PDA

View Full Version : going out to work vs motherhood dilema


Abi
March 25th 04, 10:53 AM
Hi,

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. I will maintain other interests during this time and
may try a few working-from-home ideas for `pocket money', but for at
least the next 2 to 5 years I want to make being a mother a priority,
choosing to be the main carer of my child for what is, after all, only
a few short years. I suppose this should all be a natural normal way
of thinking, but my problem is down to my partner.
My partner thinks that staying at home being a housewife/carer is
`taking the easy way out', and plus he is worried about taken on a
greater responsibility for ensuring we have enough money. He also
thinks it isn't going to be stimulating enough for me.

I would not like to be financially dependent on him, but am prepared
to downsize my life for a few years if this is what it takes. I am
also fully prepared to find looking after a child a very stimulating
and rewarding job. I certainly know that my partner's job isn't
stimulating. I have even suggested that he can take an equal share in
staying at home and have never encouraged or pressured him to bring in
loads of money from work. I also happen to know that some mothers
find it an easier job to sit in an office for 8 hours a day rather
than spend it with a toddler - hence the desire to make use of child
minders/nurseries etc, so I would regard child-caring/rearing a
difficult and tiring task at times - more so than in traditional wage
paying jobs.

I also want to know how women in the past - even as recently as 20
years ago - never seemed to get the pressure to go out to work and
bring in half the finances? Were men happier to have this arrangement
or are they actually happier to have more financial stability? If the
latter - why didn't more women go out to work at this time?

thanks!

LeRoy
March 25th 04, 01:47 PM
Hi all/ Abi

This is my first time posting, after lurking for a while...

I am a Mum of 2 - Christopher, 11yo and Fran, 5 yo. I am a social worker and
love my job. As a first time Mum, I continued to work full time, spent much
time feeling guilty and feeling guilty for feeling guilty (why should I feel
bad!!!! I am a modern woman having it all!) I worked too hard and had a
healthy income.

After Fran, I wanted to stay home, but did not think it would be financially
viable. I therefore went back to work. Feeling worse and worse, I took on
bigger work challenges to compensate. After 2 years, I realised that I was
not coping - I was not being true to myself, my children, partner, nor
employer. I walked out of the high paying job and went freelance working
less than 1/2 time.

Since, I have come to the realisation that I did not need the money all that
much. We manage very well, and I have made savings (childcare, guilt
presents, new outfits, lunches) and I have a good relationship with both
children, who love Mum being at home after school everyday.

However, it was a learning curve - my husband now is the main breadwinner,
he still helps out but I had to make new networks - my stimulation was work
and I had fewer mother friends. I now make efforts to get to know more Mums
in the class, to join groups. Let me tell you, school politics are as
interesting as office politics!! Playgroup and nursery politics similarly.

The lifestyle might not be as plush, but there are fewer tired arguments,
fewer packet meals and fewer 'leave me alone, I need to finish this report'
times.

However, for me, it was always about being true to myself. I am more
fulfilled now, and my children are happier. When I was less fulfilled, I was
not as happy and therefore my relationshp with my kids suffered.

Some of my friends are fully fulfilled at work and have nannies etc. You
need to do what feels right for you.... and therefore for your family.

Phew - what a sermon! And for a newbie!!!

Pat

Karen G
March 25th 04, 03:05 PM
I stayed home with my first child for the first six months. I found a
part-time job that gave me a couple of days a week out of the house. I
worked at that job until my second child was born. Since that time I
have been a homemaker/busy person. I have done a very short stint of
childcare for a friend, some graphic design consulting now and then. I
have also become involved in a project to publish a book. The short
version is that I have found plenty to do while keeping my house
relatively clean, taking my kids to dance class and preschool, and
cooking (which I really enjoy).

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.

Karen G

workerbee
March 25th 04, 07:00 PM
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:53:59 EST, (Abi)
wrotE:

>I also want to know how women in the past - even as recently as 20
>years ago - never seemed to get the pressure to go out to work and
>bring in half the finances? Were men happier to have this arrangement
>or are they actually happier to have more financial stability? If the
>latter - why didn't more women go out to work at this time?

I am writing from the US & not the UK but I can tell you that 20 yrs.
ago, which was the 1980s, there certainly was pressure for women to go
out to work. I grew up in the 1960s and many women worked outside the
home even then, my mother did. I don't think the pressure was a great
but by the '70s it had become so. In addition, society adjusted and
housing, education, and other things became more expensive often
requiring two incomes depending on where one lived.

Were men happier with this arrangement? Not necessarily but many of
them didn't know thay had a choice. Now they do. The arrangement you
speak of is fine if that is what both partners want but you sound like
you are trying to force your partner into a role he doesn't want.
Would you be as amenable to having him stay home full time to care for
the baby while you went out to work to support the family? If not,
maybe you can see where he's coming from.

Is it possible for you to work part-time after a while or to work from
home? Maybe that would help to alleviate his concern. You could
propose being home with the baby for the first 9 months or so, then
seeking some kind of income. Many women here do in-home day care or
some kind of sales from home to allow them to be at home.

Cathy Kearns
March 25th 04, 07:16 PM
"Abi" > wrote in message
om...
> I also want to know how women in the past - even as recently as 20
> years ago - never seemed to get the pressure to go out to work and
> bring in half the finances?

In the past, even as recently as 20 years ago, women often did
not have the earning power of men. My mother was fired by
North American Rockwell in the late 50s for getting married.
She wasn't the happiest staying home with the children, and
always was looking for more outside activities to show she
had something to contribute to the world. I wonder how
she would have turned out if she had been born 30 years
later.

In the early 80s the number of women in management anywhere
was pitifully low, in the company I worked for there was not
a single women above first line management. No, there was
no pressure to bring in half the finances, because it was
pretty much impossible unless the wife had much more
education and experience than her spouse.

> Were men happier to have this arrangement
> or are they actually happier to have more financial stability? If the
> latter - why didn't more women go out to work at this time?

Back then whole families had less fininacial strain because the
cost of living was reachable on one modest salary. That is
not the case any more. Unfortunately, we hoped equality
meant families would have the choice of having the wife
or husband work. Economically, it often means having
both work.

I would not use examples of families in the 50s and 60s
to convince your husband you should stay home, its
apples and oranges. And 20 years ago women did go
back to work.

That said, you mentioned you want to go back to work in
5 years or so. Have you looked into afterschool care in
your area. I know when I had my children it was hard to
find good infant and preschool day care, but impossible to
find good afterschool daycare for kids above 2nd grade.
That's when I went part time, and eventually retired, to ensure
my kids had time to play and I had time to help with after
school activities.

H Schinske
March 25th 04, 09:55 PM
wrote:

>Back then whole families had less financial strain because the
>cost of living was reachable on one modest salary. That is
>not the case any more. Unfortunately, we hoped equality
>meant families would have the choice of having the wife
>or husband work. Economically, it often means having
>both work.

In the US (I don't know how it works in the UK) this is, in large part, due to
the fact that wealth is much less equitably distributed than it was even 20
years ago. The rich are far, far richer, and the not-so-rich are feeling the
pinch.

--Helen

Ann Porter
March 25th 04, 09:57 PM
"workerbee" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:53:59 EST, (Abi)
> wrotE:

> Would you be as amenable to having him stay home full time to care for
> the baby while you went out to work to support the family? If not,
> maybe you can see where he's coming from.
>
> Is it possible for you to work part-time after a while or to work from
> home? Maybe that would help to alleviate his concern. You could
> propose being home with the baby for the first 9 months or so, then
> seeking some kind of income. Many women here do in-home day care or
> some kind of sales from home to allow them to be at home.

I have always worked (except when I couldn't find work) and think I know
myself well enough that being home during the baby time is wonderful, but I
get really bored when the kids hit about pre-K.

That said, even when my youngest was very little, I worked part-time and had
a child minder when I was working. When he was a toddler, we jumped through
all kinds of hoops to minimize day care, and everybody in the family had a
"shift" tending to him, including the HS age boy (who volunteered for the
job!)

My daughter is currently working full-time at a crummy cashier job while her
DH works full-time at a job that is going to be very, very good for him over
the long haul, career-wise, but that doesn't pay very well. They work
differing shifts, and his step-mom watches their little one during the
overlap. It's quite a burden on their family, but nobody is really earning
much money and it's the best way they've found. It's also given my SIL and
grandson the opportunity to develop a strong bond, and for SIL to learn that
he can be a competent care-giver for his children. Things will be changing
for them when he starts law school and the next baby comes (Late June/early
July), but for now, this works.

I like to think I am supportive of mum being home with the children, but
unless you are a citizen of a country where you are paid to do so until the
child is older (like Germany, or Norway), then you really must consider your
partner's wishes in the matter. Partners make decisions for the partnership
together, and if s/he is not on board with your preference, that will be a
problem.

Best,
Ann

Elizabeth Gardner
March 25th 04, 09:58 PM
In article >,
(Abi) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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. I will maintain other interests during this time and
> may try a few working-from-home ideas for `pocket money', but for at
> least the next 2 to 5 years I want to make being a mother a priority,
> choosing to be the main carer of my child for what is, after all, only
> a few short years. I suppose this should all be a natural normal way
> of thinking, but my problem is down to my partner.
> My partner thinks that staying at home being a housewife/carer is
> `taking the easy way out', and plus he is worried about taken on a
> greater responsibility for ensuring we have enough money. He also
> thinks it isn't going to be stimulating enough for me.
>
> I would not like to be financially dependent on him, but am prepared
> to downsize my life for a few years if this is what it takes. I am
> also fully prepared to find looking after a child a very stimulating
> and rewarding job. I certainly know that my partner's job isn't
> stimulating. I have even suggested that he can take an equal share in
> staying at home and have never encouraged or pressured him to bring in
> loads of money from work. I also happen to know that some mothers
> find it an easier job to sit in an office for 8 hours a day rather
> than spend it with a toddler - hence the desire to make use of child
> minders/nurseries etc, so I would regard child-caring/rearing a
> difficult and tiring task at times - more so than in traditional wage
> paying jobs.
>
> I also want to know how women in the past - even as recently as 20
> years ago - never seemed to get the pressure to go out to work and
> bring in half the finances? Were men happier to have this arrangement
> or are they actually happier to have more financial stability? If the
> latter - why didn't more women go out to work at this time?
>
> thanks!
>

Don't know how it was in the UK, but in the U.S. between the end of WWII
and the mid-1970s, it was possible to live a comfortable middle-class
life on one middle-class salary. The returning soldiers needed jobs,
and women who had been encouraged to work to support the economy during
the war (and who had had to work during the Depression, when pretty much
everyone was poor) were expected to stay home and take care of the kids
of the Baby Boom, and get out of the way of the menfolk. And good job
opportunities for women were scarce (except in the standard female
professions of nurse/secretary/teacher) until the women's movement
started to have some impact.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s we had a spell of inflation where the
increase in the cost of living significantly outstripped the increase in
salaries. It was quite a scary time--I graduated from college about
then, and financially things were pretty bleak. At the same time, women
were beginning to be able to get decent paying jobs. The status quo
shifted in the course of a few years, to the point where two
middle-class salaries had only a little more buying power than one
salary had had a decade before. The second salary became
institutionalized, probably by the end of the 1980s.

Mom staying home with the kids has historically been a middle and
upperclass phenomenon anyway--during my grandma's first marriage and
after her divorce in the 1920s, she ran a stenography service in L.A. to
support herself and my mom. She didn't start staying home until she
married a man who worked as a high school teacher, and even then, she
did freelance writing and ran a restaurant at various times in their
marriage. And her mom worked alongside her dad running a general store.
Her first husband's mom ran a rooming house. My other grandma lived a
life of leisure and taking care of my dad, but she was married to a
banker.

So much for the somewhat oversimplified history lesson to answer your
last question. To answer your first question, the most important issue
is not whether you stay home with the baby, go back to work, or take up
an income-producing activity that you can do at home. People have
raised happy, healthy children doing any of those things or a
combination of all of them in succession.

But in my opinion, it is absolutely essential that whatever you do, you
and your partner both agree that it is the best option. It's better
for your relationship and even better for your baby. Being the sole
financial support of a family is a stressful position, especially if you
weren't raised to consider it your natural role, and if your partner
resents it, things could get pretty grim.

By the way, don't underestimate how exhausting child care can be. It
can be extremely rewarding, but like most jobs, it involves a lot of
rote work and heavy lifting, and the hours can be grueling. And your
experience will be different from anyone else's, because it depends on
your child's personality (and on how much he or she is willing to sleep
;-)). Before I had my baby, I had absolutely no clue what it would be
like to take care of her fulltime, even though I knew other moms. It
was a lot harder than I had expected.

Abi
March 26th 04, 01:39 PM
Elizabeth Gardner > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Abi) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 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. I will maintain other interests during this time and
> > may try a few working-from-home ideas for `pocket money', but for at
> > least the next 2 to 5 years I want to make being a mother a priority,
> > choosing to be the main carer of my child for what is, after all, only
> > a few short years. I suppose this should all be a natural normal way
> > of thinking, but my problem is down to my partner.
> > My partner thinks that staying at home being a housewife/carer is
> > `taking the easy way out', and plus he is worried about taken on a
> > greater responsibility for ensuring we have enough money. He also
> > thinks it isn't going to be stimulating enough for me.
> >
> > I would not like to be financially dependent on him, but am prepared
> > to downsize my life for a few years if this is what it takes. I am
> > also fully prepared to find looking after a child a very stimulating
> > and rewarding job. I certainly know that my partner's job isn't
> > stimulating. I have even suggested that he can take an equal share in
> > staying at home and have never encouraged or pressured him to bring in
> > loads of money from work. I also happen to know that some mothers
> > find it an easier job to sit in an office for 8 hours a day rather
> > than spend it with a toddler - hence the desire to make use of child
> > minders/nurseries etc, so I would regard child-caring/rearing a
> > difficult and tiring task at times - more so than in traditional wage
> > paying jobs.
> >
> > I also want to know how women in the past - even as recently as 20
> > years ago - never seemed to get the pressure to go out to work and
> > bring in half the finances? Were men happier to have this arrangement
> > or are they actually happier to have more financial stability? If the
> > latter - why didn't more women go out to work at this time?
> >
> > thanks!
> >
>
> Don't know how it was in the UK, but in the U.S. between the end of WWII
> and the mid-1970s, it was possible to live a comfortable middle-class
> life on one middle-class salary. The returning soldiers needed jobs,
> and women who had been encouraged to work to support the economy during
> the war (and who had had to work during the Depression, when pretty much
> everyone was poor) were expected to stay home and take care of the kids
> of the Baby Boom, and get out of the way of the menfolk. And good job
> opportunities for women were scarce (except in the standard female
> professions of nurse/secretary/teacher) until the women's movement
> started to have some impact.
>
> In the late 1970s and early 1980s we had a spell of inflation where the
> increase in the cost of living significantly outstripped the increase in
> salaries. It was quite a scary time--I graduated from college about
> then, and financially things were pretty bleak. At the same time, women
> were beginning to be able to get decent paying jobs. The status quo
> shifted in the course of a few years, to the point where two
> middle-class salaries had only a little more buying power than one
> salary had had a decade before. The second salary became
> institutionalized, probably by the end of the 1980s.
>
> Mom staying home with the kids has historically been a middle and
> upperclass phenomenon anyway--during my grandma's first marriage and
> after her divorce in the 1920s, she ran a stenography service in L.A. to
> support herself and my mom. She didn't start staying home until she
> married a man who worked as a high school teacher, and even then, she
> did freelance writing and ran a restaurant at various times in their
> marriage. And her mom worked alongside her dad running a general store.
> Her first husband's mom ran a rooming house. My other grandma lived a
> life of leisure and taking care of my dad, but she was married to a
> banker.
>
> So much for the somewhat oversimplified history lesson to answer your
> last question. To answer your first question, the most important issue
> is not whether you stay home with the baby, go back to work, or take up
> an income-producing activity that you can do at home. People have
> raised happy, healthy children doing any of those things or a
> combination of all of them in succession.
>
> But in my opinion, it is absolutely essential that whatever you do, you
> and your partner both agree that it is the best option. It's better
> for your relationship and even better for your baby. Being the sole
> financial support of a family is a stressful position, especially if you
> weren't raised to consider it your natural role, and if your partner
> resents it, things could get pretty grim.
>
> By the way, don't underestimate how exhausting child care can be. It
> can be extremely rewarding, but like most jobs, it involves a lot of
> rote work and heavy lifting, and the hours can be grueling. And your
> experience will be different from anyone else's, because it depends on
> your child's personality (and on how much he or she is willing to sleep
> ;-)). Before I had my baby, I had absolutely no clue what it would be
> like to take care of her fulltime, even though I knew other moms. It
> was a lot harder than I had expected.

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 suppose if the worst comes to the worst I can use my savings to
afford the ability not to have to work to buy me a few more months
longer of being able to stay at home and treat the exercise like a
career break....
I can understand my partner's fear of being the sole breadwinner
aswell - but I have stated all along that if he wanted to trade places
with me then this would be acceptable to me as I would rather he be
happy and also that our child is being looked after by him as opposed
to a stranger.
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'!

Hillary Israeli
March 26th 04, 01:39 PM
In >,
workerbee > wrote:

*I am writing from the US & not the UK but I can tell you that 20 yrs.
*ago, which was the 1980s, there certainly was pressure for women to go
*out to work. I grew up in the 1960s and many women worked outside the

I don't know if there was pressure, but certainly my mom worked... I was
born in 1970. Mom worked part-time (selling homemade bread and other
things for a local co-op!) when I was little; by the time I started school
she was training to become a Realtor and I know for sure she was
definitely working in that capacity by the time I was in 3rd grade.

Of course, my mom's mom worked too, as a medical secretary or something
like that, so maybe it's just a family tradition.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

Scott
March 26th 04, 02:50 PM
Abi wrote:

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

I think part of the reason is that people think they *need*
all sorts of things that they really only *want*. A frugal
couple (not us :-D ) can live on one income. You just have
to choose what is most important to you.

[snip]
> I can understand my partner's fear of being the sole breadwinner
> aswell - but I have stated all along that if he wanted to trade places
> with me then this would be acceptable to me as I would rather he be
> happy and also that our child is being looked after by him as opposed
> to a stranger.

Of course, your child will not be looked after by a stranger
if you choose that route, because you will get to know your
care provider quite well, even before you place your child
in their care.

> 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?

Scott DD 10.5 and DS 8

Tracey
March 26th 04, 11:55 PM
"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.

beeswing
March 26th 04, 11:55 PM
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 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!

beeswing

Kevin Karplus
March 26th 04, 11:56 PM
In article >, Scott wrote:
> Abi wrote:
>> I can understand my partner's fear of being the sole breadwinner
>> aswell - but I have stated all along that if he wanted to trade places
>> with me then this would be acceptable to me as I would rather he be
>> happy and also that our child is being looked after by him as opposed
>> to a stranger.
>
> Of course, your child will not be looked after by a stranger
> if you choose that route, because you will get to know your
> care provider quite well, even before you place your child
> in their care.

Actually, many of the most common options, and even some of the best
options, do require putting your child into the care of a "stranger".
Even the best daycare centers have turnover in staff. Small daycare,
where there is only one provider, is often not as good an option, as
there is no backup if the provider is ill or in a bad mood.

A good daycare center has enough staff and low enough turnover that
most of the staff will be familiar to you and the child, even if an
occasional new provider comes in.

Of course, if your job is flexible enough (and pays enough), you may
be able to have a nanny care for your child in your own home, which
gives you greater oversight.


--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

Irrational Number
March 27th 04, 12:02 AM
Abi wrote:

> [...] 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 [...]

The wonderful thing about "feminism" is that you can
make a choice. You are not limited by what "society"
deems acceptable, but by what you and your partner
want and believe is the best solution. You should not
feel guilty for working and you should not feel guilty
for staying home.

> I suppose if the worst comes to the worst I can use my savings to
> afford the ability not to have to work to buy me a few more months
> longer of being able to stay at home and treat the exercise like a
> career break....

Yes and no... For us, the reason I work is so that we
can put more away in retirement (not to depend on social
security or the kids) and also put money away in their
college funds. It's not just the immediate day-to-day
mortgage payment plus food.

> I can understand my partner's fear of being the sole breadwinner
> aswell - but I have stated all along that if he wanted to trade places
> with me then this would be acceptable to me as I would rather he be
> happy and also that our child is being looked after by him as opposed
> to a stranger.

Well, we have a wonderful nanny whom we found by
advertising in the newspaper. DS (9 months) loves her
and laughs and is very happy with her. I do not pretend
that she is my surrogate, but for now, this is the best
childcare option for us. I have plans to cut down to
part-time work once DS (and maybe other kids) goes to
pre-school and up, just because I do want to be there
when they come home from school.

> 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'!

Well, only amongst people who do not have children,
I believe. Anyone who has children knows exactly
how important and "high" status it is. And what's
wrong with it being "unpaid"? Most important work
in the world is done by volunteers. That is beside
the point. Having a child is a lifetime sentence of
worrying and guilt. You will feel guilty for staying at
home and you will feel guilty for going to work. You
just have to come to terms with it -- in your mind, and
with your partner.

-- Anita --

Penny Gaines
March 27th 04, 12:53 AM
Abi wrote in >:

[snip]
>> > 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. I will maintain other interests during this time and
>> > may try a few working-from-home ideas for `pocket money', but for at
>> > least the next 2 to 5 years I want to make being a mother a priority,
>> > choosing to be the main carer of my child for what is, after all, only
>> > a few short years. I suppose this should all be a natural normal way
>> > of thinking, but my problem is down to my partner.
>> > My partner thinks that staying at home being a housewife/carer is
>> > `taking the easy way out', and plus he is worried about taken on a
>> > greater responsibility for ensuring we have enough money. He also
>> > thinks it isn't going to be stimulating enough for me.

First of all, I'm a UK mum who stopped work when my oldest was born,
nearly 10 years ago.

First of all, being a full-time mum is not easy, when the kids are little.
Depending on where you live, you may find lots of other AH mums, or none
at all. Anyway, why shouldn't you "take the easy way out"?

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.

I wonder if his mum was at home, and how she felt about it. He won't be
able to remember how she felt when he was a baby, but as he grew up, she
may have been feeling very trapped.

I do know people who have part-time jobs at home: selling things like
tupperware (although there is a huge variety of similar things). If you
could set up a plan, then maybe that would reassure your husband.

However, his fear of being the sole breadwinner does seem reasonable.
Later on you talk about using 'my' savings. Now you have a shared
responsibility to another person, the two of you have a shared financial
responsibility to each other as well. The money issue is one the two
of you have to come to an agreement about, whether you are married or not.
Maybe you could show him ways that being at home would enable you to
save money: not forgetting that child care costs could be considerable.

[snip]

>> > I also want to know how women in the past - even as recently as 20
>> > years ago - never seemed to get the pressure to go out to work and
>> > bring in half the finances? Were men happier to have this arrangement
>> > or are they actually happier to have more financial stability? If the
>> > latter - why didn't more women go out to work at this time?

It depends on where you lived: I do know that one of my sister's friends had
a nanny: her mother was a hospital consultant at a time when that was almost
unknown.

[snip]
>>
>> Mom staying home with the kids has historically been a middle and
>> upperclass phenomenon anyway--during my grandma's first marriage and
>> after her divorce in the 1920s, she ran a stenography service in L.A. to

It is a very short-lived phenomenon as well. Housework - including the
growing of vegetables and preparing of food - took up a significant
amount of time. Pre-Victorian times a woman at home was making a very
big contribution to the household, and her presence was needed.

I've been reading a 1914s book about "married woman's work" (among the
working classes): it was common for a factory worker to have a two-hour
lunch break, so she could go home and prepare the midday meal.

[snip]
> 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

Your mother will make you feel guilty about lots of things ("that child
needs a vest", "he needs water to drink" "why isn't he in bed: its 6pm").

[snip]
> I suppose if the worst comes to the worst I can use my savings to
> afford the ability not to have to work to buy me a few more months
> longer of being able to stay at home and treat the exercise like a
> career break....

I really think you need to review how you see your finances. Your
savings are not really 'yours' anymore, but should belong to the family
unit, no matter whose name it is on the account. It shouldn't be a
case of supporting 'you' but supporting his 'partner and child'.
Why don't you suggest that the two of you review your budgets, and
that if you go out to work, *he* pays for childcare, and you take on
some of the other financial responsibilities.

[snip]
> 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'!

I think it is a combination of factors. The mothers that people in the
media know are probably almost all working mothers, and they probably
know very few of the other kind. Throw in people like Cherie Blair,
who probably would go nuts at home, and you see why the labour party
want everyone to choose a 'work-life balance' that has to include 'work'.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

Iowacookiemom
March 27th 04, 12:55 AM
Just adding my two cents...

First off, I think that regardless what decision a woman makes in this
situation, there are folks who will second-guess you and guilt you will put on
yourself. IMO, and assuming that you have the financial ability and really
most of us do, assuming we are willing to make drastic changes such as moving
to a more affordable home, etc, it erally comes down to this: what choice will
leave you best capable to be a good parent? For some, that means staying at
home. For others who have less patience with a small child, it may mean
working outside the home. For still others, who may hav the patience for child
care but who will resent leaving a fulfilling position at work, working outside
the home may still be the best solution.

That said, my personal opinion on this is that our very young children
(infants/toddlers) need us far less than our pre-teen and teenage children do.
A baby's needs are fairly simple and a good caregiver can meet those needs; if
you are the caregiver at home and in the evenings, weekends etc., you will
still bond completely to your child as his/her primary caregiver. But come age
10 or 11, when every day at school can bring some sort of milestone that a
tween may have difficulty dealing with, I have found it's much more important
to be the person who is at home when my son comes home from school. Working a
different schedule (7-3 instead of 9-5) allows me to do that.

YMMV, on this more than almost any other parenting choice. Good luck with your
decision.

Elizabeth Gardner
March 27th 04, 12:58 AM
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.
>

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.

LeRoy
March 27th 04, 03:57 PM
>. But come age
> 10 or 11, when every day at school can bring some sort of milestone that a
> tween may have difficulty dealing with, I have found it's much more
important
> to be the person who is at home when my son comes home from school.
Working a
> different schedule (7-3 instead of 9-5) allows me to do that.
>
>
Oh wow! I completely agree with your take on this - As my son (now 11) has
grown up, it has become more and more important for me to be home and
available when he gets in.

He wants to talk about his day at secondary school, his changing feelings
about his friends and girls in his class, his homework - etc etc..... He
also has more freedom as his friends can come round and I can take my turn
picking him and friends up from swimming, or whatever.

Pat

Ann Porter
March 27th 04, 03:58 PM
"beeswing" > wrote in message
...

> 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 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!

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.

>From the page Odin - Norway's Social Security and Health Service:

http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/social/032005-990494/index-dok000-b-n
-a.html

"When pregnant, women who have been employed for at least six of the last
ten months are entitled to a maternity leave with full pay, limited upwards
to six times the basic national insurance sum. The mother can choose between
42 weeks of leave with full pay or 52 weeks with 78 per cent pay. Three
weeks of this leave must be taken prior to the birth. Four weeks of the
leave must be taken by the father (the paternity quota). "

That's almost a year of full time pay after having a baby.

Here's a link about the child raising benefit in Germany:

http://www.bmgs.bund.de/downloads/01_Kindergeld.pdf

While there is some means testing in Germany, apparently everyone is
entitled to some benefit. In Norway, there does not seem to be any means
testing for almost a year off with full pay!

Best,
Ann

Bruce and Jeanne
March 27th 04, 03:58 PM
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

beeswing
March 27th 04, 05:31 PM
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

beeswing
March 27th 04, 05:31 PM
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

Colleen Porter
March 27th 04, 07:09 PM
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

Robyn Kozierok
March 28th 04, 12:21 AM
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

Rosalie B.
March 28th 04, 09:45 PM
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

Beth Gallagher
March 29th 04, 06:18 AM
> 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.

Beth Gallagher
March 29th 04, 01:01 PM
"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.

workerbee
March 29th 04, 06:39 PM
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:55:00 EST, "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).

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.

Noreen
March 29th 04, 09:27 PM
"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

Cathy Kearns
March 29th 04, 11:39 PM
"workerbee" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:55:00 EST, "Tracey" >
> wrotE:
> 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)>

There was a neighbor on my street that used to go to open
houses in the neighborhood and gasp in amazement, and
giggle. You see, he bought his house in the late 50s, for
$22,000. He died last year, and his kid sold his house
for $1.6 million. He must have been laughing heartily
up in heaven.

H Schinske
March 29th 04, 11:39 PM
wrote:

>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.)

According to http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/ , that means
they've probably gone down in price, depending on when in the 1960s you're
talking about. $15,000 in 1965 dollars is $89,190.48 today.

--Helen

Circe
March 30th 04, 02:08 AM
H Schinske wrote:
> wrote:
>> 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.)
>
> According to http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/ ,
> that means they've probably gone down in price, depending on when
> in the 1960s you're talking about. $15,000 in 1965 dollars is
> $89,190.48 today.
>
OTOH, in my part of the country (Southern California), the house my parents
bought for $18,000 in 1964 would now sell for something in the neighborhood
of $400,000. There is a small addition to it, but that's not enough to
account for the massive increase in value (according to that site--very
cool, BTW--it should only be worth 108,755). My own house, purchased in
2000, appears to be worth a full $325,000 more than it should be.

SoCal real estate is nuts...
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [2] mom)

Elizabeth Gardner
March 30th 04, 02:09 AM
In article >,
(H Schinske) wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >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.)
>
> According to http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/ , that means
> they've probably gone down in price, depending on when in the 1960s you're
> talking about. $15,000 in 1965 dollars is $89,190.48 today.
>

But then there's the house I grew up in, which my folks bought for
$40,000 in 1960 and which recently sold for upwards of a million.
Granted, it's in a neighborhood that's ever so much more fashionable now
than it was then, but even so, I'd expect to pay at least $700,000 for
it almost anywhere around here. (Well, not me--it's a little out of our
range, even with two incomes.)

workerbee
March 30th 04, 04:30 PM
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:39:58 EST, (H Schinske)
wrotE:

wrote:
>
>>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.)
>
>According to http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/ , that means
>they've probably gone down in price, depending on when in the 1960s you're
>talking about. $15,000 in 1965 dollars is $89,190.48 today.

Yeah, my neighborhood took a hit in the last few years. It's because
I live in the city in a high unemployment area. The same house, in a
nearby suburb, would go for $20K to $30K more depending on the suburb.

H Schinske
April 1st 04, 01:36 AM
wrote:

>But then there's the house I grew up in, which my folks bought for
>$40,000 in 1960 and which recently sold for upwards of a million.

Same sort of thing happened with my dad's house. I just meant that $80,000 was
not a whole lot of money these days ;-)

--Helen (who isn't turning DOWN any $80,000-es anyone wishes to fling my way,
be it understood!)

abacus
April 3rd 04, 01:04 AM
Scott > wrote in message >...
> Abi wrote:
>
> >
> > Many thanks everyone for your advice - I can see how salaries dont go
> > as far today as they used to in the past.
>
> I think part of the reason is that people think they *need*
> all sorts of things that they really only *want*. A frugal
> couple (not us :-D ) can live on one income. You just have
> to choose what is most important to you.

While I'll agree with this statement to some extent - i.e. the part
about choosing what is most important to you - I don't think it's
simply a matter of being 'frugal' in order to have one parent stay
home with a young child.

I think you have to consider exactly what sorts of sacrifices may come
up. Is a decent retirement fund a 'need' or a 'want'? Is health
insurance a 'need' or a 'want'? Is living in a low crime neighborhood
with good schools a 'need' or a 'want'? These are sorts of sacrifices
that young parents without good-paying jobs are faced with in our
society.

If having a parent stay at home full-time with young children is more
important than those things, then yes, it's possible to do without
them and live on one income. On the other hand, if such things are
considered 'needs' that cannot or should not be neglected, then no, it
may not be possible to live on one income no matter how 'frugally' one
lives.