Sorry guys, gotta go with Jeff on this one. Some things in life are WAY more important than others.

I also agree - to some extent.

We don't know how much time the mother is away; some short nanny-time won't hurt and has been very common thru history. Obviously, this one is not a good one.

..."become a real mom". What a sanctimonious load of crap.

^^^^ yep. Sorry Mr Higgins...not right at all.

Nothing wrong with a nanny from the time school is out to the time parents get home. It's what happens after that that counts. I'm afraid many parents fail in the time they have so having a LOT more time may not solve any problems.

Higgins, you might have to bend a little here.

I still think his overall point is a good one -- as long as it isn't pushed too far.

One thing to consider of course is that the little one is 3 and has special needs.

I would be even more cautious than usual entrusting the care (not parenting) of my child to someone in this instance. I would want someone who can demonstrate relevant experience in whatever special needs little one has.

Parenting encompasses so much more than a few hours extra a day spent with your kids. You all know this; you're intelligent men ;).

What makes a good Mum isn't spending 24/7 with her kids.

Now, what makes a good Dad???

Now that's what i'd call ironic.

Oh, I know, that came off a bit more harsh than intended. My apologies.

I'm inferring from the nature of the situation described that she is a "full time" nanny. He did say his wife is working and the kid is only three. With special needs at that.

I have no issues whatsoever with a few hours of after school care to fill the gap between when the kids get home and the parents get home. My issue is with full time nannies and daycare for children that should be at home with their own mom.

I believe modern society has pushed women (and men) into unnatural roles in some misguided zeal to be "progressive" or "modern". Women have been pushed into ever more masculine roles, and men have been expected to abandon the traditional vestiges of manhood. I'm sure the "progressive" elements of our society that have been pushing these changes would be tickled pink to see men and women meet somewhere in the middle, with no clear distinctions left between the two.

Problem is, everything they hope for flies in the very face of human nature. The fallout from these efforts could keep us busy discussing and debating forever, so I'll stick to the original issue - child rearing.

Let's face it - women are eminently more suited to the nurturing of our children than men can ever hope to be. And no one, no matter what they are paid, no matter how loving and caring they can be, will ever replace mommy's love and affection. Truth be told, even in a healthy, normal family, daddy can't even do that. Particularly for infants, that aspect of their relationship with their mother is the most critical thing in their young lives. It is not something that can be provided by anyone else. It's not something that mommy can provide on a part-time basis, when she is done with "more important" things. Nothing is more important...

Every couple I have ever known who employ a nanny, or drop the kid(s) off at full-time daycare, justify this behavior by claiming mom "has" to work. Yup - she "has" to work so they can live in the right house in the right neighborhood. She "has" to work so he can drive a Porsche. She "has" to work so they can take expensive vacations (often leaving the children at home with relatives). She "has" to work so they can go out for fancy dinners, be members of the right country club or tennis club.

Most often, though, it seems she "has" to work because if she didn't, why, she would be "just" a mom. Pretty tough on her at the cocktail parties and other social events where all the career women look upon her with scorn and derision, with their ill-founded superiority complexes placing the "mom" well down at the bottom of their pecking order. My wife endured this when she abandoned her career to be home with our young children. She told me at the time just how catty women are in this regard, and how humiliating it was for her to have to listen to that kind of nonsense from those women.

Fortunately, she had the self confidence and strength of will to endure all of that. She resumed her career when both kids were in school full time. We adjusted our schedules so she dropped them off in the morning and I picked them up after school. We came out of her non-working years in a bit deeper of a hole financially than we had anticipated, but we made do. We never lived in the "right" house in the "right" neighborhood and drove the "right" cars to the "right" clubs or any of that. We made do, because we had made that commitment when we decided to undertake the most awesome responsibility ever entrusted to mankind - raising the next generation.

Funny, now, after having been married 25 years and having raised two wonderful boys, most of those oh-so-superior women have been divorced (some more than once), their kids have almost universally been in one form of trouble or another (some dropping out of school, some knocking up or getting knocked up, some with records already, and on and on), and their relationships with their kids are virtually non-existent.

Funny, too, now that I'm middle aged, I have never met a woman who says "I wish I has spent less time with my children when they were little".

Exactly....

Sorry Jeff still a little too pompous. Not everyone's situation is the same. Example, if the wife is in a career in which you can't simply return to the work force after a 5 year absence. Same is true if I left career for 5 years. Nobody would want to give me privileges with that kind of absence.

I know I wouldn't want to spend all day at home with the intellectual stimulation provided by a 4 year old. I don't know why a female parent would find it any less constricting.

"I believe modern society has pushed women (and men) into unnatural roles in some misguided zeal to be "progressive" or "modern". Women have been pushed into ever more masculine roles, and men have been expected to abandon the traditional vestiges of manhood."

Lots of women would argue that society pushes them into the traditional role of breeders and that if they have ambitions beyond motherhood they are looked down on as too aggressive and un-feminine.

Sorry Peter, far too selfish.

My wife is a nurse. It did take some time and effort to re-enter her career. Lots of classes, had to sit for boards again, start back on the "bottom" at virtually an entry level position, and all of that. Ten years later, she is now the nursing supervisor over half a dozen clinics in one of the largest asthma/allergy practices in Washington, with 150 some odd nurses working for her. She made it work, but it took one hell of a lot more effort (and money) than if she had farmed out our child rearing.

So, no, not everyone's situation is the same. Neither are everyone's priorities. We make the things work that are priorities for us. If your (or her) career takes priority over your children, well, I feel very sorry for your children. They only get one shot at being your kids, and you only get one shot at being their parents. They are totally at your mercy. I, for one (and my wife as well) would hate to ever have to tell our sons that either of our careers were more important to us than them. Or, worse yet, to have to lie to them and tell them they were more important than our careers, when our actions very clearly demonstrated otherwise.

Yeah, providing a house, food etc for their growing up years does sound pretty selfish.

EDIT: And don't forget the expected $200K in expenses for higher educ for each of them. Plus fund retirement (hopefully), all after starting to really work after age 35. (& no we are not in a country club, and yes the GT3 is going away - wanna buy it?)

you left out 'she "has" to work so she can advance her career as an OB/GYN'

It would have been selfish for me NOT to work. The kids would not have had anything like the opportunities we've been able to provide for them otherwise.

Over the years that would have meant -
no after school sports, dance, swimming etc.
no weekends away
no holidays
there's more but you get the gist.

The children also gained an enormous amount from attending really good childcare centres. The learning programs were excellent and the opportunity to socialise with lots of kids their own age gave them all great confidence from a very early age. And they absolutely loved the primary school after care programs.

I didn't have a choice. I would have let 3 generations down if I didn't work. Family biz is like that...I worked for Mum and Dad, I worked for Mike and I and I worked for our children. I still work for 2 generations (us and the kids).

Jeff,

what you are saying is very noble. But we don't live in an ideal world and money to live has to come from somewhere...

Otherwise it would only be the rich who had children...that's a bit Hitler-esque for me. It takes all kinds to make this world go round...selective breeding to this extent won't contribute to the tapestry of the ball we live on .

Not everyone can afford the re-training either to re-enter the workforce like your good wife. Some know they wouldn't stand a chance getting back in, so they stay and make the work/family life balance thing work for them.

Mr Higgins, my Mother practiced as an anesthesiologist for 40 years. You take the position that she was motivated by greed and selfishness.

To you, her career, the thousands and thousands of people she cared for, the years she served as Chief of Staff, Chief of Anesthesia are all tainted. This could not be further from the truth.

You have a wrong headed perception regarding this subject that causes me to question how you have come to the beliefs you hold about it.

Lots of good discussion here. Lots of shades of points of view.

In Jeff's defense, I can see that he and his wife made sacrifices in order to give their kids the best parenting they knew how to give them, and it worked out all around.

The core of Jeff's position...

...is something we all know about and have seen. Parents make choices everyday that impact their kids' lives in one way or the other.

Jeff and his wife took the best path they knew how to take, lived within their means, and have been rewarded for it.

Others have done things differently and have had it work out for them, too.

IMO, if more parents did their best to follow the path Jeff and his wife took, more kids would "turn out better."

I believe his position provides for a higher percentage of positive results on the whole parenting situation.

Just based on life experience and observation, of course.

Of course not. Why do you feel the need to resort to such patently absurd extremes in an effort to make your point?

Anyway, no, providing food, shelter, and clothing in no way sounds selfish - but the '79 930, 2.7T A6, Odyssey kid carrier, Accord sacrificial lamb, and 997 GT3RS sure do.

Oh, but wait - you are willing to "sacrifice" the GT3RS. What a guy. When our kids were young, we had two cars - one for each of us. Mine was a '71 Land Cruiser, hers was an '84 Mercury Lynx station wagon. We didn't "need" two cars apiece (and that's only after you "sacrifice" that GT3RS...).

We paid (actually still paying for the second) for both of our sons' college educations. My retirement savings are very healthy, thank you. And this is on an engineer's and a nurse's (interrupted) salary. Aren't you some kind of surgeon or something?

Not in a country club. Wow. How do you survive? I bet you still live in the "right" house in the "right" neighborhood with a mortgage that would shock a lot of folks even on this BBS flush with over-achievers.

In some families, it could be the husband who stays home as the wife makes more money (just thought I'd throw that out there just for the heck of it).

Also, in my humble opinion, the "stay home while young" thing is a little over-rated. If you want to stay home for 4 or 5 years to nurture your children, then do it while they are teenagers... They need good parenting more as a teenager then they do as a toddler.

angela

Angela, if you don't get them straight when they are young, I don't think the teen-age years are going to go well.

My mother was a stay at home mom from 1963-1977. I think it helped our family a lot. I do agree it doesn't have to be the mother.

I Don't really agree Angela. When I was a teenager, by the time I came home from after school sports practice, band practice or other after school activites, my parents were home from work. As a younger child, I liked coming home from school and having my Mom there. But of course, everyones experience is different.

I'm fortunate that my work schedule is flexible enough that I'm able to pick up and drop off my girls to school at least three times every week. Their mother does it otherwise.

I think that is a great approach for older children, assuming the husband is truly comfortable with it. There is a lot of male ego at play on this one though, and kids are amazingly observant. If hubby resents it, the kids will pick up on it. That, and peer pressure from kids is an oft under rated thing. Relentless "Mr. Mom" teasing from their peers could be devastating for the kids.

Again, we have to be honest about who the couple is doing this for. If the wife's greater earning potential merely puts them in a better position to buy more toys, or if it's some "grrrrl power" trip she is on, well... it's not for the kids anymore, is it?

I strongly disagree. If it really has to be one or the other, absolutely during their infant/toddler years. These are the most critical years in a child's development. This is when they establish their self-worth, how they interact with other people, and all of the "basics" of their personalities and outlooks on life. The old adage "you really learned everything you need to know by kindergarten" (with regards to how to treat one another) holds a lot of truth. These are the years when mommy's love and tenderness mean everything to a child. No one else can provide that for them.

Besides, teenagers are not home all day, either. What good would it do then to be a stay home mom (or dad)? Yes, the disciplinary challenges during these years are tremendous, but they won't be addressed by sitting at home waiting for them to come home from school. Being there when they get home, yes. Being involved in their lives, yes. But not giving up a career to stay home with them, because they ain't there...

I am starting to get the impression that Jeff would prefer us barefoot and in the kitchen...where we belong.

My children's lives were SO enriched by their years of childcare and kindergarten etc. Their social skills by the time they started school were FAR superior than the kids who did not attend childcare, 3yo kinder etc. They were confident, aware and settled.

But this thread has morphed well away from the OP...no wonder the original poster is nowhere to be seen.

And Angela...I agree with you...

Oh please...

I'll ask you the same thing I asked atrplumber - why do you feel it necessary to resort to such patently absurd remarks?

I've been married for 25 years to a wonderfully intelligent, successful professional woman. I have encouraged her and helped her pursue that career every step of the way, as she has likewise done for me. She simply took a break from that career to pursue something vastly more important and rewarding - the rearing of our young children.

I'm getting the impression that some of you find such women threatening. That this whole thing very much strikes a nerve with some of you. Unable to defend your positions, you go on the attack, attacking the messenger rather than the message. Let's see, so far I've been called "sanctimonious", "pompous", and now I'm being accused of being some kind of stone age throwback who would prefer to keep my wife "barefoot and in the kitchen". Nice. All because I have had the audacity to suggest that folks are better off raising their own children. Wow.

Any "barefoot and in the kitchen" impressions are purely some sort of defensive, reactionary fabrications of your own.

Oh, and by the way - my initial comments that started these attacks were directed at the OP, and I stand by them. Anyone with that young of a special needs child that has hired a nanny to watch over that child needs to seriously re-evaluate their priorities. And - oh my God - he said he was actually doing that, considering keeping his wife at home instead. Oh, the huge manatee - what a monster. Must want her barefoot and in the kitchen as well, you reckon?:rolleyes:

Jeff,

You don't give an inch...that is why. You won't acknowledge that one rule will not fit all. You haven't 'suggested'; you've been dogmatic and you've lectured. I know you are passionate about this but so am I.

And to suggest that women like me would feel threatened by another woman's choice or desire or circumstances is simply ridiculous. I applaud your wife. Motherhood is the most challenging role and we all know it. And she then went through all those hoops to re-establish her career and I marvel at that; really I do.

But you make this insane proclamation that we MUST not work whilst raising a family.

Well here's the thing. Some of us just have to. And you won't acknowledge that. I HAD to because when Mike and I started our family the bottom fell out of our economy at that time. Interest rates for mortgages hit 18% and business rates were 22.5%!!! We struggled....really struggled. Fantastic businesses all around us hit the wall, sending families into chaos. I was not going to allow us to be one of those families so I worked even harder to help us stay afloat. We could have closed the doors to the business, put our staff out of work and just ignored the creditors...I sold my cars, other assets etc to keep my family's roof over our heads. We went without more than you could imagine...and still I had to work.

So I searched and searched and found the kids the very best care I could if they couldn't have me at home with them.

We are not lesser women nor mothers because of the circumstances of life or the informed choices we make you know...

So, anyone without your opinion is launching an adhominem attack, but never you.:rolleyes:

While I am a physician, you miss the point. I didn't earn a real income until after age 35. Do the math. If you put 2K away in a Roth per year when you're 22, you have to contribute 10x the amount if you start at 35, and I didn't even start then, I was paying off my own hefty student loans. The parentheticals were for your own sanctimonius comments that 2 income families do that to be part of a country club or live above their means. I don't need to justify myself or lifestyle to you, but it is certainly not as extravagant as your sneering tone presupposes, there's a 50/50 chance your house costs more than my own. I merely stand with others who have room in their lexicon for a wider breadth of reasoning than the one (apparently only) way - the Jeff Higgins way. In fact, it doesn't even sound as if your wife had a choice of what she wanted her life to be after the birth of your children.

BTW I don't think that a house of reasonable size/good food (healthy costs more than cheetos)/music lessions/and a reasonable plan for higher education are in any way an "extreme".

BTW2, I was brought up in a 2 income family that had me nannied and then latch-keyed, and got somewhere in life, with a strong set of morals and convictions, somewhat of an aberration if you insist that only kids brought up with a stay home mom have a chance at being good citizens.

I'm done after this. Cantdrv55 has every right to a nanny that's a good one if he and his family choose to do so.

some of the most happy people I've ever met are in a remote 3rd world country, in a tin shack, with no windows or door, but they're happy with family, health, and a meal on the table.

"he who is most richest, is able to give the most away to others..............verse 'he who dies with the most toys wins."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vanuatu-Island-Happiest-Place-on-Earth-Survey-Shows-29554.shtml



not 300 dishnetwork TV channels.

not unlimited texting 2000 times a month.

not 100 pairs of shoes in the closet.

not horse lessons, swimming lessons, golf lessons...........


My grandmother grew up in the Depression, and she raised 10-12 kids on the farm just to put food on the table.

Tell that to your kid that throws a tantrum "gotta work mom" to put $150 Nike's on his feet and your Audi Quatro or Lexus $500 a month lease parent.

You make life choices. Some are just a value system. I shake my head about what some people feel is "important and must have"

So did mine...and guess what - she had to go out to work to support her family.

According to some of you; I must not be a fit mother. I really don't know how I am going to break this news to my loving, well adjusted, charming, selfless & intelligent kids.

No worries Lisa, both of my folks worked their butts off, and I think turned out alright....

Don't listen to those that haven't come out of the stone ages yet...

I think it's just as important to acknowledge that some mothers WANT to work, and that's OK too. My wife works full-time, and our 2 year old goes to an excellent private daycare. We have another nugget on the way in August. My wife will take the year off (1yr parental leave in canuckistan, father can share it), after which BOTH nuggets will go to the same daycare.

We've crunched the numbers, and if I had my wife do +- 15hrs/wk of admin work for me, she could stay home and it would offset the childcare costs. But she doesn't want to... She loves her job and would go BATTY without it. Why should she be denied the satisfaction of a career she loves?

Maybe she could handle staying home if we got her a prescription for valium. That sure helped a lot of moms a generation ago. Or is prozac the soother of modern times?

Anyway, I think any "one size fits all" view of a "family" is myopic. I know people that were raised by one mom, one dad, two moms, stay at home moms, stay at home dads... I really don't think anyone can generalize about how the kids turned out.

I think the most important factor is loving, thoughtful, happy parents... And no particular family structure has a monopoly on it.

Arguing on an internet forum is so beneficial to all concerned.

But what about the children !?! Lol

My apologies, Lisa, I never meant to give the impression that I feel no women with children should ever work. I understand full well that the world is full of women who truly must work. I do actually admire women like you, who sacrifice much for the important things in life. Working to save a family business in tough times is laudable - my hat is off to you. That is certainly one of the "important things". I know that must not have been easy, and finding someone to watch the kids was no easy decision.

If you go back and re-read what I have been saying, however, you are not the sort of woman to whom I was refering. My comments were directed at the sort of couple who believe the wife "needs" to work through their childrens' infant and toddler years, not to simply make ends meet, but so they can continue their extravagant lifestyle uninterrupted.

This "Artplumber" clown comes to mind - a surgeon with a fleet of pretty nice to extremely expensive cars displayed proudly in his signature line, claiming his wife has to work to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.:rolleyes: Give me a farkin' break. Folks like this are an insult to those who are in a position where mom really must work.

Jeff,

I've written and re-written this half a dozen times to eliminate the sharpness of the wording. I've always like you and have no desire to hurl electronic daggers in your direction. But clearly we are reading opposite sides of the coin.

That said, in reference to a child needing their mother and apparently ONLY their mother when they are young is dead wrong. Parenting is an equal opportunity adventure and a good father is every bit as nurturing as a good mother. Further, if either parent is not interested in being an equal raising the children, then I highly suggest those parents skip having children. It's not just a matter of the best practices, but it's a matter of blunt truth that not everyone (especially in this economy) is employed all of the time (to say nothing of death, disablement or divorce). Either parent can wind up at any stage of the child's life, being home with them. And that should not only be OK, it should be GREAT from the child's perspective! Yeah!!! Home today with Daddy! Home today with Mommy! Those transitions should be pretty seamless.

As far as staying home with the teens go, I realize many of you disagree. But I've raised teenagers and will say that the decision to work out of house and be here EVERY DAY when they are home from early release, teacher-in-service, holiday, Christmas Break, Spring Break, Summer break, etc., was a good one. At the time when the most changes and influences were in our children's life, I was there when they woke up, when they left for school, and when they came home. I knew every friend, every project from school, every class they were in, I taught some of their friends to drive, I knew every parent, and best of all, ours became the "safe" house for kids to quietly hang out at. I chaperoned field trips, helped the neighbor kids fix cars, took carloads of teens to softball and baseball tournaments, coached a Pop Warner cheerleading team, etc. I would not have traded that for years of stay-at-home with the babies and toddlers. This was such a crucial time in their lives, a point of contact between the children that they still are and they adults they are fast becoming. I would not have missed this for anything.

angela

I absolutely understand and respect where you are coming from, Angela. I wouldn't trade my sons' teen years, and my involvement with them during those years, for anything. They are pretty special years. That, and while I emphatically stand behind my position that the mother is generally the best during those very early years, a dad that is up to the job can be a very good thing as well. I see nothing wrong with that at all. I think I covered my feelings on that at length. Again, to be clear, I think a mommy is best during those years, but a daddy will do in a pinch.

Let me try to clear up my position once and for all. My only peeve is with those couples who say the wife "has" to work (or the husband) where the husband (or the wife) can quite clearly provide a comfortable income with which to support the household and raise the family. The kind of couple where the second income is only so they can continue in their extravagant lifestyle; as I mentioned, living in the "right" home in the "right" neighborhood belonging to all of the "right" clubs going to all of the "right" places, and on and on. When it is clearly all about them first, and the kids a distant second. Almost as if they are just another "life accessory" to be paraded out when needed, but really kind of get in the way otherwise.

As I mentioned earlier, my wife and I know too many of these, and, for the most part, their lives are ongoing crisis bordering on disasters. They are well-to-do spoiled brats from the "me" generation, not willing to give up any of the trappings of their "wealth" or "status" to take the time to raise their very own children. Not because they can't financially, but because they won't, because they would have to sacrifice a bit of their beloved lifestyle and image to do so. What is really bad, is that often the ability to pay others to raise their kids becomes yet another bragging point, another step on their road to status, adding to their cache among the social circles in which they move. It's just far too pedestrian to be tied down in that way, don't you know... we hire the "little people' for that, along with housework, gardening, walking the dog...

Jeff,

Apology accepted...and I'm sorry if I misconstrued your written words (having a passionate debate is so much easier face to face; this is a two dimensional arena).

I think we all know people like those you describe. I know them, they are just not in my friendship circle ;). The parents who throw a couple of hundred at the kids and say - go amuse yourselves. I am happy to say in our large group of friends NONE of us are like that. All the Mums work and most of them find the time to volunteer for canteen duty, excursions, some even serve on school boards or kinder committees (I did - VP at the kindergarten that Billy attended; rosters at the schools and now standing for School Council for Charlotte's school). The Dads too...which is just great.

Plus I agree with Jake. But if you choose or have to work whilst raising a family; you'd better be doing something you truly love otherwise you bring the resentment home with you and then things go pear shaped. I am in a unique position too; Mum worked in the biz and therefore I would actually see more of Dad during the week than most kids as she would pick me up from school and take me back to work. I had a whole barrage of 'big brothers' in the workshop and the whole atmosphere was one of family. Great for all that homework help ;)

When Tom was born we were right in the middle of the 'recession we had to have'. I was back at work with a 2 week old baby in tow :eek:. You know that old saying 'it takes a village to raise a child?'....well we had our own 'village'. The apprentices and mechanics made up a roster (THEY did it) for 'Tom time'. Once he was truly mobile I had to make a decision on childcare as a toddler escaping into the workshop all the time to be with his big buddies was just not going to work!

When Charlotte came along I found the most amazing independent childcare centre close by and a couple of years later Billy joined her there. But we were so fortunate with this centre as it was owned and run by a couple who really put the welfare of the children first (not the profit). This couple became firm friends and we had dinner with them a couple of weeks ago :).

Couldn't agree more Angela. Nowadays I work from home and have done for the last three years or so. It hurts our business; but I am here for the kids & their friends and yes our place is like a drop by centre some nights and most weekends. It's also the sole reason I haven't changed my DD. I need those 7 seats and all that room for sports gear etc!

As I write; Mike has left with Charlotte (13) to take her to the train station to make her way to school, Billy (11) is gobbling down breakfast and reminding me of all the things we have to do after school this week and Tom (18) is HOME for a few days' break from work and is sleeping in (typical 18yo). Sometimes the solitude during the day when I am toiling away and have little idea of the daily grind at the workshop drives me crazy...but before I know it it's time to pick up the kids and start the fun and madness of busy family life. And then after the kids have gone to bed I sometimes struggle to come back to the desk and finish the work for the day...or I get up at 5.30am and catch up before the family awakes. It's not always easy and a lot doesn't get done...but we manage and everyone is happy, healthy and well fed which is the main thing :).

I am with jeff 100% on this one.

Anyone that doesn't IMMEDIATELY AND CLEARLY understand that the raising of their children is vastly more important than ANY other possible endeavor in their life- including their career- probably shouldn't have kids at all.

Cultivating a career vs being there to watch your babies grow up?

Are you serious? Is this any kind of choice AT ALL?

It is because i did not want to make the required sacrifices that i never had children.

I did not read all this worthless word dribble here...
because
If you have to come here to sort out bad decisions and blame someone else....well
Maybe you did come to the right place
you and vash can hold hands!!!
get a life

Lotta haters on this board.