Disagreement about third child

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Circe wrote:

Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that I think the family *is* the
basic
economic unit. The idea that what a SAH spouse contributes to the family
is
in any essential way different from what the wage-earning spouse
contributes
troubles me. I think both partners are making an equal contribution to
the
functioning of the economic unit. The fact that there are personal and
emotional concerns as well doesn't change that as far as I'm concerned.

I would agree. The life of a family is enabled by all the
individuals' input in a multitude of areas--whether it shows up as a
line item on the bank statement or not. It's an interdependent system.

I agree. Likely everyone does. I still disagree on some of the
finer points that have been brought up. But that everyone enables the
life of the family certainly isn't in dispute.


P. Tierney

In article ,
Banty wrote:

I don't think this homemaking=job thing works on several levels including
emotional ('cept for folks who are really mercenary).

I think this is a hangup over a word.

I think I mentioned before that DH was in a conversation with another
father of twins who was complaining that now that his wife was home full
time, she should be able to keep the house clean and have a hot meal on
the table for him when he came home at the end of a hard day. (Twins
were still babies.) DH's response: "I figure if all the kids are alive
at the end of the day, DW has done her job."

So, at least from his point of view, my "job" was primarily taking care
of the kids.

We talk about many household tasks using the word "job" -- "Whose job is
it to mow the lawn this week?" We used the word "job" in assigning
household chores with our kids, too.

It's just a word, and many people use it to describe doing tasks that
receive no direct compensation.

For a time in THIS household, I had a job that brought in income, while
DH's job was going to school to finish his degree. We both viewed that
as his job. So when he was bringing in the income and I was home full
time, it was entirely consistant to refer to what *I* was doing at home
as *my* job. Both jobs contribute to the household, both have pluses
and minuses, both have good days and bad days, both can be enormously
satisfying -- and we BOTH needed occassional vacations/breaks from our
jobs.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


SAHPs of babies and toddlers have the least autonomy of
anyone I know, in the workplace or out (perhaps barring certain
kinds of jobs).


I think I had less autonomy about schedules when my kids were around 9
until they were around 16. For a while, I was living with 4 teens, and
the amount of time I spent driving to rehearsals, school, therapists,
doctors, and other miscellaneous events whose timing was not entirely
within my control was downright staggering! There were individual days
when I might spend as much as six hours in the car (some of that was
waiting for one of the kids to get done with an appointment -- and I
could read a book or do a crossword puzzle -- but it was still time that
I was stuck on someone else's schedule.)

;-) I don't have four teens (and won't!). It's pretty
busy with two school aged kids and a toddler, but I was discounting
the school-aged kids activities because they are optional for the
most part. In other words, they had to get my agreement to do them,
and I could have said no without doing horrible and irreparable
damage to them ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka


Yes and no.

Some activities are not optional: school, doctor's appointments, etc.
In my case, I also didn't consider the therapist appointments optional,
nor the driving to 12-step meetings. (The girl I was fostering is an
addict/alcoholic; she's now been clean and sober for 4 years, but got
that way living here -- and that LAST thing you want to say to a 17 yo
working on sobriety is, "No, I WON'T drive you to an AA meeting.)

I also didn't consider church-related events entirely "optional".

The "optional" things were mostly (in our case) theater, and I think
it's pretty important for young people to be involved in some sort of
extra-curricular activities.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.3b1 (PPC Mac OS X)
Message-ID:
Lines: 36
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.125.88.199
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com 1114446411 ST000 67.125.88.199 (Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:26:51 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:26:51 EDT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: S[OIR\GDZJSURSH]^JKBOW@@YJ_ZTB\MV@B@LWQHBATBTSUBYFWEAE[YJLYPIWKHTFCMZKVMB^[Z^DOBRVVMOSPFHNSYXVDIE@X\BUC@GTSX@DL^GKFFHQCCE\G[JJBMYDYIJCZM@AY]GNGPJD]YNNW\GSX^GSCKHA[]@CCB\[@LATPD\L@J\\PF]VR[QPJN
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:26:51 GMT
Path: vm.sas.com!foggy!attws1!ip.att.net!news101.his.com !news.lightlink.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net !newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsmst01a .news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster
Xref: foggy misc.kids:607848

In article ,
Banty wrote:

I don't think this homemaking=job thing works on several levels including
emotional ('cept for folks who are really mercenary).

I think this is a hangup over a word.

I think I mentioned before that DH was in a conversation with another
father of twins who was complaining that now that his wife was home full
time, she should be able to keep the house clean and have a hot meal on
the table for him when he came home at the end of a hard day. (Twins
were still babies.) DH's response: "I figure if all the kids are alive
at the end of the day, DW has done her job."

So, at least from his point of view, my "job" was primarily taking care
of the kids.

We talk about many household tasks using the word "job" -- "Whose job is
it to mow the lawn this week?" We used the word "job" in assigning
household chores with our kids, too.

It's just a word, and many people use it to describe doing tasks that
receive no direct compensation.

For a time in THIS household, I had a job that brought in income, while
DH's job was going to school to finish his degree. We both viewed that
as his job. So when he was bringing in the income and I was home full
time, it was entirely consistant to refer to what *I* was doing at home
as *my* job. Both jobs contribute to the household, both have pluses
and minuses, both have good days and bad days, both can be enormously
satisfying -- and we BOTH needed occassional vacations/breaks from our
jobs.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:Tu8be.18933$NU4.12921@attbi_s22...
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Circe wrote:
Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that I think the family *is* the
basic economic unit. The idea that what a SAH spouse contributes
to the family is in any essential way different from what the
wage-earning spouse contributes troubles me. I think both
partners are making an equal contribution to the functioning
of the economic unit. The fact that there are personal and
emotional concerns as well doesn't change that as far as I'm concerned.

I would agree. The life of a family is enabled by all the
individuals' input in a multitude of areas--whether it shows up as a
line item on the bank statement or not. It's an interdependent system.

I agree. Likely everyone does. I still disagree on some of the
finer points that have been brought up. But that everyone enables the
life of the family certainly isn't in dispute.

What seems to be in dispute is how to place *value* on the contributions of
the non-wage-earning spouse. The problem is that for most people in modern
culture, value=money. Since money comes (generally) from work, that equation
leads to work=money which in turn leads to SAHparentingwork.

In my mind, SAHparenting is work because it's a contribution to the overall
functioning of the family that has intrinsic value/worth. The degree of
autonomy one has in how one does it, whether one finds it more or less
difficult or stressful than the wage-earning spouse finds his/her job, and
the degree to which the tasks could be hired out are all irrelevant, as far
as I'm concerned.

As I've already said, I WAH and have a nanny/housekeeper. I hire out a lot
of the essential *tasks* of parenting for a significant chunk of the day. I
enjoy my work and don't find what I do particularly stressful. I have a lot
of autonomy in my job when it comes to determining what projects I'll work
on, setting deadlines for deliverables, and deciding what my hours will be.
By contrast, when I'm on SAH parent duty, I am at the mercy of the school
schedule and my husband's work schedule when it comes to deciding what
projects, when I'll be doing them, and when they'll be due.The SAH parent
stuff is, for me, a lot more stressful and in many ways more difficult than
the job stuff, although that's not to say I'd hire it all out, even if I
could.

The point I'm trying to make here is that no one would say that my
wage-earning job isn't work because I like it, have a lot of autonomy, and
don't find it particularly stressful, but plenty of people seem perfectly
happy to qualify SAHparenting as not work. When asked to explain why they
think so, they come up with lots of explanations for why it's not work that
could just as easily apply to something that *would* qualify as work. So
what it all seems to come down to in the end, as far as I can tell, is that
people feel that SAHparenting isn't work because it doesn't earn money, even
though on every other characteristic we have so far come up with for
determining what constitutes "work", being a SAHP can be just as insert
characteristic here as a paying job and a paying job can be less insert
characteristic here than being a SAHP. Everything "depends".

And given that every other measure we have so far come up for determining
what's workd depends on the circumstances, I don't see why we can't all
agree that SAHparenting *is* a job, it *is* work, and it *does* have
economic value.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Mr. Congeniality (7), the Diva (5) and the Race Car Fanatic (3)

I have PMS and ESP...I'm the bitch who knows everything! (T-shirt slogan)

"Circe" wrote in message
news:cY7be.18229$%c1.5661@fed1read05...

Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that I think the family *is* the basic
economic unit. The idea that what a SAH spouse contributes to the family
is
in any essential way different from what the wage-earning spouse
contributes
troubles me. I think both partners are making an equal contribution to the
functioning of the economic unit.

I think that both partners are making a contribution. In most homes,
however, I wouldn't get hung up on the word "equal". It's obvious that
some aren't, but that's okay. It doesn't have to be 50/50.


P. Tierney

"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:J99be.18979$NU4.16691@attbi_s22...
"Circe" wrote in message
news:cY7be.18229$%c1.5661@fed1read05...
Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that I think the family *is* the
basic
economic unit. The idea that what a SAH spouse contributes to the family
is
in any essential way different from what the wage-earning spouse
contributes
troubles me. I think both partners are making an equal contribution to
the
functioning of the economic unit.

I think that both partners are making a contribution. In most homes,
however, I wouldn't get hung up on the word "equal". It's obvious that
some aren't, but that's okay. It doesn't have to be 50/50.

I am using equal in the sense that I mean both partners should value each
other's contribution equally. When one partner feels that what he or she is
doing has more intrinsic worth than what the other is doing, the partnership
is no longer a partnership in the mind of at least one of the parties, and
it's likely to be headed for trouble.

I look at what my husband does and nearly always think he gives 110% to this
family in everything he does. For the most part, I think he thinks *I* give
110%. On the days when either one of us starts to feel that the other isn't
pulling his/her weight and there's not a good reason for that (illness,
exhaustion, etc.), we tend to argue. Fortunately, the ship usually rights
itself pretty quickly, but if we were always in a situation where my husband
felt that his contribution to the family was more valuable than mine,
there'd be BIG problems in our relationship.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Mr. Congeniality (7), the Diva (5) and the Race Car Fanatic (3)

I have PMS and ESP...I'm the bitch who knows everything! (T-shirt slogan)

P. Tierney wrote:


I think that both partners are making a contribution. In most homes,
however, I wouldn't get hung up on the word "equal". It's obvious that
some aren't, but that's okay. It doesn't have to be 50/50.

I'd agree that on any particular dimension the contribution
may not be 50/50 (probably won't be, in fact). I submit, however,
that there's a problem if *on the whole* (that is, taking all
dimensions into account, not just economic issues) one partner is
putting consistently and significantly less than 50 percent into the
Grand Unified Family Utility Function ;-) Not that I would recommend
bean counting to ensure that, but I think people pretty much know when
someone isn't putting out fair effort, and I don't think it's
particularly conducive to a strong marriage or a respectful
relationship.

Best wishes,
Ericka

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.3b1 (PPC Mac OS X)
Message-ID:
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.125.88.199
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com 1114447084 ST000 67.125.88.199 (Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:38:04 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:38:04 EDT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: S[OIR\GDZJSURSH]^JKBOW@@YJ_ZTB\MV@B@LWQHBATBTSUBYFWEAE[YJLYPIWKHTFCMZKVMB^[Z^DOBRVVMOSPFHNSYXVDIE@X\BUC@GTSX@DL^GKFFHQCCE\G[JJBMYDYIJCZM@AY]GNGPJD]YNNW\GSX^GSCKHA[]@CCB\[@LATPD\L@J\\PF]VR[QPJN
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:38:04 GMT
Path: vm.sas.com!foggy!attws1!ip.att.net!news101.his.com !nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!ne wscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.ne ws.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy .com!newssvr13.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!409eb
Xref: foggy misc.kids:607854

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


SAHPs of babies and toddlers have the least autonomy of
anyone I know, in the workplace or out (perhaps barring certain
kinds of jobs).


I think I had less autonomy about schedules when my kids were around 9
until they were around 16. For a while, I was living with 4 teens, and
the amount of time I spent driving to rehearsals, school, therapists,
doctors, and other miscellaneous events whose timing was not entirely
within my control was downright staggering! There were individual days
when I might spend as much as six hours in the car (some of that was
waiting for one of the kids to get done with an appointment -- and I
could read a book or do a crossword puzzle -- but it was still time that
I was stuck on someone else's schedule.)

;-) I don't have four teens (and won't!). It's pretty
busy with two school aged kids and a toddler, but I was discounting
the school-aged kids activities because they are optional for the
most part. In other words, they had to get my agreement to do them,
and I could have said no without doing horrible and irreparable
damage to them ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka


Yes and no.

Some activities are not optional: school, doctor's appointments, etc.
In my case, I also didn't consider the therapist appointments optional,
nor the driving to 12-step meetings. (The girl I was fostering is an
addict/alcoholic; she's now been clean and sober for 4 years, but got
that way living here -- and that LAST thing you want to say to a 17 yo
working on sobriety is, "No, I WON'T drive you to an AA meeting.)

I also didn't consider church-related events entirely "optional".

The "optional" things were mostly (in our case) theater, and I think
it's pretty important for young people to be involved in some sort of
extra-curricular activities.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"Circe" wrote in message
news:bf9be.18240$%c1.9989@fed1read05...
"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:J99be.18979$NU4.16691@attbi_s22...
"Circe" wrote in message
news:cY7be.18229$%c1.5661@fed1read05...
Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that I think the family *is* the
basic
economic unit. The idea that what a SAH spouse contributes to the
family
is
in any essential way different from what the wage-earning spouse
contributes
troubles me. I think both partners are making an equal contribution to
the
functioning of the economic unit.

I think that both partners are making a contribution. In most homes,
however, I wouldn't get hung up on the word "equal". It's obvious that
some aren't, but that's okay. It doesn't have to be 50/50.

I am using equal in the sense that I mean both partners should value each
other's contribution equally. When one partner feels that what he or she
is
doing has more intrinsic worth than what the other is doing, the
partnership
is no longer a partnership in the mind of at least one of the parties, and
it's likely to be headed for trouble.

I agree.

I look at what my husband does and nearly always think he gives 110% to
this
family in everything he does. For the most part, I think he thinks *I*
give
110%.

Same thing here.


P. Tierney