To stay at home with the kids or not. Living hand to mouth

[capsaicin]

I never said anyone was “less Catholic.” Where are you getting that?

Why is it “rhetoric” for me to say that the idea that a mother being away from her child full time takes nothing away from him cannot be true, but it’s not rhetoric for a person to say that the mother being away all day takes nothing away from the child? They are both philisophical ideas with moral content… as in, rhetoric. Funny how it’s only “rhetoric” when it’s an unpopular idea or you disagree with it…

whatevergirl, I am sorry but koit1967 said, “We don’t believe that her returning to work takes anything away from our son.” That cannot possibly be true. It changes the situation in some way. If the mother being gone all day takes nothing away, then that means she never had anything to offer, and we know that is not true.

I am debating the expressed idea. I didn’t insult anyone. I asked if he really believed it as worded, and gave examples that showed its untenability as an idea.

Going from Mom at home to mom at work full time may take less away from a child than I think it does… feel free to try and show me… but it does take something away, doesn’t it?

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

There are a lot of middle ground options. There is waiting until your children school-aged and then working part time while they are at school. There is working part time from home, either in childcare or in a home office setting. There is working one or two days a week at hours when your spouse is home and able to take care of the family.

I’m a big proponent of staying home if you can - this would include considering cheaper housing and cars etc. to be sure it’s possible. But I also think there is value in saving money for your childrens’ education if you can. I wouldn’t choose their college education over being with them when their home or over being able to provide the kind of home life that they deserve, but if they are at school anyway (which assumes you won’t homeschool), and you believe you can handle the additional stress/pressures etc. of employment during those times without sacrificing the kids’ needs, then I say good for you. You may not be able to judge that situation until you’re in it though.

It can be stressful and challenging to work all day while your kids are at school. Keep in mind that at some point, the house still needs to be cleaned, food needs to be cooked, laundry needs to be done, etc. So the trick is then to be able to get those things done without cutting too much into what should be family time in the evening (or whichever hours your family is together). That’s the thing - if you can’t pay the bills, then it’s an easy choice. If its about savings, I’d only do it after I was sure the kids’ emotional needs, and their right to have a significant amount of time with their parents was being met. But I’m sure it can be done in some situations.

My mother worked part time when I was in middle school - she only worked while I was at school, and in the couple of years that she did that, she made enough money to pay for my sister’s state college education. On the other hand, she stopped after a few years, so she must not have felt it was worth it.

 

[whatevergirl]

I never said anyone was “less Catholic.” Where are you getting that?

Why is it “rhetoric” for me to say that the idea that a mother being away from her child full time takes nothing away from him cannot be true, but it’s not rhetoric for a person to say that the mother being away all day takes nothing away from the child? They are both philisophical ideas with moral content… as in, rhetoric. Funny how it’s only “rhetoric” when it’s an unpopular idea or you disagree with it…

whatevergirl, I am sorry but koit1967 said, “We don’t believe that her returning to work takes anything away from our son.” That cannot possibly be true. It changes the situation in some way. If the mother being gone all day takes nothing away, then that means she never had anything to offer, and we know that is not true.

I am debating the expressed idea. I didn’t insult anyone. I asked if he really believed it as worded, and gave examples that showed its untenability as an idea.

Going from Mom at home to mom at work full time may take less away from a child than I think it does… feel free to try and show me… but it does take something away, doesn’t it?

I stayed at home, until my kids were school age, so for us, the example doesn’t apply, but for koit…to him, nothing is being taken away. So, if they feel this way, then they feel this way.

It’s in telling people what they should be thinking or doing with their lives that is wrong with your post. I don’t disagree with you–I am grateful I was able to stay at home when my kids were younger…but, it’s not the case for everyone. And I have known many working moms who raised remarkable human beings…outstanding human beings actually. I have know stay at home moms who have raised outstanding human beings, also. But, I have seen my fair share of SAHM’s and working moms who have had repeated problems with their kids…for whatever the reasons.

I also think that if a family wishes to live on one income, it can mean living in a not so safe neighborhood vs a safer one. There are a myriad of reasons why both parents work these days. I think the* ideal* would be for mom or dad to be home fulltime with the children…but in many cases, they both need to work when the kids are babies…toddlers, etc. It’s just not for me to judge why two parents work when their kids are little, because without knowing them, I have no idea of their circumstances.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Going from Mom at home to mom at work full time may take less away from a child than I think it does… feel free to try and show me… but it does take something away, doesn’t it?

. I think the* ideal* would be for mom or dad to be home fulltime with the children…

**
Whatever girl, why is staying home the “ideal”? To me that implies “better than” being out of the home working. So it looks as though you actually agree with capsaicin**

Looks like you are both saying that having a parent stay home with the children gives some benefits to the child(ren)…only you are both saying it in different styles.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I never said anyone was “less Catholic.” Where are you getting that?

Why is it “rhetoric” for me to say that the idea that a mother being away from her child full time takes nothing away from him cannot be true, but it’s not rhetoric for a person to say that the mother being away all day takes nothing away from the child? They are both philisophical ideas with moral content… as in, rhetoric. Funny how it’s only “rhetoric” when it’s an unpopular idea or you disagree with it…

whatevergirl, I am sorry but koit1967 said, “We don’t believe that her returning to work takes anything away from our son.” That cannot possibly be true. It changes the situation in some way. If the mother being gone all day takes nothing away, then that means she never had anything to offer, and we know that is not true.

I am debating the expressed idea. I didn’t insult anyone. I asked if he really believed it as worded, and gave examples that showed its untenability as an idea.

Going from Mom at home to mom at work full time may take less away from a child than I think it does… feel free to try and show me… but it does take something away, doesn’t it?

Perhaps they think that the time the child spends with his Aunt is valuable? I don’t know and neither do you. Also NFP and total abstinence are the only ways to space or “put off” children. Perhaps NFP failed them, or they misread the chart or whatever. GOD has blessed them with life, despite it being the “best” time.

FWIW, I have 6 children and am a stay at home mom. I did work when the first 2 were little, dh was the stay at home parent at the time. It worked for us. It is a modern middle class construct that mom stays home. It used to be the extended family and community was all together, helping each other, so that work could get done. There is no 1 right way, there are various ways for it to work. I don’t like daycares at all, but having a family member help take care of a child so a parent can work is different, at least in my eyes.

 

[whatevergirl]

**
Whatever girl, why is staying home the “ideal”? To me that implies “better than” being out of the home working. So it looks as though you actually agree with capsaicin**

Looks like you are both saying that having a parent stay home with the children gives some benefits to the child(ren)…only you are both saying it in different styles.

The ideal is to have either the mom or dad home but not all couples can, and I don’t believe that it’s my or anyone’s place to judge what another family is doing …not sure how capsaicin meant it. Again, if a couple is always doing what is in the best interest of their families and children…that’s what matters. Hope that better explains my stance.

 

[whatevergirl]

Perhaps they think that the time the child spends with his Aunt is valuable? I don’t know and neither do you. Also NFP and total abstinence are the only ways to space or “put off” children. Perhaps NFP failed them, or they misread the chart or whatever. GOD has blessed them with life, despite it being the “best” time.

FWIW, I have 6 children and am a stay at home mom. I did work when the first 2 were little, dh was the stay at home parent at the time. It worked for us. It is a modern middle class construct that mom stays home. It used to be the extended family and community was all together, helping each other, so that work could get done. There is no 1 right way, there are various ways for it to work. I don’t like daycares at all, but having a family member help take care of a child so a parent can work is different, at least in my eyes.

Great post.

 

[Joannm]

There are a lot of middle ground options. There is waiting until your children school-aged and then working part time while they are at school. There is working part time from home, either in childcare or in a home office setting. There is working one or two days a week at hours when your spouse is home and able to take care of the family.

I’m a big proponent of staying home if you can - this would include considering cheaper housing and cars etc. to be sure it’s possible. But I also think there is value in saving money for your childrens’ education if you can. I wouldn’t choose their college education over being with them when their home or over being able to provide the kind of home life that they deserve, but if they are at school anyway (which assumes you won’t homeschool), and you believe you can handle the additional stress/pressures etc. of employment during those times without sacrificing the kids’ needs, then I say good for you. You may not be able to judge that situation until you’re in it though.

It can be stressful and challenging to work all day while your kids are at school. Keep in mind that at some point, the house still needs to be cleaned, food needs to be cooked, laundry needs to be done, etc. So the trick is then to be able to get those things done without cutting too much into what should be family time in the evening (or whichever hours your family is together). That’s the thing - if you can’t pay the bills, then it’s an easy choice. If its about savings, I’d only do it after I was sure the kids’ emotional needs, and their right to have a significant amount of time with their parents was being met. But I’m sure it can be done in some situations.

My mother worked part time when I was in middle school - she only worked while I was at school, and in the couple of years that she did that, she made enough money to pay for my sister’s state college education. On the other hand, she stopped after a few years, so she must not have felt it was worth it.

I started working part time as an art teacher when my last child started pre-K. Since the school I taught at was one mile from my children’s school I was able to drop them off and pick them up and even serve as lunch mother and other class volunteer work. Since I worked in a Catholic school and they attended another Catholic school we all had the same days off. As they got older I took on more hours and by the time my youngest started HS I went full time and eventally gave up my teaching job for full time parish work. I was also able to work on earning two Master degrees while my children were still young and was able to make good on that education when I started to work full time. I was still able to attend almost every game, dance practices, take them to music lessons and fix a home cooked meal every night. So it is possible to work and raise a family. I only had to resort to sitters on occasion.

 

[udoc89]

**In my opinion? Staying home. I personally don’t believe that our kids are owed an all expense paid education. There are many ways to get through school…it’s great if mom and dad can pay (or at least help) but many many people don’t have that luxury and do just fine.

I would rather focus on what I believe to be important to my kid(s) now… a parent who is home with them. If both parents have to work to pay the bills then they do what they have to. But I would never choose to not be home with my child(ren) just to pay for some future expense that they may or may not need.

For the record we have one child and I stay home. We live paycheck to paycheck and there will be no “education savings
account”. We provide the necessities as well as some extras. But most of all my little girl has me home with her, and to me, that’s the most important thing.**

This is a beautiful post, and I wholeheartedly agree!

 

[Just_wondering]

I know I would like to stay home with my kids, at least before they’re school age. On the other hand, I’m the one with enough education to realistically find a job to make ends meet. (We’re not married yet.) My boyfriend and I are considering a variety of options.

I like the idea of sharing childcare (i.e. taking turns looking after the kids) with the children’s aunt. If we lived close to one of my boyfriend’s sisters, we could both improve our quality of life by arranging work schedules that allow us to know that the children are with family while we’re at work. I know that my boyfriend’s sisters have similar values to him - Catholic, pro-life, strong work ethic, grateful for the gifts given to us in life - and I would be pleased to have someone like that helping to raise my children. I wouldn’t want them to have my children all the time - I want to be there with my kids too - but I would be happy to work two or three days a week to support a better lifestyle for my family, knowing my children were in the capable hands of my sister-in-law. I also think it would be good for my kids to spend time with their cousins. When my sister-in-law needs to go out and work, I would be happy to look after her children as well. That’s the way family has worked for generations, and I don’t see it as a bad thing.

So that’s the perspective of another woman who’s not married yet and (obviously) has no kids yet. Of course, I have to be flexible and realize that it might not work out that way, but since my boyfriend and I have ten siblings between us, I figure we’ve got odds in our favour.

 

[maria29]

I hate these threads because I think they turn into pitting moms/families against each when in reality we should be supporting each other.

We live hand to mouth with both of us working.If I quit my job we be short thousands of dollars a month. Considering that our babysitter only costs us 250 a month we’re not spending much on daycare. We are not saving for college at all and the only reason our child(ren) will be able to go to school for free is because my dh works for one.

I find it sad that some feel that a couple shouldn’t have a child unless a parent can stay home with her and thus leading to “shortchanging him/her”. I would never put my child in danger by moving to a unsafe neighborhood just so I could stay home. I don’t understand how that makes a wonderful parent? Let’s move to a gun ridden neigborhood where there are children who are shot every day because they happen to be playing outside, but on the up side you’ve got mom home with you?

I think its great that there are many moms that can afford to stay home. But I wish that SAHM would give moms who work outside of the home the same respect that SAHM mom’s want and say that society doesn’t give them.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

I hate these threads because I think they turn into pitting moms/families against each when in reality we should be supporting each other.

I just reread the entire thread and have to say that it has mostly stayed right on topic (should both parents work to provide a future education or should one stay home?)

I think its great that there are many moms that can afford to stay home. But I wish that SAHM would give moms who work outside of the home the same respect that SAHM mom’s want and say that society doesn’t give them.

You may be oversensitive to the issue because this thread really has not (yet) been bashing working moms.

 

[maria29]

You may be oversensitive to the issue because this thread really has not (yet) been bashing working moms.

This is the post I was talking about. So its better to not ever have children because one parent can’t stay home with them than to have children and be open to a new life?

Really? Also, I think putting a baby in daycare to pay off debt shows irresponsibility. If one cannot afford to have a child because of debt, then one should put off having the child until the debt is paid off. This is not to say anyone in debt should not have a child. But people should evaluate their finances and figure out whether they can provide for a childs needs and pay their debts, and if they cannot, they should not have the child and then use the excuse of debt to shortchange him out of having his own parents care for him full time, at least for his infancy.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

This is the post I was talking about. So its better to not ever have children because one parent can’t stay home with them than to have children and be open to a new life?

**
It was one post and other posters disagreed and got things back on topic. You have seen the threads that totally disintegrate into bashing ALL working moms… just pointing out that, so far, this isn’t one of them.**

 

[leonie]

Living hand to mouth is a very scarey way to live. It’s better to live below your means and have a little put away for emergencies.

I would work to pay for healthcare, to meet basic expenses, to provide money to live in a safe neighborhood.

I would not work to save money for my kids’ college. I’m not convinced that college is necessary to have a good income.

Plus, the most important thing to me is that my kids are well formed in their faith and their morals. I want to be the one doing the formation.

So far, I’ve been able to stay home. I worked briefly with my first child.

Just as you have been formed by your experiences growing up, so have I. My mom went back to school and work when I was in third grade. Prior to that she did other things though–babysitting, pt jobs when we were at school. After she went to school, she was pretty much an absentee mom–between classes, work, and studying.

While we still didn’t have lots of material possessions or family vacations, we kids had our college educations paid. We also were given cars to drive (not to own) and not required to work as teens.

I don’t like the results. I am the only practicing Catholic among my 3 sibs–and I spent several years outside the Church. I think it hurt us as adults to not have to work for our stuff and our education. Mom and Dad caught us in their safety net for every misstep and missdeed. In fact, they are still partially supporting my 40 year old brother. Last year, they cut off the financial support to my sister, and she disowned us all. We have no idea where she and my nephews are.

I know that my sibs. have their own personality problems, but I think we would have been better armed to face the world if mom would have continued to be a SAHM instead of working.

It’s funny though, the pop. wisdom is that you should SAHM it until kids go to school, then you are free to work. But, mom followed this model, and our family still disintegrated to a large degree. I think if at all possible, mom should strive to work as little as possible.

My grandma, however, always worked in some fashion, but usually she was able to fit it into her family life–working with my grandpa or babysitting.

 

[Just_wondering]

I think if at all possible, mom should strive to work as little as possible.

That’s awesome! :yup: :clapping:

I’m going to let my boyfriend know that this will be my philosophy in life!