Disagreement about third child

Banty wrote:

In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

P. Tierney wrote:



I agree. The word "equal" raised a flag, as if both parents
worked and one make 60k while the other made 30k, and both
did the same amount of parenting, then one could get into
trouble of the contributions need to be equal.

Agreed. And even though I think it's important to
understand that there are economic contributions other than
the easily visible ones that result in cash being deposited
in the bank account, the reason that's important is not so
that someone can tally things up and decide who's more
important based on the totals.


You might have things well in hand with how you weigh "non-economic" and social
factors, but, with money in the mix, a LOT of people do tally things up.

May well be, although pardon my cynicism if I think that
even if economic factors aren't called out specifically, that
doesn't mean A) that it's not underlying some folks' attitudes
about what constitutes more important work and B) that someone
looking for a justification for avoiding non-preferred roles (or
jobs, or work, or what have you) won't just find some other
equally spurious argument ;-) In my experience, it's no loss
to look at the economics within a relationship that is otherwise
respectful. Whether it's useful in an unsupportive relationship
probably depends on whether the lack of support is due to ignorance
or arrogance.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article iebbe.1703$oD6.1066@trndny07, Donna says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article jp8be.18234$%c1.5571@fed1read05, Circe says...


Well, who's going to be doing those things during the vacation if Donna
doesn't?


Ther'sss this - - other adult in the household?


That simply changes my responsibility to nagging, rather than doing. And
I'm not prepared to spend a week reminding DH to put the kids down for a nap
so they don't whine later, feed everyone at regular intervals, wash some
towels, hey, we're running low on milk and fruit... etc, etc. If I don't
do it, it won't get done at worst, or it will be a dreadful week while DH
figures things out (e.g. if we run out of milk, the children will fuss for
the half hour it takes to go to the store and buy some, so get it before it
runs out).

Fair? Of course not. But in reality, if I don't do it, it won't get done
in a manner that will allow for a relaxing vacation. shrugs

Are you needs being fulfilled in this situation?

Dr. Phil Banty

"Circe" wrote in message
news:G9bbe.18256$%c1.723@fed1read05...
"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...
There is no "he goes
and golfs" while I sit by the pool.

Or if there is, there should be a corresponding "I go and get a massage
and
a facial while *he* sits by the pool" g.

Right. That's the kind of thing we have going. A couple of months ago we
went to Tampa for Gasparilla so that DH could participate in his Krewe
celebration. I stayed with the kids so that he could do his thing. Next
month I'm going off to a friend's wedding while DH manages the kids.
That's reasonable for us. This trip to the beach at the end of the summer
is going to be our first "joint" vacation with kids. We'll have to see how
that works out as far as dividing responsibilities and "time off".

Donna

"Donna" wrote in message
news:Kmbbe.399$jS6.115@trndny06...
"Circe" wrote in message
news:k89be.18238$%c1.8806@fed1read05...
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.

For me, I place the value of the things that I do that aren't remunerated,
at the same hourly rate as my contracting. I bill by the hour, and that
hourly rate is paid regardless of what I am doing for the client: auditing
records or anlyzing data or simply driving to and from the worksite. So
that is what my time is worth at this particular instance. If I'm making
beds, or potty training, or shopping for groceries, that's what *my* time
is
worth, today, at this particular instance.

But the danger of that sort of thinking is that a person who doesn't have a
job with a corresponding hourly rate doesn't have any sort of yardstick for
figuring out the "value" of what he/she is doing. For a person who doesn't
earn any money at any time, the "hourly rate" is $0.00. I don't think that's
very helpful, particularly for a SAHP with a WOH spouse who brings home all
of the family's monetary income.

Personally, I'm with Banty in thinking that one doesn't have to put a
*dollar* value on the SAHP's contribution to value it. For example, one of
the things that I often do in when I'm in SAHP mode is to bake pies from
scratch. It's something I enjoy doing, but it also takes a fair amount of
time and effort. If I valued that pie based on what I make per hour in my
paying job, it would hardly be worth my time and effort to do it: I could
buy four store-made pies for what it "costs" me to make one from scratch at
home! But I (and my family) value the pie and our enjoyment of it *waaaaay*
more than my hourly wage. If we didn't, I wouldn't bother!

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".

Again, I haven't followed every post in this thread, but I don't think
that
anyone is arguing that being an at home parent isn't work.

It 'pears to me at this point that the disagreement has been largely
semantic.

Notwithstanding, it's apparent to me that in many families, the
SAH/caretaking role is not perceived as something from which the person
doing it needs a "break" or vacation. Apparently, yours is one of them since
you feel you cannot count on your husband to take over at least *some*
aspects of that role during family vacations. It is hard for me to see how a
spouse can justify *not* taking some of the caretaking role during vacations
*unless* that spouse does not perceive or appreciate the degree to which
doing it day-in and day-out takes effort and, yes, work.
--
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)

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article 83bbe.18254$%c1.15322@fed1read05, Circe says...
Well, I take it from Donna's statements that she doesn't feel there's a
realistic chance that her husband *will* take on a significant part of
the
caregiver role while they're on vacation. I happen to have a husband who
does things like cooking, daily tidying, childcare, and so on willingly
and
happily while we're on vacation. I can't and don't assume that other
employed-outside-the-home spouses are equally willing or happy to do so.

Are they?

If I follow the question, how the heck do I know? As I said, I make no
assumptions.

Of course, that's not to deny the possibility that the SAH spouse in many
families may be *enabling* the working spouse to shirk caregiving
responsibilities. I think that's especially likely, oddly enough, when the
SAH spouse feels undervalued in some fundamental way. By taking on all of
the caregiving responsibilities all of the time, that SAH spouse can carve
out a space for him/herself that only he/she is capable of performing,
thereby highlighting the degree to which he or she is "needed".

I'm not saying that's the case for anyone here. I do think, however, that
it's something to be wary of.
--
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)

wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

bizby40 wrote:



No, but shopping is one of my duties,

I know that sort of things works for some families, but
it always sticks in my craw to hear stuff like that. I have
jobs around the house that I typically do because it makes sense
for me to do them, but I never feel like any particular household
job is my "duty."


I've WOH most of my adult life, with a few years when I didn't. When I
wasn't full-time WOH or WAH, I was surprised to find I also felt that
running the house was "my job."

There are folks I was close to who were rather like that: They had a
distinct sense of separate spheres. Rather well-defended separate
spheres, I might add, and not necessarily the traditional ones.

OTOH, some others have situations where each spouse feels fully
empowered to be involved in the other's sphere. Sounds rather nice and
equitable, but it can be a pain. One person's "help"is another's
"interference"

Sure--given that I do most of the cooking, the last thing
I need is for DH to rearrange the cooking tools ;-) But, of course,
he wouldn't do that anymore than I would reconfigure the servers,
since he typically does the network management at home. And neither
of us would unilaterally muck with stuff at work that was primarily
handled by a co-worker. However, we would both step in to do whatever
was needed--at home or at work--according to our abilities and
availability. At work, the job is to meet customer requirements,
and that's everyone's job. I doubt my boss would have any patience
if I said I was unwilling to do X because it was someone else's job.
If it needs to be done, and I'm able and available, then I'd darned
well better do it if the usual person isn't able or available.
I don't have any patience at home with the notion that an able-
bodied adult in the family would refuse to do some task associated
with homekeeping or childrearing because "it's not my job."
I don't think it has to be an all or nothing proposition.
It does require communication and negotiation and respect, but
I do think it is very possible to understand that the running
of this family is a duty for both of us and that we will work
as a team to get it done. We fall off the bandwagon sometimes,
and sometimes I fall back into the "lead, follow, or get the
hell out of my way" thinking, but I find it happier when we're
working as a team and I think it sets a good example for how
to work things out together for the betterment of the family
without falling back on "but that's not my jooooooobbbbbb."

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article DDbbe.18260$%c1.11875@fed1read05, Circe says...

"Donna" wrote in message
news:Kmbbe.399$jS6.115@trndny06...
"Circe" wrote in message
news:k89be.18238$%c1.8806@fed1read05...
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.

For me, I place the value of the things that I do that aren't remunerated,
at the same hourly rate as my contracting. I bill by the hour, and that
hourly rate is paid regardless of what I am doing for the client: auditing
records or anlyzing data or simply driving to and from the worksite. So
that is what my time is worth at this particular instance. If I'm making
beds, or potty training, or shopping for groceries, that's what *my* time
is
worth, today, at this particular instance.

But the danger of that sort of thinking is that a person who doesn't have a
job with a corresponding hourly rate doesn't have any sort of yardstick for
figuring out the "value" of what he/she is doing. For a person who doesn't
earn any money at any time, the "hourly rate" is $0.00. I don't think that's
very helpful, particularly for a SAHP with a WOH spouse who brings home all
of the family's monetary income.

Yep.

And, think of that lost opportunity cost of that by-hour person renting a video
and sitting in the family room watching it. Fer shame. Of course, one would
put a *higher* $$$ (or "family-value-unit") value on the relaxation and
emotional needs of said by-hour person, and do that for allll the rest of the
family needs and pursuits, and actually in the end make it all work out if one
really values the emotional needs enough.

But that strikes me like the astronomers of old who came up with formulas to
acccount for all the retrograde and loop motions they saw in the planets that
they took to reside in the skies centered on the earth, and were so proud of all
it all worked out, when in the end it was just a stupidly complicated way of
accounting for the planets revolving around the sun. To me, outside employment
and the income from that is just one of the planets the revolve around the
household :-)


Personally, I'm with Banty in thinking that one doesn't have to put a
*dollar* value on the SAHP's contribution to value it. For example, one of
the things that I often do in when I'm in SAHP mode is to bake pies from
scratch. It's something I enjoy doing, but it also takes a fair amount of
time and effort. If I valued that pie based on what I make per hour in my
paying job, it would hardly be worth my time and effort to do it: I could
buy four store-made pies for what it "costs" me to make one from scratch at
home! But I (and my family) value the pie and our enjoyment of it *waaaaay*
more than my hourly wage. If we didn't, I wouldn't bother!

(folks I think she gets it, Barbara gets it...)

I sewed and did crafts to a high degree when I was younger. My mother insisted
that I should not spend so much time on a single item, because I was beginning
to sell pieces. I did eventually do more selling, and having a line of
'bread-and-butter' pieces that could be knocked out quickly and sell quickly for
actual for-time profit. But, other than that, I would really be angry that by
her *everything* had to considered in terms of the outside economy. I was
pursuing it mostly for personal pleasure and any income was pure gravy to me.
(Actually, I was getting more of a kick that my creative stuff was running
around on people's bodies and in their homes.) Ah, but once $$$ gets into the
picture...people get nuts.

Banty

"Donna" wrote in message
news:Hrbbe.1705$oD6.1567@trndny07...
"Circe" wrote in message
news:G9bbe.18256$%c1.723@fed1read05...
"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...
There is no "he goes
and golfs" while I sit by the pool.

Or if there is, there should be a corresponding "I go and get a massage
and a facial while *he* sits by the pool" g.

Right. That's the kind of thing we have going. A couple of months ago
we
went to Tampa for Gasparilla so that DH could participate in his Krewe
celebration. I stayed with the kids so that he could do his thing.
Next
month I'm going off to a friend's wedding while DH manages the kids.
That's reasonable for us. This trip to the beach at the end of the
summer
is going to be our first "joint" vacation with kids. We'll have to see
how
that works out as far as dividing responsibilities and "time off".

Well, I must admit, I'm a little bit baffled that you feel your husband can
handle the kids by himself for a few days but don't feel he would be able to
take on much of the caretaking role while you're on vacation together
without you resorting to nagging. Is it that you figure he'll screw that
stuff up while you're gone (not getting milk before it runs out, not getting
the kids down for their naps, etc.) but you won't have to suffer the ill
effects because you won't be there, so it's okay that he'll screw up? Or is
it that you figure when you're not there, he'll be more likely to pay
attention to that stuff in the first place and not screw it up?

Either way, maybe you need to give him a little more credit (or a little
less slack, depending on your point of view)...
--
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)

Donna wrote:

Here is what I haven't seen discussed (but I've been in and out of
this
thread, so I may have missed it): Regardless of whether the primary

caretaker of the family is working outside the home or inside the
home, how
does that person *ever* get a vacation from those responsibilities?

Club Med?

Or some kind of local equivalent?

Rupa

Circe wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article bs8be.18235$%c1.13844@fed1read05, Circe says...
"Donna" wrote in message
news:804be.4199$WX.1818@trndny01...
but beyond that, I know that there is no way that I will be
relieved of the (primary) responsibilities of cooking, daily
tidying,
child care, scheduling, etc, etc, etc.

For me, the primary difference between going on vacation and being
the
SAH
parent is that when we are on vacation, there are *two* adults to
do all
of
those taks you just listed instead of just one (me). My husband is
more
than
willing to take on a lot of those responsibilities while we're
vacationing,
so while I might not get *complete* break from the primary tasks
of
parenting, I get enough help doing them that it seems like a
break!

There's your answer already to my response to Donna.

My point there was - why does this "primary caregiver" role stay
that way
during
vacation.

Well, I take it from Donna's statements that she doesn't feel there's
a
realistic chance that her husband *will* take on a significant part
of the
caregiver role while they're on vacation. I happen to have a husband
who
does things like cooking, daily tidying, childcare, and so on
willingly and
happily while we're on vacation. I can't and don't assume that other
employed-outside-the-home spouses are equally willing or happy to do
so.

I got the sense that there's also a 'learning curve' to consider. An
SAH Mom knows all this stuff, and is in the habit of anticipating her
kids' needs. A SAH Dad would probably be the same way. A parent who did
a lot of helping would also 'get' it sooner. But if the way a family
divides tasks - for whatever reason - is 'separate spheres,' well then
even with the greatest willingness to help, the other parent is only
able to play assistant, not substitute.

Rupa