Career VS Family

[Touche]

Touche, you're pulling exactly the same thing that B_O pulled. You've made your choices in life and feel they're the best choices. What you fail to understand is that they're not the best choices for everyone.

 

In denigrating someone else's choices, you're in essence saying "My choice is the best choice for everyone". Don't expect that your choices in life are going to be everyone else's. They're not.

 

TBF, I'm really not failing to understand anything. I'm stating my case just as the people on here are stating theirs. I said it was the right choice for MY family and what others do is their business.

 

This thread is reminding me of that other thread about standards in dating...why are some people taking it personally?

 

I don't care what other people do. I just may not agree with what they do but it's their business. Same as it is my business what I do and I'm not bothered in the least if you or anyone else disagrees with it.

 

We're all stating our cases and views on this. That's all. It should not be taken personally. If one is so sure about their stance on this, it shouldn't really matter what others think.

 

Nowhere am I saying that my choice is the best choice for anyone else. I get that it isn't. I also get that some people make a choice that is best for themselves personally and not for their child or children.

 

That's their business...not mine. But I'm allowed to have my views about it.

[Trialbyfire]

I also get that some people make a choice that is best for themselves personally and not for their child or children.

These are words that escalate. I'm sure that single mothers who have to work will thank you for this type of comment...

[MindoverMatter]

I don't know about most of you but my fondest memories of quality time with my mother, aren't with her washing the dishes, doing laundry or mopping the floor...

I won't get into whether or not it's possible to have children and a career guiltfree. There are things on boths sides that I find to be true and right.

 

However. I think being a parent means to shoulder the responsibility of bringing a human being into this world and guiding them onto their adulthood. Taking care of their every need: clothing, food, care. If you don't consider this part of parenting then you choose to deal with the fluffy side alone. [edit: But this is my definition of parenting, and everybody views it differently. I plan to work from home and take care of my children without a constant nanny.] You will never get the fatigue of changing yet another diaper, of moving away cluttered toys. You will come home to a bathed little baby, a tidied up house, a kid whose homework has been done.

 

There are advantages to this, obviously. But there are also disadvantages.

And I think no mother would feel free of guilt if she wasn't present when the baby takes its first step. Even if you do install spycams everywhere. It's not the same. But having guilt once in a while doesn't equal making the wrong decision.

 

On a sidenote: BO has said she sees the other side. But that it isn't for her. By claiming that she shoves her opinion down other people's throats, you do what you critizise in others: you denigrate somebody else's opinion.

[Trialbyfire]

Okay, I'll play the same game.

 

While I understand everyone else's choices, I think that SAHMs are lazy and want to be taken care of. That's just my opinion though...

[MindoverMatter]

Very grown up. Have a squeeky toy.

 

I, for one, don't think that the working part in working mothers makes them any less good or loving as a stay at home mom. (Or Dad, actually, I don't see a big difference between sahm or sahd.)

 

I do, however, believe that everything comes with a price. And the price for being a working mother is that you miss out on aspects of your children's life.

 

Everybody who says that working as a mother is the one thing in the universe that has no consequences, is not being objective in my opinion.

 

This must not harm the child, because you CAN hire a nanny, a cook, a driver, a clown and a squeeky toy deliverer to take care of the offspring while at work. But those are all people that will form a relationship with your child, some will form deep relationships (a regular nanny) and will influence the relationship a child has with their working parents.

The person you go to when you fell on your knee and it hurts, might be nanny, not mommy. For some, that's okay. They don't consider "mopping the floor" or putting on a band-aid to be important in a parents-child relationship. For some, they are. And they chose that for them the best parenting style is to be at home and take care of everything. And they have every right to feel so. For them, it would be selfish to go to work.

 

But if your view of good parenting differs than okay. *shrugs*

 

There are people who say that they couldn't both work and parent, they wouldn't be able to manage it. Should they get their knickers in a twist, because you say it is possible for anybody? No, oopsie, not what you meant?

 

Squeeky toy. Here you go.

[calazhage]

People should ask themselves "Why am I starting a family?", if they are opposed to making personal sacrifices, or are in love with their job.

 

I have a friend raised by 2 alcoholics, and he turned out just fine. Does that mean that is an acceptable way for all parents to raise children?

 

Thankfully, many career women in their mid 30's will not have children and put the kids in the hands of strangers, and they will just continue to work. It is really sad when people cannot raise their own children, and are so consumed with money and materialism.

[Trialbyfire]

SAHMs are women who want a man to take care of them. Most are incapable of taking care of themselves because the working world is too much of a challenge to them.

[Meaplus3]

SAHMs are women who want a man to take care of them. Most are incapable of taking care of themselves because the working world is too much of a challenge to them.

 

Oh really? Well, I have been a stay at home mom for 10 years. It was a personal choice that I made with my now xh back when we were starting a family. I choose to put a career on hold so I could raise my children during the most important informative years. I will never regret that choice and I was honored to be able to do that. Just because a woman stays at home does not in anyway.. make that woman less competent with regard to taking care of themselves then a woman who is out in the work force all day. Thats a very ridiculous statement.

 

Mea:)

[Trialbyfire]

Oh really? Well, I have been a stay at home mom for 10 years. It was a personal choice that I made with my now xh back when we were starting a family. I choose to put a career on hold so I could raise my children during the most important informative years. I will never regret that choice and I was honored to be able to do that. Just because a woman stays at home does not in anyway.. make that woman less competent with regard to taking care of themselves then a woman who is out in the work force all day. Thats a very ridiculous statement.

 

Mea:)

Mea, these aren't my personal feelings towards SAHMs. Just playing the game of escalation through side-swipe.

[MindoverMatter]

You try to belittle the positions of those that have spoken against your own opinion. I have read from neither BO nor Touche any sentence that would equal your "playing the game". Personally, I would have thought that this would be beneath you. Maybe I was wrong.

[Meaplus3]

You try to belittle the positions of those that have spoken against your own opinion. I have read from neither BO nor Touche any sentence that would equal your "playing the game". Personally, I would have thought that this would be beneath you. Maybe I was wrong.

 

Yeah..I thought the same thing.

 

Mea:confused:

[nittygritty]

I was a SAHM for almost three years after my oldest was born. I also had an in-home nanny and returned to work full time when my youngest was approx. 9 weeks old. For most families I think there are sacrifices and adjustments, either way.

 

Whether it's the loss of income (when the salary is significantly higher than the cost of childcare) or the loss of the time that's spent away from your child while your working. However, I will say that the parent-child bond is not damaged or replaced, simply because someone other than the parent is taking care of the child while one or both parents work.

 

I respect families with a SAHP that can afford to sacrifice the loss of income so that the child is being taken care of at home, with a good parent. And I respect dual income working families and working single parent families but what I have a hard time respecting are SAH, capable of working parent(s), that financially afford to do so by living off of the tax money that is being taken from those that work.

 

Being able to financially support yourself and any kids you choose to bring into the world should be the deciding factor in the career vs. family question. For financial security reasons, I think that both parents should be capable of being able to support the family they make.

 

Whether a SAHP ever decides to work outside the home again or not, I do think it's important for them to be employable to the financial level that can afford to support the family, should divorce, death or job loss occur.

[nittygritty]

After reading the comments that were added while I typed my previous post, I wanted to add that there isn't anything lazy or easy about being a SAHP. In fact, I thought it was sometimes more difficult than getting to leave home to go to work.

 

Regardless, every family situation is different and subject to change and adjustments. Doing what is best for the needs of your family is what is most important.

[Touche]

These are words that escalate. I'm sure that single mothers who have to work will thank you for this type of comment...

 

Nope, not meant to escalate. Also I guess I should say that none of my comments are meant for people who HAVE to work. Only those who don't. And those who can afford nannies and domestic help, don't have to work. So those are the people I'm talking about.

 

But if you want to take it further, I don't believe couples (let alone singles) should have kids if they can't raise them themselves.

 

Great points made my MOM and Mea. There's nothing, NOTHING easy about staying at home and raising kids. My stressful job was WAY easier in many ways. Trust me on that.

 

I do think BO had a great point though...I'd love to hear back from those of you who aren't mothers now when you have kids. Trust me, your tune might very well be different then.

 

P.S. The working world was never "too" much of a challenge to me at all. I was fine. Adding a kid(s) to the mix changes everything. For me it did anyway. For some women, it's "business as usual" I guess.

[Trialbyfire]

I think women are their own worst enemies. In denigrating other women who choose to make their own choices, by calling them selfish or using the guilt trip, doesn't speak much for the person, doing so.

 

I see this happening a lot with women who are SAHMs. The martyr complex.

[Touche]

I didn't see anyone denigrating anyone...other than the sarcastic comments made about SAH's.

 

Of course women are free to make their own choices. But we're also all free to judge those choices if we want to.

 

I actually have no problem with anyone judging me for my choices. None whatsoever. I don't take it personally at all.

[Trialbyfire]

There are good mothers and piss-poor mothers, regardless if they're home or not.

 

Balanced and happy children are the final outcome of parenting. Each couple will decide what kind of environment to provide their children.

 

If the environment is safe, happy, supportive and loving, children will flourish. If the environment is unsafe, unhappy, full of verbal and/or physical abuse, many children become a product of their environment.

 

Time spent is not quality time. I stand by this.

[Touche]

Time spent is not quality time.

 

And that's the crux of the debate.

 

I believe any time spent is quality time...especially if we make an effort to make sure that most of the time it is. And that's what good mothers do.

 

But limited time between a child who has spent the bulk of the day with someone other than his/her parents and a parent who has been working all day and is stressed, is not quality time in my book. Children can sense these things.

 

Let's see how many of you are willing to walk away from a crying 2 year old who just wants his mommy or daddy while you (general you) skip off to work as you leave your little one with the "excellent childcare" provider.

[Trialbyfire]

The comments about "skipping" off to work, etc. are part of the guilt trip that people put onto women who choose to work or have to work.

 

I wonder how many SAHMs yell, scream and hit their children?

[Touche]

The comments about "skipping" off to work, etc. are part of the guilt trip that people put onto women who choose to work or have to work.

 

No. No one can MAKE someone feel guilt or any other thing. I don't have that much power over people. So if someone is feeling "guilt" about their decisions, then they should look within and examine why that is.

 

If my (and others') comments illicit guilt just by merely expressing our views on this subject, you have to wonder why that is.

 

I wonder how many SAHMs yell, scream and hit their children?

 

Not sure what your point is here. No parent should lose control...whether they're at home or not. Discipline, whether it includes a spanking or not, should never come from a place of anger and loss of control. Both working and SAH parents can be guilty of "losing" it.

 

That still doesn't have any real bearing on the debate in question.

[anne1707]

I wonder how many SAHMs yell, scream and hit their children?

 

I have been reading this thread with interest but have chosen not to contribute as I do not have children and believe it is very easy to say "oh do this or do that" when not being a parent means I cannot fully understand the demands, emotions, etc entailed by that.

 

However I now find myself unable not to comment. This last post is (IMO) very offensive and an example of somebody applying a stereotype image of a harassed SAHM who cannot cope. Very, very wrong and unfair.

[Touche]

I have been reading this thread with interest but have chosen not to contribute as I do not have children and believe it is very easy to say "oh do this or do that" when not being a parent means I cannot fully understand the demands, emotions, etc entailed by that.

 

However I now find myself unable not to comment. This last post is (IMO) very offensive and an example of somebody applying a stereotype image of a harassed SAHM who cannot cope. Very, very wrong and unfair.

 

Now THAT I can respect (the bolded part above.) Thank you for that.

 

As to the last part...I personally didn't take offense. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Trialbyfire]

All I'm going to say is that some people make good mothers and others don't.

 

No amount of time spent at home will change this.

[Touche]

All I'm going to say is that some people make good mothers and others don't.

 

No amount of time spent at home will change this.

 

I totally agree with that.

 

I guess I just don't think you have a chance in hell at being a GREAT mother if you're not spending most of your time with your child..especially in the early years.

 

"Good" isn't enough for some of us.

[Trialbyfire]

I totally agree with that.

 

I guess I just don't think you have a chance in hell at being a GREAT mother if you're not spending most of your time with your child..especially in the early years.

 

"Good" isn't enough for some of us.

Ugh...sure...

 

Being a great mother has nothing to do with being a SAHM. Those two things GUARANTEED, are not synonymous.

 

If you believe so, then you're sadly deluded.