<p>Even if I had not had to work for financial reasons (and a good thing I did, as H was laid off several times), I would have chosen to do so. It's a matter of temperament. I would have driven my kids neurotic with my micromanagement. I also like the company and conversation of adults. </p>
<p>It is not a given that parental love and care can best be expressed by staying at home.</p>
<p>As sjmom says so eloquently above, the best choices for each family depend on the particular circumstances of that family. No one can disagree with that, and no one should say that all families "ought" to do things a certain way.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, I just saw this article from today's New York Times about a study that shows that mothers (working or stay-at-home) are spending as much or more time with kids than in the past and that fathers are spending more time with kids than in the past. </p>
<p>It says that, on average, working mothers with young kids basically spend less time on housework, tv, sleep, etc. but do not sacrifice spending time with their kids. I think the article is quite relevant to some of the discussion on this thread.</p>
<p>If a man has the ambition to go out and become CEO, partner, etc., having a wife at home may help. If a man wants to be an elementary school teacher, perhaps he'd prefer his wife work so that money is not as tight. I think all couples have to balance their goals, money, and time. It is interesting that when women have demanding careers you will hear "she is putting her work before her family" but when men have demanding careers they "are working to support their family". I think it is much more acceptable for men to "neglect" their families to pay the bills than it is for women. It still seems society tells us "good" husbands provide well and "good" wives care for the household. It must get passed down generation to generation.</p>
<p>In 2000, the average mother spent 13 hours of childcare per week?</p>
<p>Makes me wonder what is considered childcare. We go camping almost every weekend in the summer. So if we are driving to the park, does that not count as child care even though we may be singing songs or telling stories? Do you have to be changing a diaper or helping with homework for it to be considered childcare? I think we easily spend 50 hours per week with our kids and so does almost every family I know (regardless of whether the mother works outside the home).</p>
<p>Funny how a thread about culture shock has evolved into a discussion of parenting styles. We had this discussion earlier, based on a Daily Mail (London) article that suggested mothers spent less time per day with their children than they did watching TV.</p>
<p>This is a link to another study (or maybe part of the same study reported in the NYTimes) by the same authors. I didn't take the time to read it all, but if anyone is interested, I am sure it shows how child care was defined in the time/activity diaries they used. I did see mention of "primary" and "secondary" child care actvities as I glanced through the paper. It is possible that the 13 hours might be the "primary" child care time- time spent exclusively doing things with kids. I think "secondary" child care time means time spent with kids while doing other activities - and things like driving to a park with kids in the car would perhaps fall under that category.</p>
<p>MotherofTwo:</p>
<p>That's the trouble with definitions. If you change a diaper without speaking to the baby, is it better than driving to the park but engaging in sustained conversation with the kids? Why then would the first be considered primary and the second secondary (bad pun, I know)? We've had some of our best moments as a family in cars (and my kids never asked "Are we having fun yet?" because they already were having fun solving puzzles, telling jokes, reding stories aloud).</p>
<p>I totally agree with your thoughts - but regardless of the definition, it is interesting that housework, etc. has decreased but child care has not decreased even with mothers spending more time in the workforce.</p>
<p>My niece and youngest sister are working moms, by necessity. Although I've chosen a different path, I've tried to reassure each that her choice is just fine. During "simpler" times, SAHM's were most definitely "working moms." When women of earlier generations were raising half a dozen or more kids, tending chickens or a kitchen garden, or just handling laundry they were working.</p>
<p>This dichotomy between "working moms" and SAHMs is an artifact of the media, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Well, housework has diminished tremendously because with my earnings, I can afford a cleaning lady; I do not cook fancy dishes that take all afternoons since I'm not there to do it; the kids can help out with chores in and around the house.
Besides the shrinking of the family size, a lot of the housework has also been simplified by technology. How many households had washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, microwave ovens? How many women spent loads of time ironing? Nowadays, ironing can be kept to a miminum with wrinkle-resistant fabrics. I'm sure we can come up with other examples of household chores made easier.</p>
<p>Marite, we are in agreement. My earlier post was meant to point out that the image of non-working moms playing with the kids all day was never realistic.</p>
<p>A big button was pushed when someone said mothers ought to be at home- hit some sensitive nerves on all sides of issues. Howcum it's okay to be snobbish about where you send your kids to school- the right private school, the elite college, but not ok to be elitist after you finish your education? Why does it matter if you go to HYP if you're doing the same things as the rest of the population who went to generic U? Rhetorical questions, please don't try to debate them, just pause and think about it for a minute. No one is going to change anybody's opinion, I'll never fit in with the typical moms, nor do I want to. Let's really get back on topic.</p>
<p>Some household chores have been made easier, but I also think standards have risen. Not that you must jump on the bandwagon for every fad or trend, but do neighborhoods around where you live get more elaborate in their seasonal decorating? When I was a kid, we carved one Jack-O-Lantern & stuck it on the porch with a candle. Maybe a few ears of Indian corn on the door. Now the decorations for holidays, whether major, minor, secular, or religious are quite elaborate. Both inside and out. Door wreaths are changged seasonally. Table linnens, window treatments, bedding updates. Summer bar-b-ques were hamburgers, hotdogs, and some potato salad. Now we do gourmet spice rubs, marinades, several entre choices, and a wide array of salads, dips, appetizers, margaritas, carved watermelons, and beer selections from microbreweries. Martha Stewart doesn't live at my house, but she must at some of my neighbors, or else they're on amphetimines to keep up the pace.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll never fit in with the typical moms, nor do I want to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They'll be so sorry to hear that, wis75.</p>
<p>"Why does it matter if you go to HYP if you're doing the same things as the rest of the population who went to generic U?"</p>
<p>Well, maybe because you aren't doing the same things. Maybe the level of discourse at the dinner table is higher. Maybe you volunteer at your child's school more effectively. Just to give two possible examples. Speaking as someone who has stayed home full time, worked part time and worked full time.</p>
<p>Stickershock:</p>
<p>This must be another area where we're not into competition!</p>
<p>Don't know if this interests anyone, but have you ever been amazed at the existence of stores like A.C. Moore and Michael's Crafts? Enormous stores that have almost nothing in them that is absolutely necessary? Other than a few essential school supplies, they have aisle after aisle of dried flowers, candle crafts, needlepoint, candy making supplies, decorations, ribbons, unfinished wood crafts, doll house & hobby stuff....every kind of arts & craft idea known to man. Absolutely wonderful as a creative outlet for those so inclined. Just as a perfectly starched shirt was required of 1950's women, these stores seem to imply that today's woman must effortlessly juggle home, career, & kids while sculpting and creating handcrafted wreaths and candles. I just get a kick out of how things have changed.</p>
<p>marite: My kids are forever lamenting the absence of blow up grinches and super tacky Christmas lights and full Halloween graveyards on the front lawn. I'm kind of a minimalist with outdoor decorating. Not to say that some of the more elaborate homes aren't tastefully done. Maybe I'm just getting lazier with age.</p>
<p>And nobody is flocking to my home to experience the gourmet cooking!</p>
<p>well I like Spicerubs</a>sticker ( But don't much care for dried or fake flower arrangements- where to store them when you arent using them?)</p>
<p>But I enjoy being downwardly mobile- my time is the most valuable commodity I have :)
Some of those things you mention don't take time- I do save lots of time shopping online ( I hate shopping IRL- just took 16 year old to a designer outlet mall this weekend- exhausting)- but some people enjoy it apparently.</p>
<p>I think some parents who stay home- might feel pressure to prove they aren't watching soaps all day ( although I notice the decorations on homes where both partners work all day also)</p>
<p>I dont think these things are coastal issues again- but it might be how we decide on our values</p>
<p>I dont' think it is OK to be snobby about where you go to college or K-12
although my oldest attended private school K through college graduation- and although I have mentioned that especially the K-12 schools were amazingly competitive to get admitted to ( which I really didnt realize at the time- she has just always been admitted to whereever she wanted to go) I hope I don't come across as pretentious, when I mention that the Gates and Bezos kids go there. </p>
<p>I mention them actually to praise their judgement ( and to illustrate you don't have to be a snob even if you are rich/republican), for choosing a school that is very experiential, very appropriate developmentally IMO, rather than a school that might pride itself in turning out little geniuses. Obviously they werent there when D attended- but she went there because it was the best fit- not because it was "the" place- because it wasn't- of the private schools- it actually was lesser known and much more casual than most</p>
<p>I have always been very upfront about not having much education- ( although I did start attending community college, when my oldest was about 4- it was clear I was going to have to do something to keep up) :)</p>
<p>I don't think that an advanced degree is necessary to have a happy life, unless that is something that you want to have for your job, or just for the satisfaction of it.</p>
<p>I also don't think that a "prestigous" school is necessary to have a career, even an influential career. I realize some do get fixated on competitive schools, but I think most are considering schools among the top 300-500, recognizing that the quality of the educational experience has as much to do with the student, as does the name of the building that they are in.</p>
<p>This may be a coastal thing- I do notice more families- interested in choosing schools in their region if they are from the Northeast, than other parts of the country, but that may just be because, they aren't as familiar with Claremont & Rice as they are Amherst & UPenn.</p>
<p>I also assume that those attending college now- will change careers several times during their lifetime- I think that my oldest- received a good foundation to be adaptable to the changes she will see. Life isn't a straight line- we don't decide we are going to xyz -college/grad school/career and then never sway from that path. ( more so now than ever)</p>
<p>I know a couple who just turned 50 for example- physician & trial attorney
However, the woman who is the Dr, developed health issues some time ago, so she had to give up her clinical work, and the attorney decided he wanted to spend even more time with kids ( he was already doing a great deal of volunteering), so he has been in school to get his principal accreditation.
They are amazingly successful- if you look at their friends and family and how happy they are- If they were the kind of people who decided that how they earned money- determined who they were- they might have become bitter and angry after spending so much time and money acquiring a medical degree and an J.D- but they have the maturity and foresight to adapt when the situation warrants it-
Would we all be so insightful?</p>
<p>If we see others in narrow boxes according to the label we put them into * working mom- doctor-lawyer- indian chief*- we are also narrowing our own experiences and choices by default.</p>
<p>I wouldn't describe it as * culture* shock exactly
But we do appear to think about fashion differently in Seattle
even those who are from NYC/DC, are near indistinquishable from natives after a rainy winter or two</p>
<p>[In the Northwest, the devil doesn't wear Prada.</p>
<p>The devil hasn't even heard of Prada.</p>
<p>People in the Northwest don't give a rip about a lot of things.</p>
<p>They don't worry much about status, for example, and that limits their ambition. A high level of ambition requires chronic dissatisfaction with one's rank.</p>
<p>They also don't care much about money, power or appearances.</p>
<p>This seals their fate, in the world of high fashion, as bad dressers.</p>
<p>They don't see the point of the custom-tailored suit or the $400 stilettos. They would never pay a month's salary for a handbag that is so stylish, so now, that it will be hideous and dated in six months.</p>
<p>They don't consider what's "in season." They consider what season it is, as well as what's cleanest on top of the pile. And they choose their fleece pullovers, wool socks, waterproof parkas and rubber-soled shoes accordingly.](<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003125762_susannielsen14.html">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003125762_susannielsen14.html</a>)</p>