Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would work and save like crazy into my early 30's, and then have a few little crumb grabbers which I would stay home and raise. I would keep current as best I could so I could get back into my field when the kids were self sufficient enough (like high school).
I think opposite of you. My husband and I kept working when the kids were little so we'd have options when they were in high school. When you consider the kinds of decisions and mistakes high school kids can make can screw up their entire life, IMO, that's the time to be there more.
A bad habit picked up when you're 16 months old is picking your nose. A bad habit picked up when you're 16 can kill you. I don't get the mentality that our kids need us less when they're in high school. To me that's when parents can't be replaced. A day care provider can change diapers and sing ABC's just as well as I can but now that my kids are older, they need me talking to them and listening to make sure they're making good decisions. Only I will do now.
That's not to say that you can't work during all the years and do it well. I just don't get the mindset that our kids nees US more when they're babies and less in high school. I think it's the other way around. Which is why I kept working, saved money to give myself flexibility when they are older.
I think opposite of you. My husband and I kept working when the kids were little so we'd have options when they were in high school. When you consider the kinds of decisions and mistakes high school kids can make can screw up their entire life, IMO, that's the time to be there more.
A bad habit picked up when you're 16 months old is picking your nose. A bad habit picked up when you're 16 can kill you. I don't get the mentality that our kids need us less when they're in high school. To me that's when parents can't be replaced. A day care provider can change diapers and sing ABC's just as well as I can but now that my kids are older, they need me talking to them and listening to make sure they're making good decisions. Only I will do now.
That's not to say that you can't work during all the years and do it well. I just don't get the mindset that our kids nees US more when they're babies and less in high school. I think it's the other way around. Which is why I kept working, saved money to give myself flexibility when they are older.
You make some really good points. I think people often get confused about why it's so nice to stay home with the little ones. They change so quickly and those years are completely yours. The babies won't have those memories, but you will. They're so darned cute, they learn so much, they relish life, their problems are relatively easy to solve, and it lasts such a short time. The older they get, the bigger the challenge. So, in short, you're right. It's the teenagers who desperately need parental interaction.
I think opposite of you. My husband and I kept working when the kids were little so we'd have options when they were in high school. When you consider the kinds of decisions and mistakes high school kids can make can screw up their entire life, IMO, that's the time to be there more.
A bad habit picked up when you're 16 months old is picking your nose. A bad habit picked up when you're 16 can kill you. I don't get the mentality that our kids need us less when they're in high school. To me that's when parents can't be replaced. A day care provider can change diapers and sing ABC's just as well as I can but now that my kids are older, they need me talking to them and listening to make sure they're making good decisions. Only I will do now.
That's not to say that you can't work during all the years and do it well. I just don't get the mindset that our kids nees US more when they're babies and less in high school. I think it's the other way around. Which is why I kept working, saved money to give myself flexibility when they are older.
I completely agree with this! That's how I've always thought of it.
If I build my career while they are young, then by the time they are in H.S., I'll be in my early 40s, when I have enough work experience to get more flexibility.
It's just that mothering is a lot more labor intensive nowadays due to all the parents wanting their kids to be competitive when they grow up. So they do their best to "stimulate" brain development in young ones.
You make some really good points. I think people often get confused about why it's so nice to stay home with the little ones. They change so quickly and those years are completely yours. The babies won't have those memories, but you will. They're so darned cute, they learn so much, they relish life, their problems are relatively easy to solve, and it lasts such a short time. The older they get, the bigger the challenge. So, in short, you're right. It's the teenagers who desperately need parental interaction.
But I don't have fewer memories because I didn't stay at home. I still remember my babies being cute. I remember watching them learn. I really don't feel I lost anything in working when they were babies other than me being tired with all I had on my plate but those years pass so quickly it didn't seem right to derail a career and cost myself flexibility later just to avoid being tired for a few years.
I think the older they get the more then need their parents to be there and connected. One thing I hate about women staying home is too many of them stay home until they get bored with it then they decide the kids are old enough now and throw themselves into a new career painting it as they sacrificed for so many years that now is their time but they do it just when their kids are really starting to need direction. My 12 year old daughter has more than one friend whose former stay at home mom has pretty much checked out and convinced herself her kids don't need her because they're older so now is her time. I'm taking bets as to which of these girls ends up pregnant.
I have nothing against staying home but I don't like the common pattern I see of mom stays at home when the kids are little then throws herself into a career before they're ready to be cut loose because she's bored from years of not working. Those are the kids who seem to get into trouble not the ones whose mom's worked all along. Those moms learned how to find balance between work and life. They never thought it's only one at a time. The I can have one or the other but not both mindset is what is dangerous. Those moms are either totally into motherhood or totally into their careers and the kids pay when it's the latter.
Truth is, they turn out the same whether we work or not and that's all that really matters. While we may have preferences to do things one way or the other, the end result will be the same whether we get our way or not.
I've always thought about this (whether my kids would turn out any better if I stayed home).
I read in the news about kids who has had every material advantage, and yet joined gangs and got into trouble (google Bird Rock Bandits) because their parents were too busy for them.
But I wonder if the parents were busy due to only work, or because they also spent free time at banquets, fundraisers, and women's clubs/golf club when they should have been using that time to nurture their kids.
I completely agree with this! That's how I've always thought of it.
If I build my career while they are young, then by the time they are in H.S., I'll be in my early 40s, when I have enough work experience to get more flexibility.
It's just that mothering is a lot more labor intensive nowadays due to all the parents wanting their kids to be competitive when they grow up. So they do their best to "stimulate" brain development in young ones.
You are so right about mothering being competitive. Which is stupid. There is NOTHING to indicate that the kids actually benefit from this and they may be hurt by it. I'm in the let them be kids camp myself with one exception. I believe in early musical training because there are benefits to kids starting music training around ages 3-5. If you start them any later, you don't get the benefits in math/science later on or the increased spatial reasoning. So my kids were in piano class starting at 3 (hence my nick name). Other than that, they played. They're both bright in spite of that lack of stimulation when they were babies, lol. Go figure.
I've always thought about this (whether my kids would turn out any better if I stayed home).
I read in the news about kids who has had every material advantage, and yet joined gangs and got into trouble (google Bird Rock Bandits) because their parents were too busy for them.
But I wonder if the parents were busy due to only work, or because they also spent free time at banquets, fundraisers, and women's clubs/golf club when they should have been using that time to nurture their kids.
Quality of parenting and peers matter way more than parents work status. You can find kids whose parents stayed home who joined gangs too. Much depends on why you do what you do and your parenting philosophy. If the parents are materialistic, the kids probably will be too and the lure of easy money will likely be strong. If the parents aren't, then it probably won't be.
My sister in law was worth millions by the time her kids were born. She continued to work and worked long hours. Her kids have turned out great. In spite of all of her money, she's down to earth and makes it clear she works for the satisfaction of a job well done. Her kids share her work ethic. It's all in your attitude.
You are so right about mothering being competitive. Which is stupid. There is NOTHING to indicate that the kids actually benefit from this and they may be hurt by it. I'm in the let them be kids camp myself with one exception. I believe in early musical training because there are benefits to kids starting music training around ages 3-5. If you start them any later, you don't get the benefits in math/science later on or the increased spatial reasoning. So my kids were in piano class starting at 3 (hence my nick name). Other than that, they played. They're both bright in spite of that lack of stimulation when they were babies, lol. Go figure.
Thanks for the tip! I want my kids to learn music too!
Quality of parenting and peers matter way more than parents work status. You can find kids whose parents stayed home who joined gangs too. Much depends on why you do what you do and your parenting philosophy. If the parents are materialistic, the kids probably will be too and the lure of easy money will likely be strong. If the parents aren't, then it probably won't be.
My sister in law was worth millions by the time her kids were born. She continued to work and worked long hours. Her kids have turned out great. In spite of all of her money, she's down to earth and makes it clear she works for the satisfaction of a job well done. Her kids share her work ethic. It's all in your attitude.
That's a good point you make. I've seen some examples of rich, down to earth parents who work long hours having good kids as well. Hopefully, I will be in the same situation one day!
I was able to stay at home with my daughter until she started Kindergarten. I would HATE to have missed those years.
However, in the days of the divorce rate being over 50%, its such a BAD thing for a woman to give up her power and independence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
