| Author |
Message |
    
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2979
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 5:17 pm: | 
|
Spinal Tap, I hear you -- sort of. I don't think I'd stay friends with folks who used your wife in that fashion. Sounds like you have different values than they, and y'all are not being mutually honest about the big difference. It would even be sort of different if they offered to babysit, or a gift certificate or something to show their appreciation. Maybe it's time to cut loose from them and find friends who share your values.
On the values/need thing, though...everyone seems to have a different view. I've never been in the place with either of our past incomes (and it would've been mine most likely) would've allowed us to get by, and well below even the Toyota/Belmar example. I do think a lot of people either wish to work/find value in it (men and women) beyond the check; also, I think some moms and dads rightly feel antsy about being out of the workforce very long in these precarious times. I'm happy for you if you don't feel that anxiety, but I do think it's legitimate to want to stay in the workforce for that reason (even if your family doesn't absolutely need the dough right now). And then there's divorce, which the happy among us don't wish to think about, but which can leave one spouse pretty high and dry if they've been out of the workforce.
That's not to say that I'm so high minded that I wonder about some of the same things/values you do, in others. At the same time, I don't think you have to be willing to stay home fulltime to be a good parent, nor is the reverse always true. |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Case:
How are you my dear cranky!
You wrote:
Tell me, the country you come from... does it have a lot of overhead power lines or lead in the water supply or something?
No hun that would be your country. We haven't had overhead power lines in 25 years.
You wrote:
And no, my wife works - I think its good for her to have outside interests, so I let her have a job. I know its indulgent, but that's just the kind of guy I am.
Damned why couldn't I have met a man like you ....
Should your wife need additional stimuli try these
A set of balls (mind you there are three)
All in good fun...... |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 8507
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 6:11 pm: |
|
I don't like those balls. We've tried them. They break in half when you throw them down the stairs. Our little guy loves his balls and fetches them when we throw them. So, it is important to get well-made balls. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 6463
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 9:18 am: |
|
I love when balls break in half. It's so....halfish. Sigh. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 8534
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
Mem - that's a side of you I've never seen. You, a ball-buster?
VIB may want to know about this..... |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:15 am: |
|
Greene you wrote:
Our little guy loves his balls and fetches them when we throw them.
I am not sure if I should report you to Animal Control or DYFS but girl it ain't right...it just ain't right |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 8535
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:32 am: |
|
But he seems to enjoy it so much! Just this morning, I was in the shower, washing my hair, when I heard him squeaking. I looked out of the curtain. There he sat, balls and all, waiting for me to get out and play. |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 1234
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 10:46 am: |
|
 |
CLK
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 2357
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 11:40 am: |
|
I didn't really think this is a topic that really needs further discussion at this point in history, but perhaps it does.
Spinal Tap, there is a sort of infinite regress to what you're saying. How much do you need to "live" on? Yes, my husband and I coul afford to live on one of our incomes (which are very comparable - I think he makes a little more than me, but I'm pretty close). However not in Maplewood. We don't live in a swank area of town, don't have a fancy lifestyle, rarely go out, and one of our cars (a Tercel) is approaching 10 years old. The other is an 03 Civic, and we paid cash when we bought it new (no payments). Not exactly a luxury vehicle, though we did buy new. We lived for many years with just one very old car (another Tercel), until I got a job way the hell & beyond up the Parkway. I used to walk to work.
We could certainly live someplace else on either just my income or just his. But it wouldn't be as nice, we might have more crime issues, the schools wouldn't be as good, we might have louder, ruder neighbors (or maybe not), or other lifestyle / convenience things that wouldn't be as good.
So do we both "have" to work? Or are we working like this to support a lifestyle? It's not a swank lifestyle but it is solidly middle-class. We could support a lower-middle-class lifestyle on one income. I'm just not sure where you draw the line. People who live on the equivalent of one of our salaries probably think we're pigs. In fact some of my husband's relatives, who have effectively a lower-middle-class lifestyle in a disintegrating neighborhood and are fairly fundamentalist Catholics, have more or less told me that I ought to quit my job because we "don't need" all that we have. But I couldn't live like them - been there, done that, don't really want to go back.
My husband is a workaholic, but a lot of his work can be done at home so we see him a lot. I'm not a workaholic. I'm efficient at work, and I've arranged to work 8 - 4 rather than the 9 - 5 that most of my co-workers and staff take. Some on my staff work 10-6 in order to accomodate their family lives, and that's fine with me.
I pick up my kid from school by 5 every day. I spend my whole weekend with her. I cook a wholesome home-made dinner almost every night, and I pack a wholesome homemade lunch for my kid every day (and by homemade I mean homemade bread for the sandwiches, homemade yogurt, homemade applesauce - you name it - I have convenience devices to help me make all of these easily and efficiently). I don't sacrifice anything with respect to parenting by working. She likes ASP because all of her friends are there, and it gives her a chance to socialize. She is in school now but I went back to work when she was 6 mos. old. She went to a family day-care provider who took care of about half a dozen kids with the help of an assistant. She had constant exposure to other kids in a warm family environment. If I'd been home, finding playdates would have been a struggle.
I like my work most days, and I am told I'm good at it. There is stuff that drives me crazy obviously, as is the case for anybody. But if God forbid anything happened to my husband I would be able to support my daughter and myself fairly comfortably, because I have never really left the workforce and have moved up through the ranks into a decently-paid position.
I see only positives here. |
mlj
Citizen
Username: Mlj
Post Number: 336
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 11:46 am: |
|
women in the workplace?
of course!
where else would they find a rich husband?! |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 707
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Cyn and CLK have been very good about discussing the issues raised by Spinal Tap. For myself, I'm tired of people who think they are superior parents because one parent is at home full-time. I don't appreciate your judgement of my lifestyle and what I "need" or don't need.
I do not call other parents to pick up my kid if he's sick (and no, I don't send him to school sick and don't know why you think working parents routinely do this). My kid is happy, healthy, socially and academically excelling, and plays really good baseball and soccer.
My husband and I coach his teams, help with stuff at school, and are otherwise involved. We spend our weekends and evenings together as a family 95% of the time. Like CLK, I have the luxury of coming to the office early and leaving early, and I pick up my son from ASP at 4.
Why should I need to defend my parenting to you? I'm sorry if any working parents have unfairly expected your wife to do them favors because she is home, but there is no reason to paint all working parents with the same brush.
Some stay-at-home parents suck too, but I wouldn't judge them all in the same way.
MYOB.
|
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 8540
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 12:20 pm: |
|
I had a friend who was a SAHM back in the early 80s. She was so bored that she went out and got herself a boy toy. Her husband wasn't all that supporitve of her decision.
What's sad is this silly debate about the "only way" to be a family. |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 86
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 12:46 pm: |
|
CLK – It wasn’t my intention to cast dispersions on you and if I gave offense, I apologize. Everything involves a trade-off and people make whatever choice they make. Everyone’s situation is different. I’m just saying that I have personally observed some situations which are absurd. I’m sorry, but when one person makes say $150K, for the other to insist that they need their full time 100K job “to make ends meet”, and the kids are raised by nannies, I have to call BS. |
CLK
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 2358
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 12:59 pm: |
|
I didn't take offense at all. I was simply pointing out a logical flaw in your argument.
You say it's BS that people "need" two incomes when those incomes pay for a Lexus, country club membership, etc etc. I'm saying that my husband's relatives think it's BS when I say that we "need" two cars, to live in Maplewood, to buy clothes someplace other than Target or the thrift shop, etc.
What you "need" and what I "need" are unlikely to be the same. In reality, all any of us "needs" is some sort of roof over our heads, clothing, and food. The rest, as you said yourself, is BS.
Personally, in addition to some material comforts, I feel that I need to work for my sanity. OK sometimes work contributes to the insanity. ;-) But honestly, I didn't slave away for 26 years at school (yeah, no kidding - two M.A.s and a Ph.D.) just to raise a child. I owe it to the people who supported me through those difficult years (esp. the grad school years) to pay it back by using those degrees. My work is meaningful to me and I hope it makes a difference to some people.
|
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 8543
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 1:19 pm: |
|
The only things that any of us truly need are the survival basics: shelter, food, water, clothes and heat (winter only).
So, anyone who has more than a tent by a stream near lots of vegetation and wildlife, trees, hunting implements, matches, and a couple basic cooking implements is probably considered "absurd" by someone else. |
CLK
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 2359
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 21, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
That's my point exactly, greenetree.
Actually when you think about it, the argument Spinal Tap made is one that would be fully supported by the Soviet Communists, or so I think (I'm not a political scientist or economist by a long shot). The argument would be that it is immoral to strive beyond what you need. Your work should be contributing to the greater social good, not your own material comfort beyond a basic level.
Interestingly, few of the people making arguments like Spinal Tap's would affiliate themselves too strongly with a Communist point of view. Or so I believe.
(And I want to clarify something I said above - I have no problem raising a child whatsoever. I enjoy being a mom with every fiber of my being. I couldn't, however, restrict myself only to that role. But that is MY choice only. I fully support those women and men who have chosen to devote their lives to parenting. I worry about what will happen to them if their spouses die or abandon them though, but that's their risk to take if they so choose.) |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 87
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Like I said, people make whatever choices they make for whatever reasons they have. Just don't come to me with the back of your hand to your forehead sighing that you made the choice to both work full time “to make ends meet" and then drive off in a $50,000 car because I’m not buying it. And since you bring it up, I believe that actually it was the Communists that pioneered state run institutionalized day care so they could more effectively indoctrinate children and have both parents in the work force. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2884
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Since this seems to be the hot topic lately
I was going to ask whether you were caught in a time warp and then read the entire thread and saw that people were actually discussing this seriously - in 2006!
So, anyone who has more than a tent by a stream near lots of vegetation and wildlife, trees, hunting implements, matches, and a couple basic cooking implements is probably considered "absurd" by someone else.
Greentree: Hunting implements? Absurd! No one "needs" to eat meet. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2987
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Spinal Tap, you begin to sound the slightest bit jealous. If you and your wife are happy with your choices, why not just be happy? Don't let those who make different choices take advantage of you and your wife if that helps, but just let it go.
I get jealous of the more upper income parents who can both stay home and not worry about money. Be a parent, go to the gym, nice lunches out, a touch of volunteer work, art classes, have a housecleaner, lawn service etc. Now that would be living!
I can't help but reference a thread elsewhere on MOL regarding a couple of middle aged women now obliged or interested in finding work having been out of the workforce raising children. At least one was left by her husband, and now needs income. It's a tough transition when you're older. That's the insurance thing I referenced.
And even without divorce, I'm living proof that working for career insurance is a good thing. My husband hasn't worked for over a year and a half, and will never work again due to permanent disability. Yeah, he gets some social security, but we couldn't live much of anywhere on it. And had I not worked all this time, we would have only Medicare (maybe) to pay for his truly expensive healthcare needs. As it is, we have my income and medical insurance so we do get by. Not in "Maplegood" but well enough.
For myself, I had a nice little 8:30 to 4:30 job during my kid's earliest years, which allowed me to spend more time on mommying. I'll freely admit that even though we needed my income to live in other than a cheap apartment, I also liked work. Then I got downsized, a.k.a laid off at 45. Not so good.
I'll be honest enough to also admit that I'm not a person who finds fulfillment, or even sanity, in being home all day with small children especially on a tight budget. Part day would be great, sure, though most folks find it hard to find parttime work that's interesting and much above minimum wage. Most of it is "nannying," cleaning, store clerking. I also am not crazed for scrapbooking, housecleaning, laundry, endless cooking and so on. Nor is my husband, come to that.
Time to get back to cleaning the upstairs bathroom |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 1332
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 4:57 pm: |
|
I went back to school fro my Masters when my children--now in their forties--were 4 and 7, and started working part time when they were 7 and 10. Because there were no after school care programs available at the time, I didn't start working full time until the younger boy was in junior high, and we felt that they were both responsible enough to look after themselves for a while until their father or I got home.
I worked full time after that for twenty years until I took early retirement, and, while I didn't make a huge salary--librarians don't--the work was interesting, I learned a lot, and the contact with other people kept me sane. And when my marriage almost broke up, I was damn glad to have an income, because not being financially dependent allowed me to negotiate with my spouse on an equal footing, and, I think, helped the marriage to recover.
I find it ridiculous to be debating whether or not women should be in the workplace. People are in the workplace. Women, being people, are there already. The reasons that a particular person has for working are immaterial to the fact that s/he is already doing so. If our country cared as much for families as our politicians' rhetoric would have us believe, there would be decent, affordable, universal child care available to all who need it, in order to support those families where there is no stay at home parent.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page