I think the episode of "soccer mom" does a great disservice to those who sacrifice personal triumphs and choose to focus thier energy on the most important, most difficult, and most rewarding career, raising thier family. "Having it all" is selfish because to do that, the children are the ones who lose. I have spent time on each side of the fence, and I can tell you, I would give almost anything to trade places again with my wife. When I was at home, any loss of personal fulfillment was more than made up for by the fulfillment of helping my children grow and thrive.
If someone claims that they can't have it all without their children losing out, they quite frankly have not yet learned BALANCE. Nothing in life has to be an either/or situation, certainly not working.
What are you saying to your daughters who say "I want to be a doctor, I want to be an astronaut, I want to be a teacher?"
I tell both my kids, one boy and one girl, that they can be absolutely anything in this world that they want to be. If my daughter grows up to want to be a SAHM, that's fabulous, as long as it is her choice, and not bowing to societal pressure about what she's expected to be simply due to gender.
I think we all have to remember that every family has to find a solution that works for them. I am a working mom, have been in the workplace for 25 years. My kids went to daycare, but when they started school, my husband went part time and eventually stayed at home full time. He is as happy as can be and they know that sometimes Dad is there for them, sometimes it is Mom. I don't feel that I abandoned them, they loved their daycare provider and still keep in touch with very close friends who were with them as babies! It becomes a simple decision for me, I can make 6 figures and my husband was making minimum wage - our situation is what works best for us. Would I miss the work place if I stayed home, probably, would he miss staying home if he worked - probably, but we are all a team. The kids, and parents all pitch in to make our family work. They are 11 and 16 now and we couldn't be prouder. They are active, productive members of society who see value in work and family. Isn't that what we are all after?? Did we sacrifice over the years - sure, I cooked many meals in the crock pot so we could sit down and eat together when we all got home, we have had more than our share of busy days with pizza to eat for supper, but we have managed to stick together, my husband learned how to do laundry, I learned how to do my job without letting it consume every minute of my life and life goes on!!
You missed my point. I was a stay at home Dad. When my wife wanted to fulfill her ambitions, we switched places. When we both worked and my daughter was in daycare, She used to have a huge smile for me when I picked her up at night. When I commented on that to the daycare provider, she said I should have seen the sad look on her face every time the door opened and it wasn't me. I decided then and there that my chidren would never feel like that again. You can give your children a good life and workat the same time, but no daycare provider, no matter how well intentioned, can equal what a child gets with thier parents.
I don't know too many SAHM's who've had to sacrifice personal triumphs. My SAHM friends CHOSE to be SAHM's. They didn't give up anything they didn't want. They may be giving up material things and have to deal with a tighter budget due to being at home, but most SAHM's WANT to be there.
"Having it all" is relative. To you it means one thing, to me another. Please Don't condem anyone for NEEDING to work. I HAVE to work. I feel like doodoo for not being with my children more. But I've also accepted the fact that I can't stimulate, entertain, teach, and offer my children HALF as much as the daycare they go to. It is a wonderful environment for them, we are blessed to have it.
Having been in your position, I would never condemn you. My wife and I both had to work for a while after our daughter was born. We beleived that what we could offer her outweighed what she would lose while we were at work. Most families need both parents working nowadays. What I don't like about this show is that it gives the impression that staying at home with the kids is somehow stifling and that given the opportunity, men and women would be more fulfilled and better off in the woprkplace.
You should know (and I know from experience since I was a "daycare kid") that there were plenty of times, too, where your daughter was so busy playing and having a good time with her friends that she didn't even realize that you had come in the door! And the good-hearted daycare staff person had to tap her shoulder and say, "Your daddy's here!" And I bet you got that same smile then that you did when she just couldn't wait for you to get there :-)
Yes there are great daycare providers and facilities. Yes, children can have fun there. Yes, sometimes both parents have to work and they can still provide a nuturing environment. I did it myself for as long as I had to. But,,, time with someone else cannot replace time with a parent. The genetic, and psychological bond between a parent and child is special and unique. People can and should do what they feel is best for themselves, but please don't try to rationalize the decision to work full time by saying that no one suffers at all. Be honest and say that your own time and needs outweigh the need to be home with the kids.
I don't think its fair for you to say that children with a parent at home don't suffer and children with 2 parents who work do. What about children who have a parent at home but who watch their parents fight every evening. And what about children who have two parents who work and who participate in many activities that give them passions and joys and make them well rounded, who become "members of the community" and learn how to live in a world that isn't all about them. Neither of the "ideals" (the totally emotionally healthy child of a SAHParent, nor the totally emotionally healthy child of two working parents) are a FACT. Neither is true of any family. Every family has its issues. Every family also has its triumphs. You're being biased and one-sided.
I could agree with you more! Thanks for standing up for moms like myself who work full-time, but still consider themselves to be loving, caring mothers.
quote:
Originally posted by stg: If someone claims that they can't have it all without their children losing out, they quite frankly have not yet learned BALANCE. Nothing in life has to be an either/or situation, certainly not working.
What are you saying to your daughters who say "I want to be a doctor, I want to be an astronaut, I want to be a teacher?"
I tell both my kids, one boy and one girl, that they can be absolutely anything in this world that they want to be. If my daughter grows up to want to be a SAHM, that's fabulous, as long as it is her choice, and not bowing to societal pressure about what she's expected to be simply due to gender.
This is not a women's issue!! If you have read my postings, I said that I was a stay at home dad so that my wife could do what she wanted to. She wanted to be a nurse, so I stayed at home so that she could go to school. Now she is looking at jobs and I am back at work. No one is saying that women can't or shouldn't be able to work. All I am saying is that all things being equal, nothing compares to the attention and love that a parent can give a child as opposed to anyone else. Things being the weay they are today, most families need both parents working, but if and when they can afford to, I beleive it is better when one of the parents( either one!) is at home with the kids. Again, I say this is the optimum scenario, but one that most couples cannot afford to now.But anyone who says that children get the same level of love and attention from a paid caregiver as themselves is selling themselves short. There are many fulfilling careers, but I can't think of one more demanding and fulfilling as that of parent.
All I am saying is that all things being equal, nothing compares to the attention and love that a parent can give a child as opposed to anyone else. Things being the weay they are today, most families need both parents working, but if and when they can afford to, I beleive it is better when one of the parents( either one!) is at home with the kids.
Well, I definitely didn't say in my previous post that this was just a woman's issue. And I made all of my inferences gender-neutral. What I am saying is that you are being biased and one-sided by saying that it is OPTIMAL for someone to stay home with the kids. And I am saying that no family situation is OPTIMAL. Each family has its issues and each family has its triumphs. You need to stop telling people that they shouldn't go to work if they don't have to because there are plenty of happy, content, enormously bright and talented kids that come from families where both parents work. There are also some ill-hearted, spoiled, unfriendly, selfish, depressed, or abused kids who come from families where one parent stays home. I don't think you can fairly point to every family that has a parent who stays at home and say, "See? Their kids are perfect." That's just not true. And I don't think you can point to every family that has two working parents and say, "See? Their kids are screwed up."
Parents fight in front of their kids and scar them emotionally whether there is a parent at home or whether one works. Parents can be occupied with other things like pornography, drugs, television, work, all kids of things that take their attention away from their kids. And it doesn't matter whether the preoccupation comes from being outside of the home or from doing things inside of the home. You need to get over yourself RSW. And you're no sociologist or psychologist (but I am! Got my degree from one of the top sociology programs in the country), so you have no basis for you comments that the optimum scenario is for someone to be at home.
What I am saying to you RSW, is that is is NOT ENOUGH for you to say, "Hey, I understand if you both have to work to pay the bills 'cause I've been in your shoes, but IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK FOR THE MONEY THEN YOU OUGHT TO BE AT HOME OR YOU'RE DOING YOUR KIDS A DISSERVICE." That is a deplorable statement and you have NOTHING to back it up. And what about "needing the money" makes it "ok" in your eyes? That's pretty hypocritical. If you think kids are hurt by not having a parent at home to devote all their love and attention to, then you should think so whether parents need the money or not. So stop putting your foot in your mouth, and stop judging people. If their kids are happy and doing well, that's all that matters, and you are not qualified to say their kids would be "better" if they just quit their job and stayed home more.
Thanks but you don't know what if any degree I have, and my poin of view comes from my cousin who has her docorate in sociolgy, another cousin with his docorate in psychology, my sister who has her master's in early childhood education and runs a pre-school, and my own experience as a parent who has been both stay at home and working. I also find it hard to beleive that someone with a background in sociology would argue that it isn't advantageous in general for a child tospend time with a parent as opposed to a non-parental caregiver. Bringing up possible individual situations in which a parent might be a bad influence or fight in front of the kids doesn't advance the argument because the odds are that there are the same number of bad parents in both camps so it is a moot point.
No, it's not a "moot point" because that's exactly the point I am making - there are the same number of bad parents in both camps, so you have no basis for saying that having a parent at home is "optimal". It may have worked for you, but that's not to say that having both parents working doesn't work equally well for other people. There are kids who turn out bad in both camps and kids who turn out good in both camps for reasons to have nothing to do with whether a parent was at home. Whatever, I'm done with this threat because you are...well...not very bright.
