going out to work vs motherhood dilema

beeswing wrote:

Scott wrote:

Abi wrote:

I just cant believe the low status full time parenting is given in
general though. It is a really important job - one that impacts on
society as a whole, and yet it's completely `unpaid'!

It's also something entered into quite voluntarily, ideally
at least. If being a parent is something you really and
truly do want, you should be prepared to make some sort
of sacrifice at some point down the line, don't you think?

Since it is a choice, not a given, I couldn't help wondering who it was the OP
thought should be the one to pay her. I'm not being snotty here, honest; I'm
just not sure she's fully fathoming the implications of her statement.


I have to agree. I never knew the point of that saying about motherhood
being unpaid (I don't think dads get any money either).

Sure I would like someone to give me $60,000 a year for being a
wonderful stay-at-home-mom but I haven't figured out where to send my
resume.

I took 4 months of unpaid leave to stay home with my daughter -- which was
exactly how long my company would continuing paying my (and her) medical
insurance. I then worked a four-day week (33 hours) until she started
kindergarten. At that point, my daughter begged me to go back to work Fridays
and let her attend afterschool care on that day, too...since that was when they
finished off their art projects!


That happened to me as well. Well, DD put herself in aftercare one day
- I couldn't find her when I came to school to pick her up. On the way
home, she asked why she couldn't be in aftercare. The "mommy doesn't
work anymore" didn't seem to convince her that day.

Jeanne

Ann Porter wrote:

Our U.S. experience is not universal. It's my understanding that several
European countries offer a social welfare "mother stipend," that is not
means tested.


I did know this, actually. I'd like to point out, though, if the "government"
pays for something, it still comes out of the pockets of its individual
citizens. If the social culture of the U.S. was such that all new parents
(mothers *and* fathers) felt free to take a set amount of government-paid leave
without work-based repercussions, I'd be happy to support such a tax. As long
as there is work-based pressure for some to return to the job -- and only a
certain group of folks would feel as if they had the choice of taking an
extended leave -- I'm not keen on my money being used to financially support
those who have chosen to be SAHPs.

This is only my personal opinion. I've felt differently at different points of
my life, but this is the perspective I hold now.

beeswing

Jeanne wrote:

That happened to me as well. Well, DD put herself in aftercare one day
- I couldn't find her when I came to school to pick her up. On the way
home, she asked why she couldn't be in aftercare. The "mommy doesn't
work anymore" didn't seem to convince her that day.

I don't know about you...but when this happened to me, first my stomach sunk.
And then I had to laugh.

beeswing

Karen G wrote in message ...

Anyway, the moral of my story is that without the support of my husband,
I would not be able to make this work. Being the primary caregiver
requires a great deal of support. I support his work and he supports
what I do at home. If that system is not ready, IMO staying home will
not be a very good experience for anybody in the family.

This is absolutely true. A marriage should be a partnership, and the
partners have to agree on something as significant as this.
Ironically, my situation is just the reverse of the OP--my husband
loves the help that I give him in his career, and we know that he
could never have achieved the level of success that he has without my
support, which has involved things like moving to South America for a
semester, editing papers, putting up with insane travel, etc. I think
if it were up to him, he feels I make such a huge contribution to the
family in my work at home, that he wouldnn't mind at all if I never
earned a dollar directly. Our income has always been "ours,"
irregardless of whose name was on the paycheck.

I returned the the workforce when our youngest was in kindergarten,
and have a part-time schedule so that I am home with the children most
afternoons. But I never talk or think about a time when I "didn't
work." I worked hard as a mom and home manager, and still do during
the afternoons.

So based on our experience, I have to question the assumption that a
family would be automatically financially better off with two
wage-earners.

Two books that dispute this common assumption, and ring true with my
experience, are

THE TWO-INCOME TRAP: WHY MIDDLE-CLASS MOTHERS AND FATHERS ARE GOING
BROKE by Elizabeth Warren, Amelia Warren Tyagi

TWO INCOMES AND STILL BROKE? IT'S NOT HOW MUCH YOU MAKE, BUT HOW MUCH
YOU KEEP by Linda Kelley

I should hasten to add that neither of these writers are conservative
Christian idealogues or anti-feminist. The first book is written by a
Harvard bankruptcy attorney, who noted a trend of two-income families
being MORE vulnerable.

The second book is very practical, and points out some traps to avoid.
She touts the advantages of part-time employment for one partner.

As for changes through the years, I can only express a USAmerican
perspective, but I was a mom 20 years ago (oldest is late 20s) and I
did find LOTS of pressure and insulting comments from folks about me
"not working." People would say things like, "So you don't have any
career ambitions."

Well, yes, I do have career ambitions, and always planned on returning
to my outside work once the children were all in school.

In addition to being more financially secure from my having been at
home full-time when the children were little, it is just so much more
fun having our weekends clear because we're able to do the laundry and
errands during the week.

And I agree that the school-aged kids can be a major time commitment,
which sometimes comes as a surprise to first-time parents. Yesterday,
I went to Kennedy Space Center for an all-day field trip. That same
daughter has been making a decision about which middle school to
attend, which meant three open houses and two school-day visits to the
finalist schools. I do most of that kind of thing, since my paid job
is more flexible.

Of course, every family is different, and if one doesn't have the
desire or ability to take on the tasks of home management, then being
at home wouldn't contribute anything to the family resources.

Colleen Kay Porter

In article ,
beeswing wrote:
Scott wrote:

Abi wrote:

I just cant believe the low status full time parenting is given in
general though. It is a really important job - one that impacts on
society as a whole, and yet it's completely `unpaid'!

It's also something entered into quite voluntarily, ideally
at least. If being a parent is something you really and
truly do want, you should be prepared to make some sort
of sacrifice at some point down the line, don't you think?

Since it is a choice, not a given, I couldn't help wondering who it was the OP
thought should be the one to pay her. I'm not being snotty here, honest; I'm
just not sure she's fully fathoming the implications of her statement.

It is "paid" in terms of saving the money one would otherwise have to
pay someone else to help do it (daycare). Daycare is not cheap around
here, though it is not as expensive as perhaps would be suggested by the
"value" to society of the work.

Should society pay a parent to stay home full-time with their children?
In order to justify such a think, one would have to argue for an
advantage to society of such an arrangement. From society's point
of view, it is more "efficient" if childcare is consolidated and done
by fewer paid caregivers than each parent staying home to care for their
children. I believe most studies have found that children who attend
daycare "turn out" fine, so what is the benefit to society? For some
parents and some children, there may be personal benefits of course.

To the OP, figure out how much it will cost you to have both parents work.
This includes the cost of childcare, extra transportation and clothing
expenses, and a higher marginal tax rate. In some cases, you barely
break even after daycare, though that become more true after you have
more children (greater daycare expenses).

Ideally, if this was an important goal for you, it would have been helpful
to be planning for the loss of income, both by saving moeny for this time,
and by keeping expenses lower than your combined income so that when one
was paused, it woudln't be a major setback.

I've been a SAHM, a grad student, employed full-time out of the home
and now work part-time from home (for my former full-time employer)
during my 10 years of parenting so far. The latter (part-time from home)
is the best balance for me. DH is self-employed and has a very flexible
job too, and that's very nice for us too. We like this for the time
it gives us with our kids. But I don't think they times my older kids
spent in quality childcare did them any harm - in fact there were many
benefits to them from that arrangement too.

Good luck with your decision making!

Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)
--
Support a family business and learn about the technologies underlying
the Internet with the TCP/IP Guide! http://www.tcpipguide.com
Special Limited-Time Offer for Educators Currently Available

"Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to
work hard at work worth doing." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Elizabeth Gardner wrote:

In article ,
"Tracey" wrote:

"Abi" wrote in message
om...
Many thanks everyone for your advice - I can see how salaries dont go
as far today as they used to in the past.

Well, I think that as much as that, the difference today has to do with our
lifestyle. In the past, a family of 3 or 4 kids tended to live in a much
smaller house than we live in nowadays (a 1000-1200 foot 3 bedroom 1 bath
house vs. today's 2000 or 2500 sf 3/4 bedroom house with a family room and 2
1/2 baths). Also, most families had one TV, one car, one telephone line, no
computers, etc etc. Our lifestyle today (well, what is more typical) costs
more because we have lots more STUFF. We tend to eat out more than our
parents and grandparents did as young adults, etc etc.

So I'm not sure it is so much that salaries don't go as far, but that we
have much more expectations of material things that we want.

Also, with two people working, there isn't as much time to be frugal.
You can't (or I couldn't) work full time outside the house and still
make your own soups, and all the food from scratch, make my own
clothes and those for the children, etc. And you need better clothes,
and spend more money on transportation because you need two cars to
get to the two jobs.

We got married in 1959. We did not have even a b&w TV or a washing
machine (let alone a dishwasher) right away. We got a washing machine
in 1960, and we got a powered lawn mower (i.e. one that you push but
that has a motor to run the blades around) also in 1960, and my
parents thought that was the height of decadence (the lawn mower).
I'm sure we didn't get a color TV until about 1964. But we did have
two cars as early as 1960 because I was working to the west and dh was
working to the east, and I had to be at work at 7:30 and he had to be
there at 3:30 am, and was done by 2 pm whereas I wouldn't get back to
pick him up until about 5 pm.

After I had my first child in 1961, I did not work full time again
until about 1974 when my last child was 3 years old, although I did
substitute teach, coach swimming and do other jobs like that

But in fact, salaries don't go as far. I think what happened was that
in the 1970s and 1980s, inflation and wage freezes (who else is old
enough to remember those?) caused a cost-of-living gap. One salary
couldn't quite cover it anymore, but two salaries (especially two equal
salaries) were more than enough. So two-income families had more
disposable income than the one-income family of 20 years earlier, though
not as much more as the 1960s family would have had with two incomes.
And to keep the economy cooking, their desire for more stuff had to be
constantly fanned. So the bar keeps getting higher, unless you have the
strength of mind to ignore the babble of commercial speech around you at
all times and make your own decisions about what you need and want.

But even if you opt for frugality, you probably can't equal the
lifestyle of a typical early 1960s family on one average salary.

grandma Rosalie

Many thanks everyone for your advice - I can see how salaries dont go
as far today as they used to in the past. I didn't realise it was more
common than I first thought for women to go out to work, in the past
few decades. I have been just looking at the example of my housewife
mother and her friends who raised children in the 1960s and early
1970s and suppose thought everyone did this (full time carer/not
producing any income). In part I feel they have made me feel guilty
for considering working at the same time as caring for children simply
because they didn't do it (because they didn't have to) - but
nowadays, as you all say - it is much harder to get a decent standard
of living on one salary.

I also went into adulthood seeing staying home with one's kids as the norm.
It wasn't just my parents' generation; even my own peer group comprised
mostly women who'd married men in high paying professions, and all had cut
back their work to at least part time, at least when they had a second
child. Many stopped working-for-pay entirely, and some even used the career
break to make a desirable career change.

It looked awfully nice to me, but I had not married someone in a high paying
profession (I made more money!) so not working wasn't an option.

I had to get over the idea of "entitlement" to staying home with my kids.
What helped me do that, when I went back to work as a mom, were the ongoing
conversations among the working moms in my office. I noticed how the women
who did the lower paying clerical-type jobs had the usual working-parent
concerns about finding/keeping good childcare, what to do with sick kids,
etc., but they expressed none of the "angst" I'd come to associate with the
working parent from the higher socioeconomic group I was used to. Of course
these women worked -- they didn't really need to give *that part* any
thought. They just had to worry over the details.

I stopped feeling sorry for myself, but found that I still had that desire
to be home with my son more than to be at work, to be taking care of his
daily daytime needs rather than to let anyone else do it. I did end up
finding a way to make the necessary money while being home with the kids
(there are 3 now), but it took me almost 2 years. As it turns out, though
there are times when me working, particularly from home, brings an unhealthy
level of stress into my and my family's life, I'm glad that I've continued
to work, even though I did so only by necessity. It adds a bunch of
dimensions to my life that kids could not provide, keeps me kinda-sorta in
my field (important given that I will need to work full time again soon),
and gives me a great excuse to leave the kids and their chaos every now and
then, and shut my office door.

I just cant believe the low status full time parenting is given in
general though. It is a really important job - one that impacts on
society as a whole, and yet it's completely `unpaid'!

Yup, but it is certainly worth money. I think it behooves all families in
which one parent doesn't bring in money because she/he is staying home with
the kids to occasionally remind themselves how much money they'd have to
spend to hire someone to do all that the at-home parent does.

One of the big things you should think about in making this decision,
especially given that your DH sounds like he is against you quitting your
job, is how you not bringing in money will affect your role in the marriage.
Both of you need to genuinely feel that childcare and homecare (yes,
stay-at-homers do tend to be the primary "homemakers" too, even though many
women today would cringe at that title) are just as important a job within a
family as any job that brings home wages. It *is* work, vitally important
work, and the working-for-pay parent gets a huge benefit (usually
unrecognized) from being able to walk out of the house every day knowing
that his/her kids are being cared for, in sickness and health, in good moods
and bad, by his/her spouse, the children's other parent.

"Penny Gaines" wrote

For the stimulation side, well, a lot of people find themselves
getting very wrapped up in their babies, and not *wanting* much in the way
of other stimulation. I have a degree, and whenever I worked, I worked
with
people with PhDs and MScs, so I was used to a very intellectual working
environment. However, I found that debates on usenet provided most of
the stimulation I needed. I also found (and I'm now sure this was
biological/hormonal, not due to my environment) that I suffered from
what the people on mkp call 'preg-nesia' until my youngest reached
about 4.5yo. At that point, I suddenly got my old brain back, with my
old quick-wittedness, and it is only in the last year that being AH, in
the company of other AH mums isn't really enough. So you might find
that being at home is all the stimulation you need when you are in the
baby stage.

Boy, can I second this. It was really noticeable to me how, when my second
(and youngest, at that time) child got to be about 3 or 3.5, I found myself
*intensely* interested in finding more fulfilling work. (I work from home,
doing some "fulfilling" work and some "grunt" work, and before she got to be
about 3.5, I really didn't care if I did *all* grunt work, except that it
didn't pay as well. The kids were enough; they were "all that.") I started
to pursue better work and more of it -- and I was able to because my kids
were getting that much older -- but then got pregnant again!

Funny thing is, I have to admit that I have never lost that intense interest
that I had started to pursue when I got pregnant for the third time. (Makes
me think the preg-nesia, as you called it, wasn't entirely biological, or it
would've kicked in with baby #3 too.) For the first time as an at-home mom,
I am seriously straining against the demands of babycare. I feel awful about
it. . .

I'm committed to keeping the baby home with me full time until she's at
least 2, but I'm really excited at the thought of moving back into career
mode. I'm hoping to still work from home, but having her in some kind of
childcare will allow me to work more hours and to pursue the higher quality
work I now crave.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:55:00 EST, "Tracey"
wrotE:


"Abi" wrote in message
. com...
Many thanks everyone for your advice - I can see how salaries dont go
as far today as they used to in the past.

Well, I think that as much as that, the difference today has to do with our
lifestyle. In the past, a family of 3 or 4 kids tended to live in a much
smaller house than we live in nowadays (a 1000-1200 foot 3 bedroom 1 bath
house vs. today's 2000 or 2500 sf 3/4 bedroom house with a family room and 2
1/2 baths).

While some people do live in such houses I don't believe it is the
norm, even for those with two incomes.

Also, most families had one TV, one car, one telephone line, no
computers, etc etc.

Those families had one car because 1) only one prent was working
outside the home, 2) Grocery stores, schools & churches were within
walking distance for most people & 3) public transportation was better
in many cities.

Building the interstate highway system has caused a change in the way
neighborhoods are layed out. Stores are now congregated in malls
which requrie a car to reach them rather than spread out on main
streets with a bus line.

The advent of refrigerators (as opposed to the old style ice box) has
allowed people to grocery shop every two weeks or more instead of
every coupe of days. This meant larger grocery stores farther away
and a car to both get there and get the groceries home.

Our lifestyle today (well, what is more typical) costs
more because we have lots more STUFF.

This part is all too true.

So I'm not sure it is so much that salaries don't go as far, but that we
have much more expectations of material things that we want.

Housing, education, health care and insurance cost many multiples of
what they did 20 or 40 years ago. Houses in my city which went for
$15,000 in the 1960s cost $80,000 today. (I'm talking about the same
house, not similar houses.) In 1980 I had a large dental bridge made
& Inserted for $2000. Two years ago the bridge broke and it cost
$12,000 to replace it. Parochial high schools in my area charged
about $400 per year in the late 1960s. Now they charge $4,000 to
$6,000 per year. Colleges have gone up even higher.

"Abi" wrote in message
om...

I am a bit confused of late and wondered if anyone can advise? I am
just about to have my first child, I am incredibly excited and looking
forward to raising her, seeing this as a more important `job' to me,
than `going out to earn a living'. Having worked in a variety of
jobs/careers for the last 11 years, I now want to enjoy being a
housewife and child carer and put as much effort into this as I would
anything else.

You are filled with high ideals right now but unless you are blessed with a
baby with an easy temperament, raising young children will be one of the
most demanding jobs you might ever take on. Our family had lunch yesterday
with a young couple, the man had worked a few years in a daycare. He told
us that he had been working since he was 14yo, grew up on a farm, worked in
construction on huge projects and the most challenging job hands down was
the time he spent professionally caring for young children. The job doesn't
have built-in coffee hours nor does it come with a regular schedule nor any
standard punch-in/punch-out on a timeclock. Plus, as others have pointed
out, as a first-time mother you may need to make an entire new set of
friends who are parents and that may take time, leading to loneliness
working parents never need experience. The ideal situation is where you
have a strong support system from your partner and babysitting relief from
either family or friends.

I had children older in life so I had many years to enjoy the perks and the
pitfalls of the working world and was ready to stay home when my son
arrived. My husband wasn't completely thrilled over losing my income but
he's put up with my decision and has been helpful. On a very deep
psychological and emotional level, I am thrilled that I had the opportunity
to stay home full-time with my son. It was sheer hell at times and I do
know this has been the toughest job I've ever taken on, but it's also been
profoundly satisfying. You hear people saying how little it matters to stay
home with young kids but let me tell you without exception I have never met
a nanny or professional daycare provider (and I've met quite a few) who will
be working outside the home when the time comes for them to have children.
And I won't go into what they say on the playground behind their employers'
backs lest this post not get approved.

And at the same time, some people really aren't cut out for dealing with
small children on a full time basis and the perky SAH mom in the '50's could
easily have had a next door neighbor who was seriously depressed and on
Valium. Thank the Stars, the Universe, God, G*d, the Goddess, whatever,
that women do have solid opportunities to pursue these days in the work
force and that some mothers choose to go head-on on having brilliant careers
even when motherhood is part of their lives. So when it comes down to it,
what really matters is how YOU will feel about your decision to either stay
at home or go back to work. An unhappy mother staying at home isn't going
to be doing her best for her children. A unhappy mother forced to work
isn't going to be very productive in the work place.

I know for my personality and temperament, I made the right decision. I
have few regrets other than allowing my skills to erode. Very few choices
come without their downsides.

Is there any way you might reach a compromise with your husband? Perhaps
you can stay home for the first 2-1/2 years and then go to part-time work
for awhile?

Good luck. You should be strategizing on how to change your husband's mind
since not having his support can make for more fights than you need as a new
mom.

I don't get into SAH vs. Working Parent debates anymore. I honestly believe
anyone who follows parenting newsgroups, no matter what choice they make,
are "good enough" parents. But at the end of it all, no matter the choice,
if your heart is at peace, then you know you've made the right decision on
this thorny issue.

Noreen