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.
Even with some Internet surfing, you still have a lot more time for your kids when you're at home. Ideally, sure, there should be NO internet surfing. But think how much of that people do at work!
That's another example of filling time. Honestly, we have a lot of time on our hands compared to our ancesters.
I think internet surfing is opportunistic. People who spend a lot of time on computers are likely to take their breaks on computers too. IMO, it's better than heading for a vending machine and eating a candy bar. Though walking to the vending machine would be exercise . I think I need a pedal powered computer . When I'm not up in front of my room teaching, I spend a lot of time on line. Most of it actually working but a good chunk taking breaks too.
People have always taken breaks. They just take them differently now.
When you think of it, nothing really changes. We do the same things just in different ways. 100 years ago, you talked to your neighbor over the back fence. Today, I can chat with my cousin in Japan over facebook. I think it's kind of cool.
Sorry, I can back what I say with research. Can you?
For all the hoopla surrounding this debate, when you stand our adult children side by side, it's pretty hard to tell the difference. While there are some that favor the working mom, they may not be causal.
You're the one trying to claim what you do is superior. You're the one doing the wishing. I can prove my point. I don't have to wish.
Research, studies, blah, blah, blah. They mean NOTHING next to experience and personal observation. Those who do all those studies you spout from all the time have slanted them to suit themselves. Reality says otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimalkinskeeper
When you consider the impact of SES on child outcomes, a second working parent may be the best investment you can make in your children if it means living in a better area. When you consider that, in the future, education will separate the haves from the have nots, a second working parent may be the best invesment you can make in your child..
Fortunately, working parents can rest assured that, ignoring the financial impact because that does count, our kids just don't turn out differently based on mom's working status. If something doesn't make a difference, there is no reason to fret over it.
So why are you considering quitting your job because your daughter is having sex at the age of 14? YOU are fretting over it and you think it will make a difference.
I guess it all comes down to choices. I choose to cook from scratch and forego the salt-laden Boston Market meatloaf and canned veggies. I also choose to make sure that my kids are getting a good moral and academic foundation. Because of these choices, we have less money than we would if I worked full-time during this season of my life. We don't have a huge savings account (though we do have some savings), we can't take elaborate vacations every year (though we went to Europe a few years ago and are going to DisneyWorld this year), and we can't afford to hire someone to do the important job of cleaning my house for me. In my eyes, I have the rest of my life after my children are grown to work and pack money away... the kids are only young and impressionable once.
Other people make different choices... I get that. I understand that gobs of money put away today with compounding interest will be worth more than money put away later in life. It's a sacrifice that I make, but it's not something that everyone will agree with.
Either way, you're sacrificing something. Whether it's money, free time, or time with your kids, it's all a tradeoff. Trying to convince yourself that you're not losing out on ANYTHING and that your children are unaffected by the choices that you make because the things that you're missing are "unimportant" is simply sour grapes.
I guess it all comes down to choices. I choose to cook from scratch and forego the salt-laden Boston Market meatloaf and canned veggies. I also choose to make sure that my kids are getting a good moral and academic foundation. Because of these choices, we have less money than we would if I worked full-time during this season of my life. We don't have a huge savings account (though we do have some savings), we can't take elaborate vacations every year (though we went to Europe a few years ago and are going to DisneyWorld this year), and we can't afford to hire someone to do the important job of cleaning my house for me. In my eyes, I have the rest of my life after my children are grown to work and pack money away... the kids are only young and impressionable once.
Other people make different choices... I get that. I understand that gobs of money put away today with compounding interest will be worth more than money put away later in life. It's a sacrifice that I make, but it's not something that everyone will agree with.
Either way, you're sacrificing something. Whether it's money, free time, or time with your kids, it's all a tradeoff. Trying to convince yourself that you're not losing out on ANYTHING and that your children are unaffected by the choices that you make because the things that you're missing are "unimportant" is simply sour grapes.
We all have choices. The trick is to make the best ones you can. You don't have to cook at home to avoid salt, BTW. One of the things I like about being a working mom is I've always been able to buy the fruits and vegetables my kids like and will eat even when they are not in season. I'd be budget shopping if I didn't work. We'd probably have more canned vegetables of the salt laden variety simply because I couldn't afford broccoli in the middle of the winter (the one vegatable my kids will always eat).
You put it on the scale and decide what is going to net the best result. For us, that's living in a better neighborhood so our kids can go to better schools. I love that my working makes that possible. My family is better off because I work. That's a great feeling. I'm sure it's the same one my great great grandmother had when she knew she'd put up enough stores for the winter (which BTW, were probably salt laden as salt was used as a preservative). I don't have college paid for but we have a start on it and a better chance of making it because I've worked and we save. Life would, certainly, be different if I didn't work. It would be different if my husband didn't work. It's better because we both choose to work in too many ways to count really. That's a good feeling.
We all have choices. The trick is to make the best ones you can. You don't have to cook at home to avoid salt, BTW. One of the things I like about being a working mom is I've always been able to buy the fruits and vegetables my kids like and will eat even when they are not in season. I'd be budget shopping if I didn't work. We'd probably have more canned vegetables of the salt laden variety simply because I couldn't afford broccoli in the middle of the winter (the one vegatable my kids will always eat).
You put it on the scale and decide what is going to net the best result. For us, that's living in a better neighborhood so our kids can go to better schools. I love that my working makes that possible. My family is better off because I work. That's a great feeling. I'm sure it's the same one my great great grandmother had when she knew she'd put up enough stores for the winter (which BTW, were probably salt laden as salt was used as a preservative). I don't have college paid for but we have a start on it and a better chance of making it because I've worked and we save. Life would, certainly, be different if I didn't work. It would be different if my husband didn't work. It's better because we both choose to work in too many ways to count really. That's a good feeling.
I agree with the bolded. For my family, my staying home and homeschooling makes sense. For yours, you working makes sense. Neither of us are bad mothers or doing something unimportant. You do what's important to you (providing for your family by working), and I do what's important to me (being here to closely supervise and train my children).
I should add that if it came to the point where I could not afford to buy vegetables because I did not work, then we (DH and I) would need to re-evaluate our choices. Obviously feeding the kids appropriately comes before staying home with them!
I agree with the bolded. For my family, my staying home and homeschooling makes sense. For yours, you working makes sense. Neither of us are bad mothers or doing something unimportant. You do what's important to you (providing for your family by working), and I do what's important to me (being here to closely supervise and train my children).
I should add that if it came to the point where I could not afford to buy vegetables because I did not work, then we (DH and I) would need to re-evaluate our choices. Obviously feeding the kids appropriately comes before staying home with them!
Actually, it's not that bad an idea. Parenting could become a profession, in which a couple can choose it as a career. A couple could then be placed as guardians at a domestic facliity in which two "parents" would care for about ten kids, in a large living facility fully supported by the state. Any natural parents who wanted to or needed to divest themselves of their kids could turn them over to the state, where they would be raised in such a facility.
A couple of dozen such homes could be clustered near enough to each other that a school would also be maintained for them.
Parents would no longer receive any public funds, and those funds would then be diverted to the child-homes, This would reduce significantly the number of children raised in homes that were substandard, either in terms of parental quality or budgetary restraints. Many of them could be situated in rural areas, to reduce the urbanization trend in the nation. Millions of kids could be moved out of cities, into more wholesome rural environments. Kids would be expected to pitch in with household chores.
As more and more people seem disinterested in raising children, or unable to work out suitable parenting arrangements, it would be beneficial for "professional parents" with adequate funding to take over for what is increasing a failing system.
Actually, it's not that bad an idea. Parenting could become a profession, in which a couple can choose it as a career. A couple could then be placed as guardians at a domestic facliity in which two "parents" would care for about ten kids, in a large living facility fully supported by the state. Any natural parents who wanted to or needed to divest themselves of their kids could turn them over to the state, where they would be raised in such a facility.
A couple of dozen such homes could be clustered near enough to each other that a school would also be maintained for them.
Parents would no longer receive any public funds, and those funds would then be diverted to the child-homes, This would reduce significantly the number of children raised in homes that were substandard, either in terms of parental quality or budgetary restraints. Many of them could be situated in rural areas, to reduce the urbanization trend in the nation. Millions of kids could be moved out of cities, into more wholesome rural environments. Kids would be expected to pitch in with household chores.
As more and more people seem disinterested in raising children, or unable to work out suitable parenting arrangements, it would be beneficial for "professional parents" with adequate funding to take over for what is increasing a failing system.
Actually, it's not that bad an idea. Parenting could become a profession, in which a couple can choose it as a career. A couple could then be placed as guardians at a domestic facliity in which two "parents" would care for about ten kids, in a large living facility fully supported by the state. Any natural parents who wanted to or needed to divest themselves of their kids could turn them over to the state, where they would be raised in such a facility.
A couple of dozen such homes could be clustered near enough to each other that a school would also be maintained for them.
Parents would no longer receive any public funds, and those funds would then be diverted to the child-homes, This would reduce significantly the number of children raised in homes that were substandard, either in terms of parental quality or budgetary restraints. Many of them could be situated in rural areas, to reduce the urbanization trend in the nation. Millions of kids could be moved out of cities, into more wholesome rural environments. Kids would be expected to pitch in with household chores.
As more and more people seem disinterested in raising children, or unable to work out suitable parenting arrangements, it would be beneficial for "professional parents" with adequate funding to take over for what is increasing a failing system.
Have you ever visited a group home for teens? That's essentially what you've just described. They serve a purpose for children and teens who have been abused, neglected and/or experienced severe delinquent behaviors and can no longer live at home, nor be placed in foster care but they are far from ideal and are a last resort. Children need their parents. It's not a job that can be subcontracted out. I do hope that you are joking.
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.
. I think I need a pedal powered computer 
. When I'm not up in front of my room teaching, I spend a lot of time on line. Most of it actually working but a good chunk taking breaks too. 
