If we couldn't survive on one income and I had to work, I would break my back to find one caring adult that could provide as much personal care as possible. If that means a shared nanny, I think you should look into it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'd definitely recommend the shared nanny option. Interview your nannies. Get references, too.
When it comes to Social Security people becoming disabled, think what would happen if they'd invested in the young. The upcoming generation, having known care and quality education, just might happen to have the resources, psychological security, and deep hearts to care for their aging parents and other relatives.
I, for one, having had quality childcare in my upbringing, would do everything in my power to care for both my parents and my husband's parents. If it takes our money and time, so be it. They gave so much to us. And I know that my daughter will feel the same when it is my turn to weaken.
Think of the values it would engender in our youth. Who would they be indebted to? What would they care about in the world? Is that the world you want to see, or do you prefer the status quo?
I'm setting forth ideas here. I wonder what else we could cut to invest in our children. What is worth less than the children who are our future?
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the nannie option. Even a stay at home parent spends a certain number of hours a day doing ... not child care but menial labor around the home. The children during this time are cared for how? Perhaps they are taking a nap, or maybe they are watching tv, but they aren't enjoying quality time with a parent.
If said parent is a highly educated professional, they could be earning an hourly rate during that time that is several times the market value for that labor-intensive household work.
If you pay, say 150% of the market value for a childcare/housework person, in my area that's about $15 an hour, and you take care to find someone who you feel is stable, loving, gentle, and responsible, everyone wins.
The children get a third parent, and the benefit of freshly patient adults who are rested and spelled several times a day. They have the stability of a single additional care provider, and the health benefits of not being excessively exposed to other children's sicknesses such as can happen in day care settings. They stay in their own home. They also benefit from the increased income of the family. They are able to have more things that enrich their lives because of this, more books, skates, pianos, and tennis lessons and everything else. Don't think children don't suffer from lack of things. They do. Love is the most important, by far, but enrichment in the environment counts too.
Both parents get the respect and confidence that comes from being able to successfully negotiate the adult business world. The family gets the added insurance that a second income brings. If either spouse gets sick or injured or killed, then the other can still earn a decent living for the kids.
The nannie option is certainly the one I would choose. Being a parent and spouse is the primary calling of every married parent, but it's not necessarily the only calling. I don't presume to decide or opine on how others choose to arrange their lives and divide up their family responsibilities, but this is the solution I would pick. I think it has a lot of advantages.
quote:Who suffers the most harm from no fault divorces? Children. If a couple has children, they should not be granted a no fault divorce until those children move out. They should have to prove there would be more harm to the children if the marriage stays intact.
You'll get no argument from me.
Tom, I think you should look at every single option on Jenny's list before resorting to the LaPetite's and KinderKares of the world. I'm sorry, no offense to anyone out there with family in "mass market" daycares or that works in one, it should be your last choice.
Too many stories....I have way too many. I think you should always look at church daycares first, because many (at least around here) operate as a ministry to the community and not for profit. They can usually afford to spend more on teachers and curriculum. The one where my twins attend preschool requires early childhood education training for their teachers, and is run by a woman with a master's in ECE. She shares the curriculum with you, will go over what they are going to do and teach. Reading is a requirement, every child in every class must be read to, no matter the age. Even the six-week old infants are read to and rocked by their teachers, I've seen them do it.
However, there's a flip side. In Alabama church daycares aren't required to be inspected, and to be accredited or licensed like commercial ones are. So you can run into ones that are really substandard. In my case, our preschool (it's not a full time daycare) voluntarily submits to every inspection and has inspection reports available for us to read in the office.
Bottom line, if you can't find a nanny or a small in-home daycare then you'll have to expect to spend a lot of time at that center. Don't just drop by with an appointment and take the tour. come by without notice, walk around and observe the classes and the teacher's interaction.
A quality daycare will tell you that you're welcome anytime. If they say "Oh, it's too disruptive for the kids, you'll need to make an appointment" - run, don't walk to somewhere else.
Oh - ask them if they do background checks on every employee.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zal, I think a parenting/childcare co-op would be so wonderful! I already do something similar with some of my friends - we take turns watching each others' kids for free, so that the couples can go on dates and have couple time. It works really well.
Every once in a while, in magazines like Mothering, you'll read about some stay-at-home parents who organize into a childcare co-op. It seems to work quite well, once you have worked out the kinks.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
$15 an hour full time comes to over $33,633 a year including social security and medicare contributions. That's a lot of money...
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Jenny, that's got me thinking. We force employers to let their employees off time if they're in the military, or national guard. Two days a month and two weeks a year, right?
What if we had childcare co-ops. With some people who worked full time, that were degreed, qualified people. And then, every member of the co-op gave two working days a month, and a full two weeks at some point in the year working in the center?
They could pay a fee to belong to the co-op each month that would cover the salaries of the degreed personnel, the insurance for the facility, etc.
Everyone either provides their own supplies individually or chips in based on their child's age. Infants, who need more frequent diaper changes, etc. would be higher, but cost would drop as the child got older.
Everyone packs their own child's lunch each day, so the facility doesn't have to cook and incur those additional costs.
Wonder if it would work? How many people would you need to be members to make it work out? What's the estimated cost? Would it be cheaper than conventional daycare enough that it would save people money?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would save employees with children who don't have a spouse at home money. Not employers, and not the people who work there who don't have children to contribute to the child-care coop.
Belle, y'all have employees. What if you had to pay each for the extra two days a month? How much would your labor cost go up?
Would it be right to pay those getting the paid days off less overall? How did caring for these children go from the parents' responsibility to the employers'?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bigger question to my scenario - would people be more willing to entrust their child's care to other parents, who equally have a share in the center's success than they would to strangers hired for minimum wage?
posted
WOW, Belle! You might want to look into some other co-ops, if you can find them. I know a guy who lives in a "planned community". They're a bunch of families that live together in the same big house, and they're rather "communist" in some ways, but it works for them.
I love your ideas, especially about the lunches. That way, each family's dietary needs and issues are taken care of - whether vegan or lactose-intolerant or what-have-you, without making a big deal out of it.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
The parents themselves pay for the co-op fees. Not the employer. And the employer doesn't have any obligation to offer paid co-op time off, though I would hope they would. Instead, the employer need only ensure the job is held for the employee, just like what is required under FMLA now.
The employer need not incur any extra costs. And the other employees aren't affected at all. All they have to do is allow the two days off per month, and the two weeks, but they would have to do that anyway, if the employee applied for FMLA.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't know what cost of living is like there, so I wouldn't presume to judge your situation. I am sure you have looked and continue to look at all of your options. Like I said, it works for us but it may not be feasible in some areas. I hope the best for you and your family.
Sorry if I came off as condescending or judgmental, it wasn't intended.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't take credit for the lunches idea, Jenny, that's what my preschool does. If your child stays for extended day, which is 9-2 instead of the normal day 9-12, you must send lunch.
The center doesn't cook because it would be a whole 'nother can of worms with insurance and inspections, etc. They keep cost down by asking parents to send their own children's food.
I think it works fine. And when Daniel was having trouble with chewing and eating, it would have been necessary for me to send his food anyway.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our cost of living in the Southeast is low compared to the national average. Child care and manual labor around the home pays about $10 an hour for the going rate. That's about what most of my friends pay. I was saying that if you are willing to pay $15 an hour, you should be able to search and find someone extra good who is stable, loving, kind, and responsible.
A professional will make several times that rate, so the difference is pure gravy. I probably wouldn't try to work full time but maybe about 20-25 hours a week, as my sister did when her kids were young. I know the increase in maternal and paternal patience from having some time away from the kids each day woudl be an enormous factor. And the nannie also comes to the kids each day with fresh patience. I think the kids come out way ahead this way.
I took family leave and was a stay-at-home Dad for as long as we could afford it. It was wonderful, and I wish I could have continued that way. I would definitely agree with those who say that a stay-at-home parent can do the job better than a preschool. My girls learned many bad habits in preschool, and I could no longer take them to speech and physical therapy, and I miss the more unique outings that I could offer them that preschool never could.
Preschool IS expensive. I don't have any answers, just agreement. We used to pay over $150 per child, and we had twins.
Whoever said he was a computer programmer and that any family could live on one income . . . you probably make by yourself what my wife and I make combined. We each make below the national median income. Just because something is easy for one person doesn't make it so for everyone else.
And yes, if we were willing to live at the poverty level, we could get by with one person working. We HAVE made a choice. But everybody makes a choice. Kids who grow up with one parent at home would be even better off with two parents at home, no? On the spectrum between perfect parental presence at home and the greatest possible income, everybody needs to choose what they think is healthiest for their family. And it's not about DVD players and high speed internet and flashy clothes and satellite dishes. It's also safe neighborhoods and good schools and reliable cars.
One of the cool things about Hatrack is that it broadens your horizons by bringing you into contact with people who would otherwise simply be part of some abstract population to you, like people who argues about homosexuality who in fact don't know any. When you condemn people here, you are not only speaking to the choir . . . there are people here who fit the characteristics you are putting down. I would take issue with those who have said, in this and other threads, that those who choose to have both parents work do so because they are selfish and don't value their children or their committments to them. I don't condemn your choice, and I don't think it's your place to condemn mine. I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but I am entitled to mine: that you're a self-righteous asshole.
posted
In Scotland yesterday most of the nursery nurses working for local government run nurseries went on indefinite strike in protest of their starting salary being only £10,000 (approx. $18,400). This rises to only £13,800 after 10 years service. Unions are asking for an increase of at least £4,000 ($7,300) to the starting salary as pay grades hadn't been reviewed for 16 years. They've been campaigning for this for 3 years before they decided to strike. It's reckoned that 4000-5000 workers went out on strike affecting over 40000 children.
I liked one of the slogans of the slogans they were using "We don't just change nappies (diapers), We change lives."
I believe that child rearing is one of the most important jobs there is and I hope if I become a mother that I will be able to stay home and raise my children. But knowing how difficult it is to manage on my salary right now and I'm single and my only real luxury is my car, I can understand why mums have to work. I think if I had to work I'd try to do so part-time as this also reduces the childcare costs. I think there's definitely a lot more understanding today for work/life balance which allows for more flexible working arrangements - and this doesn't just apply to women. Why shouldn't fathers reduce their hours too - if it means you don't have to pay childcare costs at all surely any loss in wages is mute. Plus you both get a better relationship with your children.
Oh and on the topic of names of nurseries - the worst one I 've seen is "Tend Early Yours"
Posts: 394 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right! Sometimes, it is in the best interests of the family for both parents to work, and it has little to do with gross income. However, I maintain that if the family needs childcare, finding high quality childcare must be a priority.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who suffers the most harm from no fault divorces? Children. If a couple has children, they should not be granted a no fault divorce until those children move out. They should have to prove there would be more harm to the children if the marriage stays intact
I had to blink twice to make sure it wasn't OSC-Fan stating this. Sure sounded like her..
Amka -- this is idealistic. Yes, in a perfect world, divorce would be harder and the children would be considered above all else in the relationship. But that is with both people cooperating.
When my husband abandoned us for parts-unknown, I should have volunteered YOU to go look for him, run him down, and make him come back. Because the government wasn't looking for him -- I couldn't find him -- so I was supposed to just continue to wait years upon years thinking he might even show back up and take some financial responsibility? No -- I filed for divorce not because I had given up on my marriage -- but because he had, and because I couldn't continue to shoulder the burdens I already had PLUS any new ones he might incurr while away from me and not part of our household, had I remained married to him. (Turns out he went to Florida and married someone there later -- without even bothering to find out if he was still married to me)
The government doesn't care whether or not the family unit stays intact of if the single parents are being taken care of. On more than one occassion I told the powers-that-be a possible location for him, but nothing was done to enforce any responsibility on his part.
Making divorce harder will, in some cases, just make it harder on the single parents who are trying to keep their heads above water.
If BOTH parents are present and talking during the divorce, then I think perhaps there is a chance something can be worked out. But unfortunately, abandonment rate is high in our society.
Farmgirl
(I want to qualify this in that I have totally forgiven my ex for his transgressions at that time. He is now back in the area and spends time with his kids, now that they are teens. I feel sorry for him, though, because his life has not changed. He called me just today to tell me that the kids can't come to visit as planned because his electricity is getting turned off (again) due to non-payment, as he has no job)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realise that saying I hope to be able to stay home and raise my children might no work out. If it doesn't and I have to work then I to hope to be able to find good quality care and I agree that they should be paid properly.
It's a balancing act though as said before - paying them well and it still being affordable to those needing it.
Posts: 394 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I feel that would be case of abandonment, where continued marriage to the absent parent would be harmful to you and therefore to the children.
Also, since he abandoned you and made no effort for some years, I think he should have no legal right to see the children. You can allow it, yourself, but he should have no recourse in the courts to require visitation.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it isn't quite relevant, but I'm floored that Jenny Gardner has an "Amish" nanny that drives an SUV. The only thing Amish are supposed to drive are horses. Are you sure she isn't Mennonite?
Also ak, I don't think most people in need of child care are actually able to pay $15/hour. If both parents need to work to make meet, chances are, they may each only be earning 20- 25K a year and one would be staying home if they could afford it.
AJ
The second partner is spending half of what they earn, but the difference between 20k and 30k per year in income after child care makes a huge difference.
posted
As a side note, I didn't mean to upset solo, either, by replying so harshly. It's kind of a sore spot for me; I'd LOVE to be able to afford to have one or the other of us stay home, and we considered waiting to have kids until we were in this financial situation, but we figured that at some point it was better to have children while still young and relatively poor than to wait until we were old and relatively prosperous.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Who suffers the most harm from no fault divorces? Children. If a couple has children, they should not be granted a no fault divorce until those children move out. They should have to prove there would be more harm to the children if the marriage stays intact
If you wanted to see marriage rates drop like a rock, particularly to women who already have children, then by all means push for this idea. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't upset at all. I am a programmer, but I only have a 2 year diploma so I am on the lower end of the pay scale. My wife is incredible at budgeting our money, but we don't have a lot of extras. We live in Edmonton which is one of the least expensive big cities in Canada, so our cost of living is probably not as high as many of you.
I don't mean to be judgmental to anyone who doesn't make the same choice as we did. It is possible for us, but it is impossible for some.
Icarus, sorry if my statements upset or offended you.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Women who choose to stay at home and don't have a career are thought of as less educated, less ambitious, more docile, and lazy.
The solution to this (I know in general we're trying to stay child-centered, but if Mom is depressed she may start thinking it would be better for them to be with an institution) is to only care about the opinion of those who value you. As has been pointed out, there is someone who disapproves of everyone, and if all women can't learn to filter all that disapproval they will remain victims.
If working moms feel more judged than at-home moms, it is due to the compounded problem of thinking they shouldn't be judged. Which seems to go with the bias of assuming the at-homes are more religious.
So what about providing childcare to others in your home? What puzzles me is everyone I have known who undertakes this is not able to cut it. They wind up with only one or two children when they were planning on the income from five or six.
It seems in home daycares are less valued that institutional ones. Maybe because they tend to be in different neighborhoods from the folks who need them, and institutional daycares tend to be nearer businesses. Also, folks don't want an in home situation that is near capacity. I guess. I just don't understand it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my admittedly brief experience researching daycares, too, most in-home care is not in fact licensed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Alabama, if you report the income from an in-home daycare center, you must get an in-home daycare center license.
If you don't report the income, then the people paying you have to agree to not issue you a 1099 or take the childcare credit, because if they do, the IRS will want to know why they are saying they paid you income you say you didn't make.
The problem is, once you agree to be licensed and incur all the licensing fees and inspection fees and all the wonderful new taxes you become subject to - you have to charge so much that you are now much more expensive than a mass market daycare, and parents won't hire you.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In our case we have a roommate who kicks in for expenses. Dave's a bst friend from back in high school who lived with us after he got out of the Navy. We gave him free room and board while he got his nursing degree, and now his and my income combined lets Teres stay home and take care of the kids.
We're cramped as hell, but managing.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I'm starting a new thread for the at home vs. woking mom debate.
It's a good subject that can lead to some very thoughtful discussion, especially since I think hatrack won't disintegrate into the "I love my kids more than you do!" type arguments.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering if anyone here has read either of two books: The two-income trap, or He works, she works. I think both are worth reading (though the second title made me mad enough to spit nails; they feel very, very sorry for the poor downtrodden oppressed SAHMs). On the whole, I'm inclined to think that the first title is more realistic and has better suggestions both for individual families and for government policy (including proposals for child-care help for working parents and tax breaks for SAHPs). It tackles a range of subjects from housing prices to illness to bankruptcy.
Tom, when looking around for a nanny, maybe you could consider getting one with a small child of her own? I knew a woman who was an excellent nanny, who only worked if she could bring her own baby son with her. This struck me as an advantage, since there would be a playmate and the cost could actually be less, and you were getting an experienced mom. She said she often ran into people, however, who wanted her to leave her child in daycare while she cared for theirs.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I read that entire article. It was looong.
To me the gist of it, is that upper middle class mothers have the luxury of paying someone less to do the work that they don't want to do which perpetuates class exploitation. And that they all want nannies rather than day cares.
The woman that was writing did seem a bit out of touch, but she was admitting she was one of the upper-middle class types and agonizing over the exploitation dilemma herself, even while she had a nanny.
What strikes me as very luxurious is that she was staying at home, and having a nanny BEFORE she started her writing carreer.
She did make it clear that many of the upper middle class "feminists" were very out of touch with lower class working women.
quote: So what about providing childcare to others in your home? What puzzles me is everyone I have known who undertakes this is not able to cut it. They wind up with only one or two children when they were planning on the income from five or six.
The problem with this (providing child care in your own home, along with your own kids) is that you don't have sole discretion on disciplining, etc. In other words, kids coming in from the outside may be used to a different set of rules, values, etc as your kids.
So it ends up that either 1) you have to allow them to possibly do some things you don't even allow your own kids to do (because you can't discipline them in the same way as your own, or because their parents have a different set of values) or 2)You end up giving in and compromising on the rules for your own kids in order to keep all things equitable.
When I tried child care for a short time, I was appalled at some of the things other parents thought was "no big deal" that WERE a big deal in my home..
posted
Quoting the last to paragraphs of kats article
quote: In my case, the despair was lessened—greatly—by a nanny. Without her I could never have launched a second career as a writer. Her kindness, her patience, and her many (and oftentimes extreme) acts of generosity have shaped my family as much as any other force. But the implications of this solution to my domestic problems are grave, and ever since I read Doméstica, two years ago, I have been turning over in my mind the high moral cost of my decision. Even if one pays a fair wage, hires a legal resident of the United States, and pays both one's own share of the required taxes and the employee's, so as not to short her take-home pay (all of which I do), one is still part of a system that exposes women to the brutalities of illegal immigration, only to reward their suffering with the jobs that ease our already comfortable lives.
It's easy enough to dismiss the dilemma of the professional-class working mother as the whining of the elite. But people are entitled to their lives, and within the context of privilege there are certainly hard choices, disappointments, sorrows. Upper-middle-class working mothers may never have calm hearts regarding their choices about work and motherhood, but there are certain things they can all do. They can acknowledge that many of the gains of professional-class working women have been leveraged on the backs of poor women. They can legitimize those women's work and compensate it fairly, which means—at the very least—paying Social Security taxes on it. They can demand that feminists abandon their current fixation on "work-life balance" and on "ending the mommy wars" and instead devote themselves entirely to the real and heartrending struggle of poor women and children in this country. And they can stop using the hardships of the poor as justification for their own choices. About this much, at least, there ought to be agreement.
quote:In Alabama church daycares aren't required to be inspected, and to be accredited or licensed like commercial ones are.
I've seen this a lot here. There are 'daycares' and 'babysitting'. Babysitting is not subject to licensing, but also should have a limit on the number and time a child can stay less than a normal daycare (3 hours in NY State).
(this is TheTick, btw)
We're doing the second on Jenny's list, working out pretty well. Until my wife got a raise and started working full time, it was not cost effective for her to be working, but she stuck with it because that was on the horizon. Grandmas don't charge much for daycare, thankfully. Posts: 85 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Guess what, you can't have both. You can't. Either stay at home with the kids that you chose to create, or stuff them into assembly line daycare tended by workers that make less than a good pizza delivery guy.
I agree with this, Slash - that's why I quit my job to stay home with my kids until they were well into middle school.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who has said those who choose to have both parents work are selfish and putting their needs for stuff ahead of their children? If someone implied that in any way, I'm with you, Icarus, but I don't recollect reading that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it exploitative, if the person is very glad for the job? And if you do everything you can to help them be able to learn and grow and get a better job, if they show any interest at all in so doing?
I have had people work for me many times and they are all very glad for the chance to do it. I pay better than the going rate, and tend to find especially good people. How exactly are you harming someone by giving them a good job they want?
I don't make as much as my bosses, either. Yet I'm delighted to work for them. I certainly don't think they are exploiting me.
posted
Haven't read the second page yet, so if this was already covered please forgive me... but as far as taxes, daycare credits, and stay at home moms, what is to stop them from incorporating as a day-care, then sending your child to that day care, and paying from a personal account into a business account, and claiming that as a tax credit? I am guessing this is what a lot of home day cares already do... do you have to have more than your own children?
Although I doubt you could have a flat policy of turning down any other children, there might well be a way to refuse to accept kids that did not get along with yours without actually advertising your business, unless you wanted to run a real day care.
posted
That's what I was asking - I honestly have no idea if it is legal or not. Even if you cannot actually get a break for your own kids, you might be able to start a real daycare. I see no reason not to give the break as long as the parent is willing to take on one or two outside kids whose parents agree to have follow your rules while inside your home.
On a semi-related note now that I have read the second page... If someone is providing a real home day care, the rules might not have to change for your child to accomodate others. Just lay out your rules and if the prospective customers do not like them, they can go somewhere else. This is more or less feasible depending on the rules, of course, anything too outrageous and no one will want to send their kid there.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, was talking this over with Steve and he had an interesting point. You work for a university. Is there discounted child care provided there for both students with children and faculty or employees?
I didn't realize that Steve spent so much time in daycare, though it was mostly a in house arrangement with a single person. But for growing up a "daycare kid" he doesn't appear tooo much worse for the wear, other than having an encylopedic knowledge of cartoons I've never seen!
posted
afr and solo (and Rakeesh), let me explain. If you truly have left the thread and don't see it, I'll e-mail you, but I'd rather explain in public.
You'll notice that I did not specify anybody by name in the last part of my rant, or quote anybody directly. That's because it was not my intention to respond to a single individual, but to a sentiment I've seen many times: that if one of you doesn't quit your job, it's because you are selfish and don't love your kids. Heck, even OSC has said stuff verging on this, IIRC. I'm not saying (right now) that anybody came right out and said that, and Rakeesh's post seems to imply that nobody has been this direct. But I do recall several posts which seemed to me to be hinting at it, and I have seen the sentiment before on Hatrack. I can think of specific posts that struck me as making that implication.
In short, there was an "if" implied in my own post: if you say I'm a lousy parent, then I say you're an asshole. If you didn't say that, then I'm not talking to you.
Now afr, since you feel like I was talking to you, I'm going to go back now and see what it was you actually said . . .
. . . okay . . .
. . . I don't know. You specifically said sometimes it was necessary for both parents to work. You haven't said who it's up to to make that call. In my case, not only do I make below the median income, I also don't get promotions. My annual raise is $50. Per year. On the other hand, now my kids are out of preschool and in regular school, and my job does have the advantage of having similar hours and annual schedules. When my kids have vacation, so do I. So, how personally should you take what I wrote? You tell me: how personally should I take what you wrote? If you're not judging me, then I'm not calling you names.
. . . solo, same thing. You said what you were doing, and you said it was not for everyone. I did specifically refer to your anecdotal evidence for the possibility of raising two kids on one income, to point out why it did not prove that everyone could do it. My best friend from high school is a computer programmer who never graduated from college, so I'm at least familiar with his situation (which may or may not be like yours).
Some other statements which, while not coming out and saying two-income parents are selfish and undevoted, seemed to be coming from that angle:
quote: I really don't care who drops the kids off at the 'raise them on an assembly line' places. Man or woman, typically, both of those people have put their priorities in the wrong place.
quote: The two-income family is seen as necessary more because our standards of "basic living", including luxury of house, have risen than because the world has become more expensive.
quote: Either stay at home with the kids that you chose to create, or stuff them into assembly line daycare tended by workers that make less than a good pizza delivery guy.
quote: I agree with this, Slash - that's why I quit my job to stay home with my kids until they were well into middle school.
Actually, I agree with Slash too . . . insofar as he's saying that parents have to make a choice and they can't have things both ways. But I include his statement because the language he couches it in clearly suggests who the good parents and the parents that don't give a darn are. But the rhetoric can be turned around just as easily (as I've seen in statements by Storm and Lalo in prior threads about stay-at-home parents). I could obnoxiously suggest that the stay-at-homes don't love their kids enough to turn off the soap operas and go out and bring home some money which will improve everybody's standard of living. As Farmgirl noted if we're going to start insulting everybody who chooses differently from us, nobody will win. You can't win.
I can't tell you the effort it's taking me to not be snarky right here.
-o-
I agree that preschool is terribly expensive.
I agree that at home is a better environment for kids under five.
I agree that whether or not to send your kids to preschool is a heck of a hard decision.
I don't think we should automatically judge parents for the decision they make here. Either way has ups and downs, and it's a parent's job to weigh those difficult options. It's not your job to weigh them for me. [That being the rhetorical "your" and not directed at anybody in particular.]
Incidentally, I have a great deal of respect for many of the people I just quoted. I just feel that they are making judgmental statements that show a lack of insight into other people's situations. afr and solo, I have a lot of respect for the two of you as well. In fact, afr, I have a vague memory of sending you an e-mail once to tell you this. (Or maybe I'm thinking of somebody else.) I hope you won't stay away from serious threads just because I blew my stack.
I virtually never curse on Hatrack. In fact, I rarely curse at all. But like Tom, the vibe I was getting felt insulting to me. In fact, nothing--nothing at all--gets my dander up more than being judged as a parent. Just look back at other parenting threads and you'll see me riled up there as well. I think perhaps it goes with the territory of being the parent of special needs kids--you get used to always being judged by what your kids can't do, and you get sensitized. Maybe some of the other parents of special needs kids here can tell me if I'm alone in this. In any case, it's not because I'm such a good parent that I get sensitive. Heck, I don't think I'm all that good at it. But all the mistakes I make, I make with the best of intentions. I'm doing the best that I know how and trying to make the best decisions I can, in a job with no instruction manual, only love. So tell me I'm lousy and I'll get annoyed. Tell me the reason I'm lousy is because I don't love my kids enough, and I'll get livid.
But I've been thinking about my post all night. I feel badly about having lost my temper, and I feel badly about having cursed. I know that there are people on this board who have done nothing to offend me, and who are offended by my language. I'm not going to go back and delete it and make later posters seem out of context, but I do apologize for it. And I apologize to people who took it personally, but feel it was undeserved.
posted
Icarus, I totally understand. I did the daycare thing for about five years. I didn't like it, but I did it.
And nothing gets me riled up than parenting (except religion) either.
I get my dander up when people judge stay at home Moms, and give them little respect. But that doesn't mean that I don't respect working parents. I not only can sympathize with their predicaments, I've been there. I didn't work for anything fancy or for any reason other than this one: if I didn't have my job, our family wouldn't have enough to pay the bills each month, and we'd lose our health insurance because my husband's job didn't provide it.
I was raised for a while by a single Mom who was not receiving child support. I know how tough it is for folks like you and your wife, it wasn't long ago I was in your shoes. Wes and I both made little more than minimum wage apiece when Nat was born. It was awful, I had to borrow money from my parents to buy diapers more than once. And Slash - it wasn't an issue of us having children and not being able to pay for them, we were a married couple on birth control. I was on the pill. We didn't want children because we knew our financial situation was precarious. But I got pregnant. It happens.
Much as I support the idea of having a parent at home, I know it's not always possible. I wish the govt. would quit subsidizing childcare and start giving some support to at-home parents, too. I wish more of the parents that want to stay home, could.
Oh, and I wanted to add one more thing. We're still a 2 income family. While we gained a lot with me coming home, as far as the kids getting time with one parent, we also lost some in that Wes works two jobs to support this lifestyle.
Not everybody can do that, not everyone has a job with a schedule like the fire dept. that makes it possible to have a 2nd career. So, I consider myself blessed, I know most families don't have the advantages that we do.
[ March 02, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I make no judgements about who are the better parents whatsoever.
I just get irritated when people start the whole, "You should help me pay for childcare" thing. Have as many kids as you like. Stay home with them or put them in daycare as you like. Just don't raise my taxes to pay for it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
