Being a stay-at-home mother (statistics, headache, effect, emancipated)
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.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,171,154 times
Reputation: 8105
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by BingCherry
.....I'm trying to think logically and at least get our degrees and loans out of the way....... I have this weird feeling that once girls hit the age of 21 their minds go into baby-mode. I remember working at a sales job at Bloomingdales in the mall and I worked in the baby area (partly). The girls I worked with would sigh and say stuff like "I can't wait until I don't work and can be a stay at home mommy"....and others would see other women shopping with their babies during the day and say "I wish I was a housewife and had a baby already".
......Is it just normal for girls my age to be going nuts and popping out babies like crazy? Everyone keeps asking me when I'm going to get married and have babies. .....
Of COURSE it's normal for women to want children and a home life! It's not UNIVERSAL, but it's normal enough for most. It's exactly the same as for human aggression - males TEND to be more aggressive and violent, but not universally so, some women are more aggressive.
How do you think the human race got here? We have biological drives. The way we adapted to our environments was to have the women want to have children, and the men want to have sex and protect the women and children at least for a few years. Very, very generally speaking, with many exceptions.
Women can overcome that drive by whatever free will and determination they might personally have, just as men can overcome their desire to have illegal types of sex, but most of them - all around the world, regardless of culture - have chosen to "go with the flow", their natural instinctive drives.
If you find a human behavior that is constant across all culture and recorded history, then it is almost certainly genetically mediated rather than a cultural influence.
Again, depends on the uniform. My scrubs had two pieces. My son's band uniform, which stays at home and parts of which require assorted special care and/or frequent repairs, has nineteen (and yes, I did just make him count). I somehow doubt your work uniform was on the latter end of the spectrum, though I could be wrong.
All, of course, in your experience. Mine tells me differently. Since i'm in the somewhat unique position of having been the same parent to the same aged children in both sets of circumstances (was a working mom of two from the ages of 1-10, and have now been a SAHM parent to that two in same age range), I'll go with mine. I don'tr expect you to, of course, since you do show an astonishing consistency in your own mindset, no matter the arguments to the contrary.
But we're wandering a bit far afield. It probably would be easier to just hand you the tiara and sash and be done with it. (They're not machine washable, though.)
I have to laugh because one of the things studies have found is that most of us think we're WAY off of average. So I'll take that with a grain of salt. I've done it myself BTW. When I calculated the hours I spent with my kids, (engineers just have to do stuff like this when we see studies), I was CERTAIN I spent way more time than average with my kids. Turns out I was quite average for a working mom. Most of us are very close to average that's why averages are good to know. If you're an outlier, then you're an outlier, I'm not debating individual circumstances. I'm talking about averages and the vast majority of people will lie withint two standard deviations of average.
I've been home full time (behavioral problems with my step son), been home on leave, worked part time and worked full time so I too can compare the two and then some. The only real difference I saw was the number of diapers I changed, the amount of sleep I got, and that I had time for hobbies and moms groups when I wasn't working full time. All that really happened is I picked back up all the things I gave up when I became a mom in order to spend more time with my kids, which is what research has found happens in the vast majority of cases. When you're already making the effort to spend as much time as you can with your kids, it's not kid time you need when more time shows up. It's time for all the stuff you gave up to make more time for your kids.
I would like to know if you see any diffrences in your kids when you compare the ones you worked full time with and the ones you stayed home with. Do you think your working status made/is making a difference and if so, what difference? What do you expect the final outcome to be because you stayed home?
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-24-2011 at 04:52 PM..
I've been following this thread about popping out children and staying at home (like having kids is akin to taking a bowel movement). Let me educate you on something, not everyone has a choice. Some people don't have a choice whether or not they work, and some people really don't have a choice whether or not they stay home.
Let's take me for example. I am college educated, military spouse, and veteran (I have dual priority for federal jobs). I also have two children, one has autism. Even though, I have all the stuff going for me in favor of getting a job, I can't find a job with flexible enough hours to even justify going to work. My husband works on average 12-14 hours a day, and every 6 months he's gone for a year deployment. I can't be at work until nearly 9:00 AM. I have to be home at 1:30 PM. My son has three different therapies at the end of the day. On average I would be paying around $15-20 an hour for child care for JUST my son. Daycare couldn't take him to his appointments, without substantial payment. I would probably pay around $10-15/hour for after school care for my daughter. So at the maximum rate, I would be paying around $35/hour for child care. Add that up to 6 hours a day (which is what I would need)= $210 a day times 7= $1470 a week times that by 4, and you get my drift. I would have to make MORE than my husband (who makes just over 6-figures) to BREAK even. Basically, I would have to PAY to go to work. Does that sound logical???? What's more, even though I have all those things going for me, I have been out of the workforce for over 9 years. So if you can point me to a job that would pay around $140K, just starting out, with an extremely flexible schedule, and good vacation time, I will happily go back to work, and not be one of those women you disdain.
Not at all. Why do you ask? Not once have I said working is superior to staying home. Go back and read my posts. The only real difference this choice makes, WRT our children, is in the financials. Unlike maternal working status, SES is one of the factors that does impact how kids turn out. If you can afford not to work and don't want to work then don't work. It's your choice. We're fortunate to have been born in a time when we get a choice.
Why is saying that being a stay at home mom is no better than being a working mom, when it comes to our kids, always taken as saying being a working mom is superior???? Why is pointing out that stay at home moms don't do as much work as working moms (obvious because of the 40 hours we put in at jobs on top of housework and child care) taken as an offense? I really don't get the defensiveness.
At the end of the day, when you stand our kids side by side, no one will be able to tell which of us worked and which of us didn't. Kids just don't turn out better/worse based on moms working status alone. There are many things that matter way more than maternal working status like paternal involvement. Involved dads matter. SES matters. Whether or not your parents are married to each other matters. Eating dinner as a family natters. Going to church matters. The quality of student your child goes to school with (ties in with SES) and plays with in the neighrborhood matters. Whether you work or not doesn't if you ignore the financial impact of the decision.
And no disdain here. I don't care what you do. It's your life. I just don't think that what you do is superior to what I do because it's not and the proof is in the fact you can't walk into a room containing 100 people, half of whom had a SHAM and half of whom had a WM and figure out who had which without asking.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-24-2011 at 04:50 PM..
oh good grief, that's not what she said I can't take any more of these threads. Everything is taken out of context. Everything is misconstrued.
That's what I thought she said. Instead of rolling your eyes at me, why not just tell me what you think she was trying to say. That would be more helpful, don't ya think?
I have to laugh because one of the things studies have found is that most of us think we're WAY off of average. So I'll take that with a grain of salt. I've done it myself BTW. When I calculated the hours I spent with my kids, (engineers just have to do stuff like this when we see studies), I was CERTAIN I spent way more time than average with my kids. Turns out I was quite average for a working mom. Most of us are very close to average that's why averages are good to know. If you're an outlier, then you're an outlier, I'm not debating individual circumstances. I'm talking about averages and the vast majority of people will lie withint two standard deviations of average.
I've been home full time (behavioral problems with my step son), been home on leave, worked part time and worked full time so I too can compare the two and then some. The only real difference I saw was the number of diapers I changed, the amount of sleep I got, and that I had time for hobbies and moms groups when I wasn't working full time. All that really happened is I picked back up all the things I gave up when I became a mom in order to spend more time with my kids, which is what research has found happens in the vast majority of cases. When you're already making the effort to spend as much time as you can with your kids, it's not kid time you need when more time shows up. It's time for all the stuff you gave up to make more time for your kids.
I would like to know if you see any diffrences in your kids when you compare the ones you worked full time with and the ones you stayed home with. Do you think your working status made/is making a difference and if so, what difference? What do you expect the final outcome to be because you stayed home?
I've no desire to indulge in excessive self-disclosure, so I'll refrain from going into detail. But in the words of the esteemed Rep. Kucinich, that's kind of a "duh" question. If it made no difference to my children or family, I probably wouldn't be at home. And being homeschoolers of one stripe or another for some time now, I will pretty much guarantee I'm totally blowing your thirty-second-a-month parenting curve, or whatever it was.
As for your average-ness, or lack thereof...I couldn't begin to comment. I will say most people I know don't calculate the numbers they spend with their children-- even the engineers. But whatever floats, etc...
I was relating back to having asked my grandmother what the greatest modern convenience was. She said "indoor plumbing". I said that my choice would be that women, today, are no longer considered their husband's property as they were years ago. There was a time a man could do what he wanted with his wife and no one would stand in his way. I'm glad we don't live in those times. I find it very convenient to be a person in my own right instead of my husband's property as I would have been only 100 years ago.
I related earlier that in 1959, the police would not help my mother or I when my father beat her to a bloody pulp and held me at gunpoint. It was "Drunken disorder on his own property". However, my mother and I were treated like the property. Fortunately, my father slugged one of the officers and they arrested him for that so mom and I were sent to the hospital for medical treatment. Had dad not slugged a cop, my mom and I might have died that night. My father, apparently, had more rights than we did.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-24-2011 at 07:13 PM..
I've no desire to indulge in excessive self-disclosure, so I'll refrain from going into detail. But in the words of the esteemed Rep. Kucinich, that's kind of a "duh" question. If it made no difference to my children or family, I probably wouldn't be at home. And being homeschoolers of one stripe or another for some time now, I will pretty much guarantee I'm totally blowing your thirty-second-a-month parenting curve, or whatever it was.
As for your average-ness, or lack thereof...I couldn't begin to comment. I will say most people I know don't calculate the numbers they spend with their children-- even the engineers. But whatever floats, etc...
I'm not interested in self disclosure. Odds have it, if you crunch the numbers, you'll find your somewhere within two standard deviations....It is human nature to see yourself as unusual, however, if we really look at our situations, we'll find that we are very likely somewhere near average.
I only did the calculation out of curiosity as to where I fit. You're correct that the calculation isn't necessary. Once you have enough time, you have enough time. More than you need won't make things better because you have what you need. THAT is one of the points I'm trying to make here. Today's working mom has MORE time than a 1970's SAHM who had more time than a 1950's SAHM. If the 1950's SAHM and the 1970's SAHM had enough time with their kids then so do working moms and THAT is all that matters.
So what difference does it make? When you stand your adult children side by side, what will be different about the kids you stayed home with compared to the ones you worked with? In what ways will the ones you stayed home with be better than the ones you worked with? (Do keep in mind that 40 years of research has failed to find significant differences between the children of working moms and the children of SAHM's other than a self esteem boost to the daughters of working moms and sons of working moms viewing women as more equal to men. For all the hoopla, that seems to be it.)
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-24-2011 at 07:57 PM..
Of COURSE it's normal for women to want children and a home life! It's not UNIVERSAL, but it's normal enough for most. It's exactly the same as for human aggression - males TEND to be more aggressive and violent, but not universally so, some women are more aggressive.
How do you think the human race got here? We have biological drives. The way we adapted to our environments was to have the women want to have children, and the men want to have sex and protect the women and children at least for a few years. Very, very generally speaking, with many exceptions.
Women can overcome that drive by whatever free will and determination they might personally have, just as men can overcome their desire to have illegal types of sex, but most of them - all around the world, regardless of culture - have chosen to "go with the flow", their natural instinctive drives.
If you find a human behavior that is constant across all culture and recorded history, then it is almost certainly genetically mediated rather than a cultural influence.
Genetically mediated? What does that even mean?
I smattering of high school bio and people feel like they understand genetics. Ugh.
Behavior is primarily controlled by culture, environment and other social dynamics. Therefore to say that it is biological in nature when it is impossible to separate it from the sociological pressure is ridiculous at best. To say men are driven to have sex and women are driven to have children is such a wild over-simplification that the term "over generalization" is too specific for it.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,171,154 times
Reputation: 8105
I'm sure you're a smart person ordinarily, lkb, but your thinking is driven by ideology rather than careful consideration of the facts.
Here's an example of what I meant by genetically mediated: the behavior of smiling and laughing when something is funny, is a human behavior that is independent of culture. All people of all times around the world smile (shape their lips a certain way), rather than say shaking their legs or tilting their heads to left, which might just as well be signs of seeing something funny - but we don't do those behaviors. Even people in the most isolated regions of the world smile for the about the same reasons, and all humans have done so all through history. However we can suppress that natural inclination with some effort, people in certain cultures may learn to stifle smiles as they grow older.
For you to deny that the sex drive is genetic in nature is ..... well, rather disturbing. You're intelligent enough to get on the internet and post without making grammatical mistakes, and yet you're not observant enough to notice that people just like all other mammals have a sex drive, one that is passed along from generation to generation - that's quite bizarre. How do think orangutans, rabbits, chimps, dogs, rats, eagles etc consistently start mating at a certain time in their lives? Do you think that the changes of adolescence in humans such as increase of hormones, growth of breasts, growth of pubic hair, deepening of voice, erections, suddenly noticing the attractiveness of the opposite sex and wanting to touch them, are from culture? Really? Girls just decide to grow their breasts because they were told to do so? Boys grow more hair all around their bodies and their voice deepens because their moms and friends told them to do so?
Why do all those profound changes occur at the same time as they begin to experiment with sex? Have you never felt sexual attraction to someone - do you think it happened because someone told you to display attraction behaviors?
I can't even conceive of how an educated adult would come to believe that sexual behaviors have nothing to do with a sexual drive that is genetically programmed. I guess it must come from having been indoctrinated in some sort of weird feminist ideology (NOT that all feminist beliefs are weird or untrue, but in this case it seems like this might come from some of the less thoughtful feminists - that's just a guess based on what I've read from feminists of the past who had no scientific training).
I know for example that there are some otherwise intelligent adults who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old based on an unshakable belief that the King James Bible is the perfect word of God and must be understood literally. Others believe that NKorean leader Kim Jung-il had a miraculous birth and can work miracles at will. Yet others have a belief that they are communicating telepathically with extraterrestrial aliens, and yet have no other signs indicating that they might be mentally ill. Many warriors in the past have fallen to the delusion that a magical amulet or mantra will protect them from bullets. One guy I knew believed that the Sun was made of burning coal, and couldn't be persuaded otherwise because his father had told him so.
I've always been fascinated by that aspect of human nature, how people can come to hold obviously false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence against them, usually in religion but also in various ideologies, or simply because a trusted person has told them so.
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.
So I'll take that with a grain of salt. I've done it myself BTW. When I calculated the hours I spent with my kids, (engineers just have to do stuff like this when we see studies), I was CERTAIN I spent way more time than average with my kids. Turns out I was quite average for a working mom. Most of us are very close to average that's why averages are good to know. If you're an outlier, then you're an outlier, I'm not debating individual circumstances. I'm talking about averages and the vast majority of people will lie withint two standard deviations of average.
