Re: Can we cope with twins- no spin answers sought

[David desJardins]

BillyO writes:
> At a minimum I had planned to take a month off work after the birth so
> we can be together. Can we cope or will we absolutely need help?

I don't think you absolutely need help (paid or otherwise), but most
people find it makes life a lot easier and more pleasant.

IMHO, if you can afford to not work for a month, you'd be better off
going back to work after a week, and hiring someone to come help out
several hours a week for the first several months. Even when you're
going to work 40 hours a week, rest assured, you'll have plenty of
"togetherness" with your wife and kids the other 128 hours of the week.

David desJardins

[thefackrells]

Bravo for making the wise decision to have a parent stay home and raise your
own children, it will be such a blessing!! And how wonderful that you can
take a month off (or more)!! Though I also had a 3.5 year old to contend
with when our twins were born, it was so nice to have the occasional help!!
I even had my step-mom and then a "step" grandma come at 6 weeks and then at
2.5 mos (??) to come help. I would suggest that after that first month then
maybe just going back part time (if you can) for a few weeks (or maybe doing
the 3days on 4 days off then vice verse)....this will help TREMENDOUSLY!!!!
Are you going to cloth diaper? Look into your local diapering service and
get a month or two of service, until things calm down and then you can just
launder them yourself (or just keep the service!!)...if anything, make sure
you're around to help with the doctor visits!!!! LOL

Good Luck and Congratulations!
Gwen
"BillyO" > wrote in message
...
> Hello everyone,
>
> We're expecting identical twin boys very early in the new year, they
> will be our first. At my workplace and my spouse's there has been a
> flash flood of new mummies and daddies. When they hear we're having
> twins the boilerplate reponse is "I hope you have *LOTS* of help,
> you're going to need it". Perhaps this is because the default
> assumption is both parents will be working, even if it's part-time. In
> our case we decided to have my wife quit her job. As for help, my
> family is in Europe and my wife's is not exactly local. At a minimum I
> had planned to take a month off work after the birth so we can be
> together. Can we cope or will we absolutely need help?
>
> TIA for your wisdom.

[H Schinske]

>BillyO writes:
>> At a minimum I had planned to take a month off work after the birth so
>> we can be together. Can we cope or will we absolutely need help?
>
>I don't think you absolutely need help (paid or otherwise), but most
>people find it makes life a lot easier and more pleasant.

Yes, I agree. I had a C-section and it was great having my husband and one or
another of my sisters there to do most of the diapering and walking up and down
and so on (not to mention cooking, laundry, etc.). It helped tremendously that
almost all I *had* to do for a few weeks was take care of myself and feed the
babies.

--Helen

[GandSBrock]

Guess what?? Your wife is going to need a lot of help, and I hope you help her
out, even at the end of your one month off. (I think David's idea is a good
one) I had no family nearby, or friends for that matter (new to the area)
and my DH could not take off, but he was as great a help as he could possibly
be. We had 2 girls come in once a week to clean. And that's all. I survived,
but just. It would have been more enjoyable if I had a little more help so I
could get a few zzzz's and some socialization. You can cope, but why not get a
little bit of extra help, hired, and take all the offered help you can, and
enjoy the babies.

JMO,
Stephanie
Jake and Ryan 9/3/99

[Rhiann1048]

>Subject: Can we cope with twins- no spin answers sought
>From: BillyO
>Date: Mon, Aug 25, 2003 4:31 PM
>Message-id: >
>
>Hello everyone,
>
>We're expecting identical twin boys very early in the new year, they
>will be our first. At my workplace and my spouse's there has been a
>flash flood of new mummies and daddies. When they hear we're having
>twins the boilerplate reponse is "I hope you have *LOTS* of help,
>you're going to need it". Perhaps this is because the default
>assumption is both parents will be working, even if it's part-time. In
>our case we decided to have my wife quit her job. As for help, my
>family is in Europe and my wife's is not exactly local. At a minimum I
>had planned to take a month off work after the birth so we can be
>together. Can we cope or will we absolutely need help?
>
>TIA for your wisdom.

We had help for about 6 weeks. Dh took 2 weeks off and we had 4 family members
fly out in succession for about a week each. This worked out well for us. I
had a c-section, so help that first week it was essential. After that, the
girls started to get colicy so we really did need the help for those next few
weeks too. After that we were on our own. Dh was back at work full time. It
would have been nice to have family nearby to help but we got by ok.

If you have kids with an easy temperaments you can probably get by with less
help. It will also depend on you --- how little sleep can you get by on, how
often do you need to get out, how much experience you've had with young babies,
etc. There are so many variables. What worked for us might not work for you.
But I found that having that help the first 6 weeks got us through the hardest
period.

Good Luck!

Lori

[Kender]

We had no help, no family near by. DH took off two weeks and that was it. I
did quit my job and stay home full time with the girls. It can be done but
would have been better to have had help. You may want to do it all to prove
a point (as I think we did sometimes) but it's tiring. Two babies are a lot
of work. One baby is a lot of work. If you can afford help and can find it,
go for it. If not, don't stress. Life will go on. The kids will grow up but
you might remember it more if you get more sleep. The first 7 months are a
blur to me.
Congratulations!!!! Your life is about to get a lot fuller and definitely
more interesting!
--
Erin
Morgan and Megan 2/15/97
Evan 5/14/00

"BillyO" > wrote in message
...
> Hello everyone,
>
> We're expecting identical twin boys very early in the new year, they
> will be our first. At my workplace and my spouse's there has been a
> flash flood of new mummies and daddies. When they hear we're having
> twins the boilerplate reponse is "I hope you have *LOTS* of help,
> you're going to need it". Perhaps this is because the default
> assumption is both parents will be working, even if it's part-time. In
> our case we decided to have my wife quit her job. As for help, my
> family is in Europe and my wife's is not exactly local. At a minimum I
> had planned to take a month off work after the birth so we can be
> together. Can we cope or will we absolutely need help?
>
> TIA for your wisdom.

[The Huwe Family]

I'm going through the same questions with expecting triplets. My family
lives on the other side of the country, my MIL is disabled, unable to help,
and my SIL's family is very busy with their very active 5 & 7 yr old boys.
My mom will be coming out for the first 2 months to help, but after that, I
will probably be asking for help from my church., many of whom have already
offered their services. While I don't think it is impossible for you and
your wife to handle taking care of the twins by yourselves, accept any and
every bit of help offered. Seek out Mother of Twins clubs etc for support.
I know they would be willing to come help as well.

"BillyO" > wrote in message
...
> Hello everyone,
>
> We're expecting identical twin boys very early in the new year, they
> will be our first. At my workplace and my spouse's there has been a
> flash flood of new mummies and daddies. When they hear we're having
> twins the boilerplate reponse is "I hope you have *LOTS* of help,
> you're going to need it". Perhaps this is because the default
> assumption is both parents will be working, even if it's part-time. In
> our case we decided to have my wife quit her job. As for help, my
> family is in Europe and my wife's is not exactly local. At a minimum I
> had planned to take a month off work after the birth so we can be
> together. Can we cope or will we absolutely need help?
>
> TIA for your wisdom.

[Jim Wehner]

BillyO > wrote:
> Can we cope or will we absolutely need help?

"Absolutely?" No. But it will be very hard.

Our twins are now closing in on 20 months old. My wife took a leave of
absence & returned to work when they were 10 months old. She works
nights, but now works only 16 hours per week (which we need to pay
our bills). We are our own child care.

We have had relatively no help from my family. 2 of my sisters baby sat
for the 1st time last month, when we went to a wedding. One of
my wife's sisters lives 2 hours away & visits as often as she can, but the
"help" factor is limited. Her other sister is now 17 years old & likes to
play with the twins (or help feed them) when they are in good moods - but
that's it. My mother in law works full time, has a social life, and
spends a lot of time tending to her own baby (the 17 year old). She is
our primary "help," which is *maybe* watching the kids once a month. We
neglect ourselves (i.e. Dr. & Dentist appointments, etc.) because we
choose not to look for help outside the family... although my wife's
godmother (a family friend) has watched Rebecca a few times, when my wife
took Adam to Dr. appointments.

We think we have done great, with limited help. We *could* make it easier
for ourselves if we sought additional child care. But we also think that
the fact that we are with our kids almost all time is what has made them
excel in their verbal and "manual" skills.

Take all the help you can get. It going to be a bumpy ride. If you can
remain focused & dedicated, the joys will far outweigh the difficulties.

Being the parents of twins is a great blessing. Always remember that.

:-)

Jim

[TwinMom]

You'll be fine, help or not. IMHO, one of the benefits of having twins as
your first children is that you just do what needs to be done without
realizing that there is any other way. If you have twins after a singleton,
the amount of work might be a surprise, but when they come first, you just
do and everything gets done. DH used to like to say that, with twins, at
least you only have to wash your hands once (after a dual diaper change).
LOL. I had my heavenly MIL help out for the first few weeks, but NOT with
the babes - that's our pleasure! She did laundry, cooking, burping, etc.
which gave us time to bond with the new boys.
If you'd like, I have a new parents "twins tip sheet" that I made up when my
boys were smaller. It covers things like help, shopping, nursing, etc. It's
just my personal observations, and everything might not work for you, but we
twin parents need to stick together and help each other out when we can.
Contact me off list and I will send you a copy. It's in MSWord or Text
format. Good Luck to you.
Lorraine - frat boys 7, girl 3

[Chotii]

"BillyO" > wrote in message
...
> Hello everyone,

> Can we cope or will we absolutely need help?

The truth is....you'll cope. You'll do whatever has to be done, because it
can't NOT be done. Diaper changes, feedings, and baby-holding will get done.
The house may or may not stay clean. Laundry may be cut to an absolute
minimum. You may live on fast food and delivery pizza for months.
But...think about this seriously for a moment: If you don't have help, and
something needs to be done, what are you going to do? You're going to do it.

If you can get help? Oh, I agree with everybody here - get help. But let me
tell you a story, and you can decide for yourself whether we did the
impossible:

My husband and I had one daughter, 22 months, when our twins were born. One
of our twins was born with a severe heart defect, and also a nasty stomach
defect (but that wasn't found until later). We had a mother's helper for
the first three weeks, until baby A came home from the hospital, because
otherwise I couldn't really *go* to the hospital. I should mention also I
was pumping full-time for my babies, and continued to do so for baby B until
she was 21 months old.

My husband went back to work after 1 month. After this time, I was home
alone with the toddler, one twin, and the other in NICU.

Baby B came home at the age of 3 months, with an NG feeding tube and
feedings every 3 hours via pump, several heart medications which had to be
given without fail on a schedule, and oxygen. We couldn't even move her
room to room without it being a big production, but she had at least one
doctor's appointment every week. She also was projectile-vomiting 8-10
times a day.

At 4 months of age, baby B had open-heart surgery. Now she was off oxygen,
but the tube-feedings continued (and continue to this day) and I was pumping
8X/day to provide milk for her.

.....and no, we had no help (after the mother's helper left, when baby A came
home). Not from my husband's parents, not from my parents, not from anybody.
We survived. Could we have USED help? Oh, absolutely. But we didn't NEED
it. People asked me how we did it, and to this day I shrug and say, "We just
did. Because what other choice did we have?" And that's true.

You *can* cope. I honestly believe that you have to know that about
yourself. It's a mistake to set yourself up with the belief that you cannot
cope. (Now, if you do your damnedest and still find you're not coping,
that's a different situation than starting out believing you cannot cope.)

Want hired help? Get it. Got family, friends or neighbors who will cook for
you, clean, do laundry, etc? Never turn down an offer of assistance. But if
you don't have those options, you'll still do okay. You'll surprise yourself
with how much you can do, and deal with, and survive, that you never knew
you could.

--angela

[Tanya Makins]

Hi,

You will cope..... you have no choice!!!!

My husband works lots of hours, I decided too to quit my job, we have a 6
year old boy and 18 month old twins. Yes it is hard, but just be very
strict with yourselves, routine is the key and make sure you get them in to
a good sleeping patern. It can be done, my babies have slept 12 hours
through the night since they were 6 months old, basically when they went in
to their own room. My older boy did the same, some people say we're lucky
but I think we were determined not to make life any more difficult than it
needed to be. If you get a good nights sleep you can handle the days.
They are so enjoyable, the first few months are hard because of the feeding
but to see them play together now its adorable. Your babies will have an
in-built playmate which is a god send.
You should try and look at the positives and enjoy them, time soon passes
by, I'm no expert but I new that organisation was going to be the key and it
was.
Good luck - you'll be fine

Tanya (Nottinghamshire, England)


BillyO > wrote in message
...
> Hello everyone,
>
> We're expecting identical twin boys very early in the new year, they
> will be our first. At my workplace and my spouse's there has been a
> flash flood of new mummies and daddies. When they hear we're having
> twins the boilerplate reponse is "I hope you have *LOTS* of help,
> you're going to need it". Perhaps this is because the default
> assumption is both parents will be working, even if it's part-time. In
> our case we decided to have my wife quit her job. As for help, my
> family is in Europe and my wife's is not exactly local. At a minimum I
> had planned to take a month off work after the birth so we can be
> together. Can we cope or will we absolutely need help?
>
> TIA for your wisdom.

[KimandJuan]

Hi,

I can't tell you what would be best for you personally. But, in my own
experience I had a three year old once the babies were born and it was a lot of
work then and now almost a year later it still is. But I love every minute of
it, well okay, not EVERY minute of it I could live without the whining and hair
pulling and constant picking up of toys, and I definitely look forward to mommy
alone time! But as for coping, yes you can, you have no choice.
I don't know about everyone else here but, my husband was only able to take
off for 5 days. So, my grandmother came and stayed for two weeks. Other then
that we were pretty much on our own. In my opinion if you can take off for a
month without loosing income go for it. I would have much rather had my
husband there than my grandmother at first. We had different ideas on how to
do things ... you know what I mean? But if you can afford extra help by all
means get it! I am a SAHM and I pretty much wing it alone with the help of DH
of course. He rotates shifts each week so it works out well, that when he is
on nights we can all go to dr. appts or he can stay home with babies while I
take Alexis to preschool and help out.
Hope that helps.
Good luck.


~Kimberly
Mommy to Alexis Iliana 07/17/99 and
Emma Elidia & Aislyn Gabriela 10/01/02
come see us...
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/aislynemma/

[C Straka]

You can do it without any outside help at all, but life will be easier with
just a bit of assistance. It doesn't have to be relatives - neighbours,
high-school students, members of your church or other group that you belong
to, etc. Even just an hour a day or a couple of afternoons a week can make a
huge difference.

When our boys were born, one of our neighbours came over every morning at 9
a.m., helped me feed them and then popped them in the stroller and took her
morning walk while I crawled back into bed for an hour of coma. She did this
every morning, Monday through Friday, for about 3 months. DH started a new
job, with a new company, exactly two weeks after the boys were born, so he
had the new-job stresses on top of the new-twin stresses. And our daughter
was 3 yo when the boys were born.

Claudia (Alison 8/95; Timothy and Cameron 4/99)

[Digital Larry]

We just had our first, fraternal twins born 7 wks. premature on May 6. We
have not had a LOT of help in terms of in-laws etc. We've had some though
and it is quite noticeable.

Can you do it? Sure. Will it be hard? Yes. Mostly the never-ending
grind of it all. Any given incident is not that big of a deal, but it just
doesn't seem to let up. That said, now that they are 4 months old, we are
actually noticing - IT'S GETTING EASIER! There's not so much crying, they
are actually starting to smile and giggle and coo and be pleasant while
they are awake - and get this - Reed actually went 8 hours between feedings
yesterday - 9 PM to 5 AM. I have to celebrate even this, though his
brother Martin is not quite at the 8 hour mark - 4 or 4.5 is about his
speed (definitely improved from 3 hours when he first came home).

I managed to take 4 months off from work part-time on Family Medical Leave
Act. My wife is taking 6 months off work. I go back full time tomorrow
and we are having a nanny start part-time. We may go to full time nanny
when DW returns to work in November. Day care is not cheap and it doesn't
sound great for kids to get exposed to all those germs at a young age.
Nanny is not cheap either but with us both working it is (barely)
affordable.

Anyway here's some recent pics of the boys!

http://www.geocities.com/faultline1989/martin-reed-01.html

[Digital Larry]

We just had our first, fraternal twins born 7 wks. premature on May 6. We
have not had a LOT of help in terms of in-laws etc. We've had some though
and it is quite noticeable.

Can you do it? Sure. Will it be hard? Yes. Mostly the never-ending
grind of it all. Any given incident is not that big of a deal, but it just
doesn't seem to let up. That said, now that they are 4 months old, we are
actually noticing - IT'S GETTING EASIER! There's not so much crying, they
are actually starting to smile and giggle and coo and be pleasant while
they are awake - and get this - Reed actually went 8 hours between feedings
yesterday - 9 PM to 5 AM. I have to celebrate even this, though his
brother Martin is not quite at the 8 hour mark - 4 or 4.5 is about his
speed (definitely improved from 3 hours when he first came home).

I managed to take 4 months off from work part-time on Family Medical Leave
Act. My wife is taking 6 months off work. I go back full time tomorrow
and we are having a nanny start part-time. We may go to full time nanny
when DW returns to work in November. Day care is not cheap and it doesn't
sound great for kids to get exposed to all those germs at a young age.
Nanny is not cheap either but with us both working it is (barely)
affordable.

Anyway here's some recent pics of the boys!

http://www.geocities.com/faultline1989/martin-reed-01.html

[Ellie]

Oh your boys are sooo beautiful : )))

Ellie

"Digital Larry" > wrote in message
9.11...
> We just had our first, fraternal twins born 7 wks. premature on May 6. We
> have not had a LOT of help in terms of in-laws etc. We've had some though
> and it is quite noticeable.
>
> Can you do it? Sure. Will it be hard? Yes. Mostly the never-ending
> grind of it all. Any given incident is not that big of a deal, but it
just
> doesn't seem to let up. That said, now that they are 4 months old, we are
> actually noticing - IT'S GETTING EASIER! There's not so much crying, they
> are actually starting to smile and giggle and coo and be pleasant while
> they are awake - and get this - Reed actually went 8 hours between
feedings
> yesterday - 9 PM to 5 AM. I have to celebrate even this, though his
> brother Martin is not quite at the 8 hour mark - 4 or 4.5 is about his
> speed (definitely improved from 3 hours when he first came home).
>
> I managed to take 4 months off from work part-time on Family Medical Leave
> Act. My wife is taking 6 months off work. I go back full time tomorrow
> and we are having a nanny start part-time. We may go to full time nanny
> when DW returns to work in November. Day care is not cheap and it doesn't
> sound great for kids to get exposed to all those germs at a young age.
> Nanny is not cheap either but with us both working it is (barely)
> affordable.
>
> Anyway here's some recent pics of the boys!
>
> http://www.geocities.com/faultline1989/martin-reed-01.html

[Ellie]

Oh your boys are sooo beautiful : )))

Ellie

"Digital Larry" > wrote in message
9.11...
> We just had our first, fraternal twins born 7 wks. premature on May 6. We
> have not had a LOT of help in terms of in-laws etc. We've had some though
> and it is quite noticeable.
>
> Can you do it? Sure. Will it be hard? Yes. Mostly the never-ending
> grind of it all. Any given incident is not that big of a deal, but it
just
> doesn't seem to let up. That said, now that they are 4 months old, we are
> actually noticing - IT'S GETTING EASIER! There's not so much crying, they
> are actually starting to smile and giggle and coo and be pleasant while
> they are awake - and get this - Reed actually went 8 hours between
feedings
> yesterday - 9 PM to 5 AM. I have to celebrate even this, though his
> brother Martin is not quite at the 8 hour mark - 4 or 4.5 is about his
> speed (definitely improved from 3 hours when he first came home).
>
> I managed to take 4 months off from work part-time on Family Medical Leave
> Act. My wife is taking 6 months off work. I go back full time tomorrow
> and we are having a nanny start part-time. We may go to full time nanny
> when DW returns to work in November. Day care is not cheap and it doesn't
> sound great for kids to get exposed to all those germs at a young age.
> Nanny is not cheap either but with us both working it is (barely)
> affordable.
>
> Anyway here's some recent pics of the boys!
>
> http://www.geocities.com/faultline1989/martin-reed-01.html

[thefackrells]

oh wow...they are sooooo cute!!!!
Gwen

[thefackrells]

oh wow...they are sooooo cute!!!!
Gwen

[Andrea]

Awww.....they're so cute! Makes me want another one even more. Shouldn't that
last caption read "Daddy takes a nap under Reed"? ;)

Thanks for sharing!

Andrea
twin girls-Jordan & Madison
3 yrs. old

[Andrea]

Awww.....they're so cute! Makes me want another one even more. Shouldn't that
last caption read "Daddy takes a nap under Reed"? ;)

Thanks for sharing!

Andrea
twin girls-Jordan & Madison
3 yrs. old

[GandSBrock]

Very, very cute digital Larry. Too bad they weren't able to salvage any hair
after the separation surgery - but it seems to be healing nicely. ;-)

Reed and Martin are a couple of beautiful boys. :-) Thanks for sharing.

Stephanie
Jake and Ryan 9/3/99

[GandSBrock]

Very, very cute digital Larry. Too bad they weren't able to salvage any hair
after the separation surgery - but it seems to be healing nicely. ;-)

Reed and Martin are a couple of beautiful boys. :-) Thanks for sharing.

Stephanie
Jake and Ryan 9/3/99

[GandSBrock]

Kimberly,

It can't be! They can't be almost 1 already! They are soooo beautiful. Those
blue eyes and dark hair. You are gonna have your work cut out when they hit
dating age!!


Stephanie
Jake and Ryan 9/3/99

[GandSBrock]

Kimberly,

It can't be! They can't be almost 1 already! They are soooo beautiful. Those
blue eyes and dark hair. You are gonna have your work cut out when they hit
dating age!!


Stephanie
Jake and Ryan 9/3/99

[Gary]

"thefackrells" > wrote in message news:<mw%6b.391359$o%2.175415@sccrnsc02>...
>
> Have you crunched the numbers too see if it is "cheaper" just to have DW (or
> even you) stay home?? Typically the second income, minus daycare expenses,
> is only a few thousands dollars at the end of the year....which doesn't
> really make it worth leaving your kids for someone else to raise...

Well let's put it this way... this is my wife's desire to return to
work (at least theoretically - I know another friend who tried that
for about a week and threw in the towel on a successful graphics
career). It is not based solely on financial considerations. Her
rationale is that she was raised by a single working mother, and
though I hope she doesn't plan to become single, she is just getting
started on a public health career that she got a Master's in her
mid-30's in order to pursue. But... y'know... that's just today's
concept.

As far as the ideal child rearing situation goes, certainly it would
be great if neither one of us had to work and could spend all of our
time watching the kids and videotaping their first this and that. I
feel like I'll be missing all of that anyway. I just returned to full
time and it's difficult.

As when we started into this adventure we do not know how we will feel
when we actually try it. The only consolation is that we can always
change our minds if that becomes necessary. Everyone appears to feel
the sting of time passing as they watch their kids grow and become
less cute (LOL).

[Gary]

"thefackrells" > wrote in message news:<mw%6b.391359$o%2.175415@sccrnsc02>...
>
> Have you crunched the numbers too see if it is "cheaper" just to have DW (or
> even you) stay home?? Typically the second income, minus daycare expenses,
> is only a few thousands dollars at the end of the year....which doesn't
> really make it worth leaving your kids for someone else to raise...

Well let's put it this way... this is my wife's desire to return to
work (at least theoretically - I know another friend who tried that
for about a week and threw in the towel on a successful graphics
career). It is not based solely on financial considerations. Her
rationale is that she was raised by a single working mother, and
though I hope she doesn't plan to become single, she is just getting
started on a public health career that she got a Master's in her
mid-30's in order to pursue. But... y'know... that's just today's
concept.

As far as the ideal child rearing situation goes, certainly it would
be great if neither one of us had to work and could spend all of our
time watching the kids and videotaping their first this and that. I
feel like I'll be missing all of that anyway. I just returned to full
time and it's difficult.

As when we started into this adventure we do not know how we will feel
when we actually try it. The only consolation is that we can always
change our minds if that becomes necessary. Everyone appears to feel
the sting of time passing as they watch their kids grow and become
less cute (LOL).

[David desJardins]

Gwen writes:
> Have you crunched the numbers too see if it is "cheaper" just to have
> DW (or even you) stay home?? Typically the second income, minus
> daycare expenses, is only a few thousands dollars at the end of the
> year....which doesn't really make it worth leaving your kids for
> someone else to raise...

Maybe you meant this in a more friendly way, but it sounds like an
attack on working parents. I don't agree that people who use childcare
options, of various sorts, are necessarily less engaged in their
children's growth and development. We used to have one poster who
occasionally showed up here to castigate working parents. We haven't
heard from him for a while, and I'm just as glad for that.

David desJardins

[David desJardins]

Gwen writes:
> Have you crunched the numbers too see if it is "cheaper" just to have
> DW (or even you) stay home?? Typically the second income, minus
> daycare expenses, is only a few thousands dollars at the end of the
> year....which doesn't really make it worth leaving your kids for
> someone else to raise...

Maybe you meant this in a more friendly way, but it sounds like an
attack on working parents. I don't agree that people who use childcare
options, of various sorts, are necessarily less engaged in their
children's growth and development. We used to have one poster who
occasionally showed up here to castigate working parents. We haven't
heard from him for a while, and I'm just as glad for that.

David desJardins

[thefackrells]

No so much an attack but more of a Plea to reconsider ALL options of a
parent staying home as opposed to both of them working outside the home.....

But yes, I will not hide the fact that I'm a HUGE supporter of a parent
staying home and raising their own kids! This is not to say I don't realize
that some circumstances can't be helped and both parents must work (or say
one parent is no longer around)... I mean, shelter/food/security MUST be met
somehow!!! I'm not about to suggest that a family live in a refrigerator box
on the street just so a mommy or daddy can be home - not at all!! Life
happens, I understand that!
What I don't care for are the materialist and/or selfish *parents* that just
will NOT give up the second income or their careers so that they can
continue living their DINKY lifestyles....when it comes down to it, kids
don't care if they have a 30' boat, flat screen t.v.'s w/maxed out cable or
satellite, 3 *luxury* cars/suvs/trucks in the garage, or a 4000sq' home (etc
etc etc)....they care about being with their mommies and daddies!! If that
means moving to a less expensive neighborhood and/or state, you do it. If it
means selling off expensive *toys*, you do it....if it means eating at home
instead of out (gulp) you do it! If it means cutting back to live within
your means, YOU DO IT!
I know when we were preggers with my first, all of a sudden DH got scared
and started to say I would have to go back to work....I held my ground,
obviously, and at one point he actually said that he just wanted to make
sure that he was still able to have his steak and lobsters....of which I
replied he would be eating hamburger, potatoes and rice if we had too, I was
staying home!!
heck, I know of a family that made less than $30k/yr with 5 kids (yup, a
pair of twins in there too!) in the home and they managed (I don't know
how!) to have the mom stay home...and I know several on the lower income end
that even make their own laundry soap in order to cut corners! It can be
done!
Gwen

[thefackrells]

No so much an attack but more of a Plea to reconsider ALL options of a
parent staying home as opposed to both of them working outside the home.....

But yes, I will not hide the fact that I'm a HUGE supporter of a parent
staying home and raising their own kids! This is not to say I don't realize
that some circumstances can't be helped and both parents must work (or say
one parent is no longer around)... I mean, shelter/food/security MUST be met
somehow!!! I'm not about to suggest that a family live in a refrigerator box
on the street just so a mommy or daddy can be home - not at all!! Life
happens, I understand that!
What I don't care for are the materialist and/or selfish *parents* that just
will NOT give up the second income or their careers so that they can
continue living their DINKY lifestyles....when it comes down to it, kids
don't care if they have a 30' boat, flat screen t.v.'s w/maxed out cable or
satellite, 3 *luxury* cars/suvs/trucks in the garage, or a 4000sq' home (etc
etc etc)....they care about being with their mommies and daddies!! If that
means moving to a less expensive neighborhood and/or state, you do it. If it
means selling off expensive *toys*, you do it....if it means eating at home
instead of out (gulp) you do it! If it means cutting back to live within
your means, YOU DO IT!
I know when we were preggers with my first, all of a sudden DH got scared
and started to say I would have to go back to work....I held my ground,
obviously, and at one point he actually said that he just wanted to make
sure that he was still able to have his steak and lobsters....of which I
replied he would be eating hamburger, potatoes and rice if we had too, I was
staying home!!
heck, I know of a family that made less than $30k/yr with 5 kids (yup, a
pair of twins in there too!) in the home and they managed (I don't know
how!) to have the mom stay home...and I know several on the lower income end
that even make their own laundry soap in order to cut corners! It can be
done!
Gwen

[David desJardins]

Gwen writes:
> No so much an attack but more of a Plea to reconsider ALL options of a
> parent staying home as opposed to both of them working outside the home.....

I don't see the difference between telling someone whom you don't know
to "reconsider" their choices, and attacking them. How can you know
what kinds of "consideration" people have already done, or judge whether
their reasons are good enough?

> What I don't care for are the materialist and/or selfish *parents*
> that just will NOT give up the second income or their careers so that
> they can continue living their DINKY lifestyles....when it comes down
> to it, kids don't care if they have a 30' boat, flat screen t.v.'s
> w/maxed out cable or satellite, 3 *luxury* cars/suvs/trucks in the
> garage, or a 4000sq' home (etc etc etc)....they care about being with
> their mommies and daddies!!

I think this is such a ridiculous strawman. I know plenty of families
with two working parents. I don't know any who are working in order to
maintain a "lifestyle". The people I know all work because it's an
important part of their lives, just the same way their family is.

I think you haven't the slightest basis for telling them that their kids
or their family are worse off for it. I don't think parents are
inherently better at every aspect of raising children than anyone else
(do you also propose the abolition of all public and private schools)?
I think there are plenty of ways that parents can reasonably conclude
that their children are better off when their parents have other
fulfilling things in their lives than just raising children, and when
other forms of child care and education supplement the role of the
parents. You should respect the choices of people who know a lot more
about their own families than you do.

David desJardins

[David desJardins]

Gwen writes:
> No so much an attack but more of a Plea to reconsider ALL options of a
> parent staying home as opposed to both of them working outside the home.....

I don't see the difference between telling someone whom you don't know
to "reconsider" their choices, and attacking them. How can you know
what kinds of "consideration" people have already done, or judge whether
their reasons are good enough?

> What I don't care for are the materialist and/or selfish *parents*
> that just will NOT give up the second income or their careers so that
> they can continue living their DINKY lifestyles....when it comes down
> to it, kids don't care if they have a 30' boat, flat screen t.v.'s
> w/maxed out cable or satellite, 3 *luxury* cars/suvs/trucks in the
> garage, or a 4000sq' home (etc etc etc)....they care about being with
> their mommies and daddies!!

I think this is such a ridiculous strawman. I know plenty of families
with two working parents. I don't know any who are working in order to
maintain a "lifestyle". The people I know all work because it's an
important part of their lives, just the same way their family is.

I think you haven't the slightest basis for telling them that their kids
or their family are worse off for it. I don't think parents are
inherently better at every aspect of raising children than anyone else
(do you also propose the abolition of all public and private schools)?
I think there are plenty of ways that parents can reasonably conclude
that their children are better off when their parents have other
fulfilling things in their lives than just raising children, and when
other forms of child care and education supplement the role of the
parents. You should respect the choices of people who know a lot more
about their own families than you do.

David desJardins

[shirley]

I know we started out with me working because the university closed a whole
school and my DH was out of work BUT, I worked for 25 years before the
babies were born, stayed home for 5 while they were "babies" and started
back when they were going to school. I can't imagine staying home. I love
being a school secretary, especially in my Title I (90% poverty) school,
helping 5th graders learn what they may not learn at home, or cuddling a
child who needs a good hug - things my kids get all the time. I know I make
a much better mom being a working mom. Luckily because I work at a school
my principal is very generous with my time off or away from the office to
tend to my children when needed. I used to think being at SAHM was the only
way to raise healthy children but I'm home 15 minutes after they come home
and I leave in the AM when their dad (who has become a real significant
person in their lives because of his time with them), gets them ready for
school and takes them. Each family does what they need. I have friends who
the mom is a partner in a law firm and the dad is a major contributor as an
MD/pH.D. to child neurology at the U of Chicago. I want those people to
work, they are doing things in society that are not just benefiting
themselves (they are highly paid - well at least mom is), but society. Why
should she stay home? I agree with David.

Shirley

"David desJardins" > wrote in message
...
> Gwen writes:
> > No so much an attack but more of a Plea to reconsider ALL options of a
> > parent staying home as opposed to both of them working outside the
home.....
>
> I don't see the difference between telling someone whom you don't know
> to "reconsider" their choices, and attacking them. How can you know
> what kinds of "consideration" people have already done, or judge whether
> their reasons are good enough?
>
> > What I don't care for are the materialist and/or selfish *parents*
> > that just will NOT give up the second income or their careers so that
> > they can continue living their DINKY lifestyles....when it comes down
> > to it, kids don't care if they have a 30' boat, flat screen t.v.'s
> > w/maxed out cable or satellite, 3 *luxury* cars/suvs/trucks in the
> > garage, or a 4000sq' home (etc etc etc)....they care about being with
> > their mommies and daddies!!
>
> I think this is such a ridiculous strawman. I know plenty of families
> with two working parents. I don't know any who are working in order to
> maintain a "lifestyle". The people I know all work because it's an
> important part of their lives, just the same way their family is.
>
> I think you haven't the slightest basis for telling them that their kids
> or their family are worse off for it. I don't think parents are
> inherently better at every aspect of raising children than anyone else
> (do you also propose the abolition of all public and private schools)?
> I think there are plenty of ways that parents can reasonably conclude
> that their children are better off when their parents have other
> fulfilling things in their lives than just raising children, and when
> other forms of child care and education supplement the role of the
> parents. You should respect the choices of people who know a lot more
> about their own families than you do.
>
> David desJardins

[shirley]

I know we started out with me working because the university closed a whole
school and my DH was out of work BUT, I worked for 25 years before the
babies were born, stayed home for 5 while they were "babies" and started
back when they were going to school. I can't imagine staying home. I love
being a school secretary, especially in my Title I (90% poverty) school,
helping 5th graders learn what they may not learn at home, or cuddling a
child who needs a good hug - things my kids get all the time. I know I make
a much better mom being a working mom. Luckily because I work at a school
my principal is very generous with my time off or away from the office to
tend to my children when needed. I used to think being at SAHM was the only
way to raise healthy children but I'm home 15 minutes after they come home
and I leave in the AM when their dad (who has become a real significant
person in their lives because of his time with them), gets them ready for
school and takes them. Each family does what they need. I have friends who
the mom is a partner in a law firm and the dad is a major contributor as an
MD/pH.D. to child neurology at the U of Chicago. I want those people to
work, they are doing things in society that are not just benefiting
themselves (they are highly paid - well at least mom is), but society. Why
should she stay home? I agree with David.

Shirley

"David desJardins" > wrote in message
...
> Gwen writes:
> > No so much an attack but more of a Plea to reconsider ALL options of a
> > parent staying home as opposed to both of them working outside the
home.....
>
> I don't see the difference between telling someone whom you don't know
> to "reconsider" their choices, and attacking them. How can you know
> what kinds of "consideration" people have already done, or judge whether
> their reasons are good enough?
>
> > What I don't care for are the materialist and/or selfish *parents*
> > that just will NOT give up the second income or their careers so that
> > they can continue living their DINKY lifestyles....when it comes down
> > to it, kids don't care if they have a 30' boat, flat screen t.v.'s
> > w/maxed out cable or satellite, 3 *luxury* cars/suvs/trucks in the
> > garage, or a 4000sq' home (etc etc etc)....they care about being with
> > their mommies and daddies!!
>
> I think this is such a ridiculous strawman. I know plenty of families
> with two working parents. I don't know any who are working in order to
> maintain a "lifestyle". The people I know all work because it's an
> important part of their lives, just the same way their family is.
>
> I think you haven't the slightest basis for telling them that their kids
> or their family are worse off for it. I don't think parents are
> inherently better at every aspect of raising children than anyone else
> (do you also propose the abolition of all public and private schools)?
> I think there are plenty of ways that parents can reasonably conclude
> that their children are better off when their parents have other
> fulfilling things in their lives than just raising children, and when
> other forms of child care and education supplement the role of the
> parents. You should respect the choices of people who know a lot more
> about their own families than you do.
>
> David desJardins

[Julie Seely]

David desJardins wrote:
>
> I think this is such a ridiculous strawman. I know plenty of families
> with two working parents. I don't know any who are working in order to
> maintain a "lifestyle". The people I know all work because it's an
> important part of their lives, just the same way their family is.
>

[dons flame-retardant suit]

David --

I know all sorts, INCLUDING, yes, really, a family who unabashedly
admits that the wife kept her high-powered job so that they could
continue their lavish lifestyle. Their girls were at daycare eleven
hours/day, five days per week. The girls are mouthy, obnoxious, rude,
wild and refused to listen to adults. The wife finally left her job,
thinking that by not working, she would be doing the girls a service
(the mom said that this decision was based on watching the behavior of
children of friends -- including our family -- who did not work or
worked minimal hours). So she quit her job, but they kept sending the
girls to daycare, though fewer hours, after she quit! She's working
again now, seeing as how her time off from work (but not home with the
kids...) didn't seem to improve things. Go figure.

Another friend who teaches kindergarten ays that within the first week
of school, she can identify by behavior with a high degree of accuracy
which kids were in full-time daycare, and which kids spent more time at
home.

I'm also all for staying home with the kids when circumstances allow,
and research supports this as well. There was actually a big NIH study
released on that this summer. Basic finding, as reported in the NY
Times this summer, was "The correlation between quantity of child care
and behavior problems remained even when other variables were taken into
account, including the quality and type of the child care, the mother's
sensitivity to her child's needs and the family's socioeconomic status.
Indeed, the study found that the time spent in child care was linked
more strongly with children's behavior than was the quality of care."

Julie
Mom to Erica & Chris, 07/97 (I work, but genearally only while the kids
are at school)

[Julie Seely]

David desJardins wrote:
>
> I think this is such a ridiculous strawman. I know plenty of families
> with two working parents. I don't know any who are working in order to
> maintain a "lifestyle". The people I know all work because it's an
> important part of their lives, just the same way their family is.
>

[dons flame-retardant suit]

David --

I know all sorts, INCLUDING, yes, really, a family who unabashedly
admits that the wife kept her high-powered job so that they could
continue their lavish lifestyle. Their girls were at daycare eleven
hours/day, five days per week. The girls are mouthy, obnoxious, rude,
wild and refused to listen to adults. The wife finally left her job,
thinking that by not working, she would be doing the girls a service
(the mom said that this decision was based on watching the behavior of
children of friends -- including our family -- who did not work or
worked minimal hours). So she quit her job, but they kept sending the
girls to daycare, though fewer hours, after she quit! She's working
again now, seeing as how her time off from work (but not home with the
kids...) didn't seem to improve things. Go figure.

Another friend who teaches kindergarten ays that within the first week
of school, she can identify by behavior with a high degree of accuracy
which kids were in full-time daycare, and which kids spent more time at
home.

I'm also all for staying home with the kids when circumstances allow,
and research supports this as well. There was actually a big NIH study
released on that this summer. Basic finding, as reported in the NY
Times this summer, was "The correlation between quantity of child care
and behavior problems remained even when other variables were taken into
account, including the quality and type of the child care, the mother's
sensitivity to her child's needs and the family's socioeconomic status.
Indeed, the study found that the time spent in child care was linked
more strongly with children's behavior than was the quality of care."

Julie
Mom to Erica & Chris, 07/97 (I work, but genearally only while the kids
are at school)

[Jonathan Wolgamuth]

In article >,
says...

> There was actually a big NIH study released on that this summer. Basic
> finding, as reported in the NY Times this summer, was "The correlation
> between quantity of child care and behavior problems remained even when
> other variables were taken into account, including the quality and type
> of the child care, the mother's sensitivity to her child's needs and the
> family's socioeconomic status. Indeed, the study found that the time
> spent in child care was linked more strongly with children's behavior
> than was the quality of care."

Do you have a link to the report? Or a summary of the report? I'm
interested.

--

Jonathan

"Kids are great Apu! You can teach them to hate the things you hate, and
they practically raise themselves with the internet and all!"

H.S.

[Jonathan Wolgamuth]

In article >,
says...

> There was actually a big NIH study released on that this summer. Basic
> finding, as reported in the NY Times this summer, was "The correlation
> between quantity of child care and behavior problems remained even when
> other variables were taken into account, including the quality and type
> of the child care, the mother's sensitivity to her child's needs and the
> family's socioeconomic status. Indeed, the study found that the time
> spent in child care was linked more strongly with children's behavior
> than was the quality of care."

Do you have a link to the report? Or a summary of the report? I'm
interested.

--

Jonathan

"Kids are great Apu! You can teach them to hate the things you hate, and
they practically raise themselves with the internet and all!"

H.S.

[GandSBrock]

warning... very long winded...

Well, Gwen, I support your stance. I don't think you were condescending when
you "urged". That's the way people talk when they have a passion. Of course,
I'm biased, I'm a SAHM too.

I wouldn't miss these years for the world, if I could help it. But then again,
I desperately wanted these children. There are plenty of people out there who
just endure their kids and can't wait for graduation. I still think the kids
would rather have their parents at home with them. That's their family. Their
nest, their place of safety. Only if they are together is there a chance for
them to bond. Bonding would never have a chance to happen if they all go their
separate ways. There are plenty of ways for the at-home parent to be fulfilled
without having to spend all day at work. And I have found that there are
plenty of needs out there that can only be met by moms who are home during the
day. And that is a wonderful thing for the kids to see. Kids aren't seeing
moms at home, eating bonbons, laying around lamenting the careers unfulfilled.
We are doing things for other people, making a difference in the neighborhood
or community or to the little old lady next door.

David, that was a cheap shot about the mom who drowned her kids. She had a
mental illness. You can pipe in only AFTER you've gone through PPD. Thank you
very much. Oh, and if you're referring to Susan Smith, well, that chick's got
to have a mental illness too. Do you think spending their days in daycare
would have changed that outcome? I think not.

I don't really care what the studies indicate. It'll change in a few years and
then change again. All I know is that my boys do benefit from me being at home
and that's what I base my opinion on. I benefit too.

Just last week I had two "parties" at my house, one Monday and one Tuesday.
This is a lot of socializing for me. So I had to organize the agendas, clean
house, cook, etc. etc. I farmed the kids out for several hours both days to
get my work done. I was exhausted. And I missed them. I longed to stand in
the driveway and watch them ride their bikes around in circles or run back and
forth through the sprinklers.
Sorry this was sooooo long.

Stephanie
Jake and Ryan 9/3/99

[GandSBrock]

warning... very long winded...

Well, Gwen, I support your stance. I don't think you were condescending when
you "urged". That's the way people talk when they have a passion. Of course,
I'm biased, I'm a SAHM too.

I wouldn't miss these years for the world, if I could help it. But then again,
I desperately wanted these children. There are plenty of people out there who
just endure their kids and can't wait for graduation. I still think the kids
would rather have their parents at home with them. That's their family. Their
nest, their place of safety. Only if they are together is there a chance for
them to bond. Bonding would never have a chance to happen if they all go their
separate ways. There are plenty of ways for the at-home parent to be fulfilled
without having to spend all day at work. And I have found that there are
plenty of needs out there that can only be met by moms who are home during the
day. And that is a wonderful thing for the kids to see. Kids aren't seeing
moms at home, eating bonbons, laying around lamenting the careers unfulfilled.
We are doing things for other people, making a difference in the neighborhood
or community or to the little old lady next door.

David, that was a cheap shot about the mom who drowned her kids. She had a
mental illness. You can pipe in only AFTER you've gone through PPD. Thank you
very much. Oh, and if you're referring to Susan Smith, well, that chick's got
to have a mental illness too. Do you think spending their days in daycare
would have changed that outcome? I think not.

I don't really care what the studies indicate. It'll change in a few years and
then change again. All I know is that my boys do benefit from me being at home
and that's what I base my opinion on. I benefit too.

Just last week I had two "parties" at my house, one Monday and one Tuesday.
This is a lot of socializing for me. So I had to organize the agendas, clean
house, cook, etc. etc. I farmed the kids out for several hours both days to
get my work done. I was exhausted. And I missed them. I longed to stand in
the driveway and watch them ride their bikes around in circles or run back and
forth through the sprinklers.
Sorry this was sooooo long.

Stephanie
Jake and Ryan 9/3/99

[thefackrells]

Just wanted to pop in.....I'm still here and desperately wanting to reply
but I've been SWAMPED!!!! We've decided to sell and build our own home so
I'm packing, looking for land, weeding through house plans.....trying to get
ready for our twins club C&E sale (aaack just a few more weeks!!)......and
then of course everyday life with toddler twins and a 5year old!!!! And darn
it if I still don't have some funky residual stuff from that internet
worm......I'll start reading a post from here and if its of any length, I
get kicked right back to its begining...very irritating!!!.....so anyway,
rest assured I will RESPOND.....I wont make your life easier by disappearing
like the other poster.....our kids are too important!....ok...off to more
laundry, plan searching.....and I MUST vaccume tomorrow!!!
Gwen

[thefackrells]

Just wanted to pop in.....I'm still here and desperately wanting to reply
but I've been SWAMPED!!!! We've decided to sell and build our own home so
I'm packing, looking for land, weeding through house plans.....trying to get
ready for our twins club C&E sale (aaack just a few more weeks!!)......and
then of course everyday life with toddler twins and a 5year old!!!! And darn
it if I still don't have some funky residual stuff from that internet
worm......I'll start reading a post from here and if its of any length, I
get kicked right back to its begining...very irritating!!!.....so anyway,
rest assured I will RESPOND.....I wont make your life easier by disappearing
like the other poster.....our kids are too important!....ok...off to more
laundry, plan searching.....and I MUST vaccume tomorrow!!!
Gwen

[Julie Seely]

Jonathan --

This is a link to a later article about the study:

http://www.oacas.org/whatsnew/newsstories/03/july/16childcare.pdf

Julie


Jonathan Wolgamuth wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > There was actually a big NIH study released on that this summer. Basic
> > finding, as reported in the NY Times this summer, was "The correlation
> > between quantity of child care and behavior problems remained even when
> > other variables were taken into account, including the quality and type
> > of the child care, the mother's sensitivity to her child's needs and the
> > family's socioeconomic status. Indeed, the study found that the time
> > spent in child care was linked more strongly with children's behavior
> > than was the quality of care."
>
> Do you have a link to the report? Or a summary of the report? I'm
> interested.
>
> --
>
> Jonathan
>
> "Kids are great Apu! You can teach them to hate the things you hate, and
> they practically raise themselves with the internet and all!"
>
> H.S.

[Julie Seely]

Jonathan --

This is a link to a later article about the study:

http://www.oacas.org/whatsnew/newsstories/03/july/16childcare.pdf

Julie


Jonathan Wolgamuth wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
>
> > There was actually a big NIH study released on that this summer. Basic
> > finding, as reported in the NY Times this summer, was "The correlation
> > between quantity of child care and behavior problems remained even when
> > other variables were taken into account, including the quality and type
> > of the child care, the mother's sensitivity to her child's needs and the
> > family's socioeconomic status. Indeed, the study found that the time
> > spent in child care was linked more strongly with children's behavior
> > than was the quality of care."
>
> Do you have a link to the report? Or a summary of the report? I'm
> interested.
>
> --
>
> Jonathan
>
> "Kids are great Apu! You can teach them to hate the things you hate, and
> they practically raise themselves with the internet and all!"
>
> H.S.

[Jonathan Wolgamuth]

In article >,
says...

> Jonathan --
>
> This is a link to a later article about the study:
>
> http://www.oacas.org/whatsnew/newsstories/03/july/16childcare.pdf

Julie, thanks for posting those links. I appreciate it!

--
Jonathan

[Jonathan Wolgamuth]

In article >,
says...

> Jonathan --
>
> This is a link to a later article about the study:
>
> http://www.oacas.org/whatsnew/newsstories/03/july/16childcare.pdf

Julie, thanks for posting those links. I appreciate it!

--
Jonathan