Disagreement about third child

toto wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:43:39 GMT, Rosalie B.
wrote:

Nor, IMHO does the SAH person. Whether or not I have *more* autonomy than
someone else depends largely on what they do.

Autonomy means that you CAN set your own goals. The SAH person (which
I was for 20 years BTW) HAS that. I could feel depressed and go to
bed for a week and not do anything other than change diapers and bf my
child if I was so inclined. (And I used to do that when my husband
with out with the ship.)

You could not do that with a child older than a young infant or with
more than one child to care for, I imagine.

It was harder, and I had to do a little more. But OTOH, I didn't get
as depressed when the kids were older.

It is true that some WOH people have a large degree of freedom, and
some do not just as some have a long stressful commute and some do
not.

This is true. Teachers have less freedom than most professional jobs,
imo.

When I worked for IBM many years ago, I had a great deal of freedom
about somethings and not much freedom about other things.

grandma Rosalie

On 24 Apr 2005 06:32:16 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , Barbara Bomberger
says...

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:48:15 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

Banty wrote:


It *IS* your personal life what you are doing in the caretaking and homekeeping.
You *can* define the scope of the role and set your priorities. You *do* get to
do the work with and about people you love. It *is* different from employment.
Employment is that portion of the household energies and talents which are given
to the outside world in trade for monetary resources to keep the household
going. It's time and energy and bodily presence sold for the sake of the
household. There is something essentially different between that and the chores
of caretaking and homekeeping for one's own.

While I agree with much of what you say, I disagree with this.

First, many stay at home spouses (espcially in the early years) emd up
saving eving more than they were probably making. This is especially
true when one has multiple young children. I personally easily cut
more from my family's budget than I was making after taxes and child
care and transportation expenses. And this was done without a whole
lot of effort.

Well, that's that opportunity cost and 'what if we hired it out' cost, and all
it really means is that to get your family to run itself and be happy overall,
you don't need to hire it out. That's all. If you sing in the shower, you
don't count the cost of hiring an opera singer to serenade you as savings. Even
a bad one :-)

Well no, but then again, If I have three kids under six in the home
and I die, heck not even die, but am seriously ill and husband or
insurance has to hire someone to do all the things I do......how much
would that cost exactly.

I at one time looked into starting a hire a wife kind of business -
believe me it would not have been cheap.


THe problem people have with what I'm saying is that people want to put $$$$ on
their efforts because it's a way to try to quantify some value. But that's not
essential - it's a hangup many have in our society, who define everyting
according to finances.

And here I agree. We have certainly not defined it that way. We have
defined it as a partnership. He has certian duties or
responsbilities, as to I, allwith the same end goal.

I tend to think (and I should probably run and duck here_ that the
people who fee the need to quantify the most are either 1.having the
kind of issue bizby describes or 2. Had a career path prior to having
kids.

In my case, I never had that, and never will in that sense now that
i'm post kids, so I dont need to compare to the outside world, for
lack of a better phrase. I was one of those people who spent all her
time traveling and working a million and one different but interesting
jobs before marriage and kids. I still havent found one thing I want
to do with the rest of my life...



Barb

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 13:19:12 -0500, toto
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 01:20:00 -0400, "bizby40"
wrote:

I am sometimes handed last minute assignments --
such as when my husband let me know on the morning of a very busy day that
he was absolutely out of deodorant, and I really needed to get it for him
that day.

He couldn't pick that up on the way to or from work?

There are 24 hour pharmacies that carry these things, so I don't see
that you needed to get this for him.

That would be my first suggestion, but It doesnt sound like it works
in this case.

In the second case, I would buy three deoderants and put a star on the
last one so you would know it was the last

(I am big on having multiple sof everything so I have to shop only
once a few months for each item. mY goal is a year)

"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 12:03:20 -0400, "bizby40"
wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
. ..
"bizby40" wrote:
I don't see that as much different from my husband's work in this way.
He
may get a design document to review by Thursday, but he can choose when
between now and Thursday to do it, even to bringing it home if he
wants/needs to. He also has meetings to attend at particular times.
And
he
has "this must be done today!" tasks. Really, the percentage of your
time
that you must do exactly what you are told, and the percentage that you
are
free to choose what would best help your company varies greatly from job
to
job.

The difference is that he is given the job to do, and you give
yourself the job to do. And if he didn't have the document reviewed
by Thursday without a good excuse (like he was in the hospital) would
there not be some consequences?

I still think you are manufacturing the distinction. He chose to work at
his job. Once he chose it, there were certain responsibilities that came
along with it. If he were to fail to meet those responsibilities, then
someone else would do them. He could, in fact, choose to do his job
poorly.
And though he might get fired, he also might not. There are many people
who
keep their jobs for years and years despite doing them quite poorly.

I chose my job as well. It comes with certain responsibilities. Yes, I
could choose to do it poorly, and likely other people (mostly DH) would
pick
up the slack. And though it might be less likely for me to get fired,
it's
not impossible -- I do, after all, depend on DH for my livelihood, and he
could divorce me if he was truly unhappy with my performance.

But lets be fair here. Does DH have the option to say, take your job??

B

In our case, as it seems to be in the majority of cases, that didn't make
sense. Not only was he making substantially more money than I was, he also
enjoyed his job much more than I did. That said, I was making decent money,
and had he been truly unhappy with his job and/or yearning to take a hands
on role with the kids, then yes, he could have taken my job.

If he were to decide today that he wanted to be a SAHP, it would be more
difficult. I've been out of the work force for 5 years. It would be
difficult to start back up, and we'd have to tighten our budget
considerably. But if he wanted to (and I really just can't imagine that),
it would be possible, and I would be willing.

Bizby

In article , Barbara Bomberger
says...

On 24 Apr 2005 06:22:14 -0700, Banty wrote:


Well, OK if you stretch it, but then that means everyone with kids who also is
employed has two careers.

Absolutely. My husband is a parent (albeit parttime) as well as a
business person. Becoming a business person did not negate his part
time parenting job,it just added to it.

Well, it *is* one way of looking at it. I just don't think it's the most
essential way of looking at it.

Banty

In article , Rosalie B. says...


Moreover the stresses on parents not to 'screw up' the child are the
same if both parents WOH or WAH. And these are stresses that are
associated with having children and meeting family goals - they don't
take a vacation. That proves my point that the family goals are
separate from the 'vacation validation'.

Right. One thing that IMO is screwy about the work vs. home career thing. All
parents have this stressor. It's their personal life.

Just like stressors over falling in love and having it returned, or not
returned. Big life impact. We don't go putting dollars on it or granting
points for love-career success or failure. It's simply one's personal life.

Banty

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Rosalie B. wrote:

Well I did say MAY be under less stress. There are all kinds of
factors that add to stress, like having twins, having a child sick in
the hospital, etc. But the SAH person does not have the stress of
earning a living with all that goes into that - possibility of losing
job, bad boss, horrible commute, stupid paperwork, hostile co-workers,
possibility of exposure to danger or health hazards - whatever the
stress factors for that particular job are.

I disagree. Even without extenuating circumstances,
there can be a lot of stresses in the home. What's more
important to most people? Having a happy boss or having a
happy child? Screw up your job and odds are you can get
another one. Screw up your child and it's a *life*. For

I think this is a recent and not very good development. There are all
kinds of horrible things that happen to children and they still turn
out OK and even excel.

I agree. The Perfect Parenting culture that we have has, imo,
elevated the stress and "work" factor for SAHPs. Good parenting
matters. Still, every small decision does not require excessive
hand-wringing, lest one's child might fall over the edge.

Happiness matters. Having a roof over one's head, however,
is probably a prerequisite to happiness.

When I earned the bills, I did not have the keeping-a-job
stress hanging over my head. Maybe all those here have been
lucky enough to avoid that as well. But many live with it
daily, and I can only imagine the weight of it.

IMHO, parents today make too much of a meal of possibly screwing up a
child's life.

I think about that when considering schooling too. I, like many,
have been taught by about 100 school teachers throughout my life.
And yet, also like many, I can only remember a dozen or so as
being at all significant. Point: It's amazing how much mediocrity,
and worse, nearly everyone goes through in life and still turn out well.
(Not that I would seek out mediocrity in such areas, but some
degree of it is inevitable.)


P. Tierney

Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I disagree. Even without extenuating circumstances,
there can be a lot of stresses in the home. What's more
important to most people? Having a happy boss or having a
happy child? Screw up your job and odds are you can get
another one. Screw up your child and it's a *life*. For


I think this is a recent and not very good development. There are all
kinds of horrible things that happen to children and they still turn
out OK and even excel.

Taking it to extremes may or may not be a recent
development, but you do not have to take it to extremes to
be stressed out by the effort of trying to do right by your
family. Women have been stressed by that sort of thing from
time immemorial, to varying degrees depending upon the person
and the circumstances. It's not like 50 years ago all the
stay at home moms were happy and carefree all the time.
There simply is no inherent difference in my mind
between the stressfulness of WOH and SAH. You work outside
the home and there are stresses--and some people take those
to extreme. You decide to parent/keep home full time and
there are stresses--which some people take to extremes.
Few people get by without any stress. Some manage what
stress they have well and some don't. Some people are
great at what they do, enjoy doing it, achieve great
results fairly consistently, have all the resources they
need to do what's necessary, and have pretty low stress
levels--home or at work. Some people have too few resources,
limited skills relevant to the needs, hate what they're
doing, seem to have more than their fair share of poor
outcomes, and are stressed to the max--at home or at
work. And everything in between.

every on-the-job stressor, there's an only-at-home stressor.
I don't think that *anyone* who takes *any* job (at home, or
away from home) seriously is immune from feeling pressure
to do the right thing, both for the intrinsic sake of having
done the right thing and for fear of negative consequences
if you screw up. I'm not trying to paint staying at home

I think a fear of negative consequences really just means that the
parent is taking things FAR too seriously. It's more apt to occur IME
with first time parents.

Would you say that a fear of negative consequences at
work just means that the employee is taking things FAR too
seriously? If not, why not? I certainly see that as often
as I see over the top parenting.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I disagree. Even without extenuating circumstances,
there can be a lot of stresses in the home. What's more
important to most people? Having a happy boss or having a
happy child? Screw up your job and odds are you can get
another one. Screw up your child and it's a *life*. For


I think this is a recent and not very good development. There are all
kinds of horrible things that happen to children and they still turn
out OK and even excel.

Taking it to extremes may or may not be a recent
development, but you do not have to take it to extremes to
be stressed out by the effort of trying to do right by your
family. Women have been stressed by that sort of thing from
time immemorial, to varying degrees depending upon the person

That's true, but it doesn't mean that it is right.

and the circumstances. It's not like 50 years ago all the
stay at home moms were happy and carefree all the time.
There simply is no inherent difference in my mind
between the stressfulness of WOH and SAH. You work outside
the home and there are stresses--and some people take those
to extreme. You decide to parent/keep home full time and
there are stresses--which some people take to extremes.
Few people get by without any stress. Some manage what
stress they have well and some don't. Some people are
great at what they do, enjoy doing it, achieve great
results fairly consistently, have all the resources they
need to do what's necessary, and have pretty low stress
levels--home or at work. Some people have too few resources,
limited skills relevant to the needs, hate what they're
doing, seem to have more than their fair share of poor
outcomes, and are stressed to the max--at home or at
work. And everything in between.

every on-the-job stressor, there's an only-at-home stressor.
I don't think that *anyone* who takes *any* job (at home, or
away from home) seriously is immune from feeling pressure
to do the right thing, both for the intrinsic sake of having
done the right thing and for fear of negative consequences
if you screw up. I'm not trying to paint staying at home

I think a fear of negative consequences really just means that the
parent is taking things FAR too seriously. It's more apt to occur IME
with first time parents.

Would you say that a fear of negative consequences at
work just means that the employee is taking things FAR too
seriously? If not, why not? I certainly see that as often
as I see over the top parenting.

I have seen the opposite more. That is the employee doesn't take the
possibility of negative consequences seriously enough. However, I've
mostly worked in government jobs where it is somewhat difficult to
fire someone.

Usually the employee does have some training in the job he is doing.
Parenting is often done as OTJ training, and with little mentoring.
Plus there's no testing to get into the parenting job - almost anyone
can get that job regardless of suitability for it.

DH was military, and the rules are quite clear-cut there for the most
part. An order is given, and should be obeyed. Consequences ensue if
it is not.

Most of the malfeasance I've seen in the workplace has been with
people having affairs, or cheating on their expense accounts and it
may not have any relation whatsoever to how good they are at their
job.

grandma Rosalie

"bizby40" wrote:

"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
.. .

But lets be fair here. Does DH have the option to say, take your job??

In our case, as it seems to be in the majority of cases, that didn't make
sense. Not only was he making substantially more money than I was, he also
enjoyed his job much more than I did. That said, I was making decent money,
and had he been truly unhappy with his job and/or yearning to take a hands
on role with the kids, then yes, he could have taken my job.

If he were to decide today that he wanted to be a SAHP, it would be more
difficult. I've been out of the work force for 5 years. It would be
difficult to start back up, and we'd have to tighten our budget
considerably. But if he wanted to (and I really just can't imagine that),
it would be possible, and I would be willing.

One of the things that I asked my dh before we were married was
whether he had any objection to my working. He said that he would be
OK with it as long as I wasn't doing it just for the money. I've had
a large variety of jobs, many of which have little or no relation to
the others. We got married in 1959.

I was a SAHM for most of the first 20 years and he was a Navy pilot.
I did have some temp jobs during that time (substitute teaching,
proofreading a medical atlas, and coaching swimming). Then I went
back to college and got teaching credentials. He retired, and also
got his teaching credentials and we were both teaching. We both got
advanced professional certificates and had tenure.

He injured his shoulder and had to stop teaching (he couldn't even
unlock the classroom door because that took two hands). He got a job
that he loved with the local college selling computers, but on
commission with a very low salary. Then I had medical problems and
had to give up my teaching job, so he took an engineering job which
paid MUCH better in a firm that was technical consultant to the
military (a beltway bandit).

He hated the job although he was making really good money, so when I
got back on my feet, I got a job as an Industrial Hygienist with the
state OSHA. I had to start over again at the bottom making about half
what I was making as a teacher. For the first year I had to be in
Baltimore during the week for training, and he was taking care of the
two children that were still at home. It took me 5 or 6 years, but I
finally got certified as an Industrial Hygienist through home study
and taking advantage of work training.

When it got so I was making enough salary, he quit his job. and
re-retired. He went back to teaching for two years when dd#3 was in
college so we could pay her tuition, and then quit again. (He could
teach math, general science, physics and chemistry, so he could more
or less get a job teaching any time.)

He got bored of being at home - so he got a job in Baltimore with the
state EPA. We both retired in 1999-2000. He had worked for about 35
years, and I worked for 20.


grandma Rosalie