If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#511
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#512
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#513
|
|||
|
|||
"Circe" wrote in message news:G9bbe.18256$%c1.723@fed1read05... "Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message ... There is no "he goes and golfs" while I sit by the pool. Or if there is, there should be a corresponding "I go and get a massage and a facial while *he* sits by the pool" g. Right. That's the kind of thing we have going. A couple of months ago we went to Tampa for Gasparilla so that DH could participate in his Krewe celebration. I stayed with the kids so that he could do his thing. Next month I'm going off to a friend's wedding while DH manages the kids. That's reasonable for us. This trip to the beach at the end of the summer is going to be our first "joint" vacation with kids. We'll have to see how that works out as far as dividing responsibilities and "time off". Donna |
#514
|
|||
|
|||
"Donna" wrote in message
news:Kmbbe.399$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) |
#515
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#516
|
|||
|
|||
|
#517
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#518
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#519
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#520
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
<----------- KANE | nineballgirl | Spanking | 2 | September 30th 04 07:26 PM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 03:47 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 142 | November 16th 03 07:46 PM |