I don't agree with the SAH concept because it puts women in a very vulnerable position.

But I do agree with Dan.

gemini13 said:

And that's why I don't think I could ever do it.

CarrieMpls said:

I think that's why I don't have kids. Part of it is fear.. really..that I didn't have "good" role models in a sense.

But then again.. if I REALLY wanted kids, I'd find a way to do it. I just think--for whatever reason--I'm not designed to have kids. I don't have the desire. I often wonder if my mom or dad really had the desire, ya know?? Sometimes I think people have them because they feel the are expected to have them. Or then again.. maybe it's just more than they ever bargained for.. It's difficult to say..

Oh.. I forgot to mention I have a sister who is nine years older.. who had a better experience than I did with my parents. I sort of think.. I was a mistake! because my mom had me when she was close to 40!

Anyway.. of course having a older.. more well-adjusted sister was difficult because she was gone, too, most of the time. Plus.. her experience was so different.. I just internalized a lot. I just didn't think my family "liked" me very much. It just seemed like I couldn't do anything to impress them, ya know? Then when problems occurred--my dad was an alcoholic as I was growing-up but apparently didn't have as severe a problem when my sister was young, I thought it was all my fault. I had to go counseling for a while, and that's when I realized my parents just did the best they could, ya know?? They weren't bad people, and gave me as much as they could. But I just wanted more attention.. which they weren't really capable of giving at that point in their lives. Like I said, I had to finally give myself some credit for NOT getting into trouble, and getting involved in positive more than negative. Ultimately, I had to be my own cheerleader because my family just wasn't going to be there for me. They were too busy concentrating on themselves and their problems or successes.

--As far as my parents, I just think they wanted to have one child.. then get back to the business of working. They both loved their jobs very much..

By the way, my older sister didn't have any kids either. I do think it's a genetic thing. It's not that we don't enjoy kids. I absolutely love being around kids, but for some reason I just don't have that maternal instinct.


Back to the topic, I just think parenting very all-consuming. I hate to use the word "difficult," but it's more.. a parent just has to be "on-call" 24/7 for the rest of their lives. It's a priority, and SOMETIMES is in conflict with certain types of jobs requiring a total commitment. I think we as a society need to help parents a lot more, actually help em.. raise their children by providing more time for their kids and for themselves.

That's not to say, I want to constantly "take-up the slack," so to speak because I need my time, too.. to be with my family and friends. However, I don't mind pitching-in to help someone spend more time with their kids. I don't mind doing my share.
[Edited 3/14/08 7:40am]

I used to think all that stuff too, and then I had kids

Stymie said:

agreed

How about I up the ante here a bit and take the heat off of Dan.

What if I said that I don't have much respect for SAH mothers? Been there, done that, and I have to say, it was unfulfilling and somewhat boring. Let me clarify a bit though. If you have more than one child, I can see staying home until they are school age. But that's it.

We no longer live in a Leave It To Beaver world. Women who stay home with no back up financial plan are just plain living in a dream, and hopefully they won't wake up and find it was really a nightmare.

Well, I've raised my children and am in the workforce now, but 10 years ago when I stayed home and took care of home and family I'd say YES indeed it is more than a full time job because you work a lot more than 8 hrs. your job is NEVER over!!

gemini13 said:

If a woman can stay at home with her children at least part of the time, the children will benefit from it in the long run, there are just too many children with no parental guideance and supportduring the day, they call them 'latch key' kids. I remember being able to come home to a mom with a hug and a afterschool snack, that's very comforting to children.
[Edited 3/15/08 5:30am]
[Edited 3/15/08 5:33am]

gemini13 said:

OMG, this thread again


Thanks Karla, but I really don't mind the heat. Nothing that has been posted or said actually sways me one iota.

I mean, my sister is a great mom, and my nephews are well adjusted. They've had hockey lessons, tai kwan do, (even Tai chi lessons), piano, acting, guitar. They've been to Paris, London, Las Vegas, California, New York, etc. etc. They get tutored, they're in book clubs, etc. etc. I mean these kids are very well taken cared of and a slight bit spoiled. She really takes care of them.

But her job is still not that difficult compared to working folks I know to include myself. It just isn't, and I don't care what anybody says. It. isn't.

And one of the kids turns 10 next year and the other 9. What happens when they're teens and she still hasn't gone back into the workforce?

What if, god forbid, my brother-in-law leaves her, or dies. Even with child support or insurance money, she's left with two kids to care for and no job skills to enter the job force? Yeah, she'll be living with me for years to play catch up (which I willingly offer, but still. ). As I mentioned before the REAL TOUGH job is being a single mom who has to work AND take care of the kids--and that's what she'd end up being... overnight if any of the above scenarios played out...and they always could.

And thank GOD it isn't the "Leave it to Beaver" world you spoke of. Hell, it's still unfair to women, especially with regards to upper management and pay. But I can't imagine the old world where men controlled EVERYTHING again. It would be a neo-con utopia complete with barefoot and pregnant, unskilled mums.




ok, Imma get slammed so I'm REALLY bowing out.... hit me.

gemini13 said:

Well, but what about the well-being of the children? Obviously, the BEST CASE SCENARIO is to find a profession, allowing adequate time to spend with one's family. Or for parents to SHARE the responsibility of emotionally supporting their children. I really think even school age kids--even as late as high school-- needs support.. just someone in their corner. As I said, I would have LOVED IT if my family would have attended more of my "projects," or had been there WHEN I NEEDED HELP. It's not like I didn't try to ask for help: they just really didn't give me a lot of support. Plus, I NEVER got into a lot of serious trouble. I always made relatively good choices, but.. I just felt so on the fringe of our family. And as a result, I sometimes think I STILL have problems with insecurity.. because it's difficult NOT having a family member in one's corner. If your family doesn't seem to "care" about you, then it's difficult to believe anyone else will.. It's just this void..

And ya know.. there have been studies about birth order--with GENERALLY-SPEAKING the only child or first-born child being the strongest and best achievers--and the most well-ajusted. There are REASONS for this.. I just think it's because their family support system gives them so much confidence.

I know being a stay-at-home mom OR dad is risky for the individuals choosing to do so, but it's also very risky for a child NOT to have an good family support system. And sure maybe the BEST CASE scenario for everyone might be for parents to work, but STILL find time to be great parents, too. But I think there are a lot of variables to consider.. people not being happy with their jobs,perhaps?? Or people just being PLAIN TIRED after coming home from a long days work to really give a child the attention he/she deserves.

We think EVERYONE can be these "superhumans," but the reality is very different.

I don't begrudge a woman or man making the decision to be stay home or to work as long as they and the family are happy. That's the bottom line.



If your brother-in-law should die, heaven forbid, I would hope he has adequate insurance to take care of his family. Of course, if he ISN'T there for whatever reason.. well I guess your sister would be put into the position of HAVING to find a job. But until then..if it works for her family and for her to be there, why not? If she is fulfilled and happy.. why not??

Don't get me wrong.. I think all women and men need to have education..to prepare for life and/or a vocation. Also, there is nothing wrong with doing volunteer work.. or networking in other ways to make sure he/she still has "connections" if something horrible might happen. Perhaps even a part-time job would suffice? But I still firmly believe somebody well hopefully BOTH parents need be there for their kids.. whether that be physically or "on-call" at least.
[Edited 3/15/08 5:51am]

Good post Isel!

Imago said:

I agree with you. I've BEEN a SAH mother, so I can say as a fact that my current job is WAYYYYY more stressful than being a SAH mother. It would be great to stay home, but I would be the most stupid person putting myself in that kind of unstable position. My friend is a SAH, and she is fucked, to put it bluntly. She's going through a divorce, and since she didn't work for a good ten years, she's already receiving support through the state because he won't pay for anything until he is forced to by the court, and she has no viable skills.

My hubby and I both work, but he is able to be home after school until I get home. He splits his shift and his employer allows it. To each his own is really the point of this thread. You're not wrong anymore than other people are right.

Isel said:

Yeah let's hope so.

Cause she ain't got no job skills.

I rest my case

gemini13 said:

Did your friend go to college? In time, I would imagine, she WILL find a job.

What bugs me about saying that being a SAH mom is less stressful or less difficult.. sounds sort of like "dismissing" those who choose to do so, implying they are somehow lazy and stupid or something? Maybe people ENJOY it? Frankly, for ME it would be the most STRESSFUL thing I could do because I ENJOY working. Sure, working can be stressful, but.. then again I enjoy that kind of stress.

I don't think it necessarily has to be an either/or situation. But people have to live by their choices sometimes, and do what they love to do. Some women and men.. taking care of the home including but not limited their children is their greatest joy. Sure things can change in a marriage.. but things can also change in a profession,too. People go through their entire lives in a career, making them miserable. Of course, they are financially prepared, but extremely unhappy.

I just don't think anything is perfect. It's ALL risky.



Well if all that she might be is a good mother, maybe she could be a nanny? That's a job skill. There sure is a need for good nannies.

Is she a good decorator? Maybe she could go into interior design? Is she a good organizer? Maybe she can be a personal organizer? Is she a good "shopper"? Maybe she a be a personal shopper? If she enjoys taking care of people, maybe she could be a personal assistant? Is she a good cook? Maybe she could be a chef??
Sometimes a person has to think outside the box.
[Edited 3/15/08 6:30am]

Some people say that daycare is expensive so some families are forced to have one parent stay with the kids, but is that really true?

I mean finding quality child care is one thing(I feel every parent on that one), but the cost issue is ridiculous to me because the same people who complain about this issue don't plan their families and/or have the worst spending habits, and how much does it really cost? People spend more on absolutely useless crap or take on expenses they don't need to, but they complain about the cost of child care?

Dance said:

Childcare costs are ridiculous whether I planned my kids or not. I definately did not plan on my son being autistic, did I? The only break is beng able to write off some of that expense on my taxes every year.

Stymie said:

Planning does make a difference with child care just as it does with the child's education and everything else.

Dance said:

i don't get your point, really.

After 3 kids and 9 years out of the workforce, my wife recently went back to the workplace.

Now that she isn't at home all the time, I am beginning to TRULY appreciate the invaluable contributions to the home that her prescence made. Also she isn't able to be there for the kids' school functions, which is a real shame.

As for the "stress" factor...there are different types of stress that you deal with in the home and at work. You can't compare the two, and you can't say that one outweighs the other.

But as many people have already said; YES it is a full time job.

Dance said:

COST is the whole reason for my wife having been a SAH mom for the past 9 years is that when we had our first child.

At the time she was a paralegal, making an OK salary. When we priced out day care...the CHEAPEST one was a hole-in-the-wall down the street from my job...we calculated that after paying for daycare and the expenses associated with going to work (gas, lunch, etc.) we would have been left with $200 a month from her salary.

Not worth it. And even though we struggled for much of these past 9 years, it was worth it completely.

PurpleJedi said:

I agree that they are very different types of stress and but I disagree that you can't compare the two. I just kinda know which one I really have.

Stymie said:

Well...can you agree at least that they are different enough that you SHOULDN'T compare the two?

I mean...the work-related stress of a cashier at Wal-Mart is different than that of an ER surgeon at an inner city hospital.

Same way that the home-related stress of a mother of four kids with an absentee father is different than that of a Beverly Hills SAH housewife with one kid and two babysitters.

Apples & oranges.

PurpleJedi said:

She couldn't do even a p/t job maybe, when you got home?

Wouldn't her salary grow significantly if she continued to be a paralegal over those nine years?

Dance said:

I was working 2 jobs, so no.



Absolutely! And we most certainly would be much better off financially today if she HAD gone back to work. (PLUS we probably would have stopped at one kid!)

But at the time, it was inconceivable to leave our precious bundle of joy in the hands of strangers for a net gain of about $50/week.

...and I am happy to have more than one rugrat.

PurpleJedi said:

Not even a weekend hustle?



There are plenty of families with both parents working that don't stop at one kid.



Doesn't sound like you even considered her future earning potential even though you took the time to consider all the costs and gains at that time.

Dance said:

Nope. I worked weekends.



Yeah...but I have a feeling that we wouldn't have. Just a feeling.



No. We absolutely did not. Not one bit.
It was all emotion over fiances.

PurpleJedi said:

Emotion?

No.

Lots of other things. Yes.

Dance said:

I'm a stay at home mom to a 3 yr old, I also have a small business that I do from home to sustain myself (my husband had an affair and I kicked his ass out without regard to how it would effect my income). Turns out he did not bring anything to the table anyway.. In addition to that I have 2, 10 yr olds and a mother who has Alzheimer's who I take care of on my own, with no help from anyone. My day runs from 5:30am -1am every damn day of the week with no breaks for myself. Doing everything from the job-work-the-kids-my mom-cooking-cleaning-etc.... Having said that just being a stay at home mom is a full time job.. 'Nuff respect to those who do it each an every day, you all are not given the appreciation AND respect that you deserve

nammie said:

God bless you!