Should Mothers Stay Home with their Children?

Coaledsweat posted a poll in another thread and it had one question that really can't be answered as stated:

Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

The poll can be found here: Your Political Compass

You have an option for Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree or Strongly Disagree. I'd strongly agree with but with caveats.

Certainly economic conditions in this age will force both parents to work in a lot of households but I think that is also causing many of the problems society faces today. Parents simply don't have the involvement in their children's lives like thy used to especially the mother. In years past children always had Mom to come too. In this day with women being able to make as much as men I'm really not so sure it's important that the mother be a homemaker but that someone be a homemaker if economic circumstances allow it.

A couple should sit down before they have children and decide who is going to be the "Mom" and who's going to be the bread winner. I think a male can just as easily do the job of homemaker as any woman.

FYI if there any single women in the audience making 6 figures I'm available.

For me that's an individual choice. I know I would resent the hell out of anyone trying to tell me how to live my life.

Ours was for my wife to be a full time mom. We never had fancy cars, big houses or expensive vacations but that was our choice. That being said, some families need two incomes to survive. I was lucky that I could provide a decent living for ours on my income.

Well certainly economics plays a huge factor here. In some households a stay at home parent is not possible. Fortunately for me my Mother put her career off for the first part of my life. She was always there when I was younger and I think that played a major role in who I am today. I wasn't raised by a bunch of strangers, even when she wasn't around my Grandparents were. I think my question is more along the lines of if a parent can stay home should they? You do have many households where both parents are making significant amounts of money and either could support a household by themselves.

billw wrote:For me that's an individual choice. I know I would resent the hell out of anyone trying to tell me how to live my life.
Ours was for my wife to be a full time mom. I was lucky that I could provide a decent living for ours on my income.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Since I lost my job, the parent/breadwinner rolls have reversed. My wife working as many hours as she can, while I tend the kids at home.

I've seen first hand how life can change at a moments notice. When my wife and I decided to have children, I was going to be the bread winner and she would maintain a part time job within her field of study, in order to keep up her hard earned certifications. That way, later on we would be able to help pay for our kids education. Then, 9-17-04 hurricane Ivan hit us. In one night, our house and my job, along with our well thought out future economic plan, were gone.

I'm amazed at the fact that I still can not find a comparable paying job within my field of study or experience without relocating. Well, due to the added debt of making a second home from the first, it just isn't possible. We are now paying 2 1/2 times for a house that is only worth 2/3 what we purchased it for 10 years ago.

So, I was forced to face the challenge of roll reversal, swallowing my pride and being the MAN of the house to get the job done, no matter what it meant. I'm now the one with the part time job and she is the main bread winner. PRIOR PROPER PLANNING PREVENTS PIS POOR PERFORMANCE? Well, it didn't work, even with insurance coverage.

But, on the upside, I've seen a greater mental development and physical coordination with my children because of my being home more often to interact with them. Men think and react differently than women with issues and it has taught me to stop and think out my response to situations, regarding the daily situations with my kids. That is not to say that my wife couldn't have done an equally or better job, it is just different when dad is the one doing most of the upbringing.

So, even though I'm home more, dad is still the head of the household and what dad says is law! Mom still is the extremely sensitive caregiver God had intended, she just has to bring home the bacon for dad to cook. I've gotten very well versed in multi-tasking. I now have an all new respect for the primary caregiver of the family. Heck, I have to go to work for a lighter, more easier work load. Now I know what my dad meant by him saying he has to go to work for a vacation after watching all of us kids during the weekend.

Overall, I wouldn't change a thing, other than the eliminating the debt, then my wife could stay home more too. She resents the fact that our situation makes it necessary for her to work as much as she does, but the only other alternative is for me is to relocate, not to be at home at all, and for her to stay home all of the time, while I earn the money both of us bring home plus some. Is it worth it? I don't think so! The kids are the ones benefiting from our being there together.

So, I maintain hope and have faith that it will all get better. Can you really put a price tag on the time parents spend with their children? The best upbringing you can give a child is that their loving parents are working together as one family unit, as God had designed. No amount of money can buy that or buy that time lost back. Even if their isn't any money, the kids are taking it all in with how you react and deal with the situation that life has set at hand. All the while, the kids are storing the precious moments of the time they spend with their parents to hold on to and share with their kids, all of their lives.

So make it the time spent with your kids the best time they ever had, and it doesn't take any money to do it.

With the cost of child care these days, what mother can afford to not to stay home?

SMITTY wrote:With the cost of child care these days, what mother can afford to not to stay home?

The ones making six figure $ or close to it salaries. Not so uncommon in certain parts of the country. No they don't burn coal at home, Anthracite or Bituminous.

I hear that.

I should've answered my own question --- they all live here! In & around Boston that's all there is.

SMITTY wrote:With the cost of child care these days, what mother can afford to not to stay home?

I know mothers who choose to work for no gain after child care cost because it is easier to go to work than stay home and raise the kids.

My wife was working until our third child came around. Her company had given us a hard time with the previous two over maternity leave so we didn't want to go through that again. Then when we started adding up all the child care costs for her to go back to work, she'd be working for free so she quit. The youngest is now 3 and she is spending tonight as her first day back on an ambulance. Even when she was being a "stay at home mom", she started her own electrology business so she could make a little money and control her hours.

She's not one to "just" be a stay at home mom. She'd go crazy. She's going back to work and also started nursing school. And in between, she is talking about talking about home schooling. She does school work with them all year anyway so we might just keep them home.

As any dad who has had to do the "Mr Mom" routine for any length of time knows, "stay at home" isn't all it's cracked up to be!

The natural instinct for (most) women IS to stay home, nest and rear the offspring.

No coercion is required. (Choose wisely).

This should be celebrated and rewarded for it pure virtue.

Yanche wrote:

SMITTY wrote:With the cost of child care these days, what mother can afford to not to stay home?

The ones making six figure $ or close to it salaries. Not so uncommon in certain parts of the country. No they don't burn coal at home, Anthracite or Bituminous.

Why would you think this? Spending money just because you have it is a fool's game. And no, I'm not available, Richard.

Sounds like none of you were ever married to a nut case. After the steel-mills shut down I ended up in Miami working for Westinghouse & dade County, got a call from my then wife back in Pittsburgh area to come home & that she had filed for divorce. Long story but she left me with the kids 9& 10 at the time, bottom line is I raised them I worked whenever & where ever I could & both my kids turned out pretty good. I like to think I taught them by example, don`t screw up like dad did.

My brother just went thru a similar situation, minus kids, thank God. But a nutcase none the less. I

It was a running joke in my family that my brother & I were NUTCASE MAGNETS! If they had psychological problems, one of us was dating them!

I got REAL lucky with my current wife -- no head issues....... & NO KIDS!

tvb wrote:

Yanche wrote:

SMITTY wrote:With the cost of child care these days, what mother can afford to not to stay home?

The ones making six figure $ or close to it salaries. Not so uncommon in certain parts of the country. No they don't burn coal at home, Anthracite or Bituminous.

Why would you think this? Spending money just because you have it is a fool's game. And no, I'm not available, Richard.

I live in one of those areas overrun with six figure or close to it salaries and I also find that they don't and won't burn coal at home, anthracite or bituminous and that's after being informed of the overwhelming benefits of switching to coal. I talk about it at every opportunity; especially when people are bitching about their heating bills. I just don't get it. The monthly heating bills for their McMansions have to be astronomical. I think it's an appearance issue.

I read somewhere that the number one reason that people brought Pruis was not for the gas savings, although that is number 2, but rather the statement owning such a car makes about a person. I think that's also true about using coal for residential heat; it's not seen as a part of the "good life" these people have earned. They see burning coal as it was in Charles Dickens' London with hard work, smoke choked skies and coal dust all over the place. What can I say; they obviously weren't raised by my parents who taught us appearances aren't everything.

I've got to agree with TVB on this one -"Spending money just because you have it is a fool's game."

Interestingly enough the daycare centers around the area are packed and have long waiting lists. We chose to live smaller in order that I could stay home with the kids and we've not regretted that decision. My kids were also homeschooled K-12. My kids are different for it; not better then someone who was in daycare/formal school but different and that's ok. Apparently, it’s a difference they can live with as each of them has independently decided to structure their lives to allow them to be stay at home parents.

It all boils down to personal choices and no one can make those but the individual. Lisa