or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Stay at Home Parents › Staying at Home "On Welfare"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Staying at Home "On Welfare" - Page 6

post #101 of 1188
Quote:
And! People do not get more than 400$ a month in foodstamps for a family of four.
We were getting $513/month for a family of four after we both lost our jobs last fall.
post #102 of 1188
I'm all teary-eyed here at work. I appreciate your support everyone, it means so much to me. I can't wait to be able to stay home with my little ones, and I considered not coming back from maternity leave at all, but let my pride override what my mommy instincts were telling me.
post #103 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamsInDigital View Post
I'm all teary-eyed here at work. I appreciate your support everyone, it means so much to me. I can't wait to be able to stay home with my little ones, and I considered not coming back from maternity leave at all, but let my pride override what my mommy instincts were telling me.
Yeah that can be hard. For me I think what is my higher goal, kwim? Is it being socially approved upon for not 'draining' the system? Is it actually supporting the system as it stands? For me the answers to those things are a resounding NO.

Then I move to is it doing the work I'm being paid for? Or is it being home with my child?

Those questions will have individual answers. For me, the work I personally could be paid for did not compare to being home with my particular child at her particular age.
post #104 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
IMO, yes. What are you doing for work? Solving world hunger? If so, keep it. If you are a cog in the capitalist wheel accomplishing nothing of significance really except staying away from using social benefits, and if you don't enjoy working, mama get home and be with your babies. Your schedule is full enough as it is.

Everyone is looking at me rather strangely because I just burst out laughing at that.
I am most definitely a cog in the captalist wheel. I work in a call center with about 1,000 other people, and we are all tiny peons in a meaningless uphill struggle to get a 23 cent raise a year. (Yep, that's the MAXIMUM raise given per YEAR.) Meanwhile, our CEO made over a billion dollars in profit last year, mostly by outsourcing jobs to India for a small fraction of what we earn here.

Sad, isn't it?

Sorry for derailing!
post #105 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamsInDigital View Post
Everyone is looking at me rather strangely because I just burst out laughing at that.
I am most definitely a cog in the captalist wheel. I work in a call center with about 1,000 other people, and we are all tiny peons in a meaningless uphill struggle to get a 23 cent raise a year. (Yep, that's the MAXIMUM raise given per YEAR.) Meanwhile, our CEO made over a billion dollars in profit last year, mostly by outsourcing jobs to India for a small fraction of what we earn here.

Sad, isn't it?

Sorry for derailing!
Ha! Reminds me of jobs I have had in the past. I say walk, don't look back! You have WAY more important things to do.
post #106 of 1188
I think it works well, but I wonder if it would be possible to inlcude what i have added in bold, or if somehow the help we receive could be directly acknowledged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
As an autonomous unit, the family exists interdependently with others. Parents have the primary but not necessarily exclusive responsibility for raising children. Raising a child comprises both direct care and financial provision. It means providing direct care and nurturing to meet the child's physical, emotional, mental, social, and spiritual needs, and also providing financially to meet the child's material needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health care.
What do you think of that inclusion?

I do think that a spinoff may be in order; it is a very large topic and while it is essential to this discussion, I think, to have a working definition, a new thread would enable a focussed discussion wherein more women could participate without feeling the weight and/or responsibility to respond regarding the topic of welfare just because that is the topic at hand.
post #107 of 1188
I just found out I can collect unemployment if I let them fire me. If I call in sick for the next two days I could be fired by next week.
If I quit I can't collect unemployment but if for some reason I need my job back I can be considered re-hireable by my company.
Decisions, decisions.
post #108 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
I really like the following: As an autonomous unit, the family exists interdependently with others. I'd like to incorporate this into the definition. Maybe in the following way? --

As an autonomous unit, the family exists interdependently with others. Parents have the primary responsibility for raising children. Raising a child comprises both direct care and financial provision. It means providing direct care and nurturing to meet the child's physical, emotional, mental, social, and spiritual needs, and also providing financially to meet the child's material needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health care.

When we as parents receive help in fulfilling ANY aspect of our parental responsibility, we are getting help with raising our children. This does not mean we are any less as parents, because we receive this help. It is just an example of how a family can be an autonomous unit, and still exist interdependently with others.

So, are you and others thinking it's better to discuss this as a spinoff in another thread, or does it seem to apply to the current thread? I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks.
Oooh, I like that even better!!

We could move it to a spinoff thread.... I'd be interested in seeing what others have to say....

DID - I'd let them fire me. Take the UE, pay off as many bills as you can, and save whatevers left as a cushion for a future rainy day.
post #109 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamsInDigital View Post
I just found out I can collect unemployment if I let them fire me. If I call in sick for the next two days I could be fired by next week.
Ding ding ding. I vote for this option. There are lots of companies out there where you can rejoin the fight for the 23 cents raise.
post #110 of 1188
I know, I laughed when my boss told me how much my raise was. I thought he was kidding.
post #111 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamsInDigital View Post
I just found out I can collect unemployment if I let them fire me. If I call in sick for the next two days I could be fired by next week.
If I quit I can't collect unemployment but if for some reason I need my job back I can be considered re-hireable by my company.
Decisions, decisions.
There was a short time during which we were strapped and dh's job was paying less than he would recieve from employment insurance because he had switched jobs and hoped that it would turn out better, but it didn't, at all! So he requested of his employer that he be laid off. He did not say why, and his employer didn't ask, but he did receive the layoff slip, so he applied for EI and we used that until he resumed his schooling (about 4 months).

Maybe you could just ask to be laid off. You could tell them that you don't think you'll be able to continue doing the job they hired you to do and that there isn't anything else you could do there. They'll ask why. Brevity is your best friend. Just repeat- they might just think you're crazy, but that's okay as long as they lay you off

Here, being fired with cause (without and you'll still be eligible, but you have to prove it or show that you have a reasonable case to a case-worker, and this sometimes requires that a claim be made against your employer)excludes one from EI, so don't be fired if that's the same for you. Also, here, you can receive re-training in myriad fields if you've received EI within the previous 5 years, which if it's the same, you may want to take advantage of later on if your situation changes. I'd prefer EI to social assistance or welfare just because there are more opportunities and less stigma, so if you can and it makes sense for you, try to go that route.
post #112 of 1188
Well, this place is considered a "hostile work environment" so even people who quit or stop showing up to work can collect unemployment.
post #113 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthymama2b View Post
Now - just to stir it a little more - would most of us agree that if a child is - for example - in boarding school for most of the year, and taken care of by nannies when they are at home, and spend MOST of their time with adults other than their parents - those children aren't really being raised BY their parents. True, False, Classist, or just dreadfully insulting?
IMO it's pretty judgmental.

I have some counter examples for you:

1. A very close friend of mine who was sent to boarding school at age ten because that's what families in her country and class did. There were always nannies in her family who did a lot of the labor associated with childrearing. She is now and adult and I think would be horrified at the concept that her parents didn't raise her. She loves them deeply, she vacations with them, she has set up her house so that they can comfortably stay with her three or four months a year if they so desire. Her children adore their grandparents. There is a lot of love in the family.

2. My SIL's father. He was sent to the English countryside during WW2 to escape the Blitz as a child of six and spent from six to adulthood in boarding schools, with all summers and holidays spent with the family. Again, I think he'd be horrified to hear you say that he wasn't raised by his parents. The family is to this day a model of love and devotion.

3. A good friend of mine is the child of Chinese immigrants. When they were struggling, they sent her back to live in Beijing with her grandparents from age two to age seven. She saw them in person maybe ten times that entire time. I didn't even know this about her until several months after we became good friends because to her it's such a nonevent. She moved so that she could be close to her parents, her parents (now retired), were able to fund her college education so she is able to do much better than them, so she cares lovingly for them because she can. She too would be appalled at your analysis that her parents didn't raise her.

Here is the thing, IMO. It is dreadfully difficult from outside the family to be able to discern how the kids are being raised and who is doing it. Maybe you feel confident enough to be able to look at a family and say that. I don't.

I don't know what is going on in any given family. I can't look at a family with a SAHM and know that their kids are kind and generous people automatically. I can't look at parents who use boarding school and assume that they are cold and unfeeling parents. I can't look at a single mama and say, oh, when she was home with her kids, in other words in what you called a 'normal,' healthy family here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by earthymama2b View Post
And I think that in a 'normal', healthy family - having a parent being the primary caregiver the majority of the time lends towards stable, secure, intelligent, and functional children.
that now that she's single, well, ooops, there goes her chance at having stable, secure, intelligent, and functional children. I can't look at a family with two WOHPs and immediately know they prioritize their plasma TV over their kids. I can't look at a father working two jobs so his wife can SAH and know that he doesn't value his time with his kids very much.

Maybe you can. If so you possess more insight into the internal workings of other people's families than I do. But I can't.
post #114 of 1188
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthymama2b View Post
Now - just to stir it a little more - would most of us agree that if a child is - for example - in boarding school for most of the year, and taken care of by nannies when they are at home, and spend MOST of their time with adults other than their parents - those children aren't really being raised BY their parents. True, False, Classist, or just dreadfully insulting?
I think the parents are fulfilling the financial aspect of raising their child -- but handling the direct care and nurturance aspect in a way that would be totally unacceptable to me.

Preggie, I like what you added to the definition, and am off to start the new thread. Hope to see you all there. I'm going to start it in Parenting Issues, under the heading, "How do YOU define "raising a child?"
post #115 of 1188
Thread Starter 
We cross-posted, Azuralea. I see your point about not evaluating the choices of others. When I say the nanny/boarding-school style of parenting would be unacceptable to me -- I'm speaking, of course, from my own frame-of-reference of living in a country that's safe and free, comparatively speaking.
post #116 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
I understand the "raising our own kids" phrase has been quite a hot-button for working mamas. Also, the phrase "paying our own way," used by a previous poster in this thread, is a similar hot-button for those of us who've ever drawn, or are currently drawing, public assistance.

I think we'd all come a lot further -- in our own lives as well as in this discussion -- if we'd admit to ourselves that humans function best as interdependent creatures: there's no such thing as absolute self-sufficiency.
I agree, to be honest, that "raising" could include a broad definition, and I would consider participating in another thread about it (but, to be honest, I fear it would quickly devolve into a thread about how WOHMs aren't raising their kids).

That having been said, I fundamentally do think it behooves us as a society to be more aware of how interdependent we are.

Frankly, I adore my son's daycare, and if they're raising him with me using the broad definition, (not instead of me, which I know some people think daycare does), well, that's fine with me. He's very happy there, we have a large community based on it, and it's a very positive part of our lives.

However, there is big BUT here, which is that the phrase has become a weapon, when used by some people. Not all mamas who use the phrase mean to use it as a weapon, but enough do that it's a phrase I'd tread very carefully with. I didn't use it when I was SAH with my son. Not once did I say "I wanted to raise him myself" because it IS used so often as a weapon, and I do NOT believe WOHMs are not raising their kids, so I didn't even want to appear to endorse that thought.

There are phrases I won't use as a WOHM, either, because rightly or wrongly they're used as insults to SAHMs by a lot of people, and even if I didn't personally mean them as an insult, I wouldn't want to take the risk.
post #117 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
We cross-posted, Azuralea. I see your point about not evaluating the choices of others. When I say the nanny/boarding-school style of parenting would be unacceptable to me -- I'm speaking, of course, from my own frame-of-reference of living in a country that's safe and free, comparatively speaking.
Yes, and from my frame of reference, I agree with you! I'd never, ever send a kid to boarding school. I think my heart would shatter! I know people who have used nannies quite successfully but to me personally I would be pretty uncomfortable with it.

But that doesn't mean that people who do aren't raising their own kids. They may have an entirely different frame of reference, and it doesn't mean it's not a valid one.

I will definitely read the other thread!
post #118 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Sweeties1Angel View Post
We were getting $513/month for a family of four after we both lost our jobs last fall.

Like I said(and you left out), at least in my state. Also were they allowing you and your husband to just stay home, or was at least one of you required to go to work? The misconceptions I am talking about are the ones that say people are just living it up on welfare. I am glad you were able to get that much in fs, I bet you ate well while it was available. I get just $15 more than that for a family of five, and it helps tremendously!!
post #119 of 1188
Ahhhhh.... Boarding schools look like a tempting option on some of my rougher days.... :
post #120 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Okay ... what I read in Preggie's post is that she's not saying working mamas who use daycare aren't raising their children: she's just saying the other caregivers have some part in that, too. Just as dh and I are the ones raising our children -- but I think taxpayer supported programs are also playing a part because they've helped us fulfill part of our financial responsibility, and are still helping us meet our children's medical needs.

I understand the "raising our own kids" phrase has been quite a hot-button for working mamas. Also, the phrase "paying our own way," used by a previous poster in this thread, is a similar hot-button for those of us who've ever drawn, or are currently drawing, public assistance.

I think we'd all come a lot further -- in our own lives as well as in this discussion -- if we'd admit to ourselves that humans function best as interdependent creatures: there's no such thing as absolute self-sufficiency.

For the people who can't admit that, who have to keep persuading themselves and everyone else (and I'm not saying that's you, Azuralea, I'm not hearing that from you at all) that they've never taken a scrap of help from anyone else, that they've always "paid their own way" and "done it all by themselves" -- well, bully for you! I'm not here to persuade you you're not "all that."

I just think if you really are "all that," it won't matter one jot to you if someone else has (or seemingly has) it better or easier.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama
As an autonomous unit, the family exists interdependently with others. Parents have the primary but not necessarily exclusive (Preggie...) responsibility for raising children. Raising a child comprises both direct care and financial provision. It means providing direct care and nurturing to meet the child's physical, emotional, mental, social, and spiritual needs, and also providing financially to meet the child's material needs for food, shelter, clothing, education, and health care.
I like this inclusive definition... it jives with my own take that "raising a child" is exactly that... Raising of a child as in bringing up, to raise above... helping them while they grow and mature. This is all-inclusive; financial provisions secondry to physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and intellectual cultivation and developement; and this definition of raising a child allows for the roles played by others whom are involved in the child's life on a regular basis - teachers, care-givers, grandparents, doctors, etc.

eta: I think, personally, that it's very plausible that one can "raise" one's children, even from a boarding school stand-point. If one were sending their child to a school that directly reflects the value-set that parent is trying to instill, then, in effect, the parent still affects how the child is being "raised", financially and spiritually, for example, BUT may falter a bit in other areas... But it's possible for a parent-child relationship to flourish under even distant circumstances, if the individuals under that set of circumstances are all involved in a mutually agreeable manner, and have healthy attachments as well as understanding of the situationa nad what it entails.... I digress.......
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Stay at Home Parents
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Stay at Home Parents › Staying at Home "On Welfare"