posted
I agree with kq on that point as well. I have a friend who would love to work outside the home even part time, for similar reasons to Christy. But with two small children, and a husband in the military on an unpredictable schedule, she would hurt the family because paying for child care would drain more money than she could earn with part time work. She *has* a college degree, but no where to use it in her current situation.
posted
No, we ran out of time towards the ends of the period but it was mentioned in the article I linked to at the bottom of the first post . I know that any article of that nature is going to be biased, but I appreciated that it at least offered the perspectives of people with different versions of the same problem. That and this discussion and the article aren't really on the same material if anyone's wondering. The article centers on the stresses of today's perfectionist "Supermoms" and the fact that they do have the choice let things like babysitters and TVs and soccercoaches simply be "enough". I simply grabbed onto a few scattered sentences on SAHMs and ran with the idea of choices.
Posts: 1548 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq, I think you've got a good way of looking at things. I think that everyone has a "someone else" they can look at and compare themselves to and wonder how things might have been different. And I don't think that stops when you have a certain amount of money or things, either.
Do they not have a childcare voucher program in your community? I'm not implying that you want to (or should) take advantage of it, but it was my lifesaver when I was on my own with two little ones. Basically the vouchers paid for all of their daycare. I imagine it helps out tons of both married and unmarried parents with lower incomes.
posted
I read that article before. And the "supermom" stuff sounds like mothers that have totally lost all perspective and common sense. They micromanage their kids so much that they don't just let the kids be kids. It's sad that it's a nationwide epidemic.
Lol, I read articles like that, and then I think of my own mother. Who, when she was sure we weren't going to kill ourselves for any length of time, would lock herself in the bathroom and read romance novels. Hey, they might have been drivel, but even in spite of being a homeschooling, stay at home mom, she took some time for herself and her sanity. She's also extremely laid back and rarely stresses out, over circumstances beyond her control or housekeeping disasters. An excellent counterpoint to my father, who did tend to be more of a perfectionist and stress more. I take after my father, but I know that should I ever have kids, I'm going to have to take a page from my Mother's book or I will go crazy. (Thankfully Steve is more laid back and keeps me sane so we would have the counterbalance. As a result though, we both agree he'd be the better one to stay home with kids if we ever had them. He's a better cook too!)
quote: Do they not have a childcare voucher program in your community? I'm not implying that you want to (or should) take advantage of it, but it was my lifesaver when I was on my own with two little ones. Basically the vouchers paid for all of their daycare. I imagine it helps out tons of both married and unmarried parents with lower incomes.
I've never heard of such a thing. If it's through the state, I'm betting that's 'cause they don't have it. If it's a community thing, then no, they don't that I've heard of. I have considered doing daycare (what I have experience in, and I also enjoy it) somewhere that provides free or discounted childcare for your own child, but the only place I've found so far that has such a program and would hire me (since I have lots of experience, skills, and recommendations, but again, no degree) doesn't take kids until they're 18 months old. Now, Ems is fast approaching that mark, but even so, with Jeff working unpredictable and very long hours and being a one-car family, not to mention our strong beliefs about me staying home if at all possible, we're going to go on as we are for as long as we can manage. Besides, by then, I might be pregnant again; we're discussing it, anyway. And with the uncertainty of what will happen in the next year (we may move out to CA, for instance), definitely going to wait on me working. But that sounds awesome. Where did it exist that you used it, and through what agency?
posted
I was a bit worried the way this thread started, to be honest, but I have really liked the points made in here since then. I have had very similar conversations with both groups of women and groups of mixed sex ( men and women, not gender-confused... ), and usually this type of discussion turns ugly fast.
Sometimes it is the fault of the men, sometimes it is the women, but it is rare to find a discussion like this where people keep their cool.
I have a problem with the idea that feminism has hurt women, because now women have the right to make choices similar to the choices that men have had for years. That doesn't mean that those choices are without consequences though...there is only so much time in a day, and if both parents choose to work outside the home 50 hours a week, then their isn't a lot of time left over for kids. If a parent chooses to do their own child care, then that comes at a cost, and that isn't just measured in money terms. Often times it may mean a smaller home, or fewer vacations, or sharing a car.
In the past men often didn't have the "right" to send more time with their families, because at the time they HAD to work more than one job to made ends meet....so there wasn't enough time in the day to spend time with the kids.
In the past there wasn't a choice for women, not really. Now they have the right to choose....and the responsibility to assume the costs of their choices.
That, at least to me, is a significant improvement for most of us, not just women.
posted
I believe it was a state-wide program, but that each county only had a certain number of funds for the program. The first year I applied there was a waiting list, but then we received the vouchers because another county had extra funds that they transferred to the county I lived in. It was in Indiana. It wasn't run through the usual aid agency but a different one - I wish I could recall the name!
It was truly a great program. You had to prove your income and that you worked or were a student, of course, but once you were approved you could go to any daycare that accepted vouchers (and almost all of them did). Because of it I was able to get my daughter into the best daycare in our county to the tune of almost $200 per week. And the people were so nice, something in my experience that is almost unheard of in aid programs. I was able to receive free daycare not only for the hours I was in class, but also for any hours out of class that I needed to study without kids. If not for that program I wouldn't have been able to go to school. (Until I married Mr. Opera I worked every other weekend at a hospital second shift while the kids were with their dad. Between that and WIC and medicaid we just squeaked by. I made $40 too much for food stamps!)
I think programs like this are so important because they enable people to work or complete an education. The qualifying standards financially were actually quite reasonable, unlike many other aid programs.
posted
Wow, I really, really wish that existed here; it would enable me to get a child care certification, so I would at least have more options and would worry less about what would happen if my husband died. (Yes, that's one of the big worries in my life.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We decided to get married when we did and to not put off having children because we believe in the right to personal revelation from God and believe we have recieved it in this matter. Insurance refusing to cover my pregnancy deepened our financial problems. I can't judge others so quickly, having been in this position myself.
Which is totally fine... but does the government have a responsibility to accomodate you?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that's very interesting. Thanks, I didn't know that existed! However, there are no care providers for infants remotely in my area that accept the subsidies.
And I never said that the government needed to accept, accomodate, or otherwise do anything about my choice-- other than what they do for other families with our income, I would hope they didn't. Again, the "unfair" thing. Texas is very good about not requiring that both parents work to recieve aid or anything, but we try not to use state aid anyway. (The only thing we do accept state aid for is health care for Emma; she's on Medicaid, and I was on for my pregnancy. I have my pride, but I refuse to let my child go without adequate healthcare, or subject her to me getting inadequate prenatal care, simply because we can't afford insurance.)
(That said, EIC and the child tax credit do help. )
But saying that there should be greater tax credits for children or that your wages should be based on your family size is asking the government to support you.
On the subject of feminism, I think there is validity to the change in confinement that a lot of people have alluded to, and that is the trap of consumerism. As long as feminism measures its success in women having the same material gains as their male counterparts, they are upholding the capitalist machine. I know feminism doesn't mean to do this. Feminism is not some council of illuminati that operate out of the Space needle.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixie, The economic stuff you're talking about is just that, economic stuff. Real wages have been in a decline since, I think the late 70s. In the same time frrame, average debt has been increasing, percentage consumer spending has gone up, and the distributions of wealth has become more uneven. If you want to talk about economic obstacles to being a stay at home parent, then talk about economic obstacles. Blaming them on feminism is just bizarre.
Social context is a bit different, but even then, I'd suggest that the problem lies more in people being so alienated from themselves that what society tells them seems like an insurmountable obstacle.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mothertree, I wasn't the one who suggested that, and I don't agree with it. It wasn't me, I swear!
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am glad you have a beautiful family, kq, but I'm having huge trouble understanding your choices. I suppose that is because I've never been in love and never made such huge choices based solely on a 'personal revelation'. The path you and your husband chose to take, with both good and bad consequences, just blows my mind. I can't stop trying to wrap my mind around it. I guess I'd make a terrible Mormon. '
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theca, the choices that kq and her husband made were theirs, and were certainly influenced by their beliefs, I'm sure, but you do NOT have to be married and have children before you are 21 in order to be a Mormon. Not even to be a good Mormon. That's like saying you have to be a doctor or a banker in order to be Jewish.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why I don't like jokes like that. I think it's because they rely on stereotypes. I don't mean the jewish ones, but I think jokes like that are only funny in the "It's so true." sense, and when it comes to Mormon steretypes, they are NOT so true. They just aren't - there are too many exceptions. When the exceptions outnumber the rule four to one, the stereotypes stop being sometimes useful. Not to be all Sean Penn, but I've known too many peole who thought the didn't belong at church or else there was something wrong with them because they didn't get married afte their sophomore year of college. It's just not true - half of BYU students graduate umarried. And that's BYU!
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel for you, Katie, but I think Theca is talking about the making huge life decisions based solely on personal revelation part. Yeah, it's hard, Theca, but we both feel that we've made the right choices on this one.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do not feel for me - I wasn't talking about me. I've always been very sure that whatever I was doing was the right thing to do and the people who got married at nineteen were crazy and lacked imagination.
I don't talk in code - I mean it, I've known peole who thought that and it always irritated me. I wasn't one of them.
[ March 10, 2005, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would also like to point out that I don't think that people who are members of the Church and are married and choose not to have kids right away are disregarding the teachings of the Prophets or something. We read the counsel that's available (which isn't too much, considering that it's a very big choice and we'd have loved for there to be more), we talked to our bishops, we prayed, we talked to each other, we prayed some more, and we came to the conclusion that we, personally, would regret it if we didn't try to have kids right away. If the Lord saw fit to bless us with a little one, we would accept the miracle and its impact on our lives. We didn't really expect it to happen that fast, and we didn't expect me to be on bedrest for part of the pregnancy, and then showing by the time I was allowed up and around, so no one would hire me. But we accept things as they are, and are happy with our choice. We know it was right for us, but we would never presume to think we know what is best for others. In fact, as I said, I often find myself envying those without kids a little, both for their material stability and for that "alone time" they get together, while we get maybe one date a month, if we're lucky, and half the time that falls through and we bring the baby on the date with us. But as I said, we are content that we did the right thing for us.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, I meant I felt for you being always the person that people ignore when they think of the Church. I've seen it happen, and it's not often malicious, but it's not always benign, either. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gosh, now I'm just rambling. I suppose I should go to bed. But I'll be away from my computer for four days! I don't know if I'll live! Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ketchupqueen, I think it's the pity in general that's rubbing me the wrong way. I'm sorry - I should go to bed too. I don't mind not fitting the stereotype, if only because I dislike stereotypes on principle. Becoming an archetype would be an anathema.
In other words, it isn't that I think that the archetypal Mormon should be me instead of you or one of the other LDS moms, but that I think we should eliminate all characteristics of an archetype that are not essential to being Mormon. Christian, yes. No alcohol, yes. Believes in BoM, yes. Married in early twenties and five kids by 30, nope. Does that make sense?
[ March 10, 2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LadyJane, I agree. I'm another non-stereotype, married at 35 to a Muslim, and I've been on the receiving end of open pity for marrying outside of the church. Whatever. We're all welcome, regardless of all that other external stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the gospel we believe in.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that my family could live on the $$ I bring in alone if we lived forty miles closer to Washington DC. The cost of housing alone would make it impossible.
I'll give you an example: currently, we own a 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath home on a quarter acre lot. We pay about $1700/month on our mortgage. (Three years ago, this would have been exorbitant. Now, this is considered a good deal) A friend of mine lives in Alexandria, which is just outside DC, in a 3 bedroom townhouse. He pays twice what we pay-- a lot less bang for his buck.
We do watch our finances carefully, because we think its important that a parent stays home with our young children. No cable, no broadband internet, used cars, used TV's, and careful shopping. I don't know that I'd call those sacrifices, though; there's not much on cable that interests us; we use the internet for Hatrack and email, and nothing else; a used car is a better deal than a new one; and careful shopping is just smart-- everyone should do it.
I have not noticed a bias against SAHM's, except on television. But then again, I belong to a culture that encourages stay at home parenting. . .
It's a pity that the equal rights movement did not move both ways-- but for there to be equal rights for men, that would necessitate a great change of cultural standards. Men would have to start believing that it is their right to have and care for children. Honestly, women had it easy to get their rights equalized-- it just took some reason and some legislation. Men will have to stand against years of cultural inertia to get themselves recognized as good caretakers of children.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the personal revelation part I have trouble with, yes. And how you can KNOW it is a real revelation.
My family is very traditional, btw. My mom was a SAHM, we lived very frugally on my dad's income and spent a lot of time together doing things that don't cost money. We always seemed to have more money than all my dad's coworkers, who made more money but weren't as thrifty as we were. We usually had enough money to go on vacation to see relatives at least once a year. The coworkers with the fancy cars and big houses and expensive toys for the kiddies were always out of money at the end of the month and struggling hard.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that my family could live on the $$ I bring in alone if we lived forty miles closer to Washington DC. The cost of housing alone would make it impossible.
This is a very good point. In our area, extravagant mortgages don't get you fancy houses. They get you an extra two hours or more with your family, unless you're lucky enough to find a job near your house.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did y'all ever read The Millionaire Next Door? Great financial book. It talks about what the characteristics of millionaires are, and, basically, it is people who live on 80% of their income. One of the facts it mentioned was that many (most?) high income households have a net worth that is far below what it should be, considering the age of the earners and their income, but that's because they spend everything.
For instance, choosing where to live makes a huge difference, because a ritzier neighborhood not only brings a larger mortgage payment, but it costs more to live the same lifestyle as your neighbors (cars, clothes, country club fees, theatre season tickets, private school), so you spend more in general. The ironic part is that most (many) of the neighbors will also be spending more than they should in order to keep up the lifestyle. *thinks* I could survive on much less than what I make now, but I'd have to give up traveling and stop eating out so much. Clearly, I'd have to make cooking my new hobby.
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was really surprised, when Mark and I went shopping for our first house a few months ago, how much everyone pressured us to buy something more expensive. The realtors, obviously, but even the banks we talked to were telling us that we could easily afford something twice what we ended up getting. That just blows my mind. Right now we're spending 25% of our income on housing costs, including utilities. It's a tiny townhouse, sure, but it meets our needs and then some, and it frees us up to spend money on, say, online animation schools. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: unless you're lucky enough to find a job near your house.
Our local government is convinced that the region doesn't want industry. What the region wants is . . . MORE STRIP MALLS! MORE HOUSING!
They're wrong, of course. I hate them, I do. Of course, I'm going to profit enormously when we decide to sell our home. . . but we're not planning on selling for the next 15 years or so.
I would love to have a 30 minute commute.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, have you ever considered moving to a smaller town? I know it would be a huge upheaval for your family, but certainly you could find a similar job elsewhere (I'm not sure what you do exactly; IT maybe?).... Our town isn't tiny, but our house is considered pretty far out there, and we're only 2 miles from downtown and 1.5 miles from work. Pizza places won't even deliver to us.
Just sayin'. I'm sure there must be a good reason why you can't move, I'm just having a hard time imagining it. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wonderful topic, so many things to weigh in on, I don't know where to start.
I have the perspective of being on both sides - I was a working mother of two, then became a SAHM of four, and I'm now in college to earn my degree so I can go back to work in a field of my choice.
I don't think the government should pay me to stay at home, or give my husband more money because he supports a family, but I do wish they would at least be equitable in the way they treat working parents vs. at-home parents. It bothers me that working moms can get tax credits for child care - to me that sends a message that working parents deserve more tax breaks than families that have one parent at home. In fact, in my experience, it's the families with one parent at home that need the most help - because they've made huge financial sacrifices in order to keep one parent there.
I'll add more on the other great topics later.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zeugma,I think you brought up a very valid point about being pressured to buy an expensive house. I've also noticed that people seem to feel pressured to buy a big house as well, which most of the time equals more expensive. A lot of the time it just seems to be the status of being able to say that your home is X number of square feet.
We have some friends who are parents of 3 little ones. They just bought a home that's not too much larger than our old house, but they paid double for it. I think the wife felt that expensive = good house. It was over $200,000, and since they couldn't afford that much they got an interest-only mortgage. My husband is very close with the husband, and since he was asked his advice he told the husband that we would *never* consider something like that because of the financial risk. I really hope that things work out for them.
I think that banks definately do a good job of subtle pressuring by offering to lend more money than what people truly afford. But then again, a lot of people just aren't realistic about their budgets so they're willing to be pressured, know what I mean?
quote:I think that banks definately do a good job of subtle pressuring by offering to lend more money than what people truly afford.
This is so true. When we were shopping for our house, we were "automatically approved" for over double what we could afford.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It bothers me that working moms can get tax credits for child care - to me that sends a message that working parents deserve more tax breaks than families that have one parent at home.
Assuming you mean "working moms that are part of a still-together marriage," I agree. Families with a stay-at-home parent are making significant financial sacrifices.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the wife felt that expensive = good house.
In many cases, that is true. It has to do with what materials are used, and what contractors build it.
We used a framer that cost almost twice as much as the other bids. Why? Because he was licensed, insured, had a regular crew that worked with him every day, instead of picking up people on street corners who would work for the day for $50 and a six-pack. I've known friends who hired the other type framing crews and listened to their laments about the poor structural nature of their homes. ONe framer framed an uptairs bathroom for a friend of mine without putting in the extra supports needed for a bathtub full of water - my husband caught it when he came to install the tub. It costs thousands to fix, everything had to be ripped out and re-done.
Believe it or not - sometimes spending more isn't about vanity, it's smart, sound decisions.
Now, not to say that is the case with your friend, certainly I think the interest-only mortgage sounds frightening, but I don't like the assumption that expensive houses are all about keeping ahead of the Joneses.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming you mean "working moms that are part of a still-together marriage,"
Yes. I was trying to draw the contrast between two families, both parents intact. One has both parents working outside the home, and one has one parent staying home. The two income family gets the child-care credit, the one income family does not.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Belle, I didn't mean to imply that all expensive houses are bad. I definately know that you get what you pay for.
From what I've heard (and this is from the woman herself) it was all about having a big house and that was it. They have a big house, but it's got a much smaller yard than their old one and it's across the street from railroad tracks. Sadly, I don't think it's what the husband wanted at all. He and Mr. Opera went to a gathering last week that took place at a farmhouse set on several acres of land. Mr. Opera said the husband looked around and said, "Gosh, I probably could have bought this for what we spent on our house."
I believe in smart decisions, but I don't think taking an interest-only mortgage out because you can't afford the house is one. I can't believe they can live in that house for 40 years and still not have a single dime paid off on it. But, enough about them - I just thought it was a good example of allowing yourself to be pressured.
posted
It's also about what makes the most sense in your particular housing market too. In more expensive housing markets like Chicago and DC suburbs (and all of California), the strategies are very different. With our house in the Chicago suburbs, we bought one close to the limit of our loan approval. However, it was a much better investment than a smaller condo would be, because single family houses appreciate at a much faster rate. And the house was a fixxer upper that we could put elbow grease, and only a little bit of money into and get a huge return on investment. Even with only doing little things (like removing eyesores) it has appreciated nearly $30K in under two years, and would be worth about 20K more if we invested 5K into renovations.
But in higher priced markets you will pay more for housing as a percentage of your income than say Oklahoma. If something drastic ever happened and I had to live on a minimum wage job I would move someplace like Oklahoma. It is much easier to get by there with a lower cost of living.
AJ (Note: In a rapidly appreciating housing market, interest-only loans make more sense, because you get equity at a far faster rate that way. However I personally still wouldn't do one.)
posted
Miro: The Pixiest and I are two entirely different people. I had posted under another name when I first joined but I didn't really like the way I was regarded under that alias so I switched to this one. ...And then discovered just a little while later that ThePixiest was a member. It was a bit of an issue at first but she didn't post quite as much then and I think after awhile people just learned through our different writing styles and topics that there was a difference. ::shrugs:: It's worked out alright for two and a half years now.
Posts: 1548 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did y'all ever read The Millionaire Next Door? Great financial book. It talks about what the characteristics of millionaires are, and, basically, it is people who live on 80% of their income. One of the facts it mentioned was that many (most?) high income households have a net worth that is far below what it should be, considering the age of the earners and their income, but that's because they spend everything.
It's true. Good saving habits can also make the difference in allowing someone to be a homemaker if he/she wants to. Though it's harder than it used to be, it's still possible: my dad's been a homemaker for something like fifteen years.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The two income family gets the child-care credit, the one income family does not.
Y'know - I could be horribly wrong here, but to the best of my knowledge, it matters not whether you are a 2-working parent family or a 1-working parent family in order to get the tax credit.
It depends on the amount of income earned by the household, and the amount spent on child care, which the tax preparer then follows the formula to determine what % you can deduct from your taxes.
It is not about SAH parents with working parents, or single working parents, or both parents working.
It's about how much you earn and how much you pay for child care.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I know that any article of that nature is going to be biased, but I appreciated that it at least offered the perspectives of people with different versions of the same problem. That and this discussion and the article aren't really on the same material if anyone's wondering. The article centers on the stresses of today's perfectionist "Supermoms" and the fact that they do have the choice let things like babysitters and TVs and soccercoaches simply be "enough". I simply grabbed onto a few scattered sentences on SAHMs and ran with the idea of choices.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), and usually this type of discussion turns ugly fast. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
My husband is very close with the husband, and since he was asked his advice he told the husband that we would *never* consider something like that because of the financial risk. I really hope that things work out for them.
