5 ms·

That dream was 50's nuclear family hoodwinking based on the sexism at the time and the woman's "place" in the home. My child goes to daycare and it is infinitel

That dream was 50's nuclear family hoodwinking based on the sexism at the time and the woman's "place" in the home. My child goes to daycare and it is infinitely more stimulating than anything we could do for her at home even if we've "given our best effort". What is the spouse who stays home supposed to do in ten years when the child is much more independent and at school or activities much of the day? He or she has to either start a career or go to school and then face the ageism for entry level positions. And what are two spouses supposed to do when they both deeply enjoy their work and the value it brings them as individuals? My wife was home with the child for 5 months before getting back into the workforce and she complained frequently about the loss of identity. The real problem and solution, as other posters have mentioned, is a strong support structure from friends and family. We live in a wonderful area of Colorado, but all of our family is on the east coast or in Germany and it just isn't going to happen that we move closer. So we struggle and get by, but having a parent stay home to be daycare full time wouldn't serve either of us.

Kenji 10y ago
"My wife was home with the child for 5 months before getting back into the workforce and she complained frequently about the loss of identity." I am sorry to say, If you lose your identity after taking care of a kid for 5 months, you didn't have much identity to begin with.
- mixedCase 10y ago
  The opposite is most likely to be true, as someone with nothing going on in their lives may welcome the activity.
- hesdeadjim 10y ago
  Wow man that's a pretty fucked up thing to say. The anonymity of the internet is a wonderful place for trolls and cowards isn't it?
  - Nomentatus 10y ago
    Here, substitute "identity" for friends, contacts, clubs, connections. If you vanished for five months, and then could only return once in a while, how many friends and solid connections would you have that you could really rely on? Now try five years! The answer, almost everyone finds out is very, very few. Being gone means you weren't useful to them for a long time, and that's what counts, for nearly everyone. What the elderly find out over decades about how shallow and self-serving most human contact is, you get to find out much faster. So, if your connections in a city are only five years old, and you then have a child and start to care for that child full-time - you're probably going to find out that indeed you really didn't have much of an "identity" in that town, after all. I admit it's a bit perverse (and not very zen) to equate personal identity and social contacts. But we all do - we are social creatures. When I was a teenager and my elders were saying "he hasn't found his identity yet" they precisely meant "role, group he identifies with." It took me forever to figure out that's what they meant. I still think that's a bit or more than a bit screwed-up, but it is how we conduct ourselves. Not necessarily how we should conduct ourselves, or how an enlightened Zen master would conduct themselves. So I would count the first poster whose contribution is now greyed-out as naive and unsympathetic, rather than as deliberately abusive or trolling.
    - hesdeadjim 10y ago
      Yes this is exactly what I would have wanted to say had I not let myself get defensively angry. We also both drastically underestimated just how lifestyle altering a child would be. My wife spent those five months in a tired, zombie-like haze with a baby who was much more on the colic side than not, and with very little family support it took its toll on both of us. Reclaiming her "identity" has looked much more like you describe - reengaging with friends, activities, and other things she enjoyed before they were stripped away for simple survival.
  - im3w1l 10y ago
    If you bring your personal experience into a debate, prepare to have it questioned.
wtbob 10y ago
> My child goes to daycare and it is infinitely more stimulating than anything we could do for her at home even if we've "given our best effort". Is stimulation the most important thing in childrearing? > What is the spouse who stays home supposed to do in ten years when the child is much more independent and at school or activities much of the day? Volunteer? Find self-fulfillment in something other than a career? Plus, I think you may be begging the question: while older children require less immediate attention than younger ones, they still require plenty of care. It just tends to be more planning and less direct interaction. Plus, why do you assume only one kid? My mother spent more than a quarter-century with children at home. She certainly was never bored. > And what are two spouses supposed to do when they both deeply enjoy their work and the value it brings them as individuals? Maybe work from home? Ultimately, though, parents today must sacrifice for their children, just as parents have done for millennia. Kids aren't expensive status symbols: raising them well is a duty, not a lark.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  It's also just not financially possible. At one time you could raise a family on a single income, but unless you are in a fairly narrow set of professions, this isn't possible, at least not the same way it was then. I don't just think I should "raise" my child, I want them to have opportunities to do things. To travel, to try sports or music, to do activities, and all these require money. Even if you did none of these things, money would be tight on a single income of, say $70,000 a year in a midsized American town or city.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    >It's also just not financially possible while maintaining a standard of living similar to my current one. Fixed that for you.
    - stinkytaco 10y ago
      Or not financially possible. I just checked. In my town the average cost of housing is about $650/month, but that includes apartments of varying sizes. So lets assume a family of four is spending $10,000-$15,000 year on housing. That makes the math easy and is not too far off for the price of a three bedroom home. Average household income here is about $50,000/year, so already we're using 20% of our income on housing. According to the USDA, the "low cost" food plan for a family of 4 is another $10,255 [0]. So now we've got almost half our income in just housing and food. Add to that transportation (where I live you have to own a car), sundries, clothing, utilities, health care, school supplies and so on and I can absolutely see how two children would be a financial hardship on a single income, standard of living or not. Even at slightly higher than average that would preclude all sorts of things (the activities, travel, and so on). I'm not trying to make excuses for people's choices, but kids cost money and financial hardship happens. People get laid off, they make bad decisions, the economy goes boom or bust, changing the cost of living and incomes, shit happens. You also have long term security to think about, making sure you're putting money away for retirement and so on. It would be hard to raise kids on $50,000 a year, and I suspect the median income in most of the country is actually less than that. [0]:https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/CostofFoodJul2014.pdf https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plan...
beaner 10y ago
> My child goes to daycare and it is infinitely more stimulating than anything we could do for her at home even if we've "given our best effort". Are you sure? I remember daycare and it was mind-numbing torture. The parents all thought it was great but I would have preferred to be anywhere else.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Same. It's a dim memory at this point but at best it was OK, and I mostly hated it.
  - therein 10y ago
    I actually remember having a good experience. We were taught how to play chess, played Mario on an MS-DOS machine and I remember there being a ball pit.
S4M 10y ago
> but all of our family is on the east coast or in Germany So I take either you or your wife is German. If your child doesn't spend enough time with the German parent, he or she will not know the German language, so please be careful with that. Disclaimer: I don't speak the language of my father (Vietnamese), for the reason I mentioned, and as a French expat I try to make my two kids speak French when I can, but they don't have the same level as "normal" French kids, especially my older son who is 6.

Kenji 10y ago

"My wife was home with the child for 5 months before getting back into the workforce and she complained frequently about the loss of identity." I am sorry to say, If you lose your identity after taking care of a kid for 5 months, you didn't have much identity to begin with.

mixedCase 10y ago
The opposite is most likely to be true, as someone with nothing going on in their lives may welcome the activity.
hesdeadjim 10y ago
Wow man that's a pretty fucked up thing to say. The anonymity of the internet is a wonderful place for trolls and cowards isn't it?
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Here, substitute "identity" for friends, contacts, clubs, connections. If you vanished for five months, and then could only return once in a while, how many friends and solid connections would you have that you could really rely on? Now try five years! The answer, almost everyone finds out is very, very few. Being gone means you weren't useful to them for a long time, and that's what counts, for nearly everyone. What the elderly find out over decades about how shallow and self-serving most human contact is, you get to find out much faster. So, if your connections in a city are only five years old, and you then have a child and start to care for that child full-time - you're probably going to find out that indeed you really didn't have much of an "identity" in that town, after all. I admit it's a bit perverse (and not very zen) to equate personal identity and social contacts. But we all do - we are social creatures. When I was a teenager and my elders were saying "he hasn't found his identity yet" they precisely meant "role, group he identifies with." It took me forever to figure out that's what they meant. I still think that's a bit or more than a bit screwed-up, but it is how we conduct ourselves. Not necessarily how we should conduct ourselves, or how an enlightened Zen master would conduct themselves. So I would count the first poster whose contribution is now greyed-out as naive and unsympathetic, rather than as deliberately abusive or trolling.
  - hesdeadjim 10y ago
    Yes this is exactly what I would have wanted to say had I not let myself get defensively angry. We also both drastically underestimated just how lifestyle altering a child would be. My wife spent those five months in a tired, zombie-like haze with a baby who was much more on the colic side than not, and with very little family support it took its toll on both of us. Reclaiming her "identity" has looked much more like you describe - reengaging with friends, activities, and other things she enjoyed before they were stripped away for simple survival.
- im3w1l 10y ago
  If you bring your personal experience into a debate, prepare to have it questioned.

wtbob 10y ago

> My child goes to daycare and it is infinitely more stimulating than anything we could do for her at home even if we've "given our best effort". Is stimulation the most important thing in childrearing? > What is the spouse who stays home supposed to do in ten years when the child is much more independent and at school or activities much of the day? Volunteer? Find self-fulfillment in something other than a career? Plus, I think you may be begging the question: while older children require less immediate attention than younger ones, they still require plenty of care. It just tends to be more planning and less direct interaction. Plus, why do you assume only one kid? My mother spent more than a quarter-century with children at home. She certainly was never bored. > And what are two spouses supposed to do when they both deeply enjoy their work and the value it brings them as individuals? Maybe work from home? Ultimately, though, parents today must sacrifice for their children, just as parents have done for millennia. Kids aren't expensive status symbols: raising them well is a duty, not a lark.

stinkytaco 10y ago
It's also just not financially possible. At one time you could raise a family on a single income, but unless you are in a fairly narrow set of professions, this isn't possible, at least not the same way it was then. I don't just think I should "raise" my child, I want them to have opportunities to do things. To travel, to try sports or music, to do activities, and all these require money. Even if you did none of these things, money would be tight on a single income of, say $70,000 a year in a midsized American town or city.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  >It's also just not financially possible while maintaining a standard of living similar to my current one. Fixed that for you.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    Or not financially possible. I just checked. In my town the average cost of housing is about $650/month, but that includes apartments of varying sizes. So lets assume a family of four is spending $10,000-$15,000 year on housing. That makes the math easy and is not too far off for the price of a three bedroom home. Average household income here is about $50,000/year, so already we're using 20% of our income on housing. According to the USDA, the "low cost" food plan for a family of 4 is another $10,255 [0]. So now we've got almost half our income in just housing and food. Add to that transportation (where I live you have to own a car), sundries, clothing, utilities, health care, school supplies and so on and I can absolutely see how two children would be a financial hardship on a single income, standard of living or not. Even at slightly higher than average that would preclude all sorts of things (the activities, travel, and so on). I'm not trying to make excuses for people's choices, but kids cost money and financial hardship happens. People get laid off, they make bad decisions, the economy goes boom or bust, changing the cost of living and incomes, shit happens. You also have long term security to think about, making sure you're putting money away for retirement and so on. It would be hard to raise kids on $50,000 a year, and I suspect the median income in most of the country is actually less than that. [0]:https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/CostofFoodJul2014.pdf https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plan...

beaner 10y ago

> My child goes to daycare and it is infinitely more stimulating than anything we could do for her at home even if we've "given our best effort". Are you sure? I remember daycare and it was mind-numbing torture. The parents all thought it was great but I would have preferred to be anywhere else.

ams6110 10y ago
Same. It's a dim memory at this point but at best it was OK, and I mostly hated it.
- therein 10y ago
  I actually remember having a good experience. We were taught how to play chess, played Mario on an MS-DOS machine and I remember there being a ball pit.

S4M 10y ago

> but all of our family is on the east coast or in Germany So I take either you or your wife is German. If your child doesn't spend enough time with the German parent, he or she will not know the German language, so please be careful with that. Disclaimer: I don't speak the language of my father (Vietnamese), for the reason I mentioned, and as a French expat I try to make my two kids speak French when I can, but they don't have the same level as "normal" French kids, especially my older son who is 6.