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 guess I'm not surprised that this has turned into an SAHP/WOTH parent argument.
But I do want to throw a couple of things out there for you to think about. I went back to work when my daughter was 10 weeks old and she stayed with a woman who took care of children in her home until she was 2.5 years old. My daughter has no memory of that woman. My daughter started at a daycare when she was 2.5 years old. She has no memory of her earliest daycare/pre-school teachers.
By all measures my daughter is a typical 17-year-old girl. She makes good grades, has meaningful relationships, doesn't drink or abuse drugs. She can be moody and have an attitude, but like I said, she's typical. There is no indication that she was harmed in any way by my not staying home when she was an infant. And we spent loads of time in the evenings and weekends doing all the things you do with an infant and toddler. And we still sit down to dinner together most nights, even though she has more and more of a life away from home.
Also, you are quick to dismiss people who work to save $ for this/that/the other thing. We've had 2 savings priorities: retirement and a college fund, both of which we've done with our daughter in mind. I don't ever want my daughter to have to worry about supporting us in our old age. You should check out the Non-romantic Relationships page to see what some parents expect from their adult children. I'd also like for her to be able to graduate from college debt free. As I'm sure you've heard or experienced, graduating with student loan debt can be very financially debilitating for twenty-somethings.
You talk about priorities and we all have them. But don't assume that parents who choose to work are doing so for selfish reasons, or chasing material things. Being a good parent doesn't stop when a child turns 5, or 12 or 18. You call our decision to both work "rationalizing," but I call it long-term planning.
I have a friend who stayed at home and also sent her oldest 3 kids to parochial school. She started working after they moved when kid #4 was in elementary. Last I heard, they needed to "start saving" for retirement. Their 3 oldest kids are either in or out of college now and they've all gone to school on loans, with very little thought given to how they're going to pay them back. The oldest graduated from college and can't pay his loans. His parents co-signed for them and are now having to pay them back, even though they're in their 50's. Their children will have the burden of caring for them when they can't work anymore.
A lot goes on when a family decides how they're going to allocate time and resources. Don't assume that everyone who does it differently from you is making a selfish choice.
I have nothing against people working hard. It's just what the main priority is when they have kids. I've seen lots of people, friends, acquaintances choose making a $ over spending that time with their kids. And in my view, many have indeed taking it far into a selfish level. I grew up with kid friends who had such parents. As an adult, I've seen the same thing.
Yes, kids can have the greatest/best upbringing and turn out to be monsters. Some kids in less ideal/frankly rotten situations can turn into gems. But kids with good home life's with parents that are present and involved increase those odds of turning on the better side I think we can agree. Most life falls somewhere in the middle of the bell curve. It's all about giving kids the best possible base to increase the odds of having kids that turn out well. And hopefully the parents had kids in the first place to want to be with them, not drop them off for long periods of time for others to bring them up/watch them.
How about this approach/question.....what if a parent asked their kids what they wanted most, their parents to make more money, things, material items or more parent time, especially in their infant years/pre-teen years? I think the answer would be pretty obvious unless the kid was brought up to worship material things above all else in life, which of course that mentality would come from the parent in the first place. College can be paid for via loans and in a smart fashion without needing to go 100's of k in debt. Time lost from working instead of spending more time with kids can never be made up. I worked with some IT consultants who traveled about told me while the money they made was super, the one big regret they had? They missed lots of time watching their kids grow up.
I agree very strongly with you on parents who prey on their kids, expecting this/that from them when they are adults, "I brought you up so you owe me" mentality. That to me is the height of selfishness and beyond. Yikes. In our situation, my dad worked a couple of years longer to feather his nest egg. If it weren't for us kids, he could have retired sooner, no doubt. So there are other ways to handle funding retirement though I understand you're coming from a good place. Again, my parents put us first, their kids, not money, their retirement, etc. as the #1 priority. My sisters approach? Have kids a little later in life. Right after college when they got their jobs, she and her husband socked away money for retirement early on their life in their deferred accounts(smart time to do it with compounding and all), built up a big down payment on a house, built up their savings, stayed far out of debt, all in prep for her to quit her job and spend time with her kids when they were born. So there are indeed ways to accomplish the same thing, it's all just a matter of planning it out, sometimes delaying gratification, and setting the priorities.
But I respect your perspective. We all have choices to make in our own lives and must live with the +/- of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodynew
I am an IT professional. I work between 40 - 45 hours per week. There are crunch times. I say to husband and kids, ok here we go! And we do that for a few short weeks. But when a kid is sick or there is a snow day, I work from home. If I have to be out, I am out. For heaven's sake, my boss is a parent too.
Who still works on the rail for the company town? A company that wants to succeed attracts the best and the brightest. And they don't do that by being a sweat shop.
Again, many parents don't have cushy work hours/consistent schedules for the most part. I know many professionals in many fields who do indeed chase the $ above all else. Or parents who have kids and work swing shifts, travel a bunch for their work, etc. Stand around in an airport, a hotel, etc. any midweek day and there's reality of all those millions who work such schedules, consistently. These types of jobs take parents away from their kids and more than a few see their kids once a week, only an hour before bedtime, etc......that kind of thing apparently works for more than a few people. We once had neighbors down the street, the dad, who we heard went off to work in the oil fields of North Dakota. He'd be gone 6 months at a time, "visit" for a week, and go back again for another 6 months or more. The wife had 3 kids and she worked full time at all sorts of odd hours in her retail job. I felt very bad for the kids as neighbors told us 2 of the kids were having lots of emotional issues/getting into trouble. And perhaps some wonder why(?). Again, these are not uncommon scenarios. Or the parent who simply works the hours you do and some who drop their kids off to daycare all day and misses many parts of them growing up while they are infants. That's reality. I don't get it but many people apparently do.
I agree with your reasoning and it's very admirable; really, I admire those who can plan like that and juggle work and parenting, because I personally couldn't do it.
I just couldn't do it.
I agree planning for their futures may even be more important than those early days they won't remember.
But personally for me, a major, huge part of that joy of having kids and parenting have been those very early years, especially the first baby year. I'm still reveling in it with my youngest who is 7 months and it is flying by even though I'm with him all the time, my oldest is 6 and it went by so fast it's a blur.
That time goes so fast and its such a short period of life, yet it is so so precious. Spending mornings cuddling them in bed, and seeing the way they develop and grow, and being there to see them do all their firsts - to me these are some of the best moments of parenthood, that make it all worth it, and i couldn't imagine missing a single moment of it - never mind a full 9-10 hours every day. I couldn't imagine a nanny being the one to see their first step or hear the first word. No thought of college funds or retirement funds could make it worth it for me personally. Hell, life is so so unpredictable. There's no guarantee I'll even LIVE to retirement age, something could happen tomorrow, and I want to live my life today the way it's worth living to me - and for me that includes being the one to raise my kids and witness all these happy everyday moments. It's not even for them, it's for me, it's a selfish thing I admit. I didn't carry them for 9 months and give birth and stay up nights only to miss out on those beautiful things that make it all worth it. No way in hell.
My parents weren't able to pay for my college. big deal. My mom stayed home, though due to circumstances more than choice. I loved having her home. IT's not something i would ever fault or resent them for. I took a loan and paid it off. I have a fantastic, wonderful relationship with my parents.
My husband didn't have a cent of student loan. His parents both worked, paid for college, got divorced, and he's not particularly close to either of them. Paying for stuff is not end-all.
People totally underestimate the importance of a single, invested, solid and stable caregiver in the first months and years of life.
If that is their choice, I'm cool with it. But paying for college is not nearly as important as giving your child that time and attention...
Sorry...but dealing with attachment (adoption, fostering, step kids), I feel strongly about that. And people who work with children (therapists, doctors, etc) have told me the same.
I read the first maybe half of the article. Her problem isn't that she's a working mom. Her problem is that she took 1 DAY off to have a baby. She's peeing her pants and popping her stitches because she didn't take time to heal. If she HAD to go back to work or starve, I might feel a little bad, but clearly that's not the case.
As somebody said early in the thread, it is about having choices. not about having it all.
I agree with your reasoning and it's very admirable; really, I admire those who can plan like that and juggle work and parenting, because I personally couldn't do it.
I just couldn't do it.
I agree planning for their futures may even be more important than those early days they won't remember.
But personally for me, a major, huge part of that joy of having kids and parenting have been those very early years, especially the first baby year. I'm still reveling in it with my youngest who is 7 months and it is flying by even though I'm with him all the time, my oldest is 6 and it went by so fast it's a blur.
That time goes so fast and its such a short period of life, yet it is so so precious. Spending mornings cuddling them in bed, and seeing the way they develop and grow, and being there to see them do all their firsts - to me these are some of the best moments of parenthood, that make it all worth it, and i couldn't imagine missing a single moment of it - never mind a full 9-10 hours every day. I couldn't imagine a nanny being the one to see their first step or hear the first word. No thought of college funds or retirement funds could make it worth it for me personally. Hell, life is so so unpredictable. There's no guarantee I'll even LIVE to retirement age, something could happen tomorrow, and I want to live my life today the way it's worth living to me - and for me that includes being the one to raise my kids and witness all these happy everyday moments. It's not even for them, it's for me, it's a selfish thing I admit. I didn't carry them for 9 months and give birth and stay up nights only to miss out on those beautiful things that make it all worth it. No way in hell.
My parents weren't able to pay for my college. big deal. My mom stayed home, though due to circumstances more than choice. I loved having her home. IT's not something i would ever fault or resent them for. I took a loan and paid it off. I have a fantastic, wonderful relationship with my parents.
My husband didn't have a cent of student loan. His parents both worked, paid for college, got divorced, and he's not particularly close to either of them. Paying for stuff is not end-all.
So much this. Everything you said. I have known since having my first that I wanted to stay at home until they hit grade school. That has been the plan, but here in recent months, with our oldest starting middle school later this summer, we realize the importance of having one of us home or available when the kids are home, regardless of age. My husband works part time hours as a freelancer, so he has a very open, flexible schedule that allows him to be home and available a lot. We love it. He loves it. I will be finished with grad school by the time our youngest hits preschool age, and I will continue to stay at home until she's in Kinder. I will likely pursue freelance work during this period, and once she's in Kinder, part time subbing and adjunct work.
My husband was brought up by parents who are part of the upper-middle class, dual income demographic where the mother worked, because real women work and raise kids, tend home, etc. They saved for their kids' college, retirement, did all of the things families were "supposed" to do. My husband was expected to attend university and major in a STEM field, and he did... until he dropped out because he realized it wasn't for him. He ended up pursuing his passion and has been in his field for 15 years, much to his parents' dismay. Maybe we "should" be concerned about material things, high salaries, traveling to exotic lands, stuff, bigger and better things, etc., but we don't. And we're fine with that.
In the reverse, sort of, I was primarily raised by my divorced mother who made decent money, but was overstretched and exhausted, and always got home later in the evening. She wasn't always available, to us or herself. I don't fault her for it. She wishes circumstances were different, and she was nothing but supportive of my decision to stay at home with my kids. She supports whatever choice we feel is best for our family. When I lived with my father and stepmom I witnessed just how exhausting and stressful the upper-middle class/dual income life can be. They bought a bigger house, nicer car, timeshare, more things, and were house poor. And add in the housing marker crash... yeah, talk about hard times. I remember the arguments and fights over finances, my father working long hours, being laid off, and the pressure to find suitable work to afford their lifestyle, their debt. My stepmom wouldn't get home until after 6:00 pm, closer 7:00 pm most nights. On the outside they had it all, but underneath all of that, they were struggling. I didn't want that.
And I have no problem paying for my student loans. Many people pay $300-600+ a month on car payments, if not more, for 4+ years, or half their income or more going to mortgage payments. I have no problem paying for my education. In the same way many don't mind paying $400+k mortgages or financing $45+k SUVs and minivans. We all choose what we're willing to sacrifice, what we want and what are top priorities.
Sweden has one of the highest 'quality of life' indices in the world. Almost 75% of mothers with children younger than age 6 are in the workforce. Children aged 1-6 spend an average of 33 hours a week in child care. So clearly children aren't harmed by having working parents.
And my problem with Warren's conclusions (although I haven't read he source, just the references to it her) is that dual income families have always been around. Middle class white women may have fought to get into the workforce but lower income women and racial/ethnic minorities have always worked after marriage. In the 1950s 1 in 3 women was in the workforce; today it is 3 out of 5.
Heck, I'm in my 40's and I can't tell you when my next dentist appointment is and I'm female! I know it's scheduled. It's on my calendar in my phone. I'll get a message 2 days before. Oh and I only made the appointment 2-3 weeks ago and it's in 3 months.....priorities...we all have different priorities. Keeping space in my brain for my dentist isn't one of those priorities....that gets pushed off onto the lovely folks from Apple and their wonderful iPhone.
Yes, but you remembered that your appointment is in three months, not next week, not in six months, not in a year, the actual date is not that important.
The point was that these full time working moms, obviously made their kid's dentist appointments & probably took them there each time, so they knew off the top of their head the name of the pediatric dentist plus the rough date of each of their kids next appointments. The dads in our informal poll didn't know if their kids would see the dentist next week or in six months or never, nor could any of the dads even name their kid's dentist.
My grandmother was born in 1911. She started picking cotton (and other crops) with her family when she was about three years old. You want butter? You make your own butter - including milking the cow. You want milk, or cheese - go milk the cow. Speaking of the cow - there's some maintenance there. Milking, cleaning out the stall in the barn. Oh - the barn - you want a barn? Build one.
You want to wash clothes? Build a fire. Boil water. Put clothes in water. Add lye. Stir with a stick. Wring clothes out. By now your hands are raw. Hang clothes on clothes line. Oh, they're cotton, so they need to be ironed. Build fire in stove. Heat up cast iron, heavy iron. Iron clothes at night by the light of a kerosene lamp.
You want a new dress? Make it. That is, if you have time after dinner to sew on something so frivolous. You're probably going to be busy darning socks or making necessary clothes for the baby.
Speaking of fires - go chop some wood.
My grandmother got an 8th grade education - in a one room school house. They went to school barefoot. They had no books. They had no TV. They had no phone, no car, no electricity.
One evening right before she was supposed to get married, my grandmother was trying to put on her shoes, standing by the fire trying to keep warm. She fell over backwards - into the fire. There wasn't any ambulance to call, or hospital to go to. The country doctor came out to the house, slathered butter all over her back, behind, and legs, and wrapped her up with gauze. No antibiotics, no IVs, no nurses. On top of the rest of her family's demands, my great grandmother took care of my grandmother for about six months, as she lay on her stomach in the bed wrapped in butter and gauze. When she pulled through, she went ahead and got married. Her mother splurged and bought her a dress for $3 from a magazine. They had no big wedding - who could afford that? It was during the Depression.
My grandmother delivered my dad - a ten pound baby - at home, with her mother by her side. The doctor came out a few days later to check on Mom and Baby.
My dad ate well as a child, because they grew everything on the farm. Peas, turnip greens, fruit, squash, corn, you name it. Hogs, chickens, cows. All of that had to be grown, harvested or killed, prepared, stored.
My grandmother and her mother worked from sun up to sundown, meeting the most basic needs of their families. My great grandmother loved to read, but she didn't have any spare time. She figured out a creative way to do it though - she would walk the lunch (in pails) out to the men in the field every day. It was a mile out and a mile back in on a dirt road. She would sling the pails over her arms and hold a book and read it all the way there and all the way back. It was her only "free time." If she spent time with her five kids, it was as they were working alongside her.
Oh, and the cemeteries are full of the graves of children - because there weren't vaccinations or many medications and certainly no trauma units. If you had five or six kids, you could expect to bury one or two of them before they reached the age of ten. And women had a 1 in 5 chance of dying in childbirth.
So yeah - cry me a river, young ladies.
Point taken. My grandmother was also born in 1911. I don't know a ton about how she grew up, but I know she made all her kids' clothes and hung the laundry on the line. I'm pretty sure she had a washing machine for most of her adult life. She also worked outside the home and raised 4 kids in a 2-bedroom house and sent them all to college. Her babies were born in hospitals not at home. I don't doubt your story at all. Just interesting how some of it may be due to location not just time frame.
Sweden has one of the highest 'quality of life' indices in the world. Almost 75% of mothers with children younger than age 6 are in the workforce. Children aged 1-6 spend an average of 33 hours a week in child care. So clearly children aren't harmed by having working parents.
And my problem with Warren's conclusions (although I haven't read he source, just the references to it her) is that dual income families have always been around. Middle class white women may have fought to get into the workforce but lower income women and racial/ethnic minorities have always worked after marriage. In the 1950s 1 in 3 women was in the workforce; today it is 3 out of 5.
"Quality of life" for whom, the parents or the kids? And I wonder who answered this survey, the parents or kids?
Let us know when they survey infants/young kids on the topic about "quality of life" between daycare vs parent, and whom they prefer as the ideal to spend their time with.
"Quality of life" for whom, the parents or the kids? And I wonder who answered this survey, the parents or kids?
Let us know when they survey infants/young kids on the topic about "quality of life" between daycare vs parent, and whom they prefer as the ideal.
Well, Sweden found a way to allow parents to work and have the kids only in day care for 33 hours/week, not 45-50 like here. Sounds like a good compromise to me.
Well, Sweden found a way to allow parents to work and have the kids only in day care for 33 hours/week, not 45-50 like here. Sounds like a good compromise to me.
33 hours/week = just over 4 workdays, figuring an 8 hour workday. That's a good amount of time away from a parent, especially in their developing years. Compromise shouldn't be what it's about. It should be what's best for the child/infant, right?
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.
