jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (41 posts)

should women stay home

82
lovetherainposted 7 weeks ago
and take care of the kids?
reply report
1. 96
  promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  Shouldn't the best parent stay at home?
  reply report
  82
  lovetherainposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  and that is usually the mother
  reply report
  96
  promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  Sometimes yes. Do you agree that a father can sometimes be a better parent?
  reply report
  82
  lovetherainposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  yes
  reply report
2. 79
  Hxprofposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  If a woman wants to, sure.
  reply report
  82
  lovetherainposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  it is her responsibility.
  reply report
  79
  Hxprofposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  Or the dad can do it. One of them has to.
  reply report
80
Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago
Should dinosaurs be cloned?
reply report
1. 82
  lovetherainposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure if that's a yes or a no.....
  reply report
85
Aime Fposted 7 weeks ago
Only if she wants to/can. It’s not a simple decision in most situations. Women aren’t pumping out kids at 17 anymore, they’re going to college and establishing careers first. Not every woman is prepared to give that up to stay home and raise kids, but that shouldn’t preclude them from having children at all.

It’s also a privilege to be in a financial situation where it’s even possible for a mother to stay home full time to raise kids. Plenty of famlies simply cannot get by on one income.

I feel that children are going to thrive in an environment where everyone is happy and comfortable. Making a woman resentful by forcing her to stay home when she doesn’t want to or putting parents under financial stress seems pretty counterintuitive to me.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  I agree, but it's that want to/can part that is so variable. One parent should be at home with small children if they can, and "can't" does NOT mean that parent will provide a boat or some other luxury as being more important than the child's needs. If it comes down to a decision between luxuries and personal, parental child care then that should have been considered before a child was conceived.
  reply report
2. 82
  lovetherainposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  Who said anything about forcing? It is her RESPONSIBILITY to take care of and nurture the kids.
  
  People shouldn't even have kids if they can't afford to take care of them on one income. The father's income, which is HIS responsibility.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  Outside of the sexist commentary and the assumption that you are the one to assign roles to married people, you are correct. Primary responsibility for all parents is their children.
  reply report
88
NessMovieReviewsposted 7 weeks ago
What she said ☝️
I had a career, at the time of my first baby my partner’s career destabilised so I basically said I’d follow him wherever he wanted to go until he found the right job.

Four years on, Im still at home— his career is spectacular and our relationship is not.
I think whatever the choice, it’s poignant to discuss, plan and work out contingencies and whose role is determined as what.

Assuming it works at the beginning doesn’t mean it will always suitable.
Thank gosh for HubPages and freelancing — at least I have a hobby.
reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago
A child is destined to become a strong powerful individual. He will absorb what is in his environment according to a mysterious process involving himself. A child is is not a monkey simply copying the behavior of others. He is incorporating all that he sees, hears, feels, into his very psyche. If during the first two years, things don't go well, and he does not have appropriate or adequate love, care and nurturing, his psyche will suffer.

Look at the shooter in Florida. Where is his birth mother? Does she see what has happened to her son? Does she see what has happened since her abandonment of him? I hope so. I really do. She never should have conceived him.

Do we condemn this nineteen year old, considering the childhood/life he had?
REALLY?
reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago
A child's best chance to develop into a positive happy and dynamic person who can grow up with the capability to thrive in the world and change it for the better is a mother who stays home for at least the first two to five years.

Day-care, sisters, aunts and grandmothers are all hit and miss ...
But if you don't care much about your child and the positive development of his/her psyche, or you just want a doll to play with in between your working hours
… have at it.

Or stay home and take care of the kids.

Your choice.
reply report
1. 85
  Aime Fposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  Uh, yeah. We do. Are you suggesting we give everyone with a hard childhood a pass to murder 17 people? Unless he’s NGRI (which is extremely unlikely) then he was aware of his actions and we must hold him accountable for them, regardless of what his childhood was like. I’d also argue that the death of his adoptive parents was probably a much bigger trigger than the fact that he was adopted in the first place, which is totally irrelevant to this thread.
  
  How incredibly dismissive and rude. I’m somehow always amazed at how narrow your worldview is.
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  Forget about the positive development of a human and how it is the MOTHER who contributes to it.
  reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago
Fathers need to have a say in this, as well. I wish I could broadcast this advice into the ears of those who need to hear it:
MEN: If you want your child to have a mother, wait until you are the actual

B R E A D W I N N E R ! ! !

Don't make the woman work while she is doing the most important job in the world: bringing up your child.

"breadwinner |ˈbredˌwinər| noun
a person who earns money to support a family."

This is such simple, easy-to-understand advice! Why, oh why, is it so hard to live accordingly?
reply report
1. 82
  lovetherainposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  yep
  reply report
2. 81
  Credence2posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  I wish that it were that simple. The day of the sole breadwinner being able to earn enough to support a family without the spouse working have passed. While commonplace a couple of generations ago, only relatively affluent partners (either male or female) can earn enough to support a family in its entirety today. Working class and middle class incomes were sufficient in times past, but today?
  
  So, in the face of this new reality, people are going to have to resign themselves to having far fewer children?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  Can't really agree with you here, Cred. My Dad worked, my mom stayed home...and worked. Dad provided meat and a home, mom provided all the vegetables, clothing, and a livable home. It wasn't done by sitting and watching soaps all day.
  
  But most families can get by fine on a middle class income today (say, around $50,000)...IF they're willing to add some at home. Like Mom did. And IF they're willing to forego the luxuries that are being called necessities today, and that often weren't available back then at any price.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  Can't really agree with you here, Cred. My Dad worked, my mom stayed home...and worked. Dad provided meat and a home, mom provided all the vegetables, clothing, and a livable home. It wasn't done by sitting and watching soaps all day.
  
  But most families can get by fine on a middle class income today (say, around $50,000)...IF they're willing to add some at home. Like Mom did. And IF they're willing to forego the luxuries that are being called necessities today, and that often weren't available back then at any price.
  
  Acknowledged, Wilderness, that was the situation in my household as well. We had most of what constituted modern conveniences at the time, a console black and white TV entertainment center, with hi fi-turntable. We had a family car, just one car. It worked for us as well over 50 years ago. So, what constitutes modern conveniences today that would be comparable to what the average joe found as standard in 1960? The average income for those between the age of 20-34, the most likely childbearing years is only 33K. If the average young man is earning that, do you think that this is enough to support a family on its own? Having a computer and internet is beyond being just a luxury in today's society, for example. People were fundamentally the same in 1960 as they are today, the standard as to what is a necessity and what is luxurious has changed. Some might have said that the very fact that we had television and hi-fi was luxurious from the standpoint of a man at the turn of that century, for whom those products simply did not exist. That is what my great-uncle once told me.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  "So, what constitutes modern conveniences today that would be comparable to what the average joe found as standard in 1960?"
  
  Off the top of my head, a flat screen TV, say 50 or 60". A microwave. Nice refrigerator/freezer. A car (unless public transport is readily available), albeit one far nicer than anything in the 60's. Things, in other words, that cost about what the comparable item cost back then in terms of hours worked. That doesn't include a computer with internet, a cell phone for every family member, or satellite TV.
  
  I don't expect anyone 20 years old to be able to support a family...unless they are working long hours or have a skill to sell. Which is the way it has always been. The median earnings for someone 34 years old is nearly $50,000, and that includes those at the very bottom and drawing food stamps.
  
  Why is a computer necessary? Does your local library not have one? Can you not hit the unemployment office and use theirs for a job search? What makes it a necessity now?
  
  Your great-uncle was correct - a TV and hi-fi are luxuries.
  reply report
  85
  Aime Fposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  Okay, so a 34-year-old man can support a family. Let’s say this is the ideal point to start one. His wife would likely also be in her early 30s/late 20s. By that point plenty of women have either found a career or are doing extended degrees.
  
  By saying that it’s a woman’s responsibility to stay home we’re saying she has to choose. She has to give up what she’s spent 10+ years of her adult life working towards if she wants to have kids. Why don’t men have to make that choice? Why do they get both?
  
  Edit: sorry wildebeests, the point I’m trying to make isn’t really directed at you as I know you haven’t been the one preaching it. Just using your post as a basis.
  
  Edit again: sorry that my autocorrect called you “wildebeests”
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  Better not be preaching at the wildebeast ! Forcing women to stay home is something you will never find me supporting.
  
  But I DO think one parent (EITHER parent!) needs to be at home until the youngest child is, maybe, a teen. After looking at the pros and cons, and what that second job actually produces (and writing a hub on it) I believe the children should come first if it is possible. It isn't always, and I get that, but most of the time the second job just buys luxuries (and childcare and a second car for the second job, and another set of work clothes and a higher tax load...you get the point) and is not necessary for a reasonable lifestyle.
  
  For most couples this is a choice, not a necessity, and IMO the child that they brought into this life takes priority over more toys. Children don't need big toys; they need time with a parent.
  reply report
  85
  Aime Fposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  I agree that a parent being able to stay home with a young child is ideal if possible. But I’m not sure I see a huge value once they’re at school. My daughter is in half-day kindergarten so it makes sense for me to stay home as she’s still here most of the day. Once she’s in full-time, however, I’m not going to want to be at home for 7 hours a day without her just for the sake of an hour after school. And that has more to do with my own sanity than it has to do with extra income.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  Well, I picked 13 because they're out of elementary school and can care for themselves alone at home for a couple of hours. Opinions will vary on that, of course, and both ways. Commute times can really matter, too; a 45 minute commute each way adds a minimum of another 1 1/2 hours to that hour, and can happen both before AND after school.
  
  If it's about sanity, take a job at that elementary school, or volunteer. My wife did that, moving on to other work when our kids left that school for higher grades and it worked pretty well. She was home when they were but still got out, had some interaction with other adults and even brought home some cash to boot, though it was mostly just a nice side effect. Another option that can sometimes work is to shift the hours for the parents just a bit so one is home when the kid leaves for school and the other is home when (s)he comes home. Wouldn't pick different shifts, though - that sounds like a recipe for divorce as nearly all spousal time disappears. We did that for a while, with really odd shifts, and it sucks!
  
  Hey - a statistic I found interesting when I wrote that hub on dual earner families. Did you know that a dual earner family is far more likely to go bankrupt than a single earner one (with two parents)? Sounds crazy but there are good reasons for it.
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  yep … or none.
  reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago
And one more bit of advice: Women, don't marry a man who is not in the position of being a breadwinner.
reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks ago
If you can't keep a child, don't have one.
simple.

Who knows what will happens to your child if Y O U, mother don't raise him.

Sometimes views need to be narrow. This is one of those times.
reply report
1. 85
  Aime Fposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  But don’t have an abortion, either, right? Basically you seem to be suggesting that if a woman isn’t married to a rich guy she shouldn’t have sex. What a fair and realistic solution!
  
  Who knows what will happen to a child even if a mother does raise it? There are wonderful adoptive parents and wonderful non-parents who raise wonderful children, and there are terrible mothers who raise terrible children.
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  I am counting on the mother-child bond as implanted by nature. A man should know whether or not his woman is child-oriented/loves children and is mentally stable before he socks it to her.
  reply report
  85
  Aime Fposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  And if she doesn’t want kids? If he doesn’t want kids?
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this
  DONT HAVE U NO WHAT
  reply report
  85
  Aime Fposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  That’s ridiculous.
  reply report
  79
  Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  which sex is…. selfish, selfish and nothing but.
  reply report
  85
  Aime Fposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s really very unfortunate.
  reply report
  80
  Live to Learnposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this
  Sounds as if you've never had the right partner.
  reply report
79
Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks ago
No, just no longer deluded.
reply report