TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Something to think about...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Something to think about... - Page 3

post #61 of 82
Thread Starter 
I think it's unfair to judge people who put their children in daycare as preferring a career over motherhood. Some people don't have an adequate enough income to be able to survive on one salary alone. It's very judgemental to say that parents who put their children in daycare have made the wrong choices.

All the children I know who are in daycare love it. They don't go every day, they get a full day's attention, games, play time, socialisation with other children - it's a wonderful, rich environment for children and far less lonely than a life at home with Mum can be. And in many cases, it's a better environment for children because they are so stimulated and looked after. My mother worked full time from when we were all six weeks old. Our family couldn't have survived if she didn't. We were looked after by our grandmother but I can tell you now daycare would have been perfect for us. We were bright, inquisitive children who would have thrived in a daycare environment. My parents did absolutely the best they could with next to nothing. Are they going to be accused of choosing career over parenthood? I certainly hope not.

When I am a parent, I will have my children in daycare once a week even if I'm not working. Because it's real fun for them, very stimulating and a great environment. Plus, it would give me a day off and help keep me sane, and give me some alone time. That in itself can only be good for your relationship with your child. Just because you become a mother it doesn't mean you should completely lose yourself in service to your child.
post #62 of 82
I know it is a strange concept but perhaps women that have to be on public assitence shouldn't have children if they can't afford it. I know many women that can't afford kids and aren't going to have any.

And yes, it is about choices IMO.
post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I know it is a strange concept but perhaps women that have to be on public assitence shouldn't have children if they can't afford it. I know many women that can't afford kids and aren't going to have any.

And yes, it is about choices IMO.
I don't recall anyone saying anything about income assistance?? Maybe I missed it...

Anyway, my other two cents on the issue is that the concept of working mothers and SAHM's isn't a vs. situation. It's not black and white and what works for some families doesn't work for others. One isn't "better" than the other other than in regards to circumstance.

I do believe that mothers (or fathers) should spend the initial part of baby's life at home bonding (1 year at least and more if possible).
Some people can't do that I understand.

The other HUGE issue here is QUALITY of childcare. There is a long way between simply adequate and high quality childcare. The problem is that there are way more less than quality care situations in North America and this is because the work of caring for children (or "mother's work") is still extremely undervalued. Daycare workers often do not get paid much better than your average worker at a fast food establishment. This does not provide much incentive for anyone to want to excel in their profession or stay in their positions of employment, which I find quite sad.

When my daughter was in daycare, I had a horribly exhausting time finding the right situation and had to really juggle and struggle until she was FINALLY allotted a spot in a premium place....I was not about to drop her off at the first strip mall centre I found.

And in an ideal world, everyone would be able to provide consistently for their loved ones and the meadows would be full of unicorns dancing and the sky raining with lollipops, but the here and now is our reality.
post #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I know it is a strange concept but perhaps women that have to be on public assitence shouldn't have children if they can't afford it. I know many women that can't afford kids and aren't going to have any.

And yes, it is about choices IMO.
That's pretty harsh especially since the other poster wasn't talking about public assistance. I believe she was referring to all the pluses of daycare and I certainly agree with her. Children often get more stimulation and attention than they would at home and often build a great bond with their caregivers. IMO that doesn't make mom and dad bad people for giving them that opportunity. I don't have a "career" but I do work because things are very different than when my dad made enough to support our household without mom working.

I don't know where you live, but where we live my husband's salary (which is very good for this area) would NOT cover our cost of living and I'm not talking about extras and treats - I'm talking mortgage (rent) taxes, food, utilities, transportation. We don't go out to movies very often, we don't eat out very often (maybe once per month), we don't buy designer clothes, we don't buy brand new cars (always used), so we don't over-spend by any means. I do however spend a lot on groceries because we eat well (which is also important for children IMO).

I think it's wonderful that you live in Utopia, but unfortunately the rest of us live here on earth and it is a struggle on one salary for the average middle class (soon to be extinct) family.
post #65 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Children often get more stimulation and attention than they would at home and often build a great bond with their caregivers. .
Just to advocate for my SAHM sisters in the world......There are great mothers and bad mothers out there and just because a child is at home doesn't mean that he/she is more isolated than a child in care.

I know many SAHM's who are seriously organized in the pursuit of providing balance. These children are often at the park, pool, playdates, mom and me groups, etc where they get loads of interaction and stimulation.

(Not saying you were disputing this but it was mentioned before as well and I didn't want the picture to be painted of just mom and baby at home lonely and uncared for...))

Again, such as in life, some people do very well and some people are just hanging on for the ride.
post #66 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
And you ladies are correct with the situations you describe.

But, come on ladies, we all know that there are thousands of women out there working because they want more "Things" and because they just don't WANT to stay home with their kids.

I worked also, though not all the time. If I had it to do over I would not have worked. I was very fortunate that my mom watched my son and I only worked part-time but still.

Ever listen to Dr. Laura? That woman knows what she is talking about IMO.

Perhaps, reading this post of mine again may help. Especially the first and second paragrah.

And there was a poster that mentioned public assistence.
I'm not trying to be harsh.
I do think if one cannot afford children, one shouldn't have any. Birth control is legal. I know it is not a perfect world, no unicorns here

I KNOW there is many many women who HAVE to work through no fault of their own. Husband dies, husband leaves them and many other reason, I admit that.

But I also know there are many women that work for unnecessary material things. And many women that work because they do not WANT to be home with their own children.
I also think it is morally wrong to keep having baby after baby with no SO and no plans whatsoever to get off public assistence.
1 mistake I can see, 2 mistake pregnancies, shame on you.
post #67 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I know it is a strange concept but perhaps women that have to be on public assitence shouldn't have children if they can't afford it. I know many women that can't afford kids and aren't going to have any.

And yes, it is about choices IMO.
Hm. So then they should terminate their pregnancy if their birth control method fails? Or flood the already strained adoption system?

Or is it that we should ban sex except for people who are married and can support children on a single income?

It seems like the morals you want to impose on people's private lives would conflict with each other pretty heavily in reality.
post #68 of 82
I think we can all agree that the pregnancies that result from "failed" birth control is not the majority.
post #69 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think we can all agree that the pregnancies that result from "failed" birth control is not the majority.
Okay. But it still happens, and you have said women who can't afford to be stay at home moms shouldn't have children, so what ARE they supposed to do?

And unplanned pregnancies are much more common than you seem to think, whether from a failed birth control method (which includes misuse) or recklessness. Saying that the majority of pregnancies are planned doesn't resolve any of the conflictions, and provides no recourse for any of the unplanned pregnancies.
post #70 of 82
I don't consider "recklessness" very responsible.

I am not trying to be rigid or say anything is set in stone. I just think all people should take responsibility for their own choices.

I remember a thread about the Christian family that had 17 kids with no public assistence and alot of people slammed them for having those children.
But now it is okay for people to that can't afford them to have as many children as they want to?

I do NOT believe that Day Care providers in MOST, most, most instances are going to provide more loving parental child rearing than the parents themselves.

(please note that I said MOST)
post #71 of 82
I wasn't one of the people slamming the Duggars, but what you're saying is that those people shouldn't have any children. We're not talking about 17, we're talking about one or two.

You still haven't answered. What are they supposed to do? There is no apparent answer to me which doesn't violate one of your ought-tos.

Anyway... nobody ever said anything about daycare providers being more loving and parental than the parents. They're part-time caregivers. Not substitute parents. You hire them to attend to the needs of your child while you are attending to the needs of your career, not to rear your children for you. They follow your instructions, they don't do what they think is the way you should be raising your child.
post #72 of 82
I don't think 9-10 hours a day is "part-time" caregivers. The Day care provider ends up spending just as much time if not more with our children then we do.

What they are supposed to do is TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

I will not condone people's poor choices, I won't. There is no excuse for women that have multiple children while they sit on their kiester on public assistence. None.

A very good friend of mine has a daughter that had an illegitmate child. My freind helped her daughter. I can't even begin to list all the help she gives her daughter.
Fast forward a year and a half and daughter gets pregnent AGAIN, still not married, still no SO. This time my friend puts her foot down and say, you WILL get your tubes tied after this 2nd child is born.
She now has her tubes tied and her kids are aged 3 and 1. Now the daughter decides she is missing out on life and she wants to party. Guess who is taking care of her kids?
At least she won't be having any more.
post #73 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I don't think 9-10 hours a day is "part-time" caregivers. The Day care provider ends up spending just as much time if not more with our children then we do.

What they are supposed to do is TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

I will not condone people's poor choices, I won't. There is no excuse for women that have multiple children while they sit on their kiester on public assistence. None.

A very good friend of mine has a daughter that had an illegitmate child. My freind helped her daughter. I can't even begin to list all the help she gives her daughter.
Fast forward a year and a half and daughter gets pregnent AGAIN, still not married, still no SO. This time my friend puts her foot down and say, you WILL get your tubes tied after this 2nd child is born.
She now has her tubes tied and her kids are aged 3 and 1. Now the daughter decides she is missing out on life and she wants to party. Guess who is taking care of her kids?
At least she won't be having any more.
So, because your friend's daughter is doing this, then everyone else must be too? That might be a pretty large generalization and not very realistic.

I'm sure there are some out there who do take advantage of the system and have children when they are ill-equipped to care for them (wow, has this thread ever gone off-topic), but there are folks out there who due to unforeseen circumstances, i.e., death, divorce, etc., are left caring and trying to provide for children that they had in good times. If one were to follow your rules, those people would be forced to give up those children that they can't stay at home and care for.

I just can't in good faith paint all people with the same paint brush and be that rigid in my beliefs. My father gave us some good advice - before we start judging others, we should be made to walk in their shoes for awhile and see if we still felt the same after the experience. I know there are a lot of women out there who had sex before marriage and there but for the grace of God they did not get pregnant accidentally.
post #74 of 82
I was just giving an example.
I have said more than once on this thread, that my opinion wasn't set in stone. It is my opinion, that's all, no more, no less.

I think I even mentioned a few unforeseen circumstances.

I think people should actually stop and THINK before they so anything as life altering as having children. Why have kids if you are going to let someone else raise them?
post #75 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I will not condone people's poor choices, I won't. There is no excuse for women that have multiple children while they sit on their kiester on public assistence. None.
All I'm saying is that according to you, that's the only choice they have. Once they've gotten pregnant, they have a child, and they aren't allowed to work, so how on earth are they going to not 'sit on their keisters' on welfare?

Especially odd is that you emphasize how it's the most important job in the world and a woman should be totally satisfied being a stay-at-home mom (which I agree with) but then in the same thread you say that a stay-at-home mom is just sitting on her butt all day doing nothing. If raising children is so easy that all you have to do is sit there and collect a check, then why does it matter if people stay at home or send their kids to daycare, where presumably the daycare workers need only sit on their butt all day too?

Are you even starting to see some of the holes in this logic?
post #76 of 82
Yes, I see what you are saying. Just kick me will ya.
post #77 of 82
Thread Starter 
I cannot believe the implication, well, in fact it wasn't an implication, it was a straight-out statement, that people of lower economic means should not have children. Talk about selective breeding. I am poleaxed.

My parents' first pregnancy was through failed birth control. They knew each other three months, they married when my Mum was 7 months pregnant, and they had my oldest brother two days before her 21st birthday, and three months before my Dad's 20th birthday. They were both students, and had no house, nothing. Mum's father was unsupportive so all they had was her mother and my Dad's parents. Dad's mum died when Paul (my brother) was two.

They worked their butts off to make a good life for their baby, they neglected everything they needed or wanted to raise their son properly. One of my favourite photos of Mum is her graduating from university eight months pregnant with my second brother. Paul was four when Matt was born, and they had another baby because they didn't want the siblings to be too far apart.

I came along another five years later and they still had to work. They weren't poor, but they weren't wealthy enough to survive on one income. Mum was a teacher and that was her life's work. She loved it. Why should she have had to give up something that made her so happy to be with us all the time? Teaching is a perfect job when you have kids. The hours are great, you have all the holidays with them. My brothers and I had great lives, and we never, ever resented the fact that our parents had to work. Jeez, I can't even remember being three so I could care less who's care I was in.

They were (and still are) loving, amazing, supportive, incredible parents, who started out poor and raised a successful, warm, close family through incredible hardship. They just celebrated their 41st wedding anniversary last month.

I can't think of how many families are out there in the same situation. My parents are wealthy now, they worked SO hard to get where they are. And if they had have followed some of the advice given here they would have no kids now to share their older age with. Just because they were poorer when they were younger.

Max and I aren't wealthy and will probably both have to work when we have kids. So we shouldn't have them at all, is that right? Deprive us of a wonderful experience because we can't survive on one income in Perth's nightmare property and resource boom, where rent alone is much more than a mortgage used to be, and mortgages now are unaffordable period.

My eldest brother, who has a baby of his own, said to me yesterday, `Sare, if you can provide all your love, and fulfil the basic needs of your child, you are already far ahead of many out there' And that is so true. But we're not loaded with cash so we shouldn't even think of having a baby.

Sorry, but that's pretty much one of the most shocking things I've ever heard - here or anywhere. I am really quite upset by this, and that doesn't happen easily.

And as for the Duggars, well, I'm sure nobody would have said a word had they stopped at five or six. But 17? Yeah, I was one of the ones who criticised that - but not because of financial reasons.
post #78 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
I cannot believe the implication, well, in fact it wasn't an implication, it was a straight-out statement, that people of lower economic means should not have children. Talk about selective breeding. I am poleaxed.

My parents' first pregnancy was through failed birth control. They knew each other three months, they married when my Mum was 7 months pregnant, and they had my oldest brother two days before her 21st birthday, and three months before my Dad's 20th birthday. They were both students, and had no house, nothing. Mum's father was unsupportive so all they had was her mother and my Dad's parents. Dad's mum died when Paul (my brother) was two.

They worked their butts off to make a good life for their baby, they neglected everything they needed or wanted to raise their son properly. One of my favourite photos of Mum is her graduating from university eight months pregnant with my second brother. Paul was four when Matt was born, and they had another baby because they didn't want the siblings to be too far apart.

I came along another five years later and they still had to work. They weren't poor, but they weren't wealthy enough to survive on one income. Mum was a teacher and that was her life's work. She loved it. Why should she have had to give up something that made her so happy to be with us all the time? Teaching is a perfect job when you have kids. The hours are great, you have all the holidays with them. My brothers and I had great lives, and we never, ever resented the fact that our parents had to work. Jeez, I can't even remember being three so I could care less who's care I was in.

They were (and still are) loving, amazing, supportive, incredible parents, who started out poor and raised a successful, warm, close family through incredible hardship. They just celebrated their 41st wedding anniversary last month.

I can't think of how many families are out there in the same situation. My parents are wealthy now, they worked SO hard to get where they are. And if they had have followed some of the advice given here they would have no kids now to share their older age with. Just because they were poorer when they were younger.

Max and I aren't wealthy and will probably both have to work when we have kids. So we shouldn't have them at all, is that right? Deprive us of a wonderful experience because we can't survive on one income in Perth's nightmare property and resource boom, where rent alone is much more than a mortgage used to be, and mortgages now are unaffordable period.

My eldest brother, who has a baby of his own, said to me yesterday, `Sare, if you can provide all your love, and fulfil the basic needs of your child, you are already far ahead of many out there' And that is so true. But we're not loaded with cash so we shouldn't even think of having a baby.

Sorry, but that's pretty much one of the most shocking things I've ever heard - here or anywhere. I am really quite upset by this, and that doesn't happen easily.

And as for the Duggars, well, I'm sure nobody would have said a word had they stopped at five or six. But 17? Yeah, I was one of the ones who criticised that - but not because of financial reasons.
This post has the most clarity of any. You've summed it up perfectly. I for one do not want to live in a society that could tell me whether I could have children or not (shades of China and look at how horrible that is).

I for one am happy that not everybody feels we shouldn't have children if we aren't well-to-do (because that's what you need to be these days so that mom can stay at home). I wouldn't have my wonderful daughter. Heck I doubt if I could afford to have the cats what with the cost of food and litter. So yeah, I'm glad not everybody feels that way.
post #79 of 82
I do believe in SAHM's, if at all possible.

I'm sorry my opinion upsets you, but it's not going to change.

I also do not, for one moment, believe you HAVE to be well-to-do to be a SAHM, you might not be able to have all the material things you want but so be it. I know more than one family that has SAHM's and they aren't well-to-do but they are making it and their children are happy and well-adjusted good kids. Alot of times it is all in what your priorities are IMO.


We all need to live within our means.

Yes, there are unavoidable circumstances, that is life, and I have mentioned them in this thread but people seem to ignore that fact that I have mentioned them.
post #80 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Yes, there are unavoidable circumstances, that is life, and I have mentioned them in this thread but people seem to ignore that fact that I have mentioned them.
Possibly because they require your husband to die or divorce you? Oddly you didn't mention anything that does not involuntarily take away the husband.

So yea, I don't think that's really a concession on your part seeing as how they don't have any other option in the case of their husband dying or leaving them.
post #81 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I do believe in SAHM's, if at all possible.

Actually, so do I.

I'm sorry my opinion upsets you, but it's not going to change.

Your opinion doesn't upset me - I just find it very narrow and restrictive

I also do not, for one moment, believe you HAVE to be well-to-do to be a SAHM, you might not be able to have all the material things you want but so be it. I know more than one family that has SAHM's and they aren't well-to-do but they are making it and their children are happy and well-adjusted good kids. Alot of times it is all in what your priorities are IMO.

I disagree. It would take every penny of my husband's income to just cover rent, groceries and utilities. Never mind clothing and maybe designer clothes are not a necessity (which we don't and have never bought anyway), but clothing is still manadatory in most public places we need to be, especially at schools.


We all need to live within our means.

I certainly agree with that statement, but if housing, food, utilities and clothing take up most of one income and sometimes more than one income, then that's subjecting a child to proverty that I believe is more cruel than mom bringing in some extra money to make the whole family's life easier.

Yes, there are unavoidable circumstances, that is life, and I have mentioned them in this thread but people seem to ignore that fact that I have mentioned them.
I don't think any of us missed or ignored anything you mentioned - maybe we just didn't agree and since this is IMO, it's OK to agree to disagree.
post #82 of 82
We certainly can agree to disagree.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Something to think about...