Some people just give up. They throw their hands up and figure that being there for their children is more important than wasting their lives in a job that doesn't give a damn about them. So they won't get to buy their kids cars for their 16th birthdays. Some things are just more important.
My mother was stay-at-home until my father left. It severely limited the chances she had to make a good career afterwards, leaving the family languishing in poverty because of her lack of experience. I don't blame her for it.
What I DO blame is a society that expects everything from people and gives nothing in return. Throw your lives away in a job that won't even give you enough money to bury yourself!How could women or men be a stay at home parent if the family is living paycheck to paycheck ?
Well, it depends how many kids you have got. If you have several, it may be cheaper for one of you to stay at home than to pay for childcare. I know a couple who have nine children for instance, four of them still young enough to need full-time supervision. Their mother hasn't worked since they started their family, because it simply wouldn't be practical. The cost of childcare would eat up most of what she could earn. Her husband doesn't earn a particularly large salary, but they're better off living on his wages than they would be if she went out to work and they had to cough up for childcare.How could women or men be a stay at home parent if the family is living paycheck to paycheck ?
dsds, the type of arrangement you mention is one that was common in the past. Men would often wait until they could afford to have a family before getting married and starting one. The problem with it was that the men often were in their late 30s or even 40s when they did get married. As a result, they often were much older than their wives. This might have seemed fine and dandy but life expectancy wasn't what it is today. These men often died when they were in their 50s and 60s and left their wives and children to fend for themselves.
I was a stay at home mom when my kids were little, I honestly had no choice. We lived paycheck to paycheck on my husband's income, we were young, his paycheck wasn't really that much, but just enough that we didn't qualify for any kind of government assistance. The job I had prior to having my first child was at a fast food restaurant (I did say I was young, right?) That wouldn't have even covered daycare expenses or even a babysitter, so I quit and stayed home. It was rough, very rough. And then when he was 10 months old, I got pregnant again, and it was even rougher. But we managed somehow, some way.
Some families have no choice, given the unemployment rate skyrocketing.
It's one of the ironies of modern life that couples who don't have kids are looked down on; those who do are looked down on if both don't work paying jobs, OR if neither parent can afford to be with the kids all day.
We expect people to reproduce, but make it all but impossible to do so.
I've known people in this predicament, and basically, day care would cost as much or more than any pay check the SAH parent could bring in. If the only kind of job you could get was minimum wage, your entire paycheck could go to daycare, or depending on how many children you have, it could actually cost the household MORE for both parents to work.
OR, there are some people that believe so completely in the ';no day care'; philosophy, that they will sacrifice money to raise their children as they see fit, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Shakes---You do realize that there are tons of SAH parents, right? And that some SAH parents are even feminists...right? No one has ruined anything for anyone.
EDIT--dsds---In all fairness to you, I got another user who goes by the same name confused with you (no, he is not a clone, just a guy with the same name), so that was my mistake.
As for the rest of your little tantrum....do you realize how ridiculous you make yourself seem? You sound just like a little boy who is trying to make himself sound like a big grown man. Now...I wonder why that is?
Anyone living paycheck to paycheck has no business having kids in the first place.
In the event that they lost their job or something unexpected happened, it might be unrealistic to have a stay at home parent. A stay at home parent might lead to NO home at all down the road.
Because they have determined that that is the option they want to exercise. Many when faced with that situation become child care providers for others.
edit
if dsds is supposed to be an example of a real man - I want a faux version.
I am not sure. Perhaps they have financial support in case they have an emergency or unexpected expense...or perhaps they just don't care.
Many people who say their costs are too high have a hard time separating their wants from needs. The average family could save a lot of money if they didn't have to keep up with their neighbours.
They can't. Feminism killed that idea for millions of women and men that might have wanted to be home makers.
Maybe the kids are too young to leave at home and daycare cost too much. Ever thought of that?
For me, I was an immigrant - and until I at least acquired a work visa - it was illegal for me to work at all. The best plan we concluded was to have me as the SAH parent and my wife worked.
Sadly, she was what feminists have been promoting for years now - a 'career woman', meaning instead of having any genuine feminine attributes, she was just a work machine focused entirely on money.
I've never been a monetary focused person, and foudn this attitude of hers rather bad form.
98% of stay-at-homes, are women.
Women are basically lazy and prefer to spend their time brain-washing the children so that they will be cared for in old age.
Men do so much. Women do so little.
No comments:
Post a Comment