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.
The US needs to extend maternity (and paternity!) benefits because they are currently terrible or non-existent. It is beneficial for people to have the OPTION to stay home for longer periods of time because plenty of people want that opportunity but simply can't afford it. However, some women enjoy working and shouldn't be shamed for that either.
It is in society's best interest to provide options for families, not to force people into a working or a stay at home role. Extreme attitudes that all woman should be working and "abandoning" their babies, or that all woman should be happy to give up other forms of fulfillment to stay at home contribute to postpartum mental health issues. Happy mom and/or dad = happy baby.
Besides that, it is pretty rude to imply that other family dynamics are your business.
You DON'T HAVE BABIES when you DON'T HAVE MONEY. There are no accidents, there are bad decisions.
And how much money would that be? I know of someone who truly believes that you don't have the right to have a child if, at the time of CONCEPTION mind you, you can't afford to pay cash for their college education when they're 18. Are you kidding me?
I used to be all "Rah Rah" about Dr. Laura in past years, I listened to her radio show frequently, but over time (long before she went to XM Radio) I had something of a change of heart and now I disagree with her much of the time. I bring her up (did anyone else? I didn't read all 27 pages) because she's someone who has always been very firm in thinking that mothers who work are selfish. However she also thinks that if the parents break up then the parents shouldn't date anyone else at all until the children are gone. I used to hear that and think "the parents have the right to a life of their own."
I think she is too much on the side of the thinking that basically says that once you have kids what you like and what you prefer as an adult is now irrelevant, and I've never agreed with that idea at all. Yes you should be willing to make sacrifices and be responsible with how you go about things, and you shouldn't make everything about yourself, but this idea that you're supposed to make it ALL about your child and that your own feelings are totally irrelevant is ridiculous to me, and I think that is as much at the root of this "working moms are selfish" view as anything else.
That is the main angle I come from about this, besides the reality that there are times one really does have to work in terms of money. There's also the prospect of ALWAYS being stuck at home with no adult companionship and with you the stay-at-home mother feeling like you're not part of the "world at large" and you start feeling like "yes I"m a mother to these children but what are my talents and what is it about ME PERSONALLY that has something to offer?" You miss having conversations with adults about things NOT having to do with children necessarily. Those are completely legitimate feelings and yes, I dare say it, I don't think it's out of line that a child--yes a child who is innocent and doesn't know any better--will have to live with certain compromises so that mother or father can get out of the house for awhile and live their own life, so long as it isn't done recklessly.
Not EVERYTHING should be about the child. I cringe when, for instance, I hear parents talk with PRIDE about how much they spend so that their children can have nice clothes, meanwhile they the parents wear rags. What about the PARENTS and how good it feels for THEM to wear something nice to feel good about themselves? That's especially the case when you consider that they need to look good for going to work at their job, and that nice clothing also helps keep things "spicier" in their romantic relationships. To me, making everything about the children to that extreme is excessive spoiling, and it teaches children that it's all about them, and it's NOT all about them. In fact, where I come from, the parents who are working THEY are the ones who should make these decisions. It's why, for instance, there were times I promised the children McDonald's when mommy came home but when she came home she wanted Italian. Mom won out (the children DID get McDonald's maybe 2-3 days later, I did follow-up).
There is more that I could say about this, but I'll hold off for now.
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 it's ideal for one parent to stay home with their child, but the reality is that not many couples can afford to get by on only one income. My son is 14 now, but when he was born, I was shocked how much daycare would cost. It's only gotten worse over the past 14 years, a friend of mine who has two kids told me how much they pay for daycare for both of them and it's the equivalent of a house payment, for a pretty nice house!
Parents should contribute to raising children in whatever way makes the most sense. For some, that means one parent stays home. For others, that means both parents work. My wife and I used to make over $200k a year... but I was 3/4 of that. It would make absolutely no sense for me to quit my job and stay home, being the primary breadwinner. For my wife, it was a tossup... She made $65k a year (which is a decent salary on its own) but when we looked into how much full time daycare would cost, it didn't make sense for her to keep working 40+ hours a week and paying basically half her income to child care expenses. Now, if she had made $80k or more, I think we probably would have both continued to work and it would have allowed us to save a lot more during those years.
In the end, her staying home worked well for us. Every parent is different. You don't have a child now, but you may be surprised that you might change your mind on whether you want to work or not, especially for your first child. Seeing all the milestones, first words, first steps, etc... is an amazing thing, and not getting to see those things is something you should think really hard on.
I've heard Dr. Laura ferociously attack mothers who work. She recommends home schooling to public school and is a real fanatic about that. My mother always worked when I was going to public school in the 1960's and early 70's, not because she was a feminist, but because she had to work in order to help support our family. I feel like I got a good education in the public schools.
Dr. Laura is a cold hearted and mean spirited old woman.
She's also divorced, meanwhile she berates people for not honoring the covenant of marriage. Her son was conceived out of wedlock, before she was married to husband number 2 (who was still technically married to someone else at the time, BTW). But she condemns any one else who leaves their spouse or has sex outside of marriage. So apparently all of that is OK for her to do, just nobody else.
So you support aborting when an accidental pregnancy occurs and the parents are not financially able to handle it?
Yes. Or adoption. Both solutions solve the problem. Each individual is free to make the decision as to whether abortion or adoption is right for their own personal values and circumstances.
Yes. Or adoption. Both solutions solve the problem. Each individual is free to make the decision as to whether abortion or adoption is right for their own personal values and circumstances.
Again, not YOUR choice. What if you impregnate someone and she wants to keep the baby and keep working?
And how much money would that be? I know of someone who truly believes that you don't have the right to have a child if, at the time of CONCEPTION mind you, you can't afford to pay cash for their college education when they're 18. Are you kidding me?
No, not college. An adult pays for their own college, but I'm not going into detail on that. But certainly you should check these boxes:
1) 2 parents, preferably of the opposite sex. Kids need mom and dad, not just mom, and not just dad. Both!
2) Financial stability. 2 years of incomes IN THE BANK to deal with any possible job loss.
3) Plenty of money in the bank to deal with the first 2 years of life and all the extraordinary expenses that come with a kid. Probably 50 grand or so, but I'm open to different estimates. Whatever is rationally necessary.
3) A house. Preferably purchased and having generated a commission for me. JK!
4) Legally married to the RIGHT PERSON. Meaning no drunks, druggies, cheaters, gamblers, debtors. You get the picture. Someone like me. A nice person.
5) Stable job for one parent at the time of conception. We covered layoffs in number 2.
6) Both parents emotionally and spiritually and intellectually and philosophically ready, willing, and able to consider bringing new life into existence.
7) Adequate life insurance to provide for a comfortable and happy lifestyle should one or more parents die.
8) Adequate health insurance to provide for any family illness.
9) Optional: Nice in-laws.
10) Optional: Plenty of stuffed animals.
No, not college. An adult pays for their own college, but I'm not going into detail on that. But certainly you should check these boxes:
1) 2 parents, preferably of the opposite sex. Kids need mom and dad, not just mom, and not just dad. Both!
2) Financial stability. 2 years of incomes IN THE BANK to deal with any possible job loss.
3) Plenty of money in the bank to deal with the first 2 years of life and all the extraordinary expenses that come with a kid. Probably 50 grand or so, but I'm open to different estimates. Whatever is rationally necessary.
3) A house. Preferably purchased and having generated a commission for me. JK!
4) Legally married to the RIGHT PERSON. Meaning no drunks, druggies, cheaters, gamblers, debtors. You get the picture. Someone like me. A nice person.
5) Stable job for one parent at the time of conception. We covered layoffs in number 2.
6) Both parents emotionally and spiritually and intellectually and philosophically ready, willing, and able to consider bringing new life into existence.
7) Adequate life insurance to provide for a comfortable and happy lifestyle should one or more parents die.
8) Adequate health insurance to provide for any family illness.
9) Optional: Nice in-laws.
10) Optional: Plenty of stuffed animals.
So you basically need to be part of the 1%.
Few people of child bearing age have the income to save that much money.
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.
Exactly!
Parents Have Their Own Lives Too
