Watching Your Child Grow Up ... Via the Internet
by Heather Koerner on 02/22/2008 at 8:18 AM
Carolyn McCulley, over at Solo Feminity, wrote yesterday about an article she came across doing research for her current book. The article, titled "Soccer Mom Wannabe," details one mom's struggle with the choice she has made to continue her full-time career after her child is born. The mom writes:
The screen updates every five seconds or so. It reminds me of dancing under a strobe light. Flash: He's sitting on the floor. Flash: Here comes a little girl. Flash: She whacks him on the head. Flash: He's crying. Flash: Here comes the teacher...
Now, where is he? Flash: He's crawled over to the cubby holes. Flash: What's in there?
Every morning the alarm screams at 6:00am. We get up, get washed, get fed, get dressed, strap his flailing body into the car seat, and haul him out to the daycare where two 18 year old girls watch him and ten other kids so I can go to my job that pays the daycare bill. And I become the voyeur. Welcome to postmodern child rearing: I watch my son at daycare over the internet. He is growing up in Technicolor, right on my screen...
Then, after acknowledging how hard our mother's generation worked to open doors for women, this mom admits her frustration:
Problem is, this world sucks. I miss my family. On a typical day I am with my son (awake) for about 30 minutes in the morning, 30 minutes at lunch, and about 2 hours in the evening for a grand total of 3 hours per day. I spend more time with my co-workers than my husband or son.
There's such a haunting sadness about this article. This mom seems to understand in her gut that something is wrong, but is either unwilling to make a change or feels powerless to do so. If she is unwilling, that's a chilling commentary on our society's priorities. If it's that she feels powerless, it makes me wonder how much we've gained in the "women's movement." Do women really feel like they have more choices, or are the choices just more painful?
1. Louise said the following at 8:44 AM on Feb 22:
It seems rather odd to me that she's beating herself up to such an extent.
She certainly isn't the first person to have regretted a decison, and this one is definitely reversible.
2. erin said the following at 10:11 AM on Feb 22:
That article makes me sad. My husband and I were just talking about what we would do when we have kids. I really want to stay at home with them, but we're not sure it's financially viable. We both have low-paying jobs and don't really know what other options we have. I am really worried that when the time comes, I won't be able to stay home, and I know I would hate having to take my child to a daycare.
3. Christina said the following at 10:20 AM on Feb 22:
But does she feel like its reversible?
I feel like such an irresponsible and careless worker that I would rather be at home learning how to cook a meal, clean my house, balance my checkbook, and have a hobby than sit at a desk in front of a computer all day...for me, that's impractical, even though I'm convinced that my job is not going to help me in the homemaking dep't. I can't. I have to pay my bills.
Give me 5-10 years and at some point I won't feel like I'm ABLE to leave my job at all. Even if I do have a 2 year old son. And to top it off, no one at work seems to understand that a CAREER is not the choice I want to make with my life - I want family. And the world simply thinks that's a foolish thought.
I feel that the "Women's Movement" empowered us to work in the business world and shuns us if we choose the life that was the only way prior to it. Like I'm ungrateful or something for all the hard work these women have put into giving me the oppurtunity to pursue a career. So instead, i'm not all that empowered to do what I want to do - only to do what people think I SHOULD want to do.
Not to mention the economy is a thousand times kinder to a dbl income than it is to a family on one income (even a single person on one income).
And if you question the power of what people think on someone making a decision, its a powerful motivator - from a world of advice-seekers, we're more intent on finding out what others would say we should do than listening to our hearts and doing what we believe God is telling us to do.
4. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 10:33 AM on Feb 22:
"This mom seems to understand in her gut that something is wrong, but is either unwilling to make a change or feels powerless to do so."
Or, you know, maybe she needs money. That's typically a reason that people work.
5. Laura_MH said the following at 10:38 AM on Feb 22:
Maybe her husband makes very little money so quitting her job is a very bad option for them. She may be the primary breadwinner in the family.
Maybe she and her husband discussed it and he said no, I don't want you to quit. My best friend is in this situation. Her husband does very well financially. She makes less but still does okay. They have two daugthers, ages 3 and 1. He doesn't want her to quit working because they will lose her income. If a wife is supposed to submit to her husband and the husband says "No, I don't want you to quit...keep working," then there's not a lot she can do, unless she can convince him to think otherwise.
(I'm not saying this is the case for this woman, just a possibility.)
6. Carrie (the original) said the following at 10:50 AM on Feb 22:
There was an article I read on msn.com about finances. It mentioned the cost of child care and talked about how a second job was needed to help makes ends meet because of child care costs.
To me, a childless outsider who goes to church with a bunch of single income families, I'm very confused. I was a daycare kid myself. So was my brother. We were put in daycare and public schools because they are/were "professionals".
I'm still kind of amazed at the whole social stigma against homeschool families. The people that are supposedly "educated" and "open-minded" don't see this as a viable way to go.
Boy will my parents be upset with me when my kids are 5 years old and not getting on a big yellow bus to go to school. :)
7. Louise said the following at 11:16 AM on Feb 22:
Laura, you brought up a good point.
Invariably, critics of day care situations seem to focus on the working mothers, but the Christian worldview holds that wives are obligated to submit to their husbands, and there are definitely some husbands who specifically want their wives to continue outside employment immediately following the birth of children.
8. Bethany D. said the following at 11:33 AM on Feb 22:
Based on my experiences, most mainstream people support women in being able to choose anything they want to do - they just don't think about being a SAHM (Stay At Home Mom) as a viable career choice. After all, from their point of view, why would anyone want to be an opressed, depressed, over-stressed, SAHM?
Occasionally I had fun at college by answering truthfully when asked what my long-term career goal was: "To be a stay-at-home, homeschooling mom". Most of the time the questioner (& anyone else in earshot) would blink, give me an incredulous look, and quickly switch to a different topic. Generally though, I took pity on them and stuck to discussing my college major. It's odd to feel like a dangerous rebel just because I want to follow the most traditional female profession.
9. Louise said the following at 11:45 AM on Feb 22:
I am a "mainstream" person and I don't think there is anything wrong with someone deciding to be a homemaker (or stay at home mom/dad).
I think it is wise for everyone, both male and female to train for a skill/profession, but if one thinks it is in one's family's best interested to be a stay-at-home parent (both on a long term or short term basis) I see nothing wrong with that.
Re what people think about someone's life decisions....while I was in my 30s I made a very unpopular life decison, thereby causing several dropped jaws.
However, the decision was mine to make, and I still believe I made the correct one.
If the time comes when I change my mind and believe I made the wrong decision, it will be my problem to deal with and to solve, no one elses.
So people, do what you feel is best for your situation.
If outside people don't like your decision, don't let it bother you!
10. farmer Tom said the following at 11:46 AM on Feb 22:
I'm on lunch break, don't have time to elaborate now, but an author named John Lott has written a book which shows through statistical data that women entering the workforce lead to a direct decline in mens wages. If you want your husband or future husband to earn more, you should be opposed to unlimited legal and illegal immigration. And women should leave the workforce, staying home to raise their children.
11. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:49 AM on Feb 22:
farmer Tom doesn't disappoint.
Thank you!
12. Frank said the following at 12:32 PM on Feb 22:
(@ Farmer Tom, #10)
If what you say is true, the it is an excellent example of a Tragedy of the commons [wikipedia]. And I really don't see that kind of change in workforce demographics ever happening.
13. Patricia said the following at 12:34 PM on Feb 22:
For those of you who want to be SAHM, what is your goal after your children are grown? I don't mean this to be demeaning, but sometimes I wonder what people plan or hope to do after their children are grown. In today's economy most have 40 years or so in the work force and most people only have young children for 15-20 years.....I wish the workforce was more fluid so that people could take time off to have a family and re-enter more easily. The problem often is that many people don't have this flexibility....
14. kaj said the following at 1:11 PM on Feb 22:
If women must leave the workforce as Farmer Tom suggests, then we owe the Taliban a big apology.
The Taliban are, then apparently "holier" than us, because they made it illegal for even widows to earn a living.
Also, if women were made to leave the workforce, I don't want to be examined by a male gynecologist. Enough said.
15. valerie said the following at 1:37 PM on Feb 22:
RE: comment 13
I'm currently a SAHM with a 2-year-old and a 3-month-old. I have a bachelors and masters in architecture, and quit working at a firm in August. To get a license to practice architecture, you need to log (min) 3 years of intern hours, and pass a battery of 9 exams...on top of schooling, this amounts to (min) 10 years of investment before you can legally call yourself an architect. Additionally, the profession is notoriously demanding of personal time/commitment.
It's really important to us to have our girls in a rich, loving environment during their preschool years, where we are able to really encourage learning and have control over what they are being exposed to. (it's crazy what our 2-year-old picks up just from Sunday school) So, I've chosen not to jump through all the hoops at the moment, esp. since I would like to eventually teach. We're moving overseas next month for my husband to take a professor position, and I'd like to get involved with humanitarian efforts to improve housing for the poor there. Thankfully, architecture academia really appreciates non-traditional experiences.
It is very liberating (& exciting!) to put my responsibility to my children first, and to trust that God will show me how I can also use the gifts He has given me in new and potent ways. I have the rest of my life to do really neat architecture stuff...my kids will only be this small and vulnerable and CUTE once in their lives...and I am so glad that I am able to witness every minute!
(Clearly, not everyone has this option...but for those that do I say: don't be scared to do the "unwise" thing.)
16. Lynne said the following at 1:56 PM on Feb 22:
Frequently here, I hear women say their choice to be home maker/SAHM isn't respected. There is talk of hearing snide/confused comments, rolling or eyes, general degrading comments.
Flash forward a few years, you're now hearing from a woman whose married, has a couple of kids, and is one of the few working mothers (especially full-time) in your church. It is my dearest hope, that you will not reenact the disrespect your SAHM desires were treated with, or to assume that this woman and her spouse are giving her children a second-rate child raising.
Here choice is made, perhaps exploring ways you could support her by offering to watch her kids if they're sick, go out for coffee on a weeknight or weekend, bring her kids home from soccer practice, or simply not assume that she is either "forced" to work for $ reasons or too greedy to give up a second income would be truly loving and gracious.
Hope I don't sound too harsh.
Lynne
17. Laura_MH said the following at 2:07 PM on Feb 22:
The gyno reference made by kaj in post #14....I hear you. I, too, would never allow a male gyno to examine me again! Once was too much.
I cannot imagine living in a world where men dominated the workforce. (In some ways they still do, but I'm referring to sheer numbers of employees, as opposed to rank and salary.) I guess life used to be like that but things in the olden days focused on agriculture and some subsistence-based living. To revert back to a male-based model in a world dominated by knowledge work, industry, and commerce....Nothing would be created, developed, marketed, or done with females in mind. Men would control *everything*, since nearly every aspect of our lives depends on someone else providing the product or service as their job. And if the suggestion is that women leave the workforce.....? We've gone too far now to go back.
And I'm an unmarried female, who knows how long it will take me to get married? I still have to work, it would be strange to have such a lopsided workforce. But I guess if I'm looking for a husband, that might be a good thing if my co-workers are unmarried ;)
18. skp said the following at 2:58 PM on Feb 22:
I call it a catch 22. The Women's movement has given women the freedom to CHOOSE a career or staying at home. But, because of more women working, the cost of living has sky rocketed, mens wages are lower making it a difficult choice to make. However, I firmly believe it is a choice. Like any decision there are pros and cons and whatever you decide you have to accept the consequences. One of my co-worker's at age 50 is looking back at her career- she was a single mom- worked full time as a manager- had an active social life- went on vacations without her kids- put her self thru college thru a master's degree- had no money worries- and guess what- she didn't spend a whole lot of time with her children. Now at 50 she is very bitter about the time lost with her kids. To the other extreme- another co-worker worked when she felt like it- basically one day a week-squeeked by financially- was able to do volunteer work - was especially active in the music ministry of her church- home schooled her kids thru high school. And now at age 50 she is complaining that she is not getting a retirement and the company is not being fair. I say to both of them-you made your choices- you could have changed your mind at any time- you have to live with the consequences. NO WHINING.
19. Jacob M. said the following at 3:08 PM on Feb 22:
What a stupid, useless, pathetic article by Jessica Smartt Gullion, and how stupid, useless, and pathetic that no one, not Carolyn McCulley, not Boundless commenters, not Mrs. Gullion herself can muster the appropriate reaction toward what this woman is doing to her children: condemnation. This woman goes to work every day at a job she hates, complaining that "this world sucks," sits around and feels "conflicted" about watching her children grow up at day care on a monitor, flirts with the idea that Marxism (!) is the solution, and the only reaction anyone has is to feel sorry for her, to acknowledge her "frustration." Well, if she's so "conflicted" and "frustrated," why doesn't she quit her job? In her blog she discusses cooking all sorts of gourmet, exotic foods; I doubt she and her husband are hurting for money.
Furthermore, she expresses belief in the typical left-wing canard that America was a horror for women until the cultural revolution of the 1960's: "Not that my mother’s generation had it any better. Certainly not. If I were forced to stay home all day doing under-appreciated, mind-numbing child care and house work, my thoughts and opinions and ideas all chalked up to a lot of nothing— silly girl!— you betcha I’d be complaining." I wonder if she's ever actually asked her mother how she feels about her life. Certainly my mother, and my grandmothers for that matter, felt that they were "forced" to stay home, that child care and house work were "mind-numbing" or "under-appreciated," or that their thoughts, opinions, and ideas were "chalked up to a lot of nothing." Yet not only does no one question this patently false caricature, we have a commenter on this allegedly "conservative" Christian blog comparing America prior to the 1960's, the entire history of Christendom, and all traditional societies everywhere to the Taliban. If you can't see a difference between life in America circa 1946, and life under the Taliban, you have no knowledge of history, no sense of proportion, and no appreciation for--in fact, active hostility toward--your own civilization, culture, people, and history.
And I wish those who hate male OB/GYNs could have talked to my dearly departed grandmother, who always refused to go to female doctors.
20. Kellie said the following at 3:08 PM on Feb 22:
Sometimes in our society there isn't a choice between staying home and working. My husband and I have made choices so that I can work part-time when we have kids, but I will still have to work. There's no use in complaining or lamenting about it, because that's just the way it is.
21. Olivia said the following at 3:15 PM on Feb 22:
Re: Carrie (#6)
My family was in that situation about 7 years ago... my mom (who had a degree in education) felt called to take a break from her career and homeschool my brother and me, even though her parents and my dad felt strongly against homeschooling! She eventually won them over, through gentle but persistent reasoning (and prayer!) - and as seniors in high school, my brother and I are a testament to my mom's faithfulness and sacrifice. Don't lose hope; they'll come around when they see first-hand how wonderful homeschooling really is! :) We are such a tight-knit family because of it, and I wouldn't give that up for worlds.
22. Heather Koerner said the following at 4:00 PM on Feb 22:
Re: Patricia & Your Question (#13)
Patricia,
I am already an SAHM, not wanting to be one, but will venture to answer your question.
What is my goal after my children are grown? What are my plans and goals?
The abbreviated answer: who knows.
Maybe I'll write a book. Maybe I'll return to a 40-hour corporate work week like I had before my children were born. Maybe I'll continue to work from home. Maybe I'll use the time I used to devote to my children toward ministry or charity.
I know that I'm going to have seasons in my life. One involved education and a career. This one involves investing as much as I can into my children and their spiritual upbringing. What will happen in the next seasons? I don't know. But I'm excited to find out, just like I'm excited to experience this one right now.
That's the great thing about seasons. They change.
23. Joy said the following at 5:00 PM on Feb 22:
I think a number of people have already hit the nail on the head: it's a personal choice. Each family is a unique situation. We can condemn or agree with someone's decision until we're blue in the face, but it's their decision.
I was in preschool, public school, and summer day care growing up while my parents worked. My fiance's mother didn't work and home-schooled her kids, and they managed on a single paycheck. Both of us see value in our upbringing and wouldn't change a thing. What does that mean for our future children? We don't know yet, but it's OUR decision.
24. Bethany D. said the following at 8:29 PM on Feb 22:
Comment #13
After I'm done raising our first batch of (probably biological) kids, I'd like to get involved in foster care and/or adopt some more. If that's not an option (due to husband's leading, finances, legislation changes, etc.) then I might go back to work in my (foodservice/ hospitality) industry. Sure I'll make much lower wages then if I had stayed continuously employed, but it'll still be worth it. Or I might start volunteering with ministries, if we don't need the second paycheck, since many places are hurting for hands to help.
25. Becky said the following at 8:39 PM on Feb 22:
Honestly....this is part of what draws me towards Barack Obama. He's written about the problem in The Audacity of Hope, complaining that the increase in college costs, etc has made it very difficult for women to stay home, and as the child of a single mom, he's so aware of the struggles women go through to provide for their family, both financially and relationally.
26. Leah said the following at 5:17 AM on Feb 23:
I tend to think that women like the one in the article are loathe to sacrifice the lifestyle they have to stay home with their child. She might say she has to work to help support her family, but I'd ask questions like- do you have to live in that particular house in that particular suburb? Do you have to eat take-away that many times a week? Do you have to wear those particular clothes? Do you have to drive that particular car? Can't you get by with cheaper versions of any of the aforementioned?
Of course, some sensible women will read those questions and either answer "yes" or already be using the absolute cheapest viable option for themselves. And it's in those unfortunate circumstances that they have to be away from their children a majority of the day. But for many women? I think they could cut costs in some areas and subsequently cut their working hours.
And farmer Tom needs his head read.
I'm all for being a SAHM- that's what I want to do- but keep in mind, if my husband is earning 50k and I'm earning 30k, and women leave the workforce, pushing his income up to 70k, we're no better off. Sure, I can stay at home with my kids, but we're 10k down. It's not like women leaving the workforce is actually financially beneficial for families like farmer Tom tried to put it.
Also, if there's a woman who has 3 kids in school, what's wrong with her working, say, 5 or 6 hour days while the kids are at school? And when they're older, say perhaps high school, what's wrong with her working an extra hour or so after they get home? They are, literally, old enough to look after themselves a few afternoons a week. It's not like you never leave your 13 or 14 year old children alone at home if you have a function to go to.
Keep in mind I am all for being a SAHM and that's exactly what I want to be. But saying women should leave the workforce? HA. It's not going to help families' financial situation, and it's sexist and narrow minded.
Patricia- I think my child's well being is more important than the possibility that I might have troubles re-entering the workforce later down the track.
Besides, since when does Stay at home Mum = stay at home for the entire time your child is living under your roof? My mum didn't work between the time I was born (the oldest) and the youngest entered kindy. Even before we were in school Mum would do a bit of substitute teaching, leaving us at our grandparents' for the day. It happened so rarely it was a treat for us. Once the youngest was in school, Mum took on permanent part time positions at school (leaving her time to do household chores, RE [Religious Education] in school classes, and anything else she might want/have to do). None of us kids ever went to daycare, and Mum or Dad would drop us off and pick us up each day (ie- no bus/walking/riding to school). By no stretch of the imagination could you say Mum neglected us for her job. But she still had one. She was definitely a stay at home Mum, but she was working too. You wouldn't call it a career per se, but she had a job.
27. Leah said the following at 5:22 AM on Feb 23:
Laura_MH (and Louise)- definitely not saying your friend married the wrong guy, but my personal take is that I woudl sus out a guy's view on mothers working before getting married... and if he held that view, I'd run the other direction.
28. H.A.P. said the following at 5:27 AM on Feb 23:
Reading this article made me so incredibly thankful for my dear husband. He is more than willing to make sacrifices so that I can stay at home with our children. He is a great money manager so I'm sure we can make it work!(Our first is due in June!)
29. Kellie said the following at 9:54 AM on Feb 23:
I could add that my husband will be able to work from home part-time, so we will both be home with our child during the week. Thankfully, we both have flexible jobs. And really it came down to owning a home, we could not afford our modest home on one paycheck, and staying in our apartment we would have no hope saving for one. Some may disagree, but we are doing what we thought would be best for our family.
30. Patricia said the following at 2:57 PM on Feb 23:
Leah-obviously one's family is more important than money (for both women AND men). However, I'm asking a question that I think churches too often overlook when encouraging women to be SAHMs. I think it would be great if women could be SAHMs if they wanted to but after empowered to serve in other areas of society. Being a mom is an important role women have-but it's not the only role women have in our society, church, etc. Imagine all the potential older women could have if they were utilized more in churches...
31. Shannon said the following at 9:39 PM on Feb 23:
I'm a lurker on the blog comments usually, but I feel so strongly about this as a young stay-at-home wife and mom that I have a lot to say. Here goes ...
Louise (in response to comment 1):
Is this woman's decision really reversible, as you say? I don't think so. It's changeable, yes, but not reversible. Her child has not had her time in the earliest years of his life. She can change her decision starting today, true, but she cannot go back and regain that time. My daughter has never doubted my love for or availability to her because I'm home with her. Children don't understand intangible concepts such as love and trust at an early age; they understand time spent with them.
erin (in response to comment 2):
Please seek out biblical financial advice before deciding that the only option is childcare for your children when you are blessed with them! It's easy to get our minds clouded with what the world says our materials needs are, so you might be able to live on his income. Or there are options, such as providing childcare to another family or families, caring for your child along with other children, that could allow you to be with your child. Continue to pray about it and seek godly counsel!
Patricia (in response to comment 13):
To answer your question, I always state that I'm a stay-at-home WIFE and mom. When my kids grow up, I will still be a wife. While I don't object to wives working, I personally don't think I can be a godly wife to my husband, based on my biblical understanding of what that means and my experience as a wife thus far, and work, at least not full-time. (I worked before we were married, and I worked part-time before our daughter was born. I do some contract work even now from home, but only if it won't take away from my wifely or motherly responsibilities.) I won't fully rule out the possibility of re-entering the workforce at some point once my kids are grown since that's a long time from now, but our current plan is that I will continue to be a stay-at-home wife once our kids grow up. I also intend to continue to engage in the ministry opportunities God provides to me, and once our kids are grown those opportunities may change since my availability and lifestyle will be different at that point.
Leah (in response to comment 26):
Amen, sister, to your first two paragraphs and your comment to Patricia! However, I have issue with your assertion that high school kids are old enough to take care of themselves. While I may work while our children are in school if we don't homeschool (still trying to decide that one!), we plan for me to a) work in such a capacity that I could be at the school to volunteer a couple times a week and b) have a schedule that would allow me to be home before and after they go to school. I believe that even teenagers need that. Scientists have determined that the part of the brain controlling impulses is not fully developed until the early 20s (no offense to those of you who aren't there yet if you're reading!), so I feel strongly that teenagers need to be supervised as well. That's not to say that they shouldn't ever be trusted or allowed to be on their own; I just don't think that should be the norm, at least not most days each week.
Leah (in response to comment 27):
Agreed!
32. Shannon Anna said the following at 9:39 PM on Feb 23:
Now that I've responded to a lot of the comments, here's the rest of my two cents ...
As a stay-at-home wife and mom, I often hear,
"You're so lucky/fortunate/blessed that you can stay home with her." And while I won't argue about being blessed, I take issue with the sentiment even if that's the choice adjective. The thought usually being expressed is that the opportunity to stay home rather than work just fell in my or my husband's lap, rather than it being a choice we made. It seems, from my experience, that most people fail to realize how intentional couples must be in order to have a parent in the home. It takes purposeful planning, budgeting, and balancing. It's totally worth it, but I has nothing to do with luck! So, all that said, I wonder if this woman could have the same mindset that I have encountered, that some people can just stay home as a matter of luck while others can't.
Also, another thing I hear a lot - that has been expressed in some comments here as well - is that notion that "I was in daycare and I turned out okay, so what's wrong with it?" It's risky and wrong-minded to parent from that perspective. Would we find it acceptable for someone who was abused as a child (not that I'm suggesting that daycare=abuse; this is just different spin on the same attitude!) to say, "I was abused as a kid and I turned out okay, so what's wrong with it?" Obviously, parenting practices are often influenced by how one was parented, but we need to make decisions based on what's best for our kids, not based on what worked for us.
33. farmer Tom said the following at 9:52 PM on Feb 23:
Sorry, I can't let this pass.
Leah said in #26,
And farmer Tom needs his head read.
I'm all for being a SAHM- that's what I want to do- but keep in mind, if my husband is earning 50k and I'm earning 30k, and women leave the workforce, pushing his income up to 70k, we're no better off. Sure, I can stay at home with my kids, but we're 10k down. It's not like women leaving the workforce is actually financially beneficial for families like farmer Tom tried to put it.
Yeap, you're right. It's not financially beneficial for families to have the mother stay at home, you got it.
Of course you also missed the point entirely, forest for the trees and all that jazz.
quote from the original article,
Problem is, this world sucks. I miss my family. On a typical day I am with my son (awake) for about 30 minutes in the morning, 30 minutes at lunch, and about 2 hours in the evening for a grand total of 3 hours per day. I spend more time with my co-workers than my husband or son.
See I got paid $33,000 dollars this year, which is none of your business. But you are trading the value of a human life, a child, for a paycheck. My wife and I love our children enough to sacrifice our standard of living so that our children can have a stay at home mom. They have never been to a single day of baby sitting/childcare. Never been through the doors of the secular humanistic government indoctrination center. Never ridden the "big yellow bus" full of vile little sinful unregenerate heathen, with potty mouths and debased value systems.
We choose to "train up a child" ourselves instead of "in loco parentis" government employees doing that job. It requires sacrifice on our parts. We drive a mini-van with 159,000 miles. We do not own a home.I desperately want a different pickup truck, the one I have hasn't run for three years, and is a 1986 model with 289,000 miles on it. We go on vacations that allow us to sleep in a tent, in public parks, less than two hundred miles from home, all to save on expenses. None of my children have ever been on an airplane, seen the ocean, been out of the country, or been to Disneyworld. My wife has not had new glasses in 6 years, I have teeth that need special dentistry work done on them. We sacrifice those things for our children's sake.
And no I am not whining. I'm telling you that life has an economic balance sheet. We choose to have my wife stay at home. The cost is having older, used and usually just less possessions than those who have higher or dual incomes.
The original post referenced how unhappy the lady was. I don't feel sorry for her, because she made a choice, of her own free will, and the cost is making her unhappy. If she doesn't like the cost, change the equation.
34. Shannon Anna said the following at 9:54 PM on Feb 23:
One question for those of you who don't plan to have you or your spouse stay home with the kiddos and/or for those of you who think that each family just has to make their own decision about this (which implies that there's no clear-cut scriptural imperative in this debate) ...
How can families put Deut. 6, specifically verse 7, into practice without if someone else is with their kids the majority of the day? And how can parents train, instruct, and teach their children as we are instructed to do in the Word (for example, Prov. 1:8) if someone other than the parents are responsible for the majority of the training, instruction, and teaching since the kids are only with their parents for a fraction of each day? (I'm not trying to pick a fight here; I just can't come up with any answer myself to either of those questions other than "they can't.")
35. MacKenzie said the following at 9:58 PM on Feb 23:
I am recently married woman, currently working and making more money than my husband. But we have decided that in a few years when we have kids I will stay at home. We may not have the same lifestyle as we would if I worked too, but it is the life we are choosing to make for ourselves, and it helps that we know our goals now and can works to make that happen (we save my income so we are used to living on only his income).As for what to do after the kids get older, I guess I will just wait and see what doors God opens for me then.
Our society says it is a personal choice and that a woman can do whatever she feels will fulfill her most. I'm not going to say that women who choose to work are bad mothers, but I do think that they often make the decision to work because they don't think they can lose the income when in reality they could if they would make necessary lifestyle changes. For those that do actually need to work, I don't want them to feel condemned by other Christians because of that need but I won't say that both options are equal. Staying at home allows for a parent to train up their child and protect them from the world's influence in a way that would be much more difficult if that child is in daycare.
36. Jo said the following at 1:00 AM on Feb 24:
I agree with Leah that staying at home while the kids are small is the best thing, and I agree that it's a choice that involves sacrifice but is not impossible in most circumstances. I also agree that staying at home while the kids are small is not the same as staying at home forever. I don't intend to have kids and then never work again, far from it. But I do intend to raise my kids myself and not leave them in daycare for large proportions of every day.
farmer Tom, I really admire the choice you and your wife have made, and as I said I agree that it usually is possible to do. But when you say 'women should leave the workforce', are you talking about staying at home while the kids are small, or are you talking about married women (or all women?) not working AT ALL? If the latter, it's short-sighted. I've said it before, but without women in the workforce, where are all the men who will take over being nurses, care workers, teachers, specialist therapists? There are some jobs, and yes, some PAID jobs, that women are generally more suited for than men. They're the caring professions that people choose in order to make a difference and not for the money they make doing it.
37. Leah said the following at 7:47 AM on Feb 24:
Shannon, I never said teenagers should be left alone 24/7. I said they were old enough to look after themselves if Mum was working for an extra hour or two after school hours a few afternoons a week. Goodness knows as a teenager I was often at home on my own (or with a younger sibling) because Mum was out chauffering other siblings, at parent/teacher meetings, doing the groceries, etc etc. And it's not like, as a 13, 14, 18 year old, I couldn't handle a few hours on my own with a few younger kids around. I think it would have been more damaging for Mum to have been around 24/7... a kid would never learn any self-reliance if that was the case.
farmer Tom, I think you're the one who can't see the forest for the trees. I never, EVER said I would rather be at work rather than with my kids- trade a child for paycheck, I believe you said. If you actually read my post, you'd see I want to be a SAHM and don't agree with women who voluntarily leave their children in daycare. I simply said that it's not a financially beneficial choice, as you implied it was. And you needn't be rude to me- "which is none of your business"- i never asked how much you earn.
I will also point out my mother is a teacher in the public school system, and i resent the implication that she's just a ""in loco parentis" government employee". I also resent the implication that children who attend public schools or ride school buses are all "vile little sinful unregenerate heathen, with potty mouths and debased value systems". Are you saying that's what I am, just because I went to a public school? Aren't your kids going to get a shock when they enter the real world and hear a person swear. At least I can make friends with people who swear and have live-in boyfriends, and be a good witness to them.
I really don't care to hear about all the sacrifices you've made for your children, or that you think the woman in the article is suffering due to a choice she made of her own free will, because you will find that's pretty much just what I said. You carry on about all your "sacrifices", when sacrifice is exactly what I said the woman in the original article should do.
I said I tend to think that women like the one in the article are loathe to sacrifice the lifestyle they have to stay home with their child...I think (many women) could cut costs in some areas and subsequently cut their working hours.
You seriously think they're the words of a person who would swap her child for a paycheck and more comfortable lifestyle? How about next time you read the comment properly, exactly how you recently roused on another girl for supposedly not doing.
38. kaj said the following at 9:08 AM on Feb 24:
I forgive Jacob M. (comment 19) for bearing false witness against me (Exodus 20:16) and not speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). He does not know me, let alon what he is doing in those hateful words he said.
I have studied American and world history and the Bible for myself, and I will not go into further arguments about whose view of history is correct.
I am a Christian, but full disclosure: I do not belong to any political party, nor can I be clearly labeled "conservative" or "liberal."
The reality is that there is a need for some (not all) women to be out in the workforce for various reasons. Some of those reasons include: single women who are supporting themselves (that would be me), women who are "filled in" until their unemployed husbands can get a job again (that would be my mother).
Neither Laura_MH or I said we hated male gynecologists. I just prefer to have a female examine my--uh--"private areas" in the name of modesty and not to give any man any opportunity for temptation. Furthermore, while a man may study and be familiar with female anatomy from medical school, he has never possessed female anatomy himself, and I find comfort that a woman doctor knows some of the problems I have because she may have experienced them herself.
If any woman prefers a male doctor for whatever reason, that's her choice.
Removing all women from the workforce, even if a law was passed, is an unrealistic prospect. It is unfortunate that some women are missing out on their kids growing up.
One thing I haven't seen people banter on in The Line is the cost of a Christian school (elementary and/or high school). Whether one is Protestant, Catholic, or otherwise, tuition at a Christian school is NOT cheap! And sorry, for some people, homeschooling, while it's noble, is not a choice some families are able to make.
My mom worked all through my childhood so she could put my brother and me through the Christian school she thought would be best for us. She was persistent on this, even when she was a single mother trying to put herself through school so she could upgrade from LPN to RN status (even in the early 80s, she realized this was a professional move she needed to make).
She missed some of my school activities, like school plays, but I knew it was a trade-off. And we didn't have a fancy house, we rode in our share of junky cars, and we learned to accept shopping at consignment shops for "gently worn, pre-owned" school clothes.
She really would have liked to stay at home, but reality dictated that she worked.
We could argue day and night over what a woman should or shouldn't do, but I conclude it's a case-by-case basis. You may or may not agree about the choices my mother made, but I realize she was trying to do the best she could to make sure my brother and me were taken care of, and received a Christian education.
My Taliban comment was all about forbidding all women to work.
The Taliban is an example of one ditch a society can fall into--state religion dictating what a person can or can't do, and eliminating the "freedom of conscience" that has been part of the United States of America. There's also the other ditch of anarchy where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). Finding the right balance between the two is not easy.
And if anyone is truly offended by my posts or comments, feel free to report me to administration. I'm more than happy to answer to them where I'm coming from and why I say what I say.
39. Rachael said the following at 9:22 AM on Feb 24:
I just want to kind-of second Laura_MH (5)'s suggestion of the possibility that she's working could be her husband's decision or for the sake of her husband's desires. Maybe, maybe not. It's possible. Things are not always as they seem. I'd also like to point out that this type of situation (the woman doing something for her husband's sake) happens in other scenarios as well; not just with the working/non-working issue.
It can happen with someone not doing as much "ministry", too (she may want to but may refrain in attempt to please her husband). In that case it's probably more humbling and could be more honorable to God that she refrains, even though an outsider might be tempted to have the opposite view. So if we feel tempted to judge someone's seemingly "unholy" decision, let's remember that we don't know the whole picture.
Children can turn out just fine or not-fine with working or non-working mothers. The burden of how kids "turn out" does not solely rest on the responsibility of the parent.
Some jobs are such that you can take several years off and then return later on. Some jobs have flexible hours. There are non 8-5 options out there. Something to consider for people who desire to work or want to be able to just in case there's a need when they have children.
40. Tabitha said the following at 1:44 PM on Feb 24:
I've read each post and there have been some good thoughts... here are mine:
~To the unmarried readers...if you want your children to have a SAHM, begin planning for it now. Be wise with your finances NOW. Don't be going out to eat all the time, and blowing your money on entertainment, leaving yourself with no money for "adulthood". Most people are not getting married until they are in their late 20's. That gives them almost 5-10 years of full-time work (depending on whether they went to college). There is NO reason why a single working adult cannot have AT LEAST $30,000 (that's only $3,000/year) saved to put towards a house or already paid toward a mortgage if they are disciplined with their money) If both spouses were fiscally responsible the figure could be closer to $50,000-$75,000. I'm not saying to make your life miserable since I have that goal but have also taken several trips to Europe and vacations in the States over the last 7 years, and also paid for my college education myself. I'm just saying to have a goal and work towards it. It will pay off later in life. (btw, I'm 26 and single)
~To the marrieds...if you want it, then make it happen. Live with only one car, buy a fixer-upper house, eat beans and rice twice a week. A family of 4 or more can live on less than $30,000 without starving if they really want to...believe me I know people who do it on less and you would never know it. Have only one vehicle and an old one at that, buy clothes at the Goodwill (you can get name brand stuff there too if you search and the challenge is fun!) or off the clearance rack, find recipies that are inexpensive to prepare. My parents drove old cars, some of our neighbors were addicts and dealers, we didn't take a ton of vacations growing up, but we had a mom at home and looking back I wouldn't trade that for anything!
~after the kids are gone...there are many options. There is nothing wrong with working but there are so many oportunities for being a blessing while still being a stay at home wife. My parents bought a company just as my brothers and I all started to "fly the coop" and my mom started working again for the first time in 20 years. They both work so much that meals are always late and hurried and the house is always a mess. My mom spends almost all day every Saturday just trying to get the household chores done. She would much rather be helping young mothers discipling them and babysitting so they can have a break, and doing other household chores and ministry things, but the business isn't at a point to support that yet. There are lots of options for the older stay at home wife.
Let me finish by saying that I don't think it's a sin for the wife to work, but I personally think it isn't the best. It's a decision that each family needs to make for themselves, but I think any family can live on one income if they really seek God, wise counsel from others and are willing to work hard and be fiscally responsible.
41. Maggi said the following at 7:46 PM on Feb 24:
Shannon Anna(#32), I have to say think you for pointing out that as a SAHM, I'm not just lucky or fortunate. I chose to marry a man who would not insist I work, who wanted me to stay home and be a wife, homemaker and mother. I think instead of just saying, "Yes, I am blessed I get to SAH." I'm going to say, "Yes, we planned that I would before we married."
I want to address the issue of 'having enough money to live on'. I grew up as a PK (preacher's kid) and my dad never, and I truly mean, never, he still has not made more than $25,000 a year. We lived in parsonages, but my parents paid a mortgage on the house he built before pastoring, we grew a garden, bought thriftstore clothing and used cars, oh and hunted deer for meat. It is doable in the United States today!
And if your boyfriend has parents who both work, he will very likely expect you to work, even if he says otherwise. It is what he knows. I had an ex-bf's dad tell me you couldn't live on one income--while my family was living only on my dad's below poverty-level income! People choose the way they live.
I might add, my parents homeschooled us, then put us in a Christian school in high school.
Also, we were not left unsupervised until we were at least 16. When I lived alone in college, I was self-reliant, could change the oil/a tire, fix supper, host a group of friends, etc. Being cared-for is not the same as smothering.
And as to what does a SAHM do when the kids are grown? Here's an idea. We used to have closely connected extended families. Now where you have families who live thousands of miles from grandparents, there's a gaping hole in many families' support systems.
I'm not just talking about grandma and grandpa babysitting; I am talking about a support system, daily present. Quite a few months ago, there was a blog on here about mothers killing their children. I was appalled at the time at the lack of compassion for the mothers. Yes, we can't imagine anything worse, but I daresay, no one who'd posted then had experienced Post-Partum Depression. The US has one of the highest rates of PPD among industrialized nations. There are several factors, including a higher rate of C-sections, yes slightly off-topic, but no, it's not(when you have a C/S; it is major abdominal surgery, but mothers are sent home and often immediately expected to care for a newborn--which is challenging enough when you're alone. PPD is higher when the mother had a C/S). When a woman has a baby, there is a huge upheaval in who she is and what is expected of her. There are many many voices saying many different things. New moms, moms of small children, college students far from home, all of these people need a strong, intact support system. When I was an RA in college, we learned that each person usually has 8-12 people who are their support system. If your family is far away, who do you have? Yes, friends, but how many people have a friend they'd call in the middle of the night?
I firmly believe that as Christians, we are to see the lonely, isolated far-from-home people as family--and act like it. There are many lonely people sitting in pews in churches, in the dorms, at home, looking, longing for a friend, for family.
42. lynne said the following at 9:49 AM on Feb 25:
After reading Shannon's comment (#34) citing the verse from Deutteronomy, and the rest of the posts, I think I know what is bothering me....
I believer that pretty much each poster seeks to "train up" their child (present or future) to instill in their children a love for Christ, a longing for holiness, which is consistent with what scripture teaches.
Where we wander off (resulting in some of the tensions and comments) is that God has given us the goal/oucome in scripture. We seemed to be a bit more dictatorial about the process; the steps that must be taken. It is as if we feel we've found the "right" process, and the process steps become the goal or determination of rightness. Rather, referring to several posters commnets on personal choice, scripture does not say anything explicit (Thou shalt not work more than 40 hours per week; thou shalt be at home with your preschool aged kids), rather we are each working this out with bumps in the road.
Just like quiet times, the goal is a regular time and place to listen to God, some people use scripture only, scripture + music/readings/, some daily, some weekly. The relationship is the goal, the exact process is left up to us with guidance from scripture.
Just my .02
43. Christina said the following at 10:24 AM on Feb 25:
After having this conversation with my very depressed friends about how the economy won't allow for a stay-at-home mom (which honestly, in most parts of the country, that is true), this debate going on lifts my spirits.
I really want to know how women working has affected the economy...has it been beneficial or has it simply raised the standard of living to such an extent that the assumption is that the vast majority of households will be a dual-income? Not to mention it drives the overall individual salary down (which was already mentioned).
44. Nicole said the following at 10:38 AM on Feb 25:
I think the author of Soccer Mom Wannabe needs to decide what she wants. She is crying out that it's so hard to be away from her child, that she is a soccer mom "wannabe", that she doesn't have time to spend with her child....yet she says she is thankful she isn't forced to be a "mind-numbing" SAHM. She is choosing to see the SAH option as the the worse of two evils. If she would change how she views staying home, then maybe she would be driven enough to make the change.
Most SAHM's know that staying at home isn't glamourous. I am sure that doing laundry and cleaning messy diapers isn't at the top of their list either and know first hand that it can be pretty mind-numbing. But yet they made the decision to do so anyways....and it appears that this auther is just not willing to make that decision. Maybe she really isn't able and I should give her the benefit of the doubt, but for some reason I don't feel this is the case. (for some women, it is, and I understand that, and I do feel for those women - but my response is regarding the author).
Thank you Shannon Anna (#32)for the reminder that being or becoming a SAHM is not just for the "lucky". It really is a choice to stay home and it is a choice in which you revolve all other choices around.
I have been in the workforce for 10 years. Both DH and I have mothers who worked full time. We are both well aware of the sacrifices they made in the best interest of their families, and I do appreciate that also.
When I got married we agreed early on that I would quit my job to stay home. We have since been planning for that opportunity (unfortunately it hasn't come yet). In fact, I am in the planning stages right now to start my own business so that I will have something that I can do from home. In regards to what I am going to do if I go back into the workforce in 20 years - honestly, it doesn't matter to me right now.
45. Dolores said the following at 12:59 PM on Feb 25:
Regarding being able to make it on one income, Dave Ramsey has some excellent resources (The Total Money Makeover is my favorite) that give a step-by-step guide for making your own plan to thrive on less than you make.
When I read The Millionaire Next Door, I found it interesting that most millionaires are men whose wives aren't employed outside the home. Which throws an funny twist on not being able to survive on one income. (FWIW, most said their wives were more frugal than they were.)
46. Heather Koerner said the following at 3:42 PM on Feb 25:
Christina (#43):
You might be interested in "Feeling the Pinch of a Double Income".
47. Kellie said the following at 4:00 PM on Feb 25:
Tabitha and Maggi,
Remember that even witin the United States, the cost of living varies greatly. I don't think a single person can survive very well on $25-30k a year where I live, much less a family.
48. Shannon Anna said the following at 8:18 PM on Feb 25:
Leah, I don't disagree that teenagers need to be able to be unsupervised at times, and I do think it's important for parents to foster independence and responsibility in their teens (and young kids too!). I think we're mostly on the same page. That said, I think there's a big difference in supervision provided between the situation in which a mom has a job which will always require her to be gone for a couple hours after school with her teenagers alone (as I interpreted your original comment) and the situation in which teens are unsupervised when mom runs errands, does carpool, etc. (as you described in your last comment). The first situation means that there are always a few hours that teens can count on being unsupervised and that mom won't be able to be there easily (if something happens while mom is running errands, the groceries can be bought later or little sister can get a ride to soccer or miss it ... if mom is needed while she's at work, it's usually not that easy). I'm not saying as a rule that moms should never work when their kids are teenagers, and I think some kids need less supervision than others (and some more), so I think your suggestion of working when kids are older but not out of the house yet might be a good choice for some families, even though I don't think we'll make that choice. (Perhaps I'm a little overcautious about it since I've taught high school and had some "good kids" - kids who I would expect to be able to be unsupervised without problem - confide some unexpected sins to me!)
Going back to the original post, I've developed more and more compassion for the woman since I first posted. I think it's easy to look from the outside and say, "She obviously should try to change her situation." While I still agree with that, I also believe that we live in a culture where daycare is considered the logical choice for a professional woman rather than her staying home. Being counter-cultural isn't always the easiest thing to do. Plus it's also easy to get so down about a situation that you can no longer view it clearly. So, while I think this lady needs to make some changes, I also just feel really sad for her. I can't imagine watching how painful it would be to watch my sweet Jocelyn grow up via my computer, especially if I felt like it was out of my control to change it (whether it was really out of my control or not).
49. Aubrey said the following at 10:52 PM on Feb 28:
I think that it isn't anybody's right or business to judge another's situation. God's plan is perfect and if we all seek him when making decisions for our families and we are willing to do what our lord calls us to do than we will be blessed.
I know friends who work and have a more fulfilling relationship with their families than those of some of my friends who don't work. When you allow God's will to rule in your life you will find fulfillment....whether his plan is for you to work or to stay home.