|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/20/2010 5:30:30 PM
|
|
|
Hislittleone
Posts: 501
Joined: 7/13/2007
From: The South
Status: offline
|
From the other thread:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I think it's a line that SAHM's use to feed the guilt of working moms, or to make themselves feel better.
3cappuccinosmom:
Or maybe, we're not all nasty goobers and it's part of the thought process of working out what's best for our families, and encouraging other women who want to be home that it is not only workable but may have some financial pros.
I really like the way Maggie said this.^^
_____________________________
Galations 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/20/2010 5:42:56 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 994
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HislittleOne
Hopefully most people also consider the benefits children receive when one parent stays home, not just the financial aspect.
Sure, and there's a reason why I choose to be at home, but I was very specific in my post that this related to the smoke conservatives throw up about the cost of a woman working based on assumptions. And these costs don't seem to factor in when its a man "providing for his family".
My kids were still out in public a lot so I don't buy the getting sick argument and lots of women find very creative childcare options.
It's going to vary a lot with every family. I just hate the idea that it's expensive for a woman to work but not the man.
_____________________________
Well behaved women rarely make the history books.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/20/2010 5:50:45 PM
|
|
|
3cappuccinosmom
Posts: 2127
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why is it that women have a "cost of working" but men don't?
I don't think that's the assumption. I think the idea is that often a double income comes with a cost trap. Mostly in situations where there would need to be paid care for the children. With one parent working and one at home, paid care isn't necessary. With both working, paid care will be a pretty big chunk of change. Can people find other options? Sure, and kudos to clever people. One of those options is SAH. There are expenses to dh working, of course. Being at home, I can help cut them, which I couldn't do if I was busy with work myself. And the driving is much less than if we were both driving kids to daycare/school, then to work, then the reverse at the end of the day. I still drive places, but I have the time to plan several things at once, and the ability to *not* drive if things are temporarily tight. Also, it's simply a truism in our case...in working what I'd be paying for is the cost of daycare. Yay.  There is no financial benefit to me working right now. Whether there's financial benefit to staying home? It's not as tangible as a paycheck. It comes in bits and pieces in several different streams of our financial life.
Now, if I went and got a degree, and then had a career, I could probably bring in more than what it costs to work. In that case weighing the financial costs of working is off the table and doesn't need to be a consideration.
However, since finances isn't the reason I'm home, but my children are the reason I'm home, it's a moot point for me. 
When I see this idea brought up, it is almost always in response to women who want to be at home, but either think or are told that they're "too poor". In some cases, that's true. In other cases, the tiny amount they net after costs isn't worth the stress and sadness of leaving their children. If we shut up about the idea to remove the possibility of people choosing to take offense, then women who are looking for an alternative to working outside the home, or who need encouragement for figuring out the financial side of it won't get what they're needing.
< Message edited by 3cappuccinosmom -- 8/20/2010 6:04:03 PM >
_____________________________
 Moo
"Yup, I'm in agreement with Maggie here on all of this" Manda, April 2010
Global Tantrum Crisis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/20/2010 6:30:31 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 994
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Almost every employed woman I know is either part time and/or has creative child care. The stereotype of 50 hours in daycare doesn't fit reality. And these women aren't spending any extra on food and clothing.
I am all for encouraging women who want to be at home but for the right reasons and using real math. Plus I often see the"you can't afford to work"leveled against women with a genuine interest in working.
May I ask how I can reduce my dh's cost of working? Greg brings his lunch most days wether I work or not and I cooked dinner before I came home. I'm not much for clipping coupons or driving all over town looking for the best deals.
_____________________________
Well behaved women rarely make the history books.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/20/2010 7:15:35 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 994
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
It's great that you're organized and able to do pretty much the same at work or at home. The jobs I've had, there's absolutely no way on earth I'd be pulling a full shift and then coming home to cook dinner and do the meal-planning, sale-concious (no coupons though) shopping I can do now.
Shucks, I've never been that organized, not then or now. Maybe I'm just not one of those moms who saves their husband money by being at home. Even now a lot of my meals are crockpot or really easy to assemble (don't do box meals, though  ). I keep an eye out for sales, but I don't plan a menu around it. We eat a lot of leftovers, as I tend to cook large amounts. I think you'd surprise yourself if you had to cook for the family with limited time. It's not really that hard.
And I confess, I sometimes spend money because I'm BORED. I know it makes me an evil, rotten SAHM, but it's sometimes true, although I'm honestly trying to watch that. Even today we went to the mall just for something to do. Can't play outside that much these days, and we go nuts very quickly in the house. I didn't buy anything for myself, but we bought lunch and a snack at the mall, and I bought a pair of pj's for Beth on sale.
_____________________________
Well behaved women rarely make the history books.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/20/2010 11:15:18 PM
|
|
|
macokjc
Posts: 192
Joined: 2/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
From the other thread:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I think it's a line that SAHM's use to feed the guilt of working moms, or to make themselves feel better.
3cappuccinosmom:
Or maybe, we're not all nasty goobers and it's part of the thought process of working out what's best for our families, and encouraging other women who want to be home that it is not only workable but may have some financial pros.
Sorry, I DIDN'T like the way she said that. When I was only a SAHM mom, instead of a part-time SAHM mom, I heard that line batted around so many times, normally in a deragatory manner. I know I am not the only one around. If you are going to work to get away from your children, when you make $7.00 an hour and you pay $5.00 an hour in child-care, it absolutely makes more sense to cut your cable, cut your phone, cut your eating out, cut your car, etc.....However, if you are making $7 an hour, if you have already cut out everything, and you don't pay anything for child care, yet you still have bills, then it doesn't cost more.
There are many, many ways of looking at it, and I appluad woman who are able to stay at home by sacrificing many, many things. However, in the thread where it was mentioned, the woman working to pay for something she wanted was not totally out of the question. It is quite easy to get a job at night and not have any expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/20/2010 11:36:59 PM
|
|
|
Hislittleone
Posts: 501
Joined: 7/13/2007
From: The South
Status: offline
|
macokjc:
quote:
When I was only a SAHM mom, instead of a part-time SAHM mom, I heard that line batted around so many times, normally in a deragatory manner.
But Maggie didn't say it in a derogatory way so there's no need to take it that way. No one in this thread or the other one has said it in a derogatory way. Maggie allowed for differences by saying that it's something to take into consideration when deciding what's best for one's family. She also said she mainly addresses the point about how it can be cheaper to only have one working parent when a woman expresses the desire to be a SAHM.
I still think it will vary for each family. It's not a when-women-work-it-costs-more issue it's a when-both-parents-work-it-might-cost-more issue.
_____________________________
Galations 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 7:45:32 AM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 2629
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
It's actually directly related to the earning power of the woman. If you're only making $1200 a month and childcare costs $1000, then yeah, it's a problem. And I personally know many SAHMs that don't have earning potential above that. <shrug> However, I know many more working mothers that make considerably more per month and childcare is a much smaller percentage of their overall salary.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 8:31:49 AM
|
|
|
macokjc
Posts: 192
Joined: 2/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
But Maggie didn't say it in a derogatory way so there's no need to take it that way. No one in this thread or the other one has said it in a derogatory way. Maggie allowed for differences by saying that it's something to take into consideration when deciding what's best for one's family.
And neither did I say it in a deragatory manner, just a fact. But it was responded to in a deragatory manner, as though I said all SAHM mom go around spreading guilt. I was and still am a SAHM mom, so why would I slam myself? (Shrug) It was stated as a fact - something that I have witnessed over, and over again.
Moving on, please.....
It is hard to discuss it in a one-stop thread, because every family is different, and every situatiion is different. In this case where the conversation first started again - the woman wanted to send her kids to a private school with money they didn't have. Somebody suggested that she work for it. That is not an outlandish suggestion if she can improve the bottom line. When you need more money than you take in, when you spend more than you make, you need to increase the bottom line. i.e. - get a job. Maybe we can debate whether or not the husband should get two jobs....I think I'm seen that done before.  [
Throughout the years, occasionally people have told me that I'm lucky that I get to stay home. If it was somebody who live a luxuries double income life-style, I would kindly say that it wasn't luck. That we definitely were blessed, but that we did make sacrifices. If it was somebody who had to work and was struggling to make ends meet, I would say that we were blessed, and try to figure out how to help her. In my experience, most of the working moms who want to stay home truly have to work. Their family lives on their incomes, not goes to Disney World on it. There are woman out there who like to work, and their is no shame in that. It is their choice.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 10:57:05 AM
|
|
|
Hislittleone
Posts: 501
Joined: 7/13/2007
From: The South
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are woman out there who like to work, and their is no shame in that. It is their choice.
Nope, no shame in a woman working as long as the dad is staying home especially if we're talking about a family with young children. When children come parents should put the children's needs first not their own desire to have a career or make more money. And yes, I've seen that happen. It's sad.
A lot of times both parents have to work and there's no shame in that. You've gotta do what you gotta do to take care of business.
quote:
It's actually directly related to the earning power of the woman.
But how is it directly related to the woman? Wouldn't the same apply to a man? Maybe I'm just not understanding something here.
_____________________________
Galations 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 11:08:51 AM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 994
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hislittleone
Nope, no shame in a woman working as long as the dad is staying home especially if we're talking about a family with young children. When children come parents should put the children's needs first not their own desire to have a career or make more money. And yes, I've seen that happen. It's sad.
I don't think it's quite that black and white. My bro is currently serving his country in the Air Force. My SIL makes twice as much as her husband, but they could probably get by on just his salary (bare basics, no frills and little savings). Their daughter is with a caregiver maybe 20 hours a week, if that, and she's sleeping for part of that.
I should add that my SIL would be quite unhappy without her job. She loves her daughter, but she isn't cut out to be a full time SAHM. Honestly, I think she's a better wife and mom because she has her job. My niece is very well loved and very well adjusted, but she is still young. I don't think her needs are being neglected, and I don't see my SIL as being at all selfish, but people are going to assume all sorts of nasty things about a family who does things differently then they do.
_____________________________
Well behaved women rarely make the history books.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 12:04:01 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 568
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you're only making $1200 a month and childcare costs $1000, then yeah, it's a problem. And I personally know many SAHMs that don't have earning potential above that.
And I know many young men, who, on the first day of their working life have a similarly meagre "earning potential" -- the thing is that if you have career goals, pursue education or "work your way up" that situation changes over the course of a few years. It changes for a woman in the same way as it changes for a man.
If a family has financial needs, it is unreasonable and short sighted to say, "Well, this year you/I will make little more than child care costs, so you/I might as well not start work at all." (And then to go on saying that, year after year.) Long term planning may involve a year or more of low earnings, break-even or even a net-loss of money (such as for education) related to getting a second adult established in the work force so that future years might be improved.
However, if we are talking about work that 'makes me a better person' or is unnecessary for a low-frill lifestyle, that is (in a way) recreational employment (or education). As such, it should (a) break-even or not cost very much, and (b) should not impact the way a parent can personally raise children much more than another sort of 'recreation' would.
My children spend some time in other people's care because I believe that is good for them. I am currently undertaking "recreational education" that makes me a better person, contributes to my (unpaid) ministry in the kingdom of God. (It may also lead to some kind of "recreational employment" and/or voluntary ministry in the future.) As such, I acknowledge that this kind of self improvement is secondary to the way I as a parent can personally raise my children. Therefore, I make sure that my 'hobby' is not detrimental to the amount of time I would otherwise spend caring for them.
Employment that is necessary is not subject to those sorts of limits... but recreational work should be.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 12:16:22 PM
|
|
|
Hislittleone
Posts: 501
Joined: 7/13/2007
From: The South
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sideways
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hislittleone
Nope, no shame in a woman working as long as the dad is staying home especially if we're talking about a family with young children. When children come parents should put the children's needs first not their own desire to have a career or make more money. And yes, I've seen that happen. It's sad.
I don't think it's quite that black and white. My bro is currently serving his country in the Air Force. My SIL makes twice as much as her husband, but they could probably get by on just his salary (bare basics, no frills and little savings). Their daughter is with a caregiver maybe 20 hours a week, if that, and she's sleeping for part of that.
I should add that my SIL would be quite unhappy without her job. She loves her daughter, but she isn't cut out to be a full time SAHM. Honestly, I think she's a better wife and mom because she has her job. My niece is very well loved and very well adjusted, but she is still young. I don't think her needs are being neglected, and I don't see my SIL as being at all selfish, but people are going to assume all sorts of nasty things about a family who does things differently then they do.
Maybe some people will but not all. I am a SAHM but I don't automatically assume nasty things about a family where the dad stays at home. And I wouldn't assume things without knowing details because there are all kinds of different circumstances that prevent parents from providing fulltime care for their children.
I just know that it's very important for young children to be with a parent the majority of the time instead of sitting in daycare all day, every day. Even though I think childcare comes more naturally to most women than men especially with very young children, I don't think it has to be the mom who stays home.
Each couple needs to figure out what works best for their family as far as who should work. I don't think it matters that much whether it's the man or woman.
My son's best friend's dad is a SAHD and if that's what works for their family then great. At least one parent is home when the child gets home from school and is available during the day if said child gets sick or whatever.
My son had a friend whose parents didn't get home until 6:00pm. He got out of school at 4:00. During those 2 hours every day he was left to wander all over the community. Several times his mom called our house because she didn't even know where her own kid was. Granted, he was 13 or 14 but kids still needs lots of supervision at that age.
_____________________________
Galations 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 1:01:11 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 2629
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hislittleone
quote:
It's actually directly related to the earning power of the woman.
But how is it directly related to the woman? Wouldn't the same apply to a man? Maybe I'm just not understanding something here.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Sideways was complaining about the assumption that a woman won't be able to make enough to make childcare worthwhile and no one ever mentions the man's salary in relation to daycare costs.
In that regard, these particular arguments for women not working do not take into account the actual earning power of a woman; they assume that a woman can't earn enough to make childcare worthwhile economically.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 1:04:17 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 2629
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bolt.
quote:
If you're only making $1200 a month and childcare costs $1000, then yeah, it's a problem. And I personally know many SAHMs that don't have earning potential above that.
And I know many young men, who, on the first day of their working life have a similarly meagre "earning potential" -- the thing is that if you have career goals, pursue education or "work your way up" that situation changes over the course of a few years. It changes for a woman in the same way as it changes for a man.
If a family has financial needs, it is unreasonable and short sighted to say, "Well, this year you/I will make little more than child care costs, so you/I might as well not start work at all." (And then to go on saying that, year after year.) Long term planning may involve a year or more of low earnings, break-even or even a net-loss of money (such as for education) related to getting a second adult established in the work force so that future years might be improved.
I agree. I didn't make my post clear as you'll read above.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 1:18:19 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 994
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hislittleone
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sideways
but people are going to assume all sorts of nasty things about a family who does things differently then they do.
Maybe some people will but not all. I am a SAHM but I don't automatically assume nasty things about a family where the dad stays at home. And I wouldn't assume things without knowing details because there are all kinds of different circumstances that prevent parents from providing fulltime care for their children.
I just know that it's very important for young children to be with a parent the majority of the time instead of sitting in daycare all day, every day. Even though I think childcare comes more naturally to most women than men especially with very young children, I don't think it has to be the mom who stays home.
Each couple needs to figure out what works best for their family as far as who should work. I don't think it matters that much whether it's the man or woman.
To be fair, your post was not very flattering towards those who want a career or more money. There are many ways of having those and taking good care of your children.
I don't even think it's critical that children be with mom or dad all the time, either. Obviously, I don't like the 50 hours in a daycare scenario, but that's one extreme that I don't often see. I think mom or dad should be the primary caregiver, but there's a gulf in between having one parent be the full time SAH parent and full time daycare, as well.
In my brother's situation, talking in terms of pure money and personality (he makes a lot less and he'd be much more suited to staying home all day with a child), would you suggest that he stop serving in the military to be a SAH dad? Obviously he has other responsibilities, and my SIL really is much happier having a career as well as her family.
_____________________________
Well behaved women rarely make the history books.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 2:20:11 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano
Posts: 1287
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline
|
HisLittleOne, I'm trying to figure out your beliefs (so I'm not being sarcastic). You say things like, "as long as dad/someone is home," but then you say that they need to do what they need to do (even if that means that both parents have to work outside the home) and that things will vary and people need to find what works for them. I notice that good examples you've given are for homes with one parent staying home...and bad for homes where both parents work outside the home (on this page). So do you believe that the only right thing is for at least one person to stay home full time in every situation?
It just seems like you've contradicted yourself several times, and I can't figure out what you actually believe.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 3:03:35 PM
|
|
|
car2nist
Posts: 3500
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: the other side of the computer screen
Status: offline
|
This would all be a moot point a few generations ago. Men left home to go to war or take care of business. Women stayed home to take care of the house, the servants if they had any, the grounds, the children...all without fast food and microwaves as well, or refrigerators and freezers. Roles were more defined because of necessity.
The bible does say that the husband is responsible for his family to God. It does state that women are to help him with those responsibilities. It mentions a few of the jobs that women at that time were expected to do, but that part of scripture is cultural. Men and women tend to lean more toward working in the home or outside the home but I don't see it as a scriptural mandate for all situations.
_____________________________
http://car2ner.imagekind.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 3:42:06 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 994
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
There seems to be this idea that it's acceptable for the wife to work if they absolutely need the money to live (or the dad can get 2 jobs and never see his children), but it's not ok if the family wants more money. So... where is this line and who decides it, in terms of moral acceptability?
Let's say a family is making it paycheck to paycheck, but they have little to no savings and are not well equipped for any sort of emergency/retirement/college/etc. Let's say they have no funds for any sort of extras/fun activities like piano lessons or boy scouts or whatever.... There's so much area in between the two extremes of basic survival and BMW's with European vacations. There are so women who work 2 midnight shifts a week, taking a brief nap during the day, all to cover things like medical insurance or a rainy day fund.
All I'm saying is, it's not always such a black and white situation.
_____________________________
Well behaved women rarely make the history books.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 4:01:14 PM
|
|
|
macokjc
Posts: 192
Joined: 2/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The bible does say that the husband is responsible for his family to God. It does state that women are to help him with those responsibilities. It mentions a few of the jobs that women at that time were expected to do, but that part of scripture is cultural. Men and women tend to lean more toward working in the home or outside the home but I don't see it as a scriptural mandate for all situations.
It is not a Biblical mandate. In fact, Proverbs 31 talks about the woman who runs her own business.....of course she had servants who probably took care of her kids.
It's a generational thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's better. For instance, in some classes, even though the mom never worked, she still never took care of her kids She would visit them in the nursery before bed. Other woman were so poor that they worked all the time, and the older siblings watched the kids.
Like Sideways said.....It's not always a black and white thing. I think the post that said that it was okay if mon worked as long as dad is home is way off base. I think that as long as your child is well-taken care of and well adjusted, and you as the parent are up on their every need, it doesn't necessarily mean mom or dad. I know plenty of kids whose moms and dads were home all day, and they are pretty screwed up. In know way is it absolute for anybody.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 4:07:11 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 994
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
When people speak of the good old days... who did they think was producing those WWII airplanes and tanks while the boys were off at war?
_____________________________
Well behaved women rarely make the history books.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/21/2010 9:15:29 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 568
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
There seems to be this idea that it's acceptable for the wife to work if they absolutely need the money to live (or the dad can get 2 jobs and never see his children), but it's not ok if the family wants more money. So... where is this line and who decides it, in terms of moral acceptability?
Let's say a family is making it paycheck to paycheck, but they have little to no savings and are not well equipped for any sort of emergency/retirement/college/etc. Let's say they have no funds for any sort of extras/fun activities like piano lessons or boy scouts or whatever.... There's so much area in between the two extremes of basic survival and BMW's with European vacations. There are so women who work 2 midnight shifts a week, taking a brief nap during the day, all to cover things like medical insurance or a rainy day fund.
All I'm saying is, it's not always such a black and white situation.
That is the general idea I hold to: that if the family needs the money for a reasonable standard of living, than the obligation to provide for the basic physical needs of children outweighs the obligation to provide direct parenting most of the time.
However, I would never presume to decide for another family what a "reasonable standard of living" is, nor how many waking hours without direct parenting would be 'worth it' in order to gain various securities or advantages. It depends on a zillion things, especially the age of the children in the situation, and it is a very personal decision. It is certainly never black and white.
If a friend welcomed my advice, I would ask questions like, "Does it seem worth it to you that your children spend 2 hours per week day in day care and gain financial security, a college fund, scouting and piano lessons?" -- "Do you feel that way, given that that amount of time (10 hours) is 20 percent of their non-school time that is available to you for parenting purposes?" -- "What percent of the remaining 40 hours per week do they spend away from you for other reasons (like scouting and piano lessons)?" -- "Are you feeling content with doing the job God has assigned you in the amount of time per week that you are planning to spend on it?"
These questions would be to help them think through their issue on a duty-cost-benefit basis -- not to guide the decision itself.
However, the basis of sound analysis of these factors is about who benefits (in what ways, to what degree), and who 'pays the price' (and to what degree). That's why the basic principle (which must be thought through and applied is that "it's acceptable for the wife to work if they absolutely need the money to live, but it's not ok if the family [just] wants more money."
I stand by the opinion that just wanting more money is not a sound reason for non-parenting due to employment for a significant/major portion of the lives of young children... It might be a sound reason for a small/moderare amount of non-parenting time (due to employment) and there are also other sound reasons for moderate amounts of non-parenting time. There are very few sound reasons for non-parenting time to go beyond a small/moderate amount, especially as it pertains to young children (but such reasons do exist).
Questions like, "What is a small/moderate amount of non-parenting time?" and "Is <this> reason a sound reason for <so-much> time?" Are questions for families to ask themselves, not precepts that can be layed out in distinct terms and applied with a broad brush. The fact that appication is individual does not mean that the principle by which to make the decision is not a good one.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
