Can we cope with twins- no spin answers sought

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

In article , ess
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.

In article , ess
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.

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