or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › "SAHM jobs" vs. SAH full-time
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"SAHM jobs" vs. SAH full-time - Page 2

post #21 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawap


"Mothering" will never get the respect it deserves until all mothers learn to respect one another. It's a plain and simple fact.

Laura
I'm getting that tattooed on my forehead.
post #22 of 89


Never understand why this is an issue. Really.

I didn't intend to be a "WAHM" so that I could say I have a job, improve my self-esteem or any other reason.

I started working at home because when I left the outside-workforce to have babies, we could no longer afford to buy food. Plain and simple. Not enough money, once we got past our montly 'nut,' for food. DH is well employed, BTW. Just that we live in an expensive city, and when I was in the workforce, I made a lot more money than him.



And WAH-work is in the middle of the night so as not to interfere with my daytime mama-work. So what does that make me? Does "WAHM" mean child-care issues?

And who cares? What's it anyone's business?

post #23 of 89
I don't think that anyone has a problem with mom's who get jobs becasue they need them, or even because they want them. The issue is that some moms feel they HAVE to get a job just to seem like they're doing something, when raising children is enough to keep you plenty busy. We shouldn't have to get a job to make people not think we're lazy. If we feel happy and fulfilled "just" being SAHMs, that should be plenty.
post #24 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by giarose
hi, i'm a SAHM and when people ask what do I do all day, I can't help laughing. I think we are more ready to be defensive more than anything when we hear this question, but I think many people actually ask this question out of curiousity.
Before I had my son, I couldn't imagine what could possibly keep me occupied all day. The thought of staying home with a child was so far beyond my reality that I couldn't even envision what it would look like, you know?

I've generally found that when people ask me this, they sincerely want to know what my day looks like. And after I tell them, they usually express awe and tell me that they don't know how I do it.

Since I've been in law school, I've been very (pleasantly) surprised by people's reactions. Going in, I halfway expected to be looked down upon by these young, upwardly-mobile, career-minded people for choosing to be home with my son during the day. Instead, they usually just shake their heads and say they don't know how I do it. - they compare their school/work responsibilities to mine and openly acknowledge that they have the easier lot.

I think people are beginning to realize more and more exactly how much work is involved with taking care of children and a house. Of course, there are still the random yahoos out there - probably higher concentrations of them in some areas - who think that women sit around and eat bon-bons all day. Around here it seems as though they're a dying breed.
post #25 of 89
Okay, here is an alternative perspective on this. I recently started working two hours a week teaching gymnastics to girls (5-6 & 7-9). I love gymnastics, I enjoy spending time with older kids and really like that we get a free membership/free classes to the facility (my older son takes swimming lessons there and my little guy does a mommy and me gym class) I know a number of women who sah ft and don't do any sidework for $$$. Totally fine with me, I could care less and totally respect their decision to not work for $$$. However, a few of them have hinted that they just couldn't leave their kids to work two hours a week....which would be fine but sort of rubs me wrong since they do a monthly mom's night out and take aerobics a couple of times a week and one does a weekly bible study during the day and puts both of her kids in the church daycare. (My little guy is with his dad during my classes and my big guy takes his swimming lessons at the sametime)

It sort of bugs me that my activity is somehow seen as less appropriate, more selfish, and less "mom" like since I get paid for it (which at $25 a week seems bizarre as well - it certainly isn't funding any trips to the mall or new SUVs)

BJ
Barney & Ben "Daddy, maybe you can be a teacher like mommy when you grow-up"
post #26 of 89
My close friend who had two kids about ten years ago could not wait to go back to work. So when I had my ds she assumed I would go back to work (I was a career minded fanatic). So she was shocked when I resigned.

She kept asking me how my day is and how I am coping. I really think she kept thinking I would quit and go back to the workforce. She has given up since my ds will be one yr old in a couple of weeks.

I don't feel the need to get a side job, nor do I look down on anyone that does. But like everything in life, you will always get some bad apples. However, when my kids are ready to start pre-school, etc, I am thinking of going p/t. 8-16hrs a week. I would also work the night shift, so my ds would stay with daddy.

Whatever works for each individual. I always imagine this is my last day alive. Am I happy with the decisions I have made? So far...yes!!!!
post #27 of 89
It's her and her families buisness and perogitive. There is no exclusive SAH club that have rules that say you cannot do anything that may or may not fulfill your own needs as a human being if you are a SAHP.
I don't get that this is an issue for you?

Why does everything have to be SO black and white? Life is colorful! Live it!
post #28 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicole77
However, I cannot stop noting the prevalence on this board of moms who are at home saying that moms who work outside the home are having someone else

"raise their DC"

No one except for my husband and me raises our daughter and until we are all able to accept that I am going to mercilessly point it out.

This is OT from what I was saying (that it is okay to only SAH), but I wanted to respond...

I completely disagree! If I SAH everyday from 9-5 with my DC, what am I doing? Raising them, of course. If I also have my neighbors two kids here during that time (cooking for them, listening to them, answering their big & little questions, reading to them, discplining them, helping them go potty, etc...), what am I doing? I call it helping raise them. I might even be doing *more* of it than their own parents are, by the time they get here to pick them up at six and have them in bed by nine. If I am just baby-sitting them, then I am just baby-sitting my own DC as well- and I can tell you that is not what SAHMs are doing all day.

I really feel strongly about this. I used to work in a daycare and spend 45 hours a week, day in and day out with these sweet little DC. I saw most of them way more than their own moms did. I kissed their boo-boos, held them, sung them to sleep.... *These two-year-olds were being raised, no matter who was there doing it!* Children are beng raised 24/7, and don't stop just because their mom isn't around.

No one denys the effect teachers/peers/family have on a child. I also do not deny the effect a person has who spends a significant ammount of time with them, even if they are paid help.
post #29 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by charmarty
It's her and her families buisness and perogitive. There is no exclusive SAH club that have rules that say you cannot do anything that may or may not fulfill your own needs as a human being if you are a SAHP.
I don't get that this is an issue for you?

Why does everything have to be SO black and white? Life is colorful! Live it!

I think you missed my point. I am living my life, not sure what that is supposed to mean..?

All my OP was about was that IT IS OKAY to ONLY SAH!!!
post #30 of 89
Maybe you are fulfilled doing what you do, and hey that's great! But perhaps she has needs that have to be fulfilled by other means other than being a SAHM.


"another one bites the dust...."
I don't get that.


What I meant by" life is colorful, live it..." Every person is different and that means different things to different people. You live your life the best way that siuts you and your family, and also let her live hers. Looks to me like she is living hers too.....
post #31 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faith

All my OP was about was that IT IS OKAY to ONLY SAH!!!
For you.
post #32 of 89

ask any kid - they know who is raising them

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faith
This is OT from what I was saying (that it is okay to only SAH), but I wanted to respond...

I completely disagree! If I SAH everyday from 9-5 with my DC, what am I doing? Raising them, of course. If I also have my neighbors two kids here during that time (cooking for them, listening to them, answering their big & little questions, reading to them, discplining them, helping them go potty, etc...), what am I doing? I call it helping raise them. I might even be doing *more* of it than their own parents are, by the time they get here to pick them up at six and have them in bed by nine. If I am just baby-sitting them, then I am just baby-sitting my own DC as well- and I can tell you that is not what SAHMs are doing all day.

I really feel strongly about this. I used to work in a daycare and spend 45 hours a week, day in and day out with these sweet little DC. I saw most of them way more than their own moms did. I kissed their boo-boos, held them, sung them to sleep.... *These two-year-olds were being raised, no matter who was there doing it!* Children are beng raised 24/7, and don't stop just because their mom isn't around.

No one denys the effect teachers/peers/family have on a child. I also do not deny the effect a person has who spends a significant ammount of time with them, even if they are paid help.
No there is a difference between cariong for and raising. This was said in another thread MUCH better than I can say it. Children understand the difference bewteen the people who sometiems/often take care of them and the people (usually parents) who raise them. Think back to Kindergarden and 1st grade - no matter how important your teachers were to you, no matter how much time you spent with them (in first grade, you spent more awake time with your teacher than with your mom), no matter how many hugs they gave you, no matter how many questions of yours they answered - you knew the difference between their values/answers and the values/truths your parents were raising you by. Teachers and daycare workers do not raise kids. They care for them, they love them, they answer thier questions, they teach them. But that is not the same thing as "raising them." This is more than sematics, though sematics are important becase saying a daycare worker is raising a child is, in addition to being incorrect, perjorative and hurtful to the millions of wohp who are raising thier kids by a different method but to the same degree that you are rasing yours.

Until peer groups become important in middle school, parents are the number #1 influence on kids. his is the same for sahm and wohm.
post #33 of 89
This is an interesting point, and it seems like it revolves around semantics to me.

I think of everyone who comes into contact with my child as "helping to raise" them. I love the influence (for the most part ) that other adults have had on my children.

I can understand that it would be hurtful for a WOHP to hear that "someone else is raising their child". It implies that the child is as close to the caregiver as she is to the parents.

Everyone's situation is different. We all spend different quanities & qualities of time with our children.

I do ponder the truth in the "someone else is raising your child" statement. My dd goes to play in a co-op preschool once a week. For the time I am not with her, she is dealing with situations without my help...and she really likes this bit of independence. As much as I LOVE the teacher, I would feel the balance of what I was trying to teach my dd would be upset by her being there 5 days.

The way I see it, my dd can spend time with me; I love her and accept her unconditionally. Or, she could be in daycare with a wonderful person whose love could never touch the realm of my love for her...No matter how wonderful the person, it is still a cash deal. No matter how much they love the child, they are still being paid to do it. It just seems like such a bad vibe to intrust those babies for a wage for so many hours every weekday.

These are all off topic thoughts, open to any discussion, not meant to cause a rift or war, only discussion.

To the OP, I wouldn't think she's biting the dust just pursuing other options, I guess
post #34 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by charmarty
For you.

And others as well...

It almost seems like breastfeeding and formula feeding. How many more moms would SAH if it were PC to do so, if they saw it done more, if there were more support, etc?

How many SAHMs give up because they are the only ones they know who do it, because of outside pressure, because society tells them it isn't enough..?



I just feel bad when a mom decides not to be a SAHM, just like I feel bad when a mom doesn't BF... It is just what *I* feel is a child's birthright and it shouldn't be taken away from them. You don't have to agree with me, but that is what I think.
post #35 of 89
In all honesty, I don't think that there are a ton of moms who work because they "don't know that they can stay home." They work because they want to or they have to, or some combination of the two.
May I suggest that instead of focusing your efforts on informing mothers that they can stay home and should because it is their child's "birthright," you focus instead on making staying at home an option for all mothers who want to excercise it?

You could start by writing your senators and representative and asking them to re-examine the welfare to work act. They seem to think that poor mothers should not have the option to stay home with their children. Then you could lobby congress to provide a living wage to women who wish to stay home with their children, replete with social security benefits and healthcare.

Kaly
post #36 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faith
And others as well...

It almost seems like breastfeeding and formula feeding. How many more moms would SAH if it were PC to do so, if they saw it done more, if there were more support, etc?

How many SAHMs give up because they are the only ones they know who do it, because of outside pressure, because society tells them it isn't enough..?



I just feel bad when a mom decides not to be a SAHM, just like I feel bad when a mom doesn't BF... It is just what *I* feel is a child's birthright and it shouldn't be taken away from them. You don't have to agree with me, but that is what I think.
No I don't agree with you. A Parent staying home with kids is not universally preferable to kids in childcare. Breast is universally preferable to formula (though some parents have to feed thier kids formula for one reason or another).

Apples and oranges.

I'm glad you found what works for your family. Because it wirks for your family does not mean it is the best way.

Yes, women need more support and options and choices, with that I agree.
post #37 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamawanabe
I'm glad you found what works for your family. Because it wirks for your family does not mean it is the best way.
Thank you.
K
post #38 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountain
The way I see it, my dd can spend time with me; I love her and accept her unconditionally. Or, she could be in daycare with a wonderful person whose love could never touch the realm of my love for her...No matter how wonderful the person, it is still a cash deal. No matter how much they love the child, they are still being paid to do it. It just seems like such a bad vibe to intrust those babies for a wage for so many hours every weekday.
Because that wonderful person's love can never touch her the realm of your love for her, because she knows this (kids sense so much), this person's answers and values and perspective will never carry near the weight with your child that your do. That is why the daycare worker can't raise another person's child.

I also think that as long as a child gets unconditional love from a parent and has enough time with that parent, then they are getting all they need. The catcher is "enough time." And what is enough is for every parent/child to decide (and it probably differs depending on teh parent and the child - some parents give more of themselves to thier kids when they are with them and so thier kids may need less time with these parents. Some kids need more due to innate temperment.

My dad worked 60 hours weeks and I spent all day with my sahm. I have teh same quantity and quality of memories of my dad as I do of my mom. I should, time-wise, have 100X the memories of my mom. But she gave about the same amount/intensity/focus (whatever you want to call it) of attention to us in 8 hours as my dad did in a half hour.
post #39 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipperump-a-zoomum
May I suggest that instead of focusing your efforts on informing mothers that they can stay home and should because it is their child's "birthright," you focus instead on making staying at home an option for all mothers who want to excercise it?

You could start by writing your senators and representative and asking them to re-examine the welfare to work act. They seem to think that poor mothers should not have the option to stay home with their children. Then you could lobby congress to provide a living wage to women who wish to stay home with their children, replete with social security benefits and healthcare.

Kaly
no thank you
post #40 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamawanabe
I also think that as long as a child gets unconditional love from a parent and has enough time with that parent, then they are getting all they need. The catcher is "enough time." And what is enough is for every parent/child to decide (and it probably differs depending on teh parent and the child - some parents give more of themselves to thier kids when they are with them and so thier kids may need less time with these parents. Some kids need more due to innate temperment.

I would also add "what *kind* of time" to the concept of "enough time." If a parent is at home full time but is miserable, disengaged, or resentful of it, is that really better for the child (or the family) than if that parent spent fewer hours at home but was more loving and engaged during that time? If a parent is SAH but wishes he or she weren't, that's not a really great "birthright," IMO.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › "SAHM jobs" vs. SAH full-time