Is having children only for the privileged and middle aged?
By Emily U;
A bit about me: Lifelong Mormon, married, but not a housewife (although I’d like to be one). Mother of one. Oldest in a family of six. Just finished a doctorate in biology, but I don’t want to be a scientist. A Democrat in a family of Republicans. A feminist.
Is having children only for the privileged and middle aged?
My toddler is in daycare. He’s there 4 days a week, 30 hours total, or 24 waking hours if you subtract the naps. I wish it were 20 hours a week, but there’s nothing my husband and I can do right now to get the number down.
I’ve calculated the percentage of waking moments he spends with the babysitter, with mommy, with daddy, and as a family, in hopes of convincing myself that he’s having a healthy childhood. I try to focus only on him during the hours after I get home from work until he goes to bed, saving housework and cooking for when he’s asleep as much as possible. But I also worry that I run myself ragged and send him the message that he basically owns mommy and that his wish is my command, since I often stop what I’m doing and pay attention to him when he demands it asks for it.
My point is that sending my child to daycare while I go to work is not something I do lightly – it weighs on me every day. I don’t think any loving parent makes decisions about child care lightly. So when my babysitter told me she was taking in an 8 week old infant from 7 am to 6 pm five days a week, I felt so sad. Sad for the baby who will have so little time with his mother, sad for the mother who will be separated from her baby, and sad for my son who is going to get less attention from his babysitter. I didn’t feel condemnation for the parents because I didn’t know their situation and assumed they were doing this because they have no other choice.
So while I think having a baby in daycare for over 50 hours a week is a very regrettable situation, I was shocked by my colleague’s reaction to it. The morning I heard about the new baby I told my co-worker - a single woman in her 60s with no children - about it. She said she though it was reprehensible and that people should absolutely not have children if they were planning to have them in daycare like that. I came to the parent’s defense, saying why should the only women to have children be those that are financially comfortable enough to quit their jobs or cut back their hours? Many men don’t modify their work lives at all when they become fathers. Why should women? Should poor women all be on permanent birth control? Or should poor mothers be on welfare rather than at work? Should certain careers be off the table if you want to be a mother? Or should women wait until they’re in their 40s but at the top of the food chain at work to have babies? After my outburst my colleague said maybe she didn’t know what she was talking about, since after all she had no children of her own.
Child care decisions are so personal that I am loath to judge any particular family’s choices. But maybe there are some things that are just wrong among the myriad possible ways of caring for children. I’ve been thinking that my colleague might have been right. The woman professor I worked for when I was in graduate school chose not to have children, and I think that was a very good thing because she has such an incredibly busy career and travels so much that her children would barely have known her. But not having children is not a valid option in Mormon theology (nor is it a desirable one for most women).
I’ve now learned that the baby’s parents are both medical residents and have a one hour commute each way to the hospital they work at. We live in a big city, and nannies are expensive, so they probably can’t afford one on resident’s salaries. She’s studying radiology, and when her residency is over she’ll be in a nice specialty with reasonable hours. So the situation is temporary. But the costs are high. Would they be worth it to you? Should they be worth it to anyone?
Not worth it to me. Seriously not my call if it’s worth it to them. I lived in a co-op (commune for sissies) and it thoroughly cured me forever of judging others peoples parenting decisions. If I’m honest- part of it was selfishly motivated- I had to jettison my own judgement if I wanted the people I lived with to extend that courtesy to me as well. Parenting is hard. We could all be so much more gentle with ourselves and others.
Also, I think it was good for our son, who, after hearing for the millionth time, “that’s their families choice; we don’t shoot rockets in the house, but if x’s mom says it’s ok for x- then that’s their choice,” he got it and rarely brings up what “other kids are allowed to do” as a point of reference.
Comment by crazywomancreek — April 24, 2009 @ 9:50 am
I’ve had this same discussion with my wife. We’re still working on becoming privileged and middle-class enough to have kids. At this point, if we had a “surprise,” the kid would be living in daycare, which is not acceptable to me–not just in principle, but because the cost of daycare in my area (DC metro) is beyond ludicrous. For 2 kids in daycare, my entire salary would be gone. My work is simply not important enough to me for me to do that rather than stay home with the kids.
But, we’re still getting out of school debt, and the cost of living here is high enough that we can’t live on one salary (my wife’s; she makes much more than I do). It’s incredibly frustrating as we see ourselves getting older and saying “Just one more year.”
Comment by Bro. Jones — April 24, 2009 @ 9:54 am
Not worth it to me, also not my call for them. I agree with cwc being a parent is a tough spot to be in, and we should be gentle with ourselves first, and then with others.
My sister in law said to me after child #3 that she would not have any more kids because 1. she had to work, and 2. she couldn’t handle sending her newborn baby to be cared for by someone else. She did it with her first and second child and vowed never to do it again. It was to painful for her.
Maybe on face value your coworker is right, but face value doesn’t take into consideration the emotions, situations of others and for that, we can’t judge, or shouldn’t, or do our very best not to.
Comment by Sunshine — April 24, 2009 @ 10:01 am
This is caused by people not knowing the difference between wants and needs. We have gone from a society of people whose children shared bedrooms, wore hand-me downs and walked to school to a culture and society where everyone must have their own space and their own stuff and be chauffered around to 20 different after school activities. Many of these people could get by (even comfortably) on one salary (man or woman) if they lived in a more modest home, owned less stuff and enjoyed life without the 18 activities a week.
I don’t really see a problem with people who have their kids in daycare as long as they don’t also plop them in front of the TV for the 3 hours after work/before bedtime that they could spend raising the kids.
Don’t get me wrong, I choose not to have children and I have wwwaaaayyyy more space in my house than I will ever need. I just know that when people complain that they can’t get by I think it is because they chose to have too much when they could get by with much less (I am a perfect example of this).
Comment by Britt — April 24, 2009 @ 10:10 am
I find this to be a very useful and charitable outlook. There are many circumstances that require alteration in the “perfect plan for raising a child”. (If you locate a copy of that book, send it to me.) I happen to agree with a philosophy I’ll paraphrase from M. Scott Peck: The most important factor in good parenting is in being willing to agonize over the difficult choices in the things that affect your family and child. Not so much the actual choices, which in the same situation, the solutions different families arrive at will vary, but the love and effort that goes into deciding what is best for each child and the overall well-being of the family.
If I don’t come to peace around the variations I must enact for the best of my family, my children will sense my ambivalence and respond accordingly. I say let go of this one-size-fits-all mentality and assume that in the majority of cases, parents are doing the best they can. It sounds like you are a very loving and attentive mother, Emily, and I would say that only the people involved would be able to tell you if it’s worth it.
I was a single mom after my divorce. Yes, it was hard and yes, it was worth it. And I’m a good mother- I know this because I’ve moved heaven and earth to do what is best for all of them and best of all, they have told me so themselves.
Comment by Kimberly — April 24, 2009 @ 10:12 am
It would possibly be worth it to me as long as it was a temporary situation. My children spent a lot of time with babysitters and daycare for 3 years while I was finishing my education and starting out my career, but then I was able to cut back my hours significantly and work nights so that I was able totally eliminate day care. If we had waited to have kids until I was done with all that, I wouldn’t have had my wonderful 4 yo and 1yo at that point. But permanently only seeing them for 2 or 3 hours a day? I personally couldn’t handle that.
Comment by jen — April 24, 2009 @ 10:15 am
You know that line co-workers and even friends should never cross in conversation? Your colleague passed it about 10 miles ago. Seriously.
Some excellent mothers work full-time and some really crappy ones stay home with their kids. You’re doing the best you can with your circumstances and you, as you say, haven’t made your decisions lightly. Believe in yourself and hopefully, your child will as well. Do not believe your colleague, whose lack of tact alone disqualifies her opinion from serious consideration.
Comment by Janet — April 24, 2009 @ 10:17 am
Her lack of experience disqualifies her still further.
Comment by Kimberly — April 24, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Britt, I think you’re making some pretty big generalizations. A certain demographic might be putting their kids in daycare because they have to work so hard to keep up with the richest among them, but most people put their kids in daycare just to make ends meet. Bro. Jones’ situation is a good example - if you live in a very expensive area, survival on one income may be impossible, and moving away may not be an option. Perhaps everyone should be so conscientious as the Jones’ and not have children in such circumstances, but still, situations can change so fast. A family can lose income or have a terrible illness or a divorce or a death or the economy could crash or debt could become overwhelming or a pregnancy could be unplanned.
My family has always been below the poverty line, but we lived simply and cheaply so that one of us could always be home with our very young children. Then my husband lost his job, so off I went to work, overtime every week, plus commuting - I only have a day off today because of a stomach bug. If our kids were old enough, they’d be in daycare almost constantly, because we wouldn’t have much of a choice beyond accepting whatever state-provided care was available. I have very little energy to give quality time to my family, but working less is not an option unless we want to be on the street. Our kids share a bedroom - with their parents. They wear secondhand clothing. We rent. We don’t have any expenses beyond housing, food and utilities. We don’t even pay for internet!
This is not a question of wants vs. needs - it’s a necessity to have a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. That refrain of wants vs. needs is really tired and some of us find it self-righteous and lacking in compassion.
Comment by Chandelle — April 24, 2009 @ 10:27 am
The very act of criticizing another on their childcare choices really makes me angry. We have one and another on the way and we’re both in our 20’s. We’ve scrimped, saved and gone without a lot of stuff to have No 1 and complete four degrees between us. With help from family, living in the socialist paradise of Canada and just doing without a lot, I’m now swinging into a well-paying job.
But it’s taken a lot of work and a lot of compromise. I put my career on hold for a year to look after No 1. I may have to do the same in 3 years to let DW complete her PhD. We have a social safety net provided not only by the government but by generations of good decisions made on both sides of the family. We are lucky. Some people are not.
I think you have to make the best decisions you can within your circumstances.
Comment by Brett — April 24, 2009 @ 10:32 am
Janet said, “Some excellent mothers work full-time and some really crappy ones stay home with their kids.”
i know i would have made a not so great stay at home mother and felt priviliged to have my kids (from age 10 weeks) at the great day care center at my work. i was able to nurse my kids and knowing that they were being cared for by professionals–people who were good a this job and liked it–made me feel comfortable with the situation.
it took me a very LONG time to feel like a competent mother (like 2 years into the second child). the best choice for me was daycare.
the decision to have kids and how to care for them is very personal. my only strong opinion is that if you have the kids, you should be able to reasonably provide for them.
my mother, on the other hand, was a stay at home mom who had no clue (which maybe is where i got my skills??). perhaps i wanted to do better for my kids. just my opinion.
Comment by sparekitty — April 24, 2009 @ 10:38 am
#4 I’m curious to know where you live. As #9 pointed out, our situation is a function of our location. Here in the DC area, we live in a not-so-great neighborhood in a tiny apartment, and we’re pretty close to zero in the bank account at the end of every month. We don’t drive fancy cars, we don’t have the “boat” that they always seem to harp on at General Conference, and we don’t feel very middle-class. We *do* have enough food on the table and we *don’t* have angry creditors calling us any more, so I guess that’s what passes for “middle class” these days.
We didn’t even want to be in this area, but it was where the job market took us, and our efforts to escape to cheaper, more family-friendly areas have not been successful. Believe me, I’m happy with a small home where my kids share bedrooms. Out here, you either need to be a millionaire or spend 3 hours commuting each day for that.
Comment by Bro. Jones — April 24, 2009 @ 10:39 am
#4 is so pitch perfect ‘Utah Troll’ that I’m having a hard time taking it seriously!
Real wages have been stagnant since the 70’s while inflation continues to rise, so all us young kids are just selfish and need everything and are bankrupting our families for boats and jet-skis.
Riiiiight.
Comment by Brett — April 24, 2009 @ 10:44 am
A discussion of what people can afford or judging them based on what they decide to afford is an exercise in futility. It’s not about affording it’s about making personal choices.
For example, if you have a household income of around $100,000 that would put you in the top 20 percent in the United States. I bet those households think of themselves as “middle class” and not rich. There is no modern definition for middle class.
Comment by cyclingred — April 24, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Personally, I wouldn’t want my children (much less a baby) in daycare 50 hours per week. Still, sometimes it just is what it is. I suppose in that situation, I would’ve put off having children until my residency was complete. That said, both of my kids have been in pre school since I adopted them both, as I work full time and for a while was a single mom to my oldest. I thought I should feel guilty about it but the reality is, I had to stop feeing guilty about not feeling guilty. I am pro pre school. It has taught my girls so much that I simply could not teach them at home. I came to the realization that even if I was a SAHM, I would send them to pre school anyway. I wish I had more flex time, though, but, again, it is what it is. I am very close to my kids and I think I’m a decent mom and they know I love them and they both are very social and have many friends and enjoy their school and after school activities.
Sure, there is much to be said about living above what we really need. And if many of us cut way back, probably far more families could afford someone to stay home. But I am also in the camp that thinks those extra curricular activities are a great thing. It gives them depth and experience. It allows them to try new things. It helps them make more friends. I don’t regret working so we have the money to pay for competitive ice skating, horse camps, swim clubs and the like. I also feel it is worth it to work and have the ability to travel and take them places. I guess I just won’t feel guilty about that. Add to that choice, I’m just not a SAHM-type and I don’t think it’s a pre requisite to be a SAHM-type, or be willing to become a SAHM to have kids.
Comment by Lulubelle — April 24, 2009 @ 10:59 am
When you ask: would they be worth it to you?, you want us to judge that particular situation? I hope most people would feel as uncomfortable judging this couple as they ought to feel judging:
A poor family that adds another mouth they can’t feed independently
A chronically ill mother who has a child anyway, even though she cannot care for the child 100% by herself or may die
A busy family who you suspect does not give ample attention to the children they have and then decide to have another
A family with rowdy kids, who seem unable or unwilling to discipline the ones they have, yet have another child
A family with a dirty house who have kids anyway, even though they already don’t have enough time to clean
etc.
There is always something that could be judged, but why do we feel so entitled to judge this specific aspect of a family: the time they spend with their kids.
I would wager that a single child family (or even one with 2 or 3 kids) who uses day care (or heck, school), say, 40 hours a week, can STILL spend more quality kid time with each of their kids than a SAHM who has 12 kids to divide her time and attention among. Yet most of us would not dream of saying: would it be worth it to have that sixth child if you would never have a moment alone, the child would pend most of the day in a swing, bouncer, or siblings arms, the kids would always wear hand-me-downs, would ask it’s 12 year old sister if she was the mom (happened to me–I am one of 10), etc.
Daycare, imo, is just a Mormon bogeyman.
Comment by ESO — April 24, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Bro. Jones (”We’re still working on becoming privileged and middle-class enough to have kids.”).
I know what you mean. We struggle with this too, and are currently contemplating baby #2 in a one-bedroom condo while trying to decide if we can afford 2 kids in daycare. It is almost impossible to afford housing in certain parts of this country. I wish you the best.
Kimberly - thanks for your kind words.
Comment by Emily U — April 24, 2009 @ 11:02 am
The other thing that came to mind is that I had a terrible childhood. Between poverty, divorce and abuse- well, it just sucked. There was some intermittent day care- but my brother and I were abused by the babysitter…we were better off on our own, frankly. Despite these less than ideal circumstances, I have some very precious memories and a lot of people in my life who took an interest in me and showed me other paths. I had a fantastic grandmother. I am reconciled with both parents and understand the challenges they faced a lot better as an adult. They both have excellent characteristics that I am lucky to have experienced.
So, I can tell you from personal experience that it can be worth it in the end, even when nearly everything is wrong from the very beginning. In fact, while I have raised my own children in completely different circumstances, I am now at the point in my life that I can honestly say that I would not have traded my early experiences for something easier.
Comment by Kimberly — April 24, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Thank you for you thoughtful consideration of the topic. I apparently have no voice in the matter because I am childless, but I am working on my PhD and hoping for a child in the next year or two. I think, if I were dealing with a medical residency, that I would have the child and put it in daycare. I think it very well might be worth it, though of course not ideal.
It is interesting how many of the comments deal with simply living on less to avoid daycare. Finances are not an issue to me. I plan on working because of the joy and fulfillment I get from working. I see the lives of my stay-home friends and it scares me. I could not handle it. So, I will seek the best people I can trust to care for my children and I will adjust my schedule to maximize my time with them, but I will work.
Comment by Hokie — April 24, 2009 @ 11:30 am
EmilyU,
Great post. It hits very close to home right now because my wife is seriously thinking about a hard science PhD, and we don’t know any other LDS women who have done anything similar. I’d love to exchange email, if you have time. If you do, please email me at spin underscore esperto at yahoo dot com. Thanks!
Comment by SmartA — April 24, 2009 @ 11:42 am
But not having children is not a valid option in Mormon theology (nor is it a desirable one for most women)
First of all, not having children is an entirely valid option in Mormon theology.
I have to agree with your colleague. Seriously. It is in no way healthy for a child to be in daycare 50 hours a week. So yes, a woman shouldn’t have kids if that’s the plan. Just because she wants them and won’t feel good without having done that? What about the other human beings she is creating? Yes, certain careers should be off the table if you want to have children–and that goes for both parents. (ie-in a family maybe you shouldn’t both decide to be soldiers and have kids, both have jobs that require you to work 80 hour weeks and expect to take care of children).
Perhaps your colleague should not have said what she did, but I find it truly unfair for you to make your comments to her (because of your own alarm), and then react so uncharitably back. I’m sure it came out sounding defensive.
Comment by mmiles — April 24, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Parents’ responsibility is not to provide the “ideal” situation for our children. Our job is to keep our priorities straight.
Adversity is part of life, and decent daycare is hardly “adversity”.
I’m not a SAHD, and I wish I didn’t have to work so much. I make more money than we need, but unfortunately I can’t just cut back and make less. It’s not a choice. If I cut back, my salary doesn’t go down, it goes away. And that would be adversity. I long for that 40hr/wk reasonable wage middle-class job that just doesn’t seem to exist anymore.
Comment by Martin — April 24, 2009 @ 11:53 am
#21: You really think that VOLUNTARILY not having children is a valid Mormon lifestyle choice? Last time I checked, we are commanded, not invited, to multiply. If you think voluntary (married) childlessness is a valid option, you are in a tiny minority.
#22: “Adversity is part of life, and decent daycare is hardly ‘adversity’.”
Quite right. Thanks for pointing that out.
Comment by Emily U — April 24, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Voluntarily not having children is not an acceptable choice in Mormon theology. I got an earful about this from my teenaged daughter last year, when this was taught from the Young Women’s lesson book - it was one of her first glimpses of just how intrusive the church can be in our lives.
I wish that I could somehow comfort or hug anyone here who’s agonized over daycare. I must be missing the gene for that - after my fourth child was born I started looking for a job and I’ve never looked back. I expected to feel sad that first day at work, but instead I felt nothing but the excitement of finally being back in the workplace, doing something I really loved. My kids are all shool aged now, and I honestly don’t see any negative effects from the different loving caregivers they’ve had over the years. Parenting is about so much more than the brute force work of chasing after toddlers - I truly believe the important part is the connection we make with our kids that will propel them into independence one day.
Comment by Cheeriogal — April 24, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
I feel that there is a big difference between babies and toddlers and older children. I feel that the ideal situation for babies is to be with their mothers (or fathers). So, I think I would cross hell and high water to try to be the one caring for my baby. (Did anyone bring up that maybe this baby in daycare 50 hours a week with medical resident parents may have been an accident? I don’t think most people would advocate having a baby you know will spend that much time in daycare off the bat, but when it happens, what are you going to do? If I were in a sitaution where I found myself pregnant while finishing up school or residency, I am pretty sure I would finish it even while feeling bad about leaving the baby so much. My mom dropped out of college with 1 semester left when she was pregnant with me and still hasn’t finished. I vowed to never, ever do that).
But, at about age 2, children have much more of a need for independence. I’ve found that that’s about the age when they start wanting situations away from home. As a parent, you do start thinking about what opportunities you can give them (preschool, playgroup, etc.) so I wouldn’t have nearly as hard of a time finding a high quality childcare arrangement where they can play with other kids that I feel comfortable about. By age 4, my kids are begging me to go to school, so I would have even less of a hard time with daycare.
That said, my choice (as long as I have a choice) is to stay home probably for a very long time. I used to think I would want to work after my youngest started kindergarten, but I am not sure how I would get anything done. It takes a lot of energy to be cheerful through the morning routine while we get ready for school, and once the kids come home from school and we hit homework, playtime with friends, dinner, sports, there’s just no time for anything else. So, the only time I can get anything done is during the day while kids are at school - and with 2 still at home (and same situation next year - I’ll send another to school but add another baby at the same time), I just have no hope of having a real life yet. So, I am looking forward to all the kids being in school so I have about 7 hours to myself each day.
I admire moms who work out of the home and juggle it all.
And, I’m grateful for the choice to stay at home. I know it is not available to everyone, and I know it is not guaranteed to me. My grandpa died when my mom was 14 and the oldest of 5. My dad left when I was 14 and the oldest of 6. Both my grandma and mom have been working moms ever since. So, I really do relish the opportunity (even if sometimes I wish I were doing something else). But, if something changes (husband dies, leaves, loses his job), I’ll re-evaluate the options. Each year that passes that I’m able to be at home I feel is a blessing.
Comment by Stephanie — April 24, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
You did not have the word voluntary in your OP. Huge difference.
Comment by mmiles — April 24, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
This is so difficult. It would have broken my heart to hand my babies over to someone else to care for during the day, and I’m incredibly grateful I didn’t have to make that choice. But I had them a couple months shy of my 40th birthday, and might not have been able to have them at all if it had taken any longer.
I don’t think most people who put their kids in daycare do so out of selfishness or ignorance about the needs of their kids. I think most do it out of necessity, or at least because they feel that what they can provide by continuing to work is better by comparison than what they would be able to provide if one parent quit working. It’s very romantic to say that it doesn’t matter if you live in a hovel, as long as you have family together, but there is a basic standard of living, and it doesn’t have to be fancy to still cost more than a single salary can pay for in some parts of the country. Many jobs do not pay a living wage.
It is also quite a pat answer to assume that no one should get pregnant until they have reached a point where one spouse’s wages will be sufficient to care for the family adequately. Some people may NEVER achieve that in our economy. Should they be expected to never have children because they can never make a large enough income to support a family on a single salary? Yikes.
I can’t imagine trying to make these judgment calls for someone else. We were fortunate and blessed to be able to work it out in our family so that we could run our own business primarily from home, with one of us doing most of the business work while the other cared for the kids. But not everyone has the opportunities we’ve had, and it’s OFTEN been quite a struggle for us, even with the advantages we have.
I feel sorry for that baby, but I also feel sorry for the mom and the dad. It’s hard.
Comment by Lorian — April 24, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
“Some excellent mothers work full-time and some really crappy ones stay home with their kids.”
I was a single parent for 3.5 years before I remarried. While living in UT and lamenting the amount of time my child spent in day care, a woman recommended that I move in with family who would support me financially until I remarried. She was dead serious, having done so herself. I disregarded her advice and continued working to support us but wondered if that was at all common.
When we moved back to the East Coast, nearer my family, my hours at work only got longer and I needed help picking DS from day care four nights a week (I mostly had Fridays off which was reserved for yard and housework). It felt like DS was never in my care save only for weekends. On average, I spent about 1.5 hours with him Mon-Thu. That was damn hard and it was even more difficult to tame my urges to make up for it with gifts or extra special outings each weekend. Instead, I tried to focus on spending time with him riding his bike, swimming or just stacking blocks together. Puzzles were loads of fun and easy to work on for ten minutes before he was sent to bed on weeknights. He seems to have survived that stage in our lives well enough and without major emotional scars. If that proves otherwise, he can bill me for therapy later. I did my best.
My mom, a career teacher (who preferred to stay home but worked long hours while I was growing up) with 30 years experience in the field (she owned and operated a day care until licensed as a teacher in the States), once told me that on average a child only gets about 15 minutes of quality time with a parent each day, including children with a stay-at-home parent. Now that I’m home full time with two additional kids I see how that’s possible. Errands, meal prep, cleaning and general family and home maintenance eats up my day and I’m pressed to find moments here and there to sit with the oldest toddler for lessons (alphabet, numbers, colors, reading, etc).
My advice is do what works for you and your family. Day care, albeit expensive, is not always a bad experience for kids. It’s all about them, all day long, without the distractions that come with being at home. Staying at home isn’t a bad idea either but juggling all of the work that comes with the homemaker gig as well as proper child-rearing gets tricky.
There’s just not a pat answer or a one size fits all for families, especially in this economy and the ranges from area to area. It seems to be much more about quality vs quantity parenting.
Comment by Sinclair — April 24, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
#26. Voluntarily was quite obviously implied in the post.
Comment by Emily U — April 24, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Stephanie #25 - I totally agree. Kids as they age crave play with other kids, so day care is what many of the kiddos want anyway. My kids are both in school now and when I pick them up from Kindergarten and first grade they ask to go to aftercare with their friends. I put my son in a preschool program when daughter started Pre-K. They are so close in age and he was always used to a playmate. He loved it and I enjoyed being a mom again, having 9 hours a week to my self was miraculous. I went from being so wiped out to being excited to see my kids after school.
I have been the full time at home parent for both my kids since their birth. With my daughter I took her to work till my son was born, then I was home with both. One of the big drives to have a stay at home parent was the cost for child care for two very young close together kids. It was going to take up 1/2-2/3 of my salary and my salary was not that high anyway. I wasn’t that happy with it the first two years. I was just trying to make it through the days. As the kids got older I have enjoyed it far more.
I will probably return to work soon and we shall see how that transition works. I think we should all try to support each other in the endeavors we choose for our families. Most are trying their best and situations are rarely, if ever, ideal. The economic impact of me staying home will haunt us for years. Every family has to balance their individual needs. If I had gotten pregnant during my graduate program I would not have stopped, I would have for sure finished knowing the benefit that would bring my family in time would be worth the sacrifices now.
Comment by miles — April 24, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
This post just reinforces (again) how much I struggle to think like an American these days. In reading it, my first thought was, “Where is the state?” Paid maternity leave would negate the need to leave babies in child care. State-subsidised child care for lower-income earners would make it possible for people like Bro Jones to start a family without having to spend half an income on child care. A living wage and family support payments would make it easier for families that wanted a stay at home parent to have a stay at home parent.
Comment by Quimby — April 24, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Emily,
I don’t want to get sidetracked from the original post. However, I can see many scenarios where having no children by choice would be completely compatible with Mormon theology. I’ll just agree to disagree.
On topic, are we expected to have children (theologically) simply to birth them? or to also raise them, spend time with them and build a bond? If that is not the plan, then why not let someone else birth them?
Your original questions are:
Would they be worth it to you? Should they be worth it to anyone?
My answers are no and probably no.
Comment by mmiles — April 24, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Re: 32, I’m sure the imperative to have children includes raising them. I think you could find support for this idea in the word “replenish” because that connotes good stewardship, I think.
Can you tell me an example of a scenario where no children by choice is compatible with Mormon theology? I’m honestly curious because I’ve always understood that to be a core teaching of the church.
Comment by Emily U — April 24, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
I worked in the infant room in a daycare when I was nineteen, and I LOVED those babies, loved them and played with them and sang to them and cried when they graduated to the older toddler class, but there were six of them and there was one of me, and even with all of my good intentions and genuine love for them, there was a limit to how much individual time I could spend with each one of them. As a result of that experience I don’t think I could send my newborn off to an actual daycare CENTER/institution. Even a very loving daycare worker is usually perpetually overwhelmed. But I also can’t judge someone who had to do it - we do what we can do. We all want the best for our kids.
I DO have to work - not for fancy cars and clothes (eye roll), but because we have a mortgage we can’t get out of, and my husband just doesn’t make very much money, despite his college education. I’m not going to defend myself to someone like Britt, but - I’ve been wearing the same clothes for a good six years. We’re not exactly living in the lap of freaking luxury.
Anyway, for the last seven years I’ve juggled working from home with three kids. Through a mixture of juggling work schedules with my husband, finding decent mother’s helpers who would come to our house for a few hours a day, pre-school a few times a week, a lot of work in the middle of the night after the kids were in bed, and a whole lot of luck, we managed to avoid day care. But it was horribly difficult sometimes, and I am extremely fortunate to work in a high-tech field where virtual set-ups are typical. I don’t know how most women manage it. Even with the fairly ideal scenario, where we use maybe 20 hours of child care and juggle for the rest of it, I feel constant, unrelenting guilt.
We were finally almost to the point where all three of them would’ve been in school full-time, and I was sort of patting myself on the back, all self-congratulatory about having managed to avoid center based day care during their childhoods when we discovered I was expecting baby number four. One of those no-birth-control-scenario-is-100%-effective cautionary tales. And honestly, I’m completely depressed about it. The thought of juggling for another five years just saps the life-force right out of me. I’ll try, I feel like it’s my responsibility to try - but it’s just incredibly hard, and I’m tired.
/depressing threadjack
Comment by Sue — April 24, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Oh, Sue, I feel for you. Hang in there.
Comment by Stephanie — April 24, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
There are certainly situations where having children are supported in the church. Bishops have counseled to wait until a marriage is stable, abuses are not present, parents are employed and of course, health concerns, not only for mother, but father as well. If we are commanded to have children, we are also commanded to care for and nurture them- read the proclamation to the family.
Judging someones choice to not have children due to their circumstances (no matter what that is) is sinful. Why is it that as Mormon’s we feel it is our right to question people as to their reasons for not having a child or another child. I got so sick of hearing, “isn’t it time to have another one?” It is nobodies business. Nosy and uppity Mormons are responsible for pushing people away from the church. Having children should be between a husband, wife and the Lord. Not the ward congregation.
Comment by shakti — April 24, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
#36. I agree. I personally do not care whether anyone else has children or not. And OF COURSE there are situations where postponing having children is appropriate (even according to church teachings). I’m just saying that the church teaches that the “multiply & replenish” injunction given in the OT and the temple is a commandment. Or is it not? Please enlighten me if I’m wrong about that.
Comment by Emily U — April 24, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Maybe this will help all you working mom’s feel better. I have worked FT for 8 years. I had my first two children while working full time. My daughter was in day care from 5 months, full time. My son was in day care full time from about 18 months (we had relatives at that time). I recently had #3 and was discussing child care with my kids. My daughter, who is now 8, asked if she was in daycare. I told her that she was. She could not remember a thing about it. My son could also not remember a thing about his old day care provider. But…they do remember the songs I sang them, the times we went to the park, the funny stories our family has and the sad ones. So, it made me feel a lot better about the time they spent in day care and way less guilty about it.
Now I am able to work part time and it is still a juggle, but we work it out. I am looking forward to #3 being 5 and him going to kindergarten. But, this is what I have learned…it all works out. Heavenly Father loves SAHMs as much as working moms. He will bless you in other ways. I know that even though I wanted to stay home with my kids, it just wasn’t possible, so I prayed for a good day care situation and we were always able to find one. I ended up really loving the ladies we left our kids with and they were awesome caregivers.
Just know that when you kids are old enough to not need day care, it will all be over and you will look back and wonder why you worried so much.
Comment by Katie — April 24, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
As far as commandments and such, this is EXACTLY why we have modern day revelation. I think in the last few years there has been really good council regarding single moms, working moms and the like. Mom’s worked in the OT, it just wasn’t for money. I am sure they didn’t just sit around gossiping. What about our fellow sisters in more agricultural communities and countries where economies are WAY worse then ours and women have always worked. I am sure a GA would not think worse of them and I am sure they do not think worse of us.
Comment by Katie — April 24, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
#27: “…it doesn’t have to be fancy to still cost more than a single salary can pay for in some parts of the country. Many jobs do not pay a living wage.”
I sometimes wonder if it the reason many couples need to both work is that so many other couples are already doing it. A two-income family can afford to spend more money on housing, which increases competition and drives up housing costs for everyone else. So, for a couple living in a metro area with a lot of dual-income families, housing is really expensive and the only way the couple can afford it is if they too both work.
On the other hand, if most families had only one income, housing would be less expensive and more one-income families could afford it.
In short, I posit that it takes two incomes today to match one income from the past because two incomes are the norm today, whereas one income was the norm in the past.
Comment by Kevin Owens — April 24, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Emily,
If someone is mentally ill, they could choose not to have children. There is one example. It may seem on the surface like a no-brainer, but it’s not.
There is a lot of gray in childbearing and choice and the commandment to replenish the earth. We almost all choose when to bear children and when to stop bearing children. It usually is a choice. It is not antithetical to the gospel to choose to have one or no children. None of us will ever know the exact reason someone else is choosing not to reproduce. But once the choice to have children is made, it is, in my opinion, best to spend every effort giving them a life bonded to the adults who created them, not shipping them off to other care centers for 100’s of hours of their tiny lives where they have much smaller chance of learning to bond to other humans in a healthy manner.
Comment by mmiles — April 24, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
Emily if you agree with #36, then you don’t need to ask me when it is ok not to have children. Therefore, I don’t understand your statement that it is against our theology to choose not to have children. I’m not following. Where’s the quibble?
Comment by mmiles — April 24, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Kevin, I posit that the idea that, back in the olden days, only one parent worked is simply a myth. It was true for the well-to-do majority group; but minority women have always worked for an income; poorer women have always worked for an income; and certainly before the industrial revolution women worked for economic gain.
Comment by Quimby — April 24, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
I think there are lots of reasons. I think the biggest one is it is just dang expensive. Where we used to live (CA-bay area) homes were at an average of 5K to 6K. There is NO WAY my husband and I would be able to do that on two salaries, let alone one. We have tried to space out the kids so that we only have to do one day care option at a time. Our community has a latchkey program (after school) care for elementary age, so both my kids go for like an hour two days a week. It really helps and is not too expensive ($14 a day). We also live in a less expensive community now. We have debts though, so it will take a while to be completely on one income, if it ever happens. Anyway, comparing with the past is kind of a moot point because we live in the present. How do we take care of present problems? The latch key program helps a lot. I think there could be other programs as well.
Comment by Katie — April 24, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Ditto Quimby. Women have always worked, they just have not always been paid. The idyllic “50’s” was just a blip in time. Sometimes I wonder if the old school GA’s started all the pressure of working v. staying home because that is what they lives, whereas the GA’s now are from more varied situations (and now countries). Things change with time…which is a good thing.
Comment by Katie — April 24, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
I agree with Kevin in many ways. There will always be the same number of families wanting to live in the same number of houses in nice neighborhoods. If each family decides to make a more money so they can get a house in a little nicer neighborhood it is still the same number of families competing for the same houses.
Here is something else that is interesting to think about. Women are willing to work for the necessities. Women are willing to work if it means stuff the family “needs” like housing. The best thing you can do is work not for the necessities. Your fixed expenses should be as low as possible. The family with two incomes that spends one entire income on complete crap is in a better place if one spouse gets laid off.
I’m a SAHM but if you are a working mom I encourage you to not feel guilty. Also, don’t try to assuage guilt feelings by thinking that you need every penny of your income.
I encourage you if you work now or will work and have kids in the future to view your second income not as what you “need” so you can justify it. Try to live on less and view your second income as legitimate income that insulates you from the recession if one of you gets laid off, income that makes it possible to save for retirement, income that makes it possible to build a savings account. Those are far better things that a slightly better house in a slightly better neighborhood and school clothes.
This is coming from someone whose husband was laid off. He has a job now but for less. It is amazing how you can just spend what you make no matter how much it is. We are lucky that we never went into debt, but everything from clothes to groceries expanded as our income did. Now that it has shrunk, we are able to spend half as much on groceries and when your daughter really something and you really don’t have enough money for it that week, you can get really creative.
Comment by jks — April 24, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
This idea that women never used to be employed simply does not hold up. If you examine, for instance, British census records, where occupation is listed, it’s very rare to see a woman who does not give an occupation. With the 1900 census you can actually go through entire neighbourhoods of towns and see that most women were employed for financial gain. In more rural areas women who were married to farmers worked on the farm which added to their family’s income. The option of a stay at home parent was something that was only available to the upper classes, and not to society as a whole.
Comment by Quimby — April 24, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
No one who puts their kids in daycare does it lightly. Period. I don’t care what your situation is, I have no right to tell you whether you should have your kids at home, in daycare, or with a nanny.
It disgusts me that any of us feel qualified to judge anyone else in this sort of decision.
Comment by Kate — April 24, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
mmiles -
I think we are talking past each other. I was assuming it would be a given that people have to be sane, fertile, married, and not a cancer patient, for instance, to be capable of living that commandment in this lifetime. I’m saying if you are a healthy, normal couple, I don’t think the church gives us the option to choose to NEVER have children. Of course, I think the church would agree that health reasons, including mental health reasons, could make it impossible for some people. But maybe this is my conservative Utah upbringing speaking here and in truth the church’s position on this is more liberal than what I thought.
Comment by Emily U — April 24, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Most here seem to agree that this doctor couple should have postponed having a baby.
I knew an LDS girl who was married and in her last year of medical school. She was called into YW, where they put her on the “hot seat” to get to know her. At some point, she said, “Sure I want to have kids, but since a residency takes 80 hours a week, I think I’ll be waiting until that is done.” I bet there are plenty of members who would jump in with “You shouldn’t POSTPONE” or “You should drop out” or all manner of other judgements. I have to believe she is following the Spirit and doing what is best for her.
Daycare is so touchy. We seem to think that everyone on this side of daycare is “right” and everyone on that side of daycare is “wrong.” Clearly, daycare is not the actual issue.
Let’s say I am 2 and I am with my mom, not in daycare, all day long. My 2 year old self could very easily spend all morning at the house while my mom does chores, I watch PBS Kids. Then lunch, which she spends blogging. Then I nap. Then I get strapped into my car seat to pick up my siblings from school and drive one to karate, one to piano, and one to the library, then back around for pick-up, then another hour of grocery shopping and errands. Along the way, I witness my mom and brother fighting about piano and my sister crying about her karate insecurities. Finally, we get home, snarf dinner and I go to bed. Have I REALLY had quality time with my mom? Might I have had a better, healthier day playing at daycare, running around with my friends with whom I have non-stop communicative interaction.
Comment by ESO — April 24, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
ESO, I think you give a good example. I felt really uncomfortable when we chose to send our 2 1/2-year-old son to preschool - and he was even in his father’s class! I felt like a failure as a mother, like I was choosing my education over my child. In fact, I was choosing my sanity over continuing to suffer. I was depressed and resentful. I was not a good parent. When my son went to school, and we spent some time apart every day, and he got to engage with the world as he so desperately needed (seriously, that kid requires at least two hours a day with other children), our relationship improved exponentially. The quantity of our time together may have decreased, but the quality improved so much, because I was able to relax and really enjoy being with him instead of being so stressed and strained. I didn’t put him in school to go to work to buy luxury items. I didn’t go to work at all at the time. And it was still a completely positive experience, and entirely the right decision for our family.
Even now, when I’m working so much, I know that the time I do spend with my children is of real quality - we read books, and play with clay, and ride bikes to the park, and pick dandelions, and generally have all those idyllic picture-book experiences that we almost NEVER had when I was a full-time SAHM.
I believe that young babies and children need to be with their PARENTS (not just mother) as much as possible, especially in the first months when they need a stable environment and to be held and touched and loved almost constantly. But I also recognize that this is a LUXURY that many people do not and will not ever have, and we should be SUPPORTING each other, not condemning.
I believe that my children, at least, do best with a good balance of at-home parenthood and out-of-the-home experiences. Choosing to allow our son to have some time with other adults and children was a very successful decision. I wouldn’t wish 50 hours a week of daycare on anyone, and I doubt that any parent would choose that unless they believed it was necessary - for whatever reason. But some daycare or early preschool probably provides more benefit than loss to young children, and maybe even for older babies and toddlers. And this is a crunchy-granola barefoot-hairy Waldorf-attachment mama speaking.
Bottom line: it’s nobody’s duty or ability to tell others when or whether they should have children and when or whether to put those kids in another adult’s care. And it’s nobody’s duty or ability to decide why others have made the choices they have. We should all have a more charitable thought than to assume that a mother put her kids in daycare because she had so many wants, not needs. Even if she did have so many wants, like wanting to work at a job she loves, wanting to have self-worth based on a paycheck, wanting to have a voice in the world, wanting a yacht, it’s none of your business. When you’ve completed the manual on turning out a perfect child, then maybe, maybe you can have a say in someone else’s choices. As far as I can tell, we’re all screwing up our children in equal measure, just in different ways.
Comment by Chandelle — April 24, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Emily, If the church’s teachings are so stern about having and not having children, then why haven’t we heard about people being X’d for not having children? AND why is it anyone’s business to ask why seemingly capable adults have not had children? I went through fertility issues and was never asked in a TR interview why I had no children. It was just those busy body RS women who thought it their business. I think you can certainly chalk your upraising to this one. Time to experience the rest of the world without passing judgment?
Comment by shakti — April 24, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
This is from the church’s website. While there’s definitely some wiggle room, I don’t see how this statement can be bent into support for a couple choosing not to have children so that the wife can pursue a lucrative or desired career. And making excommunication the standard for whether the church teaches something is absurd - you can break a lot of rules and remain a member.
Comment by cheeriogal — April 24, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Thank you to all that have shared your stories about how childcare worked for you. I really appreciate your advice.
Comment by Hokie — April 24, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
52 - Good grief, I have experienced the rest of the world quite a bit and I am passing judgment on no one. I am simply stating what the church’s position is on this. I am not even saying it is a correct or desirable position, simply that it is.
“obligation to bear children”
Thanks, cheeriogal.
Comment by Emily U — April 24, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
I think it is important to remember that the church also counsels women to get all the education they can. This does not mean that all women should be enrolled in an elementary education program while waiting for the right guy at BYU to propose to them. The church’s teachings about having children are not stern, but we are taught that we are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. Period. There is no directive that tells us how soon after we are married we should do this. There is also no explicit instruction that mormon children should never be in day care. That is because these types of decisions are left to the couple to make with the Lord, through personal family revelation. If a woman who is married decides to take on a rigorous educational program, and either chooses or ends up pregnant unexpectedly, what she chooses to do with her life in terms of child care and completing her education is a decision that she, her husband, and the Lord can counsel together to make.The leadership of the church in no way dictates what families are to do with their children, other than to counsel them and nurture them and teach them in the ways of the restored gospel. The details are up to each individual family.
I have been a single mom of 3 kids for the last 6 years. I am literally 2 weeks from graduation from Law School. I moved my kids out of the state where their father lives to go to law school, and I also have no family of my own here to help me. Fortunately, there is an excellent after school program at my kids school that has been affordable and has provided safe, fun, stimulating care for my kids. They love it and on the rare occasion that I am able to pick them up early, they ask why I am there, and can they stay longer. Day care has not been a negative thing for my children. Law school also has not harmed them in any way. They know how to behave themselves in graduate school classes. They know the value of completing an education to get a good job to provide for your family. They know the importance of making good choices and also to follow the spirit when making any decision that affects your family. I never would have entered into this challenging education without the absolute support of my Father in Heaven. It has been the best 3 years through Hell that I could have asked for. I started law school when my youngest child was in kindergarten, and my kids are going to be the loudest ones cheering for me when I walk across that stage on May 9th. They are just as proud of this accomplishment as I am. And they should be, because they have had to grow up a lot quicker than other kids their age, but they are better for it.
Also, I feel compelled to add that there have been several people in my ward who have helped me considerably with my kids. From watching them so I can study extra for finals or picking them up from school 2 nights a week for an entire semester because I had a late class, they have provided a service for me that is immeasurable. And that is something that we should be doing as members of the church. Not judging someone for their choices, but offering to help where we are able to provide service for one another to make the burdens of this life easier to bear. Only the Savior knows our hearts and only He is worthy to judge any of us.
Someone once told me when I was going through my divorce (at 29) that the Lord knew that my kids were going to have to go through this when they came to my family, so Heavenly Father equipped them with talents and abilities for the life they came here to live. Kids are amazingly resilient. It is also a complete fallacy to believe that there is only one “ideal” way for a child to grow up. Life is absolutely NOT meant to be that narrow and one sided.
And just for the record, it is also an absolute fallacy to think that historically women stayed at home. Women have worked since the beginning of time. The whole feminist “Movement” started in the 60’s because for the first time, there was a very small percentage of white, middle class women who were staying at home and were completely unfulfilled. Women have always worked, just not received much recognition or pay for their contribution. But, hopefully the Lilly Ledbetter act that Obama just signed will help to change some of that inequality.
Yes, I am LDS. I am a working mom who is feminist. I believe we not only need to be more gentle with ourselves, but we need to realize that raising kids, while a sacrifice for sure, does not mean that we cease to be individuals with brains and needs and aspirations. I also want to add that I think it is OK to tell nosy RS women (and their husbands) who ask when you are going to have a baby, or if your kids are in day care that it is NONE of their business.
Comment by llnelso3 — April 24, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
#40 - there was a book written that sounds almost exactly like your comments - “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-class Mothers and Fathers are Going Broke” by Elizabeth Warren & Amelia Warren Tyagi (mother and daughter team). They compare the financial situation of families today with families a generation ago (1970s - when my mom started having kids).
One thing they talk about is the bidding war for homes in good school districts, and how the mothers who entered the workforce first initially gave their families an advantage in purchasing more home, but as homes got more expensive because the families had more to bid with, two average incomes began to be a requirement just to get a home. So, now it either takes two average incomes or one really good income just to buy a house in a decent school district. (Interesting tidbit is that banks used to ignore the income of mothers in qualifying for mortgages because the average working mother contributed 25% to the family budget, and the banks assumed she would leave the workforce at any time. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1975 required banks to consider the wife’s income in qualifying for a loan).
Another point of the book is what someone else pointed out here - having a parent who is not working or only using the pay from one parent for fun or savings is the best financial safety net. When both parents are working and the family relies on both incomes to meet basic bills, when something happens to one parents, it is devastating to the family budget because there is no safety net to make up for that income. A lot of bankruptcies come from situations like this.
And the families who hurt the most now are single parents homes because they have no way to compete with dual-earning homes.
The point of the book is that we are trapped now and many mothers have to enter the workforce just to live in a safe neighborhood with a decent school.
And lest you think they are conservatives or religionists or something researching this to encourage women to stay at home, they are not. Their point isn’t that mothers need to go back home - it is that government needs to help families out (right up Quimby’s alley
) I admit I’m not crazy about all of their solutions (some make sense to me), but I really like their research and analysis of the problem.
Comment by Stephanie — April 24, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
And this appears to be true when you compare today to early 1970s. On an inflation adjusted basis, a single income family in the early 1970s made $38,700 (median). After taxes, mortage payment, health insurance, and other fixed expenses (one car), they have $17,834 left in discretionary income.
Today, a similar couple with two working parents would make $67,800 - 75% more than back then ($39,000 of that is the man’s salary. Yes, there is a wage gap, and his wage has remained stagnant). But, with the taxes, higher mortgage, child care expenses, higher health insurance costs, etc. their discretionary income is $17,045 - LESS than a single income family a generation ago. (these stats are in the book)
So, it does appear that in the past 30 years at least, it is requiring two incomes to maintain the same standard of living as one used to.
They refute what they call the “Overconsumption Myth” in the book - that moms are working to buy more stuff. Moms are working to maintain the same standard of living that one income used to provide.
Comment by Stephanie — April 24, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
ESO #50 - it’s sad that I see my two year old’s life in your description.
Comment by Stephanie — April 24, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
I am a SAHM, but I think my kids need me at all ages, not just those first couple of years. I send my children to school and I can live with that with no guilt. I really want to be around for them when they are not in school……but I do not think I need to be spending “quality time” with them all the time. I see no problem with my youngest baby getting attention from siblings who do things that I used to have to do for my earlier babies.
I think as a parent I want to be in charge. I can be in charge but still let my son get the baby out of bed each morning and bring me the ready made bottle in the fridge. You can be in charge and still send your kid to daycare or school for a few hours. At a certain point–after too many hours you start to feel like you aren’t really monitering or knowing or in charge of your child.
Where is that line? Who knows. Each family needs to figure that out for themselves and their children.
I definitely think that most parents do try to figure it out when it comes to choosing to have another child and choosing daycare or no daycare.
I am surprised no one has discussed Emily U’s issue with feeling bad about his daycare hours and it affecting the time she spends with him. Is this guilt affecting her parenting in a negative way? Toddlers can be demanding. I had an especially difficult first toddler who wanted to interact with me constantly. I suggest you make sure you keep your priorities straight. You are the parent and in charge. Be consistant and say what you mean. Find time for your marriage. But by all means, play with your toddler.
Comment by jks — April 24, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
jks, I agree that children need us at all ages, but I do think the need decreases as they get older. By age 18, they need to be able to live on their own, so the process of 0-18 is teaching them to become self-reliant. Actually (having helped raise my teenage brother for the last three years of high school), I think a lot of it is being available for when they decide they need us (2 in the morning was common - that’s when teens seem to like to talk).
Comment by Stephanie — April 25, 2009 @ 10:31 am
This may piss some people off, but I feel the need to say it.
Not everyone has a choice about whether or not they have kids. But… for those educated people out there, who are able to reproduce, you certainly have a choice. You don’t have to get married while still in school. You can wait. And certainly, understanding partners will stay with you. Get that stable job. Its sad to hear people whining about having kids and having to put them in daycare because they don’t have a choice. Choices led you there. Multiply all you want, but choices led you there.
Comment by Nonnie — April 25, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Nonnie, as already pointed out, many people will never be in a such a privileged situation that they can avoid childcare. Are you saying that people who work low-paying jobs - which can be the case even with an education, and even with job stability - should not be allowed to have children? What are you proposing we should do to prevent such individuals from reproducing? What about families where there is a job loss, divorce, disability or death? Should the children in these families be removed to privileged families where one income is sufficient? And what is the line of what is sufficient for a family? Is childcare of any sort, at any age, under any circumstances, an incorrect choice?
Comment by Chandelle — April 25, 2009 @ 11:29 am
I also appreciate everyone sharing their stories of how child care (whether by themselves, family, or outside care takes) has worked for them.
jks, my toddler sounds like your oldest child. He wants my attention every second of the day, and it’s quite a challenge. I’m told this a common first child phenomenon. Your advice is good.
Comment by Emily U — April 25, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
I know I constantly worry about putting my tot in daycare. He was in one once, for the brief time that I worked. He has a very special diet, because he’s a vegetarian and only eats organic, and even getting the daycare providers to do that was a struggle. It was a rather decent daycare, but I worry and fear about putting him in another one. I will have to eventually, as I am going to school and will be working, so then what time is there left for my son to know who mommy is. Then daddy is here and there thanks to these wonderful deployments and I honestly fear taking the stability of having me around, even though daddy sometimes isn’t. Plus my son is my little prince as he should be, but I don’t want to be a stay-at-home mom. Its not for me. I like working, and I’m not knocking any of you other wonderful ladies, because housewifing it is no joke. The most you can do is constantly reassure them that you love them, spend as much quality time as possible with them. Pray, live and let live. Good luck!
Comment by Julez — April 25, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
I think there are a couple of people taking my comments the wrong way, which is cool, I realize when my communication is lacking.
Let me repeat that I see no problem with childcare when parents still remain an important part of their children’s lives. Notice that this statement contains nothing about WHY the kids are in daycare.
My point above was that some people DO have a choice, but they choose to live a life where they fullfill lots of their WANTS.
All of these are personal (or familial) decisions and I see no reason to judge them. I was just trying to point out that there are also people who are in a situation where they can, but choose not to. I was not trying to judge them, just trying to include them in the conversation
Comment by britt — April 25, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Many of these people could get by (even comfortably) on one salary (man or woman) if they lived in a more modest home, owned less stuff and enjoyed life without the 18 activities a week…I just know that when people complain that they can’t get by I think it is because they chose to have too much when they could get by with much less…
That sounds a little more hostile and judgmental than “just trying to include them in the conversation.” Did you mean it sort of like, “Hey, shout-out to all you greedy, overscheduled, McMansion families out there!”?
Comment by Chandelle — April 25, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Even with a stay at home parent, our oldest is in day care 5 hours a week. We think it’s important for her social development to spend time with other children and adults. Particularly with a baby in the house it gives her some “big girl” time and something special to look forward to. This term they’re growing a hydroponic garden so that they can eat their own vegetables. While theoretically we could grow a garden at home, in reality I kill every plant I touch, so this is good for her.
Comment by Quimby — April 25, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
britt - I think it’s important to realise that everyone has a different definition of “need” - and sometimes, what you or I might think of as superfluous is really a need for someone else. Obviously we all have the same basic primary needs (food, shelter, water, love) but when we get to that secondary level, where we get to interpret those primary needs, we will all have different interpretations. And that’s fine. It doesn’t mean that only one way of doing it is right and all the rest are wrong. (Because I worry about the environment I would hope that we would all take steps to offset the environmental costs of our choices; but again there’s a wide variety of ways to do that.)
If we take housing as an example, I live in a too-large house on several acres that makes use of quite a bit of reclaimed materials - the bricks are about 100 years old, the kitchen counter is reclaimed floorboard, etc. For me it fills my need for shelter. I miss living in the city and sometimes daydream about moving to a small flat in the heart of the city; but at the same time I feel a need for all of this space. I think about moving to a small 2 or 3 bedroom flat in the city and my first thought is, “Where would we put the kids’ toys? Would we have a dining room large enough for my table? I spent 5 years looking for that thing, I’m not about to get rid of it.” I know there are people who live in small flats in the city who couldn’t live in my home. (Some of them are my friends.) Their first thought would be, “Where can I get a decent cup of coffee? How far is it to the nearest corner shop?” Their needs are different, and that’s fine.
Comment by Quimby — April 25, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Many children spend the majority of their days in school when they get to that age. I plan on staying home while my children are young. I have 4, almost five and the oldest is six. It would be expensive for me to send them to daycare. While they are young, they don’t need as much space. We try not to buy to many toys, since they already have more than plenty.
When my youngest starts school, I can get a part time job and we can expand our living space. Our children will be older and need more space, food, etc.
That’s my plan. Of course, we’ll see what happens.
Comment by JJ — April 25, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
I am unexpectedly unemployed. Luckily, my husband got a new job that will pay all our bills. But, the original plan was for the toddler to go to daycare when he started the new job. After looking into all these daycares, I actually feel bad that my daughter is just getting me instead of all the neat stuff these programs offer. But I can not imagine finding a job that would pay well enough to justify daycare is you had more kids. In my job hunting, I have crossed off several jobs because if you subtract out the cost of daycare, they just aren’t worth it.
Comment by Tami — April 25, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
What seems a zillion years ago as a young couple in California in the 70s and in the church the working situation of most of the mothers of young families with children in our wards was: Moms worked and a friend in the ward did home day care for her, so essentially both were working. Almost all the moms in several wards I lived in we either babysat for others or were the working mom. No one could quite make ends meet with out some income supplementing the family. That included us when kids came along.
I don’t think having children should be limited to only those who can afford to be SAHMs, but if all families should feel comfortable having only one or two kids if that is all they can afford to modestly raise in safe environments whether Mom has to work or not.
Comment by GatoraideMomma — April 25, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
I have read a lot of the thoughtful comments from this blog, but I seem to notice on piece that seems to be missing- I might be biased in this regard.
Every post discussed discusses whether two incomes are needed, whether a person should have kids, etc… Every post seems to suggest that you are guaranteed the perfect kid and so the only questions that need to be looked at are parental…or women’s choices. But every pregnancy has the possibility of a child that has a difficulty. And what happens to your family when that happens. I can give you a few ideas from personal experience.
1. The church members will divide into two groups on the child issue. The first group will tell you that “you are a saint and God really picked the right one for the job” as they walk by and give no help. That group will also suggest that you need to have more children ( or the random few in the primary who ask why you had kids since your health - the mom’s- is so messed up. The parent’s of special needs children will be expected by almost all members to be able to bear the added expense and added needs at home and at church on their own with no help from the church. Unless the parents are rich, this is impossible on almost any income. The second group which will consist of approximately three members who will not really judge and will try to help- most of the time these members will be unable to help as they have disabled family members themselves!
2. Handling the expense that comes with a child with less traditional needs is tough! I cannot emphasize that enough. I am very blssed as my husband was disabled at work right before my son was born and we have $2000 a month in income with both parents at home. That is the only thing that has kept my son at home and not in an institutional setting. If either my husband or I go to work, we lose our son, period. The church is no help, the state is as little as possible, insurance fights everythingf and so my son’s unreimbursed medical expenses averge $2000 a month. When you do the math, you probably understand why I have ignored health problems, only eat one meal a day and feel generally stressed.
I do not mention this for sympathy- I mention this because for some daycare is not a want or need… It isn’t even an option. That is why we can not ever judge anyone on what is a need or want, on how much money you ‘need’, or when and if you have children. In the end, it’s between no one but you and your Father.
Comment by Sonia — April 26, 2009 @ 11:16 am
“After looking into all these daycares, I actually feel bad that my daughter is just getting me instead of all the neat stuff these programs offer.”
Yeah, I used to have these these staunch one-sides views that SAHM was the only right way and daycares were just “somebody else raising your kids” or “why even have them if you won’t be there for them” or just things selfish people thought they needed when really they couldn’t trim the wants out of their budgets.
Anyway, real life intervened on two fronts. First, I had an autistic child who needed top-notch care, and we won a settlement so we didn’t have to pay for it. This led me to tour endless preschools looking for the right place when he was 4. Many were just average but many were fantastic, enriching, loving, thriving places that any child would be blessed to attend. Honestly, I cried on his first day with gratitude that he could have 20 hours a week at this school. Then we upped it to 30. This school takes children ages 2-6 and is not a “special needs” school, it was just the right inclusion setting for him.
OK, long story short, he has younger siblings and you’d better believe I’ll do all I can to send them to that same place on my own dime. There were plenty of years where between the special-needs big brother and the work-at-home-mom those toddlers lives sounded too much like the day detailed above of a 2 years old in the TV-nap-car routine. They deserve a better day, and this preschool or center or whatever you want to call it, is an amazing way to get that. They get the best materials, passionate and devoted teachers, a full day gardening each week, lots of singing and yoga and spanish, 4:1 staff ratios, all foods are fresh-cooked and organic. I couldn’t possibly create such a program in my own home. I don’t have the training, the passion, the materials, the children. And even if I was the rare mom whose talents and training were there, I am burned out! see autistic older brother and years of working-at-home!
My oldest has 6 hours of school a day plus 3 hours aftercare. My younger kids go in the range of 25-35 hours a week and they are just blossoming and thriving and our time together is finally relaxed, appreciated, and fun! It’s like Chandelle said, only now are we finally having those idyllic moments together. When it was 24/7 it was worse for us all.
Comment by cchrissyy — April 26, 2009 @ 11:42 am
cchrissyy- Yours is an excellent argument for daycare being the better option. Like so many other decisions we make within our families, the solution is dependent on so many variables. That’s why judging someone else around their particular set up is something to avoid. It’s not that we cannot all have an opinion (and usually our particular choices reflect our opinions), but in lacking the direct experience- either being a single parent, a parent of a special needs child or just plain knowing that staying home would bring you to the brink of suicide…well, I’d rather give other people who know themselves and their own situation the benefit of the doubt.
Comment by Kimberly — April 26, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
“Should poor women all be on permanent birth control? Or should poor mothers be on welfare rather than at work?”
this is an interesting question…incidentally planned parenthood (an organization i support) was founded by a woman who wanted to increase access to birth control for poor women as a system of population control along the lines of eugenics…ie no more poor people. how lovely for the upper classes.
i am def. pro birth control, pro choice, etc. but i do think the implications of both are deeper than “more freedom” “more control over my body.” they have resulted in a greater need/expectation/opportunity for women to work and an undue burden on the poor to not have children/to rent them out, among other things.
i used to work in a preschool/daycare, where lots of our kids were full time. we were a very, very nice preschool but there’s no denying the pain it caused some of the kids when mom or dad would leave in the morning. some would just cry all day. im not judging the parents, but you can’t deny the kids’ pain either.
Comment by nobodyputsbabyinacorner — April 26, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
llnelso3 — congratulations!!!!!! And kudos to the people in your ward who have stepped in where they saw a need. THAT, for me, is the very definition of living the gospel.
Comment by Libby — April 26, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Amen to Janet!! (comment #7)…. A-freaking-MEN!
Comment by Joanna — April 26, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
I must say, I am neither priveleged, nor middle aged and I am able to stay home with my children. I was raised by a single mom and my husband comes from a low-income family as well. *I know there are many situations where the money just isn’t there and mom has to work. But let me tell you, many times it is possible! We make it by! Miraculously, we make it by. We sacrifice a lot. We don’t have fancy things. My husband is in school getting a PhD. But we get by! Me being able to stay home with my children is more valuable to me than having nice things or having a career right now. And if you are willing and if you do your part, God makes up the difference. God blesses you. I know that having children at home constitutes only a fraction of my life and that they will be grown and gone all too soon. Then I will have plenty of time to work and chase my “dreams” and have nice things. And I’ll know I that I didn’t do it at my the cost of my children or my time spent with them.
Comment by not worth it — April 27, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Oh this subject makes my mind boil sometimes. My daughter is watched by my mom. I work, my husband goes to school and we would not get by without my working.
Having said that, my goodness people stop assuming that other people could do it if they just lived differently. Stop thinking that those of us who live the situations we do have not pondered, prayed, and agonized. Stop thinking that we just do not manage our money or resources or just have too many luxuries. I cannot remember the last time I had a luxury. Stop thinking that we should not have children if we cannont stay home. What should we have done? Stayed single? Had an abortion? I am so glad that people can stay home, good for you. I can’t. I pray, I have inspiration that tells me to work. Stop thinking I do not sacrifice. I do, you do, we all do. I am proud of you for living your convictions. Stop looking down on me for living mine.
Comment by just me — April 28, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
My personal opinion is that that is between the parents and the Lord. For some it may be the right option for others it may not be. Some may be making that decision based on selfish desires. Others may be doing it because they are doing exactly what they should be doing in their lives. To me it’s all a matter of prayer.
My husband and I share time watching the kids…he works from home, and watches them when I do my shifts at the hospital I work at. Both of us have felt guided and directed in the direction that we have taken and feel like we are where we are supposed to be. There are times I feel guilty for not staying at home, and there are times when my husband feels guilty for not providing completely for the family. But, we have both prayed extensively about this and have received what we have felt was inspiration on this matter. Others may receive a different answer. It’s all a matter of what is really needed at this time for you to do and what will help you fulfill your purpose here. And really only the Lord and you can answer that question.
Comment by Rachel Leavitt — April 29, 2009 @ 10:06 am
It’s such a personal decision. But to me, no, not worth the price. And, no, you don’t have to be middle-aged/privileged to have children.
I’m a SAHM. I’ve had so many people, who live in huge houses and drive fancy cars, tell me, “Wow. It must be nice to stay at home with your kids. I wish I could do that.”
And it’s hard to bite my tongue, and not say, “Well, you could if you wanted to…” I’m not judging those who do work, because that’s a decision between spouses and the Lord. I firmly believe that there are woman who are better mothers because they get out and work outside the home, and those who stay at home who really shouldn’t, and those that have to work.
BUT, for our family, we have made the choice to survive on my husband’s 40k job, live in a small apartment, strive to stay out of debt/get of debt the best that we can, so that I CAN stay at home. Because I know personally it’s where I need to be.
Comment by Allison — April 29, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
What about saving for retirement? For those who stay at home and live pay check to pay check, what is your plan for retirement? Did you know that you should be saving 10% at least. I think that every married couple should figure this out. I will have to work when my husband and I have kids and this is after waiting 6 years to be more stable. I don’t want to live pay check to pay check, and think its important to save money for the future so working is in my future.
Comment by Emily — May 11, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
Oh, also it is right for our husbands to be expected 80 hours a week so they can support 6 kids and the mom can stay at home? I am not sure that I want the kind of relationship where I never see my husband and sacrifice my life for my children. I want to have a balanced life and have a co-parenting relationship with my husband.
Comment by Emily — May 11, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Emily, we hardly live in a time when one parent working an 8-5 job will support a family and its retirement/savings needs. Each family has to decide what it will sacrifice and what it won’t.
Comment by Stephanie — May 11, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
I agree with Stephanie that it’s a choice that every family has to make on their own, but I can definitely see Emily’s point. I have a friend who is going through some pretty massive problems at the moment because her husband is constantly working, and he works odd hours on very little notice. So, he’ll leave for work around 6 AM, and then around 7 or 8 at night he’ll call up to say, “Oh, yeah, I forgot to tell you, I’ll be home around midnight tonight because some more work came in.” In that same situation I think I’d be more comfortable getting a part-time job to relieve some of the financial burden (and to get out of the house and away from kids, but I’m a bad mommy like that) than having a spouse who was gone all the time (and probably felt like he was just being kept around for the paycheck).
Comment by Quimby — May 11, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
The problem is that some careers are not conducive to cutting down hours. It could be a career-killer to cut back in some cases.
Yes, there are drawbacks to husbands who work really long hours (I know - for most of our marriage, my husband worked about 65 hours a week and is currently down to 50 - it would be more if he didn’t commute by train 3 hours a day).
I guess I feel that saying Oh, also it is right for our husbands to be expected 80 hours a week so they can support 6 kids and the mom can stay at home? is as hurtful as saying something about a mom working outside the home as being “wrong”. The statement itself implies selfishness, but there are a lot of factors to consider, so for some families, it is entirely “right” for a husband to work 80 hours a week to support 6 kids and a SAHM (I have a lot of friends from my old ward in this boat. They hate it, but they also plan on it being temporary as they build their careers).
Comment by Stephanie — May 11, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
I think it would help if we removed the word “selfish” from this conversation. Sometimes staying at home is selfish; sometimes working outside the home is selfish; more generally both choices are motivated by a desire to do the best thing in a specific set of circumstances.
I am going through a period of time now where so very many of my friends are going through divorce or very difficult times in their marriage, and those problems are exercerbated by the stress of small children and a spouse who is absent for many hours. I think a lot of what Emily said just hit home to me in light of what my friends are going through.
Comment by Quimby — May 11, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
It definitely does put a lot of strain on a marriage.
Comment by Stephanie — May 11, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Another problem with having both parents work to try to make more money is that daycare costs a lot of money. So, you have to subtract that cost from whatever pay you are receiving. If you have 6 kids, that can be a very large barrier to overcome.
Comment by Tami — May 12, 2009 @ 12:13 am
There are costs and benefits for doing both, but like Quimby said, mostly likely everyone is making their decisions based on what is best for their family. And if they aren’t motivated by the benefit of their family-then what does it matter? Why do we even have to discuss and try to break down whether or not a woman is justified in working vs. staying at home? I really hate seeing anyone labeled as selfish, especially when it comes to matters of stay at home verses work. This is such a difficult topic for woman on both sides of the fence because they all feel they are doing what they think is best. But what is best for them surely won’t be for everyone else. I am proud of the woman who does whatever she decides to do and doesn’t give the other side crap for it. And as for the woman in the original post who is putting her child in daycare as she goes to school-good for her. She made her decision and hey I think it is awesome that she has the energy to do all of that. And for all of the mothers who do everything they can to stay at home-good for them. I don’t have kids but I loathe the fact that someday I will have to defend my position on the choice I will have to make -whether it is stay at home or working.
Comment by Obee — May 12, 2009 @ 1:18 am