Career VS Family

[Taramere]

I agree SB. Of course there isn't one right way. What works for one parent won't work for another.

 

Tara, wow..poor you. That women sounded ill-equipped to handle the job. I mean just because she's a parent surely doesn't mean she can respond appropriately. I agree.

 

Those kids sound like they had special needs and challenges. Perhaps she'd never worked with that kind of child?

 

In any case, I wonder how she handled her OWN teen. The first rule of thumb when a teen gets confrontational is to maintain your authority and not lose your cool. And you can never worry about whether they're going to like you or not.

 

I think she probably felt that she handled her own kids brilliantly, and that the problematic behaviour they got into was inexplicable/a sign of the times. Really, she'd taken on more than she could handle. A load of kids of her own, and a job that could be extremely emotionally taxing and stressful at times. Very, very difficult to not lose your cool. We all did on occasion....but my colleague would scream at them and then avoid taking any accountability for having lost her temper.

 

She was afraid that acknowledging she'd done something wrong would make her look weak/undermine her credibility/put her job on the line. You can't be like that around children and adolescents, and expect to retain their respect. They'll forgive you for making mistakes and not being perfect, but they'll lose faith in an adult who bullsh*ts and fails to take accountability for their own behaviour. She didn't seem to get that, which was surprising for someone who had adolescents of her own.

 

Whether these kids were "special cases" or not wouldn't matter in that regard. That's just basic "parenting 101" when it comes to all kids but especially teens.

 

They came from disturbed home lives, but I think if you dump a load of hormonally charged adolescents - boys and girls - in one small home, regardless of the quality of their home lives it's going to be dynamite.

 

When I think of large families where there's a lot of conflict, I imagine the parents in those families trying to cope on a 24/7 basis with what I dealt with there...and I'm not surprised that sometimes it just gets too much for them. Especially when it's a large family and a single, relatively unsupported, mother trying to take care of them. If she's trying to hold down a job in amongst all of that, well...

 

That's a big, big part of society that possibly isn't reflected on a board like this. A lot of the parents trying to manage those families have spent some time in children's homes, residential schools or foster care themselves. So I suppose what I'm trying to say is that although being a parent oneself is the most obvious route to understanding the stresses that other parents are under, the social differences between family A in a nice area and family B in the most deprived part of time might result in working mother A and working mother B finding it pretty hard to relate to eachother's respective situations.

[calazhage]

Always attacking the argument from the side....

 

Nobody said parenting was rocket science. Nobody said Werher Von Braun would make a great dad.

 

Parenting does take time, and lots of it. It takes patience. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent.

 

And it takes LOTS of sacrifice. LOTS. This is not debatable. From the mother and father. It is a sacrifice of money, spontanaeity, freedom of mind, time, and also career endeavors.Not only for the woman. Many men have settled on one steady job because it provides insurance and security for his family. Men do not have the choice to start different businesses, take time off, go back to school, explore and find a job they love, etc.

 

Looking back at my family, I never thought one of my parents sacrificed more than the other. They had different roles. Without children, I am sure they could have travelled more, lived in a bigger hoime, my father could have retired earlier, etc.

[Trialbyfire]

Anyone, whether SAHM, working mother, SAHH, or working father, who believes they sacrificed/martyred themselves for their children, should NOT be parents. Most people have children because they made the choice to have or keep them. This includes unwanted pregnancies.

 

It's like saying to a charity you've supported, I've sacrificed time and money on your behalf...

[amaysngrace]

It's like saying to a charity you've supported, I've sacrificed time and money on your behalf...

 

That is only for the parents who throw it in their childrens' faces. Almost everyone on this thread says they would never do that. Because we know that is wrong to do.

 

You seem to be the only one who dwells on this point.

 

We hear you. We get it. We agree. Which is why we won't do that.

 

And the parents make the choice of becoming parents knowing some sacrifices will have to be made. Otherwise they'd abort.

 

Life is a trade off. People know that.

[Touche]

I don't know why you don't understand that the terms "sacrifice" and "martyr" are NOT always interchangeable. Yet you persist in using them that way.

 

Using your example, I'm sure the charity involved already KNOWS that you've sacrificed to help them since they usually acknowledge that sacrifice with a thank you.

 

You don't have to beat them over the head with it.

 

Same with parenting.

 

To me being a martyr has to do with an attitude (think victim..sufferer) but sacrificing is an action.

 

See the difference?

[Trialbyfire]

That is only for the parents who throw it in their childrens' faces. Almost everyone on this thread says they would never do that. Because we know that is wrong to do.

 

You seem to be the only one who dwells on this point.

 

We hear you. We get it. We agree. Which is why we won't do that.

 

And the parents make the choice of becoming parents knowing some sacrifices will have to be made. Otherwise they'd abort.

 

Life is a trade off. People know that.

Why does it bother you if I bring it up? Do you feel that it's a threatening or disturbing point?

 

It all ties into the same mentality, the mentality of "giving it up for your children". That's wrong. People choose to be SAHMs because they want to be and find it fulfilling. There's nothing altruistic or unselfish about it anymore than someone who chooses to work.

[amaysngrace]

Why does it bother you if I bring it up? Do you feel that it's a threatening or disturbing point?

 

 

It doesn't bother me. What does bother me though is your pesistance on being right. Get off of your high horse already and find a new argument. Or better yet...post a statistic.

[Touche]

Why does it bother you if I bring it up? Do you feel that it's a threatening or disturbing point?

 

It all ties into the same mentality, the mentality of "giving it up for your children". That's wrong. People choose to be SAHMs because they want to be and find it fulfilling. There's nothing altruistic or unselfish about it anymore than someone who chooses to work.

 

That's where you'd be wrong. Some of us haven't wanted to give up our careers yet we do it ANYWAY! Thousands and thousands of parents do it even when they don't want to.

 

Someone CHOOSING to work (who doesn't even have to,) at the expense of their child, is quite another matter altogether.

 

So nope..not the same thing in my book.

[Trialbyfire]

It doesn't bother me. What does bother me though is your pesistance on being right. Get off of your high horse already and find a new argument. Or better yet...post a statistic.

My high horse? It appears the SAHMs like yourself are galloping away with sacrifice/martyrdom and "for the good of all children" of the world theory.

 

Cut the crap amaysn. How many times have I posted that everyone has a right to do what's best within their lives and capabilities. How many times have SAHMs, including yourself, negated this in their belief that their way is the only way, the sacrificial/martyrs way?

[Trialbyfire]

That's where you'd be wrong. Some of us haven't wanted to give up our careers yet we do it ANYWAY! Thousands and thousands of parents do it even when they don't want to.

 

Someone CHOOSING to work (who doesn't even have to,) at the expense of their child, is quite another matter altogether.

 

So nope..not the same thing in my book.

You gave up your job because you hated it. You got pregnant on your honeymoon. Let's get realistic here.

[Touche]

There you go again using the terms interchangeably. It kind of shows ignorance for you to keep doing that you know.

[Touche]

You gave up your job because you hated it. You got pregnant on your honeymoon. Let's get realistic here.

 

First of all, yes I did get pregnant on our honeymoon. What's your point? Totally irrelevant to the discussion. I went back to work just before our son started kindergarten..remember? I already wrote about that..I did the part-time/full-time thing. Neither was acceptable.

 

As for my job, there were aspects of it that I didn't like. Who likes EVERYTHING about their job?..no one pretty much.

 

Anyway, what we miss most is the extra income. Now THAT I miss but I don't miss it enough to let my child pay for it.

 

(by the way, why do you keep bringing up bits of info that I told you in private and taking it out of context to boot...is that the best you can do?)

[amaysngrace]

My high horse? It appears the SAHMs like yourself are galloping away with sacrifice/martyrdom and "for the good of all children" of the world theory.

 

Cut the crap amaysn. How many times have I posted that everyone has a right to do what's best within their lives and capabilities. How many times have SAHMs, including yourself, negated this in their belief that their way is the only way, the sacrificial/martyrs way?

 

 

I see you are in another winner of a mood and I refuse to be your punching bag.

 

I have better things to do with my time.

 

Good bye.

[Trialbyfire]

First of all, yes I did get pregnant on our honeymoon. What's your point? Totally irrelevant to the discussion. I went back to work just before our son started kindergarten..remember? I already wrote about that..I did the part-time/full-time thing. Neither was acceptable.

 

As for my job, there were aspects of it that I didn't like. Who likes EVERYTHING about their job?..no one pretty much.

 

Anyway, what we miss most is the extra income. Now THAT I miss but I don't miss it enough to let my child pay for it.

 

(by the way, why do you keep bringing up bits of info that I told you in private and taking it out of context to boot...is that the best you can do?)

Which was your choice and I'm not going denigrate YOUR choice, which is more than I can say for your attitude.

 

You HATED your job and don't ever want to go back to it or at least that's what you told me. Reality is as you spin it. As for bringing it up, if you recall, you posted permission to disclose all, right on LS.

[Trialbyfire]

I see you are in another winner of a mood and I refuse to be your punching bag.

 

I have better things to do with my time.

 

Good bye.

It appears that pot keeps calling kettle black and can't see both sides to this, believing themselves to be solely right, knowing what's best for everyone and every child in the world.

 

You made your personal choices. I commend you on doing what's right for you and your children. But...it might not be right or even enough for every woman or every child in the world.

[blind_otter]

Anyone, whether SAHM, working mother, SAHH, or working father, who believes they sacrificed/martyred themselves for their children, should NOT be parents. Most people have children because they made the choice to have or keep them. This includes unwanted pregnancies.

 

It's like saying to a charity you've supported, I've sacrificed time and money on your behalf...

 

Sacrifice: the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

 

Martyr: a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

 

You can surrender something you consider valuable without enduring great suffering. You can give up a job that you like and get fulfillment from, in order to attend to something that you consider more pressing - raising your child. That doesn't necessarily mean you will suffer greatly for making that sacrifice. It's just a trade off.

 

I know my parents sacrificed for me so I could have things they thought I needed. You know, instead of sending me to private school and putting away money for me, they could have saved that money for themselves and taken a vacation, just the two of them, every year - or had a bigger house with a larger mortgage. It's just a trade off. They didn't suffer horribly but they did give to me and my sisters, instead of giving to themselves.

[Trialbyfire]

Sacrifice: the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

 

Martyr: a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

 

You can surrender something you consider valuable without enduring great suffering. You can give up a job that you like and get fulfillment from, in order to attend to something that you consider more pressing - raising your child. That doesn't necessarily mean you will suffer greatly for making that sacrifice. It's just a trade off.

 

I know my parents sacrificed for me so I could have things they thought I needed. You know, instead of sending me to private school and putting away money for me, they could have saved that money for themselves and taken a vacation, just the two of them, every year - or had a bigger house with a larger mortgage. It's just a trade off. They didn't suffer horribly but they did give to me and my sisters, instead of giving to themselves.

Within the confines of this thread, your parents wouldn't have had to "sacrifice" anything, including quality time or material goods, if both chose to work careers that were lucrative.

 

Your parents made the choice to do what they wanted to do. That doesn't mean I'm denigrating their efforts. They obviously loved you and your siblings and did the best job, in the best way they knew how. I can respect that unless they can't respect other peoples' choices in life.

[Touche]

Which was your choice and I'm not going denigrate YOUR choice, which is more than I can say for your attitude.

 

You HATED your job and don't ever want to go back to it or at least that's what you told me. Reality is as you spin it. As for bringing it up, if you recall, you posted permission to disclose all, right on LS.

 

Uhm, nope. I hated parts of my job..not all of it. I would have stayed had I not more important responsibilities at home. There were aspects of my job that I absolutely LOVED. I'm not spinning anything. You're choosing to spin things for your own purposes.

 

Whatever. Keep bringing up things I've told you in private...only makes you look bad.

 

I'm done wasting my time with this too...back to work...must finish before my son comes home. No nanny here!

[blind_otter]

Within the confines of this thread, your parents wouldn't have had to "sacrifice" anything, including quality time or material goods, if both chose to work careers that were lucrative.

 

Well yeah, they actually WOULD have had to sacrifice something if BOTH chose to have careers - they would have sacrificed time spent with their kids.

 

And as stated previously, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "quality time". I'm not even sure what that term means. I believe that there is only time that you spend with your children. Quality moments happen spontaneously and defy scheduling.

[Trialbyfire]

Well yeah, they actually WOULD have had to sacrifice something if BOTH chose to have careers - they would have sacrificed time spent with their kids.

 

And as stated previously, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "quality time". I'm not even sure what that term means. I believe that there is only time that you spend with your children.

And therein lies the difference. Which, as previously expressed, we need to agree to disagree on.

 

Childrens' best memories or even memories at all, aren't of watching them do the dishes, washing the floor or cleaning the bathroom. It doesn't matter if food comes from the hands of their parents or someone else, as long as it's yummy and for their own good, healthy choices.

 

A working mother can still bake cookies with her children. She doesn't have to be with them 24/7, to do this. She can also play Wii with them or go skiing with them, as a family unit. This doesn't have to be on a 24/7 basis. She can still talk to them, having family dinners together and after-dinner time, where solid bonding can happen without the trials and tribulations of spending 24/7 together. Even SAHMs don't spend 24/7 with their children, especially school aged children. Should these SAHMs be home-schooling then? Are they sacrificing their child's best interest and time spent together, if they don't home school? Seriously, how far are people going to take it?

 

Whatever works, works, per individual family unit.

[Touche]

Here's the disconnect...look at this definition of quality time according to wikipedia. (I know, I know wiki but it's a generally excepted definition.)

 

Quality time is an informal reference to time spent with loved ones (e.g., close family, partners or friends) which is in some way important

 

Now to some of us ALL time spent with loved ones is important...and to others only SOME of the time I guess is important.

 

So that's where some of us will never agree. We'll never agree on what defines "quality time."

[Star Gazer]

As you all know, I am a career woman, in almost every sense of the word. I can, and do appreciate, the differences between a "career" and a "job."

 

HOWEVER, just because a woman gives up a "job" as opposed to a "career" to stay home and raise her children doesn't make the decision any easier for her. Giving up a job means giving up some (if not all, really) financial independence, a sense of contributing to society, a whole other social community, the opportunity to feel like she's providing for her family in more ways than one.

 

Thus, in my eyes, it can be just as difficult to leave a "job" as a "career," albeit difficult for different reasons.

[sb129]

Sacrifice is relative isn't it.

 

My H and I both work, and unfortunately, I am the one with the more lucrative career.

 

Why should we 'sacrifice' my income/ career to bring up children when we don't have to? I could have married someone with a better income, and then happily have given it up, but as it stands i didn't.

I trained for a long time and worked hard to get to a point where I am well respected and very good at my job.

So did my H.

 

So who gives up work? Me? Just because I am the mommy? Or him because he earns less? In this day and age of equality, it should be just down to flipping a coin, surely.

 

Ultimately sacrificing the larger income leads to further sacrifices.

We live comfortably but not ostentatiously, and it is this lifestyle into which I want to bring a child.

We have delayed having a baby until we were settled in our own home etc etc, and we did all of that through sacrifice.

 

I COULD have thought about this more, and married someone who earned more money, but then I could have sacrificed my happiness...

 

We could (and HAVE) go round and round and round and round here.

 

I don't believe there is ONE answer. I don't believe that being a SAHM is necessarily THE BEST thing for your kids. I don't think a mom returning to work part time is THE WORST thing for your kids.

 

By encouraging all women to be SAHMs, that essentially rewinds history back to the time when women didn't have the choices they do now and HAD to stay at home.

 

Is that really what people want?

 

 

There is a spectrum here, and as i said before-

 

Whatever works for you. And if that happens to be different to what someone believes to be right- so what? You are doing what you believe to be right for YOUR family. It doesn't make it right for anyone elses family.

 

Unfortunately both sides of the argument are being argued here as absolute, and thats impossible.

[Trialbyfire]

Unfortunately both sides of the argument are being argued here as absolute, and thats impossible.

I'm not debating absolutes, only freedom of choice.

[sb129]

HOWEVER, just because a woman gives up a "job" as opposed to a "career" to stay home and raise her children doesn't make the decision any easier for her. Giving up a job means giving up some (if not all, really) financial independence, a sense of contributing to society, a whole other social community, the opportunity to feel like she's providing for her family in more ways than one.

.

 

Exactly.

 

Over the last hundred years women have fought HARD for our generation to have the luxury of being able to sit here and CHOOSE to work or not without fear of being ostracised or jailed.

 

I think it swung too far in the 80s and 90s when women were encouraged to be career ballbreakers at the expense of their kids upbringing, and if you were half bright at school, you were made to think that being a SAHM was akin to being a leper.

 

Things have cooled off alot since then, and it is now possible with good management to be able to balance work and home life, if that is what you choose to do.

 

And I'm sorry, but I don't accept that working mothers are failing their kids. My mum worked, and she isn't perfect, but my brother and I turned out to be caring, loving, respectful, hard working, honest, contributing members of both society AND our family.

Is there something missing that perhaps we would have gained from mum staying at home?