Babies in day care?

[Mia]

rlwinton, I agree with your signature, except for the fact that women are saddled with the responsibility of bearing and rearing children. Kinda puts a damper on the world-building.

I think it should be built together, and the woman's role respected as much as the man's.

PHR, I can't believe I agree with your post, but I do. If you can't put your career off or if you're not capable of staying home with your baby for just a few years (0-3), then you should have gotten a cat instead. EXACTLY ON THE BUTTON! It makes my stomach turn too.

I think part-time work or school, with a nanny in the home, is fine (not everyone is cut out to do the locked in the house for three years thing), but a full-time job is criminal, IMO

A baby needs his mother, end of story.

Older children do benefit from extremely high quality pre-school, but not babies. Even a nanny can't give all the love and attention and development skills as it's mother, so even that is bad for more than 4 hours per day or so.

[rlwinton]

Mia--I agree with your statement that it should be built equally, but when one relies on the other [whether male or female] to live and breathe and in this case, "build the world" than thats a problem. You cannot build anything together without the confidence that if he/she left, you could still do it. I'm a strong advocate for shared responsibility but at the same time, independence.

[syracusa]

I think these are two terribly hard issues to reconcile: being there for your child 100% of the time - as a mother - and being somewhat independent and having a personal source of income, as a woman and a free-standing individual.

I sort of believe in both - generally speaking - but I find the two unbelievably hard to reconcile (unless you inherit something from daddy or other nice relative).

Truth is many men are far from "perfect angels" and power corrupts. In this world, money is power. And a paycheck is power too (in various degrees).
The higher the paycheck, the more power and "say" in the family.
When you have a human being in your house who is economically dependent on you (typically the woman-mother) it becomes very easy to abuse the situation and use it as constant leverage for yourself in the relationship.

Although we have this idealized image of the committed man who will do anything to provide for and protect his family (I am not sure if this clause also includes "be sweet to his family") - many men do not conform to this image in reality. On the contrarym they use their position to "own" the family not to "protect it or provide for it with good heart".

The number of abused women (or just unhappy and trapped) has been huge throughout times simply because they saw no way out - being economically dependent. But I think that even in a "normal" marriage with no abuse or anything horrific - the person who brings most economic assets to the table is always the one who feels naturally "entitled" to get his/her way (traditionally, the man).

People always give lip service to the "mother" job - how it is "the most important job of all" and then some - but it sure doesn't seem to be all that "important" in reality, when it is measured against the job that brings home the bacon. Who gets to put the foot down when it comes to it...- the one with the "mother" job or the one who brings a paycheck at home?...

On the one hand, I do not think that a human being can maintain a 100% level of dignity when they are economically dependent on another human being. It is basically impossible.

On the other hand, if you commit yourself to your child 100% as a mother - that prevents you from being economically independent (again, unless you have something from daddy yourself).

There are few men out there who trully believe in their hearts that their stay-at-home wife does a job as important as they do, even if hers does not generate income.
I believe the problem comes from the fact that even though the "mom" job is probably as important, it is much less unpleasent and more personally satisfying than the one that goes on in an office where you are constantly stressed by impersonal bosses or tough competition (if you're self employed).
And then again...the paycheck job is for survival.
The full-time mom job - is for feeling accomplished and fulfilled once you decided you must bring an offspring into this world.

Of course men feel that you owe them!

The "mom" job happens in the "haven". The "paycheck-generating" job happens in the "heartless world". This automatically makes the "paycheck-generating job" feel more important because it hurts more. Hence the man feels that the wife-mom owes him for all the pain and unpleasent-ness that he goes through during the day to generate income.

I do understand this. And if today my husband could generate an icome that would allow me to be a full-time mom, I would hold him in total and complete respect because I KNOW now that any regular job SUCKS compared to the "mom" job. Yes, I would feel economically dependent (not a 100% pleasent feeling) but he happens to be one of those saints who would not look for the "upper-hand" in a relationship in a million years.

But he doesn't make that kind of income...so back to basics.


Full-time mom or economically independent?...
Who knows?
It looks like nature did not want this issue to be solved...

[prettyredhead]

That was a very good post, Syracusa. I agree that it is tough to be a man, or it must be, rather.
I always tell my wee sons, aged 8-10-13 that they MUST get a good paying trade, or job, so that when they have a family the mother should be able to stay home with the kids, at least until they are old enough for school. I can only hope they grow up with that value instilled into them. I tell them that their wife(future) should be a mother at home, it is best for their kids. It is up to the man to support the family. This is what I wish for my sons. And it is the right thing to do. I teach them to be "real" men who are glad to support the family.
People need to raise their sons to be men again, and not coddled baby's who grow up and think they own the world. And that the world owes them.
Men have always supported the family. Why not in 2004? Why? Mothers are best kept at home. Babies need them. How can that be more important than the parents "feelings". If a man doesnt like to support the family, dont create one. Live within your means. Life is about making money, and spending it as well. You cant or rather, are not entitled to much when you become a parent. There often is no money left to blow on golf, or sports cars. Sorry, such is life.

[syracusa]

Originally posted by prettyredhead, People need to raise their sons to be men again, and not coddled baby's who grow up and think they own the world. And that the world owes them.

Hmmm... but if they - the men - know that what they do (working in the heartless world) is harder, more unpleasent than what we, the women, would do by being moms in our cushy haven, at home, don't you think they're going to be jealous and again, feel like we OWE them something?

What I am trying to say is that I do not think that the "mom" job will ever get enough social recognition to count as "harsh work" hence, deserving of leadership in the family, as is the provider job .
Maybe because it really isn't.

Like I said, after having done the "career thing", I'd much rather do goo-goo at home with my baby, change diapers and smell my own offspring's poop all day long than deal with impersonal bosses, nasty deadlines for nasty projects, back-stabbing co-workers, tough competition amnd who knows what else.

It's simply more personally satisfying. Period.
But for pleasent occupations - you don't get paid much. You gotta suffer to get recognition.

Have you noticed that almost all occupations that are emotionally satisfying and fun - are usually paid either crap or nothing at all? The only exception is that of an "artist", but only the one who gets lucky enough to get recognition in this life and sell well to the public.

Look at teaching. Quite a nice occupation to have; and very fulfilling. Well...it pays close to a welfare check. Sometimes you're better off on welfare. The "mom" job - some argue "the best of them all" - pays nothing.

So don't expect men to continue to get tortured and whipped at work and then kneel in front of us in eternal admiration for the "hard mommy job" we get to do from the cushiness of our warmy homes.

Ain't gonna happen. That's why so many of them are such jerks when they get home. Because in the pecking order, the higher-ups at work don't do "goo-goo" with them - but keep them aligned, whipped and docile.
This is their view of the world.

And we, women wanted a piece of this...understandably so...so we can be economically independent and get some dignity back.

Well...we got it - at the expense of family, children, sanity, life.

[prettyredhead]

[
Hmmm... but if they - the men - know that what they do (working in the heartless world) is harder, more unpleasent than what we, the women, would do by being moms in our cushy haven, at home, don't you think they're going to be jealous and again, feel like we OWE them something?

****No it is childish to feel that way and most fathers do not mind supporting their own children, or those of their wife. But jealous? it is an emotion. Get over it.



So don't expect men to continue to get tortured and whipped at work and then kneel in front of us in eternal admiration for the "hard mommy job" we get to do from the cushiness of our warmy homes.

***LMFAO tortured? That is far fetched and silly. Nobodys asking them to kneel before their wives/kids. It is natural and normal for men to have a "hard" day at work. But to take it out on their families is inexcusable, and fodder for divorce. Go to the gym, beat up a punching bag, or seek different employment but to say they are whipped and tortured is just damn silly. I know speaking figuratively, you were, but still that is a funny anology. Men should be prepared from birth to support their family.

[syracusa]

Prettyredhead,

I am not arguing with you, I know what you are saying and I am very much on your side.
They SHOULD. And they SHOULD control themselves when they come back from work stressed, and NOT take it out on their wives. Definitely not.

You got it right, the "whipped and tortured" was a metaphor. But do you really think it is that far from what happens in reality at work?
The more "important" the career you are dealing with is, the fiercer the game gets. Believe me, it is not fun at all. Sometimes, you DO feel tortured by the whole situation. The workplace is full of power-hungry jerks and compulsively competitive bastards who would do anything to push you away so THEY can get in. It's the nature of the game in the public sphere. It's not "goo-goo" and warm like it is at home.
The higher up you try to get (to make more money and be a better provider) the more "ennemies" you are likely to encounter on the way. Don't be fooled by people's apparent "civility" and "collegiality" in the workplace.
You said that your work involves screwing around on the computer and offering your pretty smile to the customers who come in.

Well...perhaps at this level the ferocity is not visible, after all you are paid by some men (or man-like womnen) who use your pretty smile in exchange for 10$/hour to advance their business interests.
But try the workplace NOT as their secretary, but as their competitor!!
THEN it gets ugly.

I don't remember which psychologist said that:
"COMPETITION GIVES THE BEST IN PRODUCTS AND THE WORST IN RELATIONSHIPS".

The workplace is designed to be a nasty, competitive place. It is not human-friendly, it is product-friendly.
The home is not designed to be a harsh, competitive place - but warm, acommodating and humane. It is the only place where you are smart, pretty and lovable even when in reality, you are just stupid, ugly and obnoxious.

Men will always want to remind us of this, that we do our job from a cushy place. Unless they are perfectly moral and saintly and follow THE RULE without questionning it:

Woman suffers to give birth.
Man suffers to provide.

But in any case, I personally do not expect miracle changes from the male species, not any time soon.

[prettyredhead]

Very true. Most men, tho I think dont resent their kids or wife.

[syracusa]

They don't "resent" them but they want to be the "BOSS" / get their way in the house, for all the suffering they go through to compete at work and provide.
This can put the woman-mom in a vulnerable spot in the relationship.

I guess there's no free lunch...but in socialism. :)

I'll be darn...check this out: just talked at home and my mom tells me about this friend (my age) who had a baby one year and a half ago...and she is still at home raising the baby, on maternity leave, paid 80% of her salary!!!
Needless to say I am green with envy.

She's been on perfectly legal, paid maternity leave (80% of salary) for a year and a half now. All working women have this right, regardless of position.
And her salary is quite nice for that country!!

Very soon after she started her maternity leave, they came down with this new law that says that all new mothers will receive a flat amount during their maternity leave (up to 2 years, if I am not wrong) instead of percent of own salary. Rationale?

"A child is a child, it is one mouth to feed and every child deserves the same support and treatment from the state. It is only humane and fair".

When I told my mom that if you told this to Americans they would look at you like you freakin lost your mind or something, she just responded:
"I think it is perfectly normal and the right thing to do. If the higher-paid woman wants a superior lifestyle for her child compared to what all other women get, she can simply go back to her high-paid job and pay someone else to take care of baby. This is how much the state pays the "mommy" job - for all mommies".

You can imgine that now it is no longer convenient for professional women to stay on maternity leave that long because the money they get during ML are significantly less than what if they'd received at 80% of their salary.
But for lower-paid women is not bad at all, actually for many this flat amount can be more than what they would have received as percent of their own salary.

As for me here, I would be seen as "disabled" or "handicapped" as a result of pregnancy and I would get a whooping 60% of my salary 3 months after popping the child out (and that's becasue I paid disability insurance from my own paycheck). Then I guess you are just expected to dump your 4 month old in daycare or get a nanny...what else, if you need the income?...
Or just plan NOT TO have the baby in the first place.

Isn't that funny how differently people think on this Earth?
But I still think it is nice to have the "mom" job recognized as a real job that is officially PAID SOMETHING. By the state yes, but it definitely makes a working woman's and a family's life more secure.

[tivodan1116]

But the fact is quite simply, when it all boils down to it, most 2-income families DO NOT "NEED" a second income. They WANT all of the things that come with a second income.

Do a little exercise to determine if you really need a second income...

1) Start with the lower of your two incomes (past the first 9 months or so when baby is coming off of breastmilk, dad can do just as well as mom)

Now, keep going until your dollar amount is zero:

2) subtract the annual cost of daycare and all associated costs
3) subtract the annual cost of the second car you maintain, including car payments, insurance, gas, other expenses
4) subtract 50% of the cost of eat-out lunches at work
5) subtract the cost of business clothing for your job
6) subtract your vacation
7) subtract your high-speed internet
8) subtract your cable TV
9) subtract one of your two cell-phones (if you have one for each parent)
10) subtract some of your christmas and other holiday giving, and any other excess spending.

Now, how much is that second income really making?

Regarding "being cooped up in the house" (what i hear so often)... go out. Take a walk, invite some friends over, etc. If you can't get other adults to talk to you when you're out with a cute baby, you either have an ugly baby or a social skills problem. Get together with the other moms in the area, let your kids socialize while the moms socialize.

If you're alone with a baby and you're bored, your baby isn't getting enough attention.


And don't even get me started on the health risks of not being able to breastfeed your baby for at least a year because you're working.

[syracusa]

Many families cannot afford to put mother and baby on the provider's health insurance because the cost is humangous and cannot be covered from only one income. Add to this worries about retirement and college fund...and I am not so sure that the second income is really that frivolous.

Besides:
- cannot give up high-speed Internet.
- husband could not give up cable TV - it is very unfortunate but he seems to be addicted.

Also, there are more and more international couples (we are one of those) where annual trips overseas (to see immediate family) are a necessity - not travel for pleasure.

[tivodan1116]

Besides: - cannot give up high-speed Internet. - husband could not give up cable TV - it is very unfortunate but he seems to be addicted.

Then at least admit that the reason for two incomes is largely due to our lifestyle and by reducing our lifestyle we could avoid the need for two incomes. However much you may think they are, cable tv and internet are not nessecities. If you'd rather have cable and internet, then you are deciding to work.

Many families cannot afford to put mother and baby on the provider's health insurance because the cost is humangous and cannot be covered from only one income.

It is other factors in a lifestyle which prevent this. I know everyone wants to blame insurance companies ad nauseum. It is in fact quite possible, and my family will be doing it very shortly. We're expecting our first. My wife is a school teacher and I work in sales. When the baby is born, she will take leave for the rest of the year and the summer. In the fall, she will resume teaching and I will quit my job. Furthermore, I will be attending law school in the evenings. We know it's possible because we have done the numbers. We're not going to be eating out or taking vacations until I'm finished with school, but guess what? Having children requires sacrifice. If a person is not prepared for that sacrifice, they shouldn't have children and should take whatever steps needed to prevent that.

Kind of off topic, you should think twice about what kind of savings you are doing for a college fund. I'd look into it if I were you, I know my parents actually got more financial aid from schools because they didn't have anything saved.

Retirement is another sore subject for me... why are we giving social security to people who can still work? I don't understand retiring at 63 when the average lifespan is closer to 77. The reason social security is failing is because people weren't supposed to be retired for 15 or 20 years. I'm against social security entirely, but if we must have it, then the retirement age should be fixed at two years less then the average lifespan (it takes two years for the average retiree to take out of social security everything they put in over their lifetime).

To respond to your need for retirement savings, I would say that retiring is a luxery. Before the middle of the 20th century, there was no such thing as retirement. I know that sounds callous, but I didn't choose your profession. When choosing a profession you have to take into account all of it's pros and cons, including your ability to make enough money to accomplish the lifestyle you want.

[syracusa]

I didn't choose my profession either. Life did.
I would have liked to be a doctor or an actress. For a variety of reasons completely out of my control which I will not get into here, these two options would have been an utter impossibility for me - with the way my lifecourse developed.

I was not born in US but in a country ravaged by a drastic change in system - which change happened right at the time when I was comming of age and faced with major life decisions.

When you are born in the US you know from the very start that choosing profesions such as doctor, lawyer, show business or sports is likely to lead you to a fantastic income (Well, with the first two carrying higher odds than the last two).

But this is not the point. The point is that it is easy to preach in front of people whose lives and opportunities were shaped by events completely out of their control.
And if you are in sales...you are probably being paid quite a bit of money, enough to put your school teacher on your health insurance.
It is not my husband's case.

[syracusa]

[quote=tivodan1116
Retirement is another sore subject for me... why are we giving social security to people who can still work? I don't understand retiring at 63 when the average lifespan is closer to 77. The reason social security is failing is because people weren't supposed to be retired for 15 or 20 years. I'm against social security entirely, but if we must have it, then the retirement age should be fixed at two years less then the average lifespan (it takes two years for the average retiree to take out of social security everything they put in over their lifetime).
To respond to your need for retirement savings, I would say that retiring is a luxery. Before the middle of the 20th century, there was no such thing as retirement. I know that sounds callous, but I didn't choose your profession. When choosing a profession you have to take into account all of it's pros and cons, including your ability to make enough money to accomplish the lifestyle you want.[/QUOTE]

First of all, what you say IS callous. So anybody who doesn't CHOOSE to become a doctor (or something similar in financial potential), deserves to labor until they fall into a coffin at the end of their lives, right?
Besides, how many people would CHOOSE to be doctors, if that was a realistic option for everybody? LOTS OF THEM!!!
It makes me wonder what keeps those poor ghetto kids from CHOOSING to be a doctor.

OMG, I hate this hypocritical right-wing, self-righteous ideology like I hate nothing else on this Earth. You may want to check the efforts that AMA (American Medical Association) makes to preserve the "value" of their profession by monitoring and controlling how many MD-s are being produced each year - regardless of how many people would love to enter this profession.

Moreover, we are not living in previous centuries. Retirement is not a luxury.
We are more stressed, mentally fatigued and brain-damaged by today's type of work than farmers used to be by their work in previous centuries.
It is one thing to continue to work around your own farm until you die, it is another thing to slave into a stranger's office with the eyes glued to a computer until 77-80 years old an then to die.

Huge difference.

After working a lifetime in this modern society with the type of work that it's got available, people need to retire and spend the last portion of their lives catching their breath. If we are anywhere close to a sane and humane society, we should make provisions for this.

Yes, we are giving SS to people who can still work because there comes a time when you need to cut the bullshit with the work, eveb if you stillhave some energy left to drag yourself into a stinking office at 65!!!!.
Life is not just work. People alo need to spend time with their loved ones, not to just constantly labor. If you want to torture yourself through labor until you die, feel free - but don't impose this type of dry "protestant ethic" bullcrap onto everyone else.

People with your type of mentality live to preach and to make everyone's lives as miserable as they can possibly get. I am well familiar with this type of ideology.

Don't tell me it is OK to force an old person to slave in an office until they die. YOU ARE CALLOUS!!!

[tivodan1116]

1) I work part time as a salesperson. I attend school full time. I make much less than my wife who is a schoolteacher. Despite that, we own a 3000 square foot home, 2 fairly new (less then 50K miles) cars, and take 2 vacations each year. I am on my wife's healthcare, and soon our baby will be also. We put into savings a little bit of money left over each month.

2) To the person who said our lives are much "harder" and "more stressful" now, I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken. You need to read John Stossel's excellent report on the pessimism and downright myths that pervade our society.
Stossel's Lies, Myths, and Downright Stupidity

You could also read Steven Moore's book "Things are Getting Better All the Time"

It makes me at once laugh and shake my head when people complain about "how hard we have it". Especially since you compare farming with working in an office... Have you ever farmed? I have. When you have livestock, guess what? You don't get two weeks of paid vacation and holidays off. Your animals need to be fed, cleaned, and milked (or whatever) 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Unless you are a huge farming corporation, you can never take a vacation. You can't come in at 8 and cut out at 5. You can't call in sick. If your eyes hurt from sitting in front of a computer, it could be worse. You could be 65 with a permanently damaged back from lifting hay bales and absolutely no retirement, health benefits, or savings. I'm not saying working in an office isn't difficult sometimes, but i'd take some eyestrain anyday to work for 40 years in air-conditioned comfort.

My great-grandfather was a coal miner in the anthracite regions of PA. You cannot possibly be telling me that I have it harder then him. He worked from the time he was 7 until the time of his death.

OMG, I hate this hypocritical right-wing, self-righteous ideology like I hate nothing else on this Earth.

Ad hominem. You fail to prove how I am "hypocritical" (FYI I plan to donate 100% of my social security to charity, if it still exists when I get there, and want to work until at least 70), right-wing (I am a Libertarian, we are neither right nor left wing), self-righteous or anything else.

Why all the focus on doctors? There are millions of professions that allow a person to comfortably support a family on one income that require far less training and schooling than medicine. My parents didn't have any college at all and my two brothers and I never saw the inside of a daycare center. We never were for want of things, and we took two family vacations every year.

It makes me wonder what keeps those poor ghetto kids from CHOOSING to be a doctor.

Perhaps those ghetto kids live in a culture of failure perpetuated by their parents (or whomever is supposedly raising them) that permits and encourages their failure.

Before you lecture me about my perspective: My wife teaches in an urban school where over 90% of the students are below the poverty line. I volunteer regularly at schools in the district because I realize how few male role models these children have. I may not be the perfect role model but I'm a law-abiding married, faithful, family loving man pursuing higher education, which is more than any of the gang-bangers and drug pushers around them.

These students could receive an excellent education if they choose to avail themselves of it. Graduates of this school district have gone on to every Ivy League institution, and have succeeded in every area. If people come out of those schools unedcated and underemployed, they have only themselves to blame.

I am a firm believer that you can always choose your path. No matter what circumstances you may have had, there are always choices.

[tivodan1116]

People with your type of mentality live to preach and to make everyone's lives as miserable as they can possibly get. I am well familiar with this type of ideology. Don't tell me it is OK to force an old person to slave in an office until they die. YOU ARE CALLOUS!!!

More Ad Hominem. I wish to make everyone's lives as great as possible. I wish to do this by restoring personal responsibility and lifting the ridiculous tax burden from our shoulders.

You say it is callous to force people to work. No one is forcing anyone to work. There are millions of financial planners out there that can help anyone plan for their own retirement.

Is it not callous to threaten me with prison if I do not wish to support those who have failed to adequately plan for their old age? That's what we have now...

Please, in the future, check your facts and stow your emotions before you post sweeping assumptions and ad hominem attacks.

[syracusa]

Your post is self-explanatory. The same old self-righteous rhetoric with "I have struggled" "my grandfather has struggled" - so should everybody else.
Ghetto kids hgave onloy themselves to blame. What a joke.

People who are born in miserable situations do not have themselves to blame. Do not tell me it is OK for me to work 10 times as hard to dragg myself out of a f**-ed up position fate threw me in - and at the end of the road to obtain maybe 1% of the goodies and comforts that many leeches do via being born under the right circumstances.

And if you think today's bureaucratic office jobs are just "creature comforts with air-conditioning in them", you must be one of those leeching off the system. Physical labor is much less hard than brain labor. Your body restores after a few hours of rest. Your nervous cells slowly fade away forever.

I would not want you making the laws of any land I would live in.

[syracusa]

Waow. I read Stossel's "myths". What a bunch of bunk. Based on what empirical studies is he making those kind of "supreme authority" statements?

We have neither two cars, nor a huge house, nor tons of gadgets other than the high-speed Internet - which is a necessity today to compete well in the job market. The more I accomplish and put on my resume to better our situation - the lower the comparative rewards.

In the meantime I see authentic leeches who have barely moved a finger all their lives, had all the right circumstances and support set in place for them and invariably do way better than the likes of me - who bust their ass in vain all their lives, believing in the "work-hard-and-you'll-get-there" lies.
I used to - not anymore.

A true meritocracy cannot exist within a system of family inheritance and privilege hand-down from one generation to the next.
When all kids in a generation will start from zero, with the same opportunities and resources - THEN I would love to watch meritocracy at work.

Until then, it's a bunch of crap good to brainwah people with and keep them docile in their place.

[tivodan1116]

But the truth is, we can't all start out the same because we're not equal. Wanting equal opportunity for all is great, and should be possible, but not all people have equal skills or intelligence.

Life's not fair, it never will be.

[syracusa]

If "life is unfair", how is this a justification for making it even more unfair than it already is? How is it OK to take advantage of other people's vulnerabilities?

If you want to make life better - let only the biological differences in skills, genes, IQ decide the unfairness of life, not also daddy's fortune and the location of his residence into all the right neighborhoods, access to all the right networks, etc etc.
Feel free to abolish family inheritance.
Let all individuals compete during their lifetime based on their God-given talents and enjoy the fruits of their labor while alive; but do not allow the little offspring to rip off something that was not produced by them.
Let the competition start all over again from the same line. Redistribute daddy's wealth when he passes.

Or if you cannot see yourself living the fruits of your labor to anybody else other than your own darling Johnny ('cause he's so special) - stop talking about meritocracy.
It's a myth under the circumstances.

Privilege gets thicker and thicker with every generation until the bubble bursts. In the US the bubble is yet to burst.