival. I would only be comfortable having a baby if I could provide for all my baby's needs. Anything could happen in life. Your spouse or partner can suddenly drop dead, or leave you. I am not knocking stay at home moms. I think everyone should do what they feel is right for themselves and their families. I actually am in awe of women who are comfortable being SAHM's. I am just not one of those people. I just think it is sad some people, mostly religious people, think that working mothers and feminism has ruined the family or society somehow. I think that is ridiculous. I think working to provide for your baby and family is never selfish. I just want some of your perspectives on this topic. honestly not trying to start a flame war. Do you think that babies need at least one parent to stay at home or do you think two working parents is ok?
I think either is ok. I think no 2 situations are exactly the same. I think people need to be more supportive and less judgmental.

I think if the US offered paid maternity leave, more babies would have a parent at home with them, and fewer parents would leave their jobs permanently to stay home. That's a win-win in my book, but this country is run mostly by selfish older men at the moment, so, probably not gonna happen.
 
Old 03-25-2017, 11:50 AM
 
160 posts, read 93,543 times
Reputation: 554
Obviously, everyone has a slightly different situation and it is not my place to tell others how to live their lives. But I believe it is extremely important for children, especially up to 5 or so, to have Mom around pretty much all the time. Extenuating circumstances aside, it seems to me to be irresponsible to deliberately bring a child into the world without the intention of devoting your full attention to mothering that child.

My husband and I are expecting our first child. I would never haven chosen to make a baby with him if I did not trust that he would do the important work of providing for the family so that I can do the important work of mothering. That seems to me to be a basic prerequisite when choosing a partner. I cannot fathom *wanting* to leave my baby with someone else for 8+ hours a day. Again, I realize that sometimes things happen and you have to make do, but I find the idea of making that choice deliberately rather baffling and yes, somewhat selfish, because it does not take into account what is best for the child.

I will add that I am extremely grateful that my mother was able to stay home with her kids until my youngest brother was in school, and then she only worked during school hours. My dad didn't make a lot of money, and we went without a lot of material things. But now that I am old enough to appreciate it, I would never trade having my Mom around for newer clothes or fancier vacations.
 
Old 03-25-2017, 12:05 PM
 
793 posts, read 391,223 times
Reputation: 2878
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaAma View Post
Obviously, everyone has a slightly different situation and it is not my place to tell others how to live their lives. But I believe it is extremely important for children, especially up to 5 or so, to have Mom around pretty much all the time. Extenuating circumstances aside, it seems to me to be irresponsible to deliberately bring a child into the world without the intention of devoting your full attention to mothering that child.

My husband and I are expecting our first child. I would never haven chosen to make a baby with him if I did not trust that he would do the important work of providing for the family so that I can do the important work of mothering. That seems to me to be a basic prerequisite when choosing a partner. I cannot fathom *wanting* to leave my baby with someone else for 8+ hours a day. Again, I realize that sometimes things happen and you have to make do, but I find the idea of making that choice deliberately rather baffling and yes, somewhat selfish, because it does not take into account what is best for the child.

I will add that I am extremely grateful that my mother was able to stay home with her kids until my youngest brother was in school, and then she only worked during school hours. My dad didn't make a lot of money, and we went without a lot of material things. But now that I am old enough to appreciate it, I would never trade having my Mom around for newer clothes or fancier vacations.
I agree with this. Obviously there are many women who have no choice but to work full-time and I have great respect for how hard they have it. But if you have a choice, I can't fathom dropping my newborn off for 8+ hours to have some stranger bond with my baby while I go to an optional job. You end up spending less waking-hour time with your own child than the babysitter does, and you miss so much!.This is a hot topic that has been discussed to death, but since you asked, this is why many feel that it is selfish.
 
Old 03-25-2017, 12:10 PM
 
3,137 posts, read 1,499,254 times
Reputation: 5938
Quote:
Originally Posted by nng View Post
I just don't get it. I am a woman and if I ever had a child I would have to be a working mother. I just think it is too risky to rely on someone else for survival. I would only be comfortable having a baby if I could provide for all my baby's needs. Anything could happen in life. Your spouse or partner can suddenly drop dead, or leave you.
Because often daycare costs as much as what they would earn working full time, so it makes no sense for the mom (or sometimes, the dad) to work.

People who don't have children do not understand this. They never had to write a check for daycare. A half-way decent daycare in my area is $250 a week. You would need to earn considerably more than that, to justify working during the day.

We have childless friends who criticized me for being a SAHM and kept insisting that I was "lazy". We finally sat them down and showed them the mathematics on daycare costs and after-school care for school-aged children. I also showed them a list of the chores and tasks that I do all day long, everything from paying bills and managing investments to laundry and cleaning out the toaster. I don't think it was effective, though, because I think they're just stuck on the idea that I'm lazy and watch tv all day. (It's kind of ironic because I do part time, contract work for a television producer but have never had time to watch any of their tv shows, even though I would love to).

Financial risk is worse for people who don't have their finances in order. Sudden death of a spouse? That's what life insurance is for. I know a SAHM whose husband died of cancer in his 20s; they were smart enough to have a life insurance policy, and she's able to stay at home with her kids, even though her husband has passed away. She has enough money from the life insurance policy that she was able to invest in 529 college savings plans for her children, also. She is comfortable. She didn't have to go out and start working double shifts at McDonald's.
 
Old 03-25-2017, 01:21 PM
 
201 posts, read 101,489 times
Reputation: 245
NNG,
I am a very strong believer that being a good parent is about the quality of time, not quantity of time spent with a child.


I know far too many women who due to laziness, or guilt stay at home and are miserable currs with unhappy kids and an equally unhappy spouse. Other times I see them plunking the kids in front of a screen of some sort while they fantacisize about being whisked away by some Prince Charming. They live vicariously through their children often forcing them to do activities, they wish they could have done. They kind of blame everyone else for not being "all they could have been". I think the happiest families are ones in which the primary caretaker works out of the home part time and by choice. Even if a person is happy being a stay at home parent it can be hard because unlike a job you never get a raise, kudos or adult conversation and banter.


That being said I think it is a smart idea for a woman or man that stays at home full or part time to have a skill. The best partner can become ill, go mental and leave or die. It's bad enough to lose a partner but to also be in financial straits is far worse. I also know a lot of women that stay married because they feel they can't financially survive even with child support and they are right. Worse is having a happy life and suddenly having to work in a minimum wage job with horrible hours, never seeing your kids AND having to move them to a bad school and neighborhood with no relief in site because your spouse is injured, dead or otherwise not financially supporting the family any more.


At the end of the day, different strokes for different folks. Most partners and kids would rather spend an hour with a happy mom/ caretaker than 24 with a miserable curr. On the other side why work trying in vain to be superwoman to impress strangers? Better to live in an apartment but have happy kids and a happy marriage.


There is no price on peace and happiness. When you are doing what you believe is right, there's no need to argue.
NG








Quote:
Originally Posted by nng View Post
I just don't get it. I am a woman and if I ever had a child I would have to be a working mother. I just think it is too risky to rely on someone else for survival. I would only be comfortable having a baby if I could provide for all my baby's needs. Anything could happen in life. Your spouse or partner can suddenly drop dead, or leave you. I am not knocking stay at home moms. I think everyone should do what they feel is right for themselves and their families. I actually am in awe of women who are comfortable being SAHM's. I am just not one of those people. I just think it is sad some people, mostly religious people, think that working mothers and feminism has ruined the family or society somehow. I think that is ridiculous. I think working to provide for your baby and family is never selfish. I just want some of your perspectives on this topic. honestly not trying to start a flame war. Do you think that babies need at least one parent to stay at home or do you think two working parents is ok?
 
Old 03-25-2017, 02:08 PM
 
4,872 posts, read 5,989,488 times
Reputation: 7147
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaAma View Post
Obviously, everyone has a slightly different situation and it is not my place to tell others how to live their lives. But I believe it is extremely important for children, especially up to 5 or so, to have Mom around pretty much all the time. Extenuating circumstances aside, it seems to me to be irresponsible to deliberately bring a child into the world without the intention of devoting your full attention to mothering that child.
Why can't Dad stay home instead of Mom? It's as much his kid as hers.
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.


Closed Thread


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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, 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 - Top