Being a stay-at-home mother (day care, parents, child, husband)

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

I have never said YOU are worthless or what you do is useless (you do the same things I do as a mom). Moms are, equally, valuable regardless of their working status. Finances aside, WM's and SAHM's accomplish the same things. When finances are considered, however, WM's do improve their children's outcomes because, many of us have the power to raise our children's SES. What I've said is SAH is unnecessary and it is unnecessary. Kids do just fine regardless of whether or not mom works for a living. They can, however, do better if she does if her income happens to raise their SES. If she doesn't have the ability to raise their SES, it's irrelevent which she chooses.

It's NOT irrelevant if you believe what you yourself have posted. It's irrelevant for SOME PEOPLE but not for children of MIDDLE CLASS and wealthy kids with well educated mothers. Middle class/wealthy kids with well educated mothers are a pretty significant number of people.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Momma_bear

It's NOT irrelevant if you believe what you yourself have posted. It's irrelevant for SOME PEOPLE but not for children of MIDDLE CLASS and wealthy kids with well educated mothers. Middle class/wealthy kids with well educated mothers are a pretty significant number of people.

Not middle class. Upper class.

For upper class educated moms, there is a difference (I don't know what it is but they do cite better outcomes if mom SAH)

For middle class moms, working may improve SES so working may provide an advantage. SAH makes no difference if it doesn't harm the family financially to achieve.

For uneducated moms, working provides advantages over SAH.

For lower class moms, working provides an advantage over SAH.

Finances aside, SAH/WOH are equivalent in the middle class. Differences are found in the upper and lower class and in maternal education. It is clear that uneducated moms and lower class moms should be working if at all possible. There's a significant difference here. They're not sure if it's moms income helping her family or bringing in someone else into the child care fold (could be the dcps education we're seeing here).

Side note: only one form of day care has been found to be harmful and that is kith and kin care. Use of friends and relatives to cover day care.

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Not middle class. Upper class.

For upper class educated moms, there is a difference (I don't know what it is but they do cite better outcomes if mom SAH)

I believe the article actually said middle and upper class. I could be wrong.

However, You cannot claim something has no effect if it does in fact have an effect sometimes.

[jojo61397]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

No one said it did. We're talking safety nets here not millions. It's scary how fast we went through over $50K when I lost my job and I wasn't the sole bread winner. We still had dh's job. It would have been many times worse if I had been the sole breadwinner.

What I was talking about was my brother being extremely unhappy, even though he makes millions of dollars, and has everything in the world that one would think would make him happy. If for some reason he lost his business (he is a CEO and owner), he has enough money in savings to live off of for the rest of his life. He paid cash for his house, he paid cash for his lakefront property, he pays cash of his cars, his boats, his trips, he has no debt, even business debt. The fact that he can live comfortably, he has no worries about providing for his family, does not make him happy. I think that happiness is MORE important to children than being a "breadwinner." If you are happy your children will be happy. My nephews are unhappy children. So is my SIL's kids. She's a "welfare momma", never worked a day in her life, a consummate victim, so are her kids.

Just because you are the "breadwinner" or because you "contribute" doesn't mean that you are fulfilled as a person. You are projecting your insecurities and your doubts and your self worth onto us. I'm happy, no matter what happens, I am confident that I can make it through it. I have common sense, I have an education, I have faith, I have hope, and I drive. I don't value my worth by my earning potential, money isn't everything.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Momma_bear

I believe the article actually said middle and upper class. I could be wrong.

However, You cannot claim something has no effect if it does in fact have an effect sometimes.

I believe it was just upper. I can't link to the article now though. Hopefully it will be back up tomorrow.

I can claim in general what the impact is. Unless you have some reason to believe you are different than the norm, you have no reason to claim an effect where one is not seen in general. There may be one or may not be one but we don't know which factors influence it other than the ones looked at.

YMMV but without reason to believe what you do is different than what everyone else does, can you really say it makes a difference in your case? I know my working improves my family's SES so I know what I do makes a difference. How much of a difference, time will tell. Most things dealing with humans have a bell curve to them but I can be certain that the results would have been worse if I had chosen not to increase our SES.

[jojo61397]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Still wrong. I didn't call THEM unnececessary and unimportant, I called the act of staying home unnecessary and unimportant. If you don't have to do something and it makes no difference if you do it, what would you call it?

You are arguing semantics here.

But I'll go with it...

If that's the case, here goes this: With the higher level of education amongst stay at home parents (this is a fact that more at home parents are educated, many holding bachelors degrees-- the same as teachers), the advent of internet technology, and more support for children who are being home-schooled, would you take offense if someone said that teachers are unnecessary and unimportant? That the "job" of teacher is becoming increasingly irrelevant with current technology. I'm pretty sure that with the right supports, that the majority of parents could teach their children at home, thereby cutting out all teachers, administrators, and school employees. I would think that if at home parents said this (and increasing number are saying this) that you would be essentially out of a job, and not very happy with this particular opinion. Any idiot with a degree can be a teacher, right? Schools are consistently under performing, it's the teacher's fault, right? So why not? Teachers get crappy pay anyway, so why not make all classrooms satellite in the home, and that way we can spend more quality time with our kids. My guess is this is where education is heading in the future anyway.

Well, this is what you are saying about SAHMs, that our job has been replaced by modern conveniences like the dishwasher, the automobile, the daycare provider.

[Kibbiekat]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

If SAH were necessary or important to do, then we would not have a choice in this matter because it would make a difference. Aside from the financial aspect, our working status has little to do with how our kids turn out and THAT is what gives us a choice in the matter. If it mattered, we wouldn't have a choice. We do because it doesn't matter.

Be glad you live in a time when you have a choice in the matter. SAH/WOH aren't about our kids. Our kids do just fine either way.

^ you saying what SAHM's do doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by rkb0305

People do all kinds of things that are not necessary or important. One could easily say that it IS important to be at the bus stop when your kids get off, and whatever job you do outside the house is not necessary or important.

FYI I've worked and I've stayed home. I see both sides, but the gloves come off when you start telling people what they do all day isn't important. It doesn't have to be important to you, only to them.

My response, which you ignored

Originally Posted by sbd78

O.K., tell me this: If what a SAHM does is so worthless and unequal to what Daddy does, then why oh why do day cares and nannies charge so much money to do what a SAHM does? And lets keep in mind that day cares and nannies are really only doing a portion of what Mommy does, as they don't normally do the cooking, cleaning, shopping, bills, etc. that a SAHM does in addition to caring for the children. Since it is so worthless, you must have gotten ripped off on your day care costs, day care should be free, right? I know you want to pat yourself on the back for sharing all the responsibilities with your DH, but what you and your DH are essentially doing is paying someone else to take on the responsibility of caring for your children during the day while you are at work. You're just delegating that responsibility to a third party, for a fee.

^a poster responding to your post, using the word "worthless"

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Relatively speaking, they don't. Day care was less than 20% of dh's and my take home pay for two kids and that was for a DCP with a masters degree in early childhood development and 20 years experience as a Montesori teacher!!! I'd call that a bargain.

When we used a center, the dcp who took care of my dd made about $10/hour to care for four to six children. The rest of what we paid went to pay for the building, the utilities, food and profit for the owner.

And SAHM's don't do what dcp's do. SAHM's answer to themselves. DCP's answer to the parents of their charges and the state. SAHM's take care of their kids. DCP's take care of the kids from multiple families at one time. DCP's are required to post menus that meet the state requirements, and to plan and post educational plans for the children they care for. I used to get weekly progress reports on my dd's. They also have to take care of paying the bills that result from running a day care.

As to all the rest of the stuff that SAHM's do, did it occur to you that WM's do that too? We shop, cook and clean in addition to working so these are not tasks that are part of staying home (you just have more time to do them because you're home). They are part of being a parent. While it is true our dcp does not clean my house, she doesn't have to because I do that. The only extras you can claim for being a SAHM are things that WM's don't do. Since we clean our houses, cook meals, do the shopping and pay the bills, you'll have to lob that off of your comparison of a DCP.

A DCP is a trained professional. A SAHM, usually, is not. DCPs' are licensed by the state and subject to state evaluations. SAHM's are not. DCP's run a business. SAHM's do not. DCP's do have housework and cooking that are the result of them being a DCP. Whether you're a WM or a SAHM you do housework and cook for your family, unless you're like me and your dh cooks but he cooks even when I'm home in the summer.

^ you agreeing with it, and putting a dollar value on being a SAHM.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

If you want to know how important a job is, take it away and see what happens.

If we take your dh away as bread winner, you have no house to live in or food to eat. If we take you away as a SAHM, we hire a combination nanny and housekeeper for $400/wk, less if you provide board, (with a tax write off for the child care portion) to replace you. Sorry, breadwinner wins by a mile and a half. SAHM and breadwinner are NOT equally important jobs. Not even close.

^Here you are again stating that your job is more important than ours.

Originally Posted by rkb0305

Even though I am currently a SAHM (but have been a working mom in the past), I normally find myself defending the working moms, because, as you say, they have the housekeeping in addition to the job outside the home; and because it is usually the working moms who are criticized. But you saying that what a SAHM does is unimportant or worthless crosses a whole new line. I mean, how dare you? I plan to go back to work soon, but nothing could ever replace the preschool years that I spent with my kids. It is very worthwhile to be available to drop off and pick up your kids at a half-day preschool program, to be able to take them to the zoo, or the museum; to be able to volunteer in their classes and get to know the other kids and parents; to participate in a playgroup or a mommy-n-me class. Those experiences are invaluable. As a working mom, there is no way you could replicate those experiences on the weekends or the evenings. I don't think there are many things as valuable as spending quality time with your kids when they're young. Like I said, I normally defend the working moms because I think that is a valid choice also, but you've been extremely insulting.

^and another response of mine, which you also ignored.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

What I am saying is it doesn't matter if you stay home or not. It's not a special brand of motherhood that yeilds better results and it's not equal to supporting a household. Yes, children need to be taken care of but it does not matter if some of that care is provided by someone else. There is no extra value in SAH that makes it equal to supporting a family. By far, supporting the family is more important because everything falls apart without support. Nothing falls apart without a SAHM. It is silly to try and say that being a SAHM is equal to supporting a family. It's just not. Most of what SAHM's do is done by WM's when they are off work. What SAHM's do is provide their own day care but at the cost of their paychecks. The paycheck they gave up is what they pay for child care. The child care they provide is worth about $2.50/hr/child.

As I said, if you want to see how important a job is, take that job away. Take away a breadwinner and you have no home to take care of or food to eat. Take away a SAHM and you have a household like a WM household. No great loss.

^ Here's the kicker - take away the SAHM and it is no great loss. Wow, and you wonder why people might be offended.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

You are twising things to your liking here. I didn't say anyone died. The death of a parent cuts deep. I'm talking about removing the breadwinner's income or removing the SAHM not killing off parents and you know it. You're just grasping at straws because you can't counter my argument.

You can replace what a SAHM does, rather inexpensively after the tax break, but you can't replace mom. You can't, however, go out and hire someone to earn a living for you if it's dad whose job is gone.

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

UGH. I said, IF you want to find out how important a job is, take it away. If you take away breadwinner, you have no house or food. If you take away SAHM, you have the equivalent of a WM household. It's an exercise to determine the importance of the job. Yes, you can get anohter job. THAT's not the point. The point is to show that the job of breadwinner is MUCH MUCH MUCH more important than the job of SAHM. SAH isn't important. It doesn't accomplish anything you can't accomplsih with a WM. Good parenting is important. Child care is important but you don't have to SAH to be a good parent or to make sure your children are cared for. Breadwinner matters. SAHM doesn't. (That is not to say MOM doesn't matter. MOM matters. It just doesn't matter if she's a SAHM or a WM).

Originally Posted by rkb0305

If you are talking purely dollar value, I still beg to differ. A SAHM may not bring in an income, but she saves the family money and time. If she quit doing everything that she does and you started having to pay someone else to do it, it would cut deeply into the other single income. DH and I discussed this when we were getting life insurance. If I died it would have been a huge financial burden on him to have to pay for full time daycare for 2 kids. Not to mention he'd either have to pay a house keeper or do all that after work, taking time away from the kids.

If your husband makes enough money to support the family, then maybe you working is redundant and worthless

^ and another response from me that was conveniently ignored.

Originally Posted by rkb0305

And that's all that matters.



you keep arguing and nitpicking about how much house work one person has vs another, but you conveniently ignore the posts that point out the other things SAHM's do. As I mentioned before, there is 1/2 day preschool, play groups, museums, zoos, classroom volunteering, getting to know the other parents, etc. etc. You can't do that on the same scale a SAHM can. Those things aren't "necessary" but they are important and they enrich your child's life. It isn't about house work. at all. I don't stay home to do housework. I stay home to spend time with my kids. There is no dollar value that can be put on that.

ETA do you have parent volunteers in your class? Do you appreciate them? I bet they're almost all SAHMs

^ and another

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Please find one post where I said SAHM's were worthless. Being a SAHM, simply, adds no value over being a WM. Children do not turn out better because mom SAH. They may or may not turn out better because mom worked, depending on the finances.

I don't care what you do. I care that you insist on claiming that being a SAHM adds value over being a WM when research does not support that. SAH is irrelevent. Which is why it's a choice. When things really matter, you don't really have a choice. This is a choice because, finances aside, it doesn't matter.

More family time only matters if you don't have enough family time. So, to make this argument, you need to first establish that WM's don't have enough family time. Go ahead.... There's actually very little difference in family time between the two households because you can't have family time when dad is off to work. It doesn't matter if both parents are working or one, you can't have family time until they get home so, how much more family time do you have than me? You do have some because you can do all the housework and yard work during the day so your dh doesn't have to but that's all you really gain. However, that's moot if you can't establish that WM's don't have enough family time. Having more only matters if one doesn't have enough. Once you have enough, more is just more. You may prefer it but it makes no difference.

There are 168 hours in a week, I'm at work 45 of them and I sleep 49 of them. That leaves me 74 hours a week at home. Is that enough for family time??? What you are missing is that we have so much more leisure time than families did in the past because we have so much less work to do at home. What matters is that we have enough time with kids and enough time as a family. There is no reason to believe that WM's are short on either. What they're short on is time for themselves but this isn't about me anymore. It's about my family. If I was worried about me time, I wouldn't have had kids.

I actually never said being a SAHM is MORE valuable than being a working mom. I said you simply can't put a price on what a SAHM does. You in your job have a dollar value. If that's what you want to be, fine. I want to be more than that. I want to physically be there for my kids when they get home. That is valuable TO ME, and that's all that matters. you've talked a lot about dollar values and replacing mom with a dcp and a house cleaner. We've pointed out many, many times, the ways we provide emotional support for our kids that no one can replicate. You have chosen not to respond to any of those posts because they don't fit your argument. you equate a SAHM to hired help, and that is insulting.

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

I believe it was just upper. I can't link to the article now though. Hopefully it will be back up tomorrow.

I can claim in general what the impact is. Unless you have some reason to believe you are different than the norm, you have no reason to claim an effect where one is not seen in general. There may be one or may not be one but we don't know which factors influence it other than the ones looked at.

YMMV but without reason to believe what you do is different than what everyone else does, can you really say it makes a difference in your case? I know my working improves my family's SES so I know what I do makes a difference. How much of a difference, time will tell. Most things dealing with humans have a bell curve to them but I can be certain that the results would have been worse if I had chosen not to increase our SES.

Regardless of whether the article said upper or middle class it did not claim general effects.

It claimed that for specific groups there were benefits to one and for specific groups there were benefits to the other. And that means it DOES MATTER and is NOT irrelevant. What it means differs based on your individual circumstances.

[Kibbiekat]

Originally Posted by num1baby

She is right. She never called SAHMs worthless. She called them unnecessary and unimportant. That is much better.

Ya, I can't believe I just spent that much time going through this thread. It was another poster facetiously saying "worthless." She just agreed with it.

[jojo61397]

RKB-- I wanted to rep you but I can't . Anyway, I was typing up the exact same post!