Skip to comments.Horror stories: Baby sitting and the opt-out revolution
Posted on 01/05/2007 8:32:57 AM PST by qam1
click here to read article
Phooey on that!
Oh my! Speechless...
Less of a question I think than a position to take with regards to your life.
And then she should write him a check back, for half the rent/house payment, half the utilities, her share of the groceries, rent on the appliances, etc., etc. Just to be fair.
Or, alternatively, they could agree that they are a team, with each filling an essential position. They could work together to set their priorities. If being together as a family is their priority, they could agree to a less-expensive lifestyle. If a fancy lifestyle is their priority, then they should pay for professional daycare and get the mom out maximizing her earning potential.
We are long past the days of Ozzie and Harriet and Leave it to Beaver where Dad goes to work every day and Mom stays home and raises the kids. Many people who thumb their nose at families where Mom works speak from experiences 20 years ago or live in more rural or less economically vibrant areas.
They young lady needs to write on the chalk board:
A child is not a pet
A child is not a pet
A child is not a pet.............
I just can't believe how many people I am running into that think national healthcare would be a good thing.
I'm talking about engineers, nurses, lots of people who
are suspossed to be 'smart'
NOBODY seemed to work on Ozze & Harriet. Ozzie was always hanging around the house.
It confused me too. I think the guy DID follow instructions.
Yes, I've heard of this. However, unless the group also brought their babies, it's not the same as the author's situation. She told the babysitter to bring the baby to the coffeeshop (although she didn't tell him very clearly, because I also thought she meant he should leave the sleeping baby at home!).
If she's an employee of the coffee shop, her child should not be there when she's on shift. If she was meeting clients, the child still shouldn't be there, unless the clients expected it, and then what does she need the babysitter for?
It's scary, isn't it? I worked with a life-and-health actuary who thought Hillary-care was a good idea!
Terrifying ... you'd think that a person who spent his time calculating health-care costs would understand that the costs aren't going to go away, no matter how the system is arranged.
Yet this woman undoubtedly considers herself smart.
Silly me. In this author's world, all adults have day jobs and parenting is a hobby.
That is the most perspicacious comment I've seen on this thread. (Not that all the others were bad ...) I'm putting it in the mental file to use myself at the first opportunity!
She said she had two successful "startups" so here is a perfect opportunity for her to start up another - Executive babysitting.
I've thought of going into that business myself, when I'm 60 or so :-).
I also liked the story about the German man who was a "relationship terminator"!
Ahhh. Common sense and realizing that life is not "all about ME." What an epiphany! ;-)
That is not what is being alluded to here. This nitwit WORKS at the coffee shop.
No. I've already gotten in trouble once for leaving my six year old at home alone for an hour, while I ran to the store to get her medicine. Never leave the child alone. Webcams don't count.
What bizarre instructions. Seems like the lawyer doofus did what he was told.
More fundamentally, why did this woman have a kid if she didn't want to be around it?
"As the kids get older, the opt-out revolution is about opting out of the absurd and inflexible hours that corporate America is demanding right now.
While, of course, demanding that her husband work more absurd and inflexible hours to "pick up the slack."
That is his responsibility of course. He is the bread winner and she is the MOM.
...and are therefore wrong?
I'm head of a single-income family, so structured in order that we can homeschool our children. Some people deliberately choose this life, even today, and it's not out of ignorance.
Agree in part, although a child should never be left sleeping in a bed, or close to an unguarded stairway.
Beds are dangerous, not only can the children roll off, but the baby can get tangled in the covers and suffocate (happened in a day care center at least once I remember).
We hired baby sitters from time to time, but they were kids we knew from the neighborhood, who had played with our children, or children from our church.
My wife didn't work until the kids were in school. Raising kids is a full-time job, and one of the parents should take that job, not hire it out. My wife beat me to it (she actually had stopped working several years before we had our first kid).
Nonsense. We live in an 'economically vibrant area,' 35 miles from NYC.
I stayed at home and raised all four of our children. Homeschooled the youngest. Never had a single problem with any of my kids getting into drugs, alcohol, tattoos, piercings, or any of the other 'fads' so many of their peers --children of dual-career parents-- fell for.
We did all this on ONE income --my husband's. And he doesn't have a fancy degree.
Don't tell me I'm the exception. Lots of stay-at-home/homeschooling moms live in my area. And they live well, if not opulently.
People who insist that you need two incomes to support a family are either lying or delusional. Too bad for their children.
Our company taps into top-tier stay at home moms regularly for all kinds of consulting work.
This lady's a whack job, but her point is valid. You don't need to go to work to maintain some sort of connection to your career, and you can do it in the context of staying home to raise your kids.
However, don't expect to CLIMB some sort of ladder while you are raising 0 to 5 year olds.
The technology available in the home is MOST DEFINITELY good enough for great talent to contribute in specific ways. We get talent we couldn't even discuss affording at incredible rates simply because we accommodate stay at home moms.
In large organizations, this is a nightmare. Small to medium, this is very workable.
I noticed your use of the PAST tense which means you are affiming my point about experiences from years ago.
We live in a different era today. For most people who want to buy a house today the ASP is staggering. If you want a house in a good area (low crime, decent schools) then it costs you something. If people can afford to have a stay home TODAY then it means one parent makes real money. If you want to make real money then you won't likely do it in a rural area economy unless you own a business. Since $150K a year on one income is hard to come by then it means that two people usually work.
Who said it was?
And this is a good situation for people and companies. What if I don't need 40 hours a week for someone to be a high paid employee but instead I need about 50 hours per month? I can get a talented person for reasonable cost and she gets to earn income and maintain her skills and sanity doing grown up stuff on the side.
I gave up my job when my husband and I were transferred to Hawaii. We lived in base housing so I did not need to work, though I did when my son was about 1/1/2.
However, when we were transferred back to California, base housing was hard to come by, and you didn't get alot of housing allowance on an E5 salary. Living in a simple, safe, lower middle class neighborhood with decent schools nearby came at a price...me going to work.
...My thoughts as well. Methinks that this might be an 'imaginary' story. And, not to diminish one's accomplishments, but how critical is a job that allows you to work out of a coffee shop? If it's an out-of-the-office type job, then she can work at home. If she's slinging donuts for minimum wage.....I can't imagine what kind of person would put that ahead of child-raising.
At its best, I'd say that the author is a really poor planner. And, as a husband, I'd be a little irritated, too, if my wife went back to work, failed to make good arrangements, and expected me to stay home for an extended period of time because of her screw-up. >:| That wouldn't happen in my case, Mrs. WBill has got her act together far more than I do. I've no idea how she keeps everything on track at home.
A couple of months ago, I watched a segment of Fox & Friends where the women were discussing the rising trend in women having more children. One of them asked if having more children was a status symbol because it costs so much to raise a child nowadays. She was completely serious. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Thanks for sticking up for us 1-income-families. There are some sacrifices to be made, but it's well worth it. :-)
Heck, Mrs. WBill saves a ton of money just by being a careful shopper, cutting coupons, etc. That's quite an income supplement, as well.
I don't know why people want to have kids in todays world....it's just so expensive, lots of worry and work. Why do you have kids? Honestly.
"Many people who thumb their nose at families where Mom works speak from experiences 20 years ago or live in more rural or less economically vibrant areas."
Tea in China?
We've watched society deteriorate horribly as more moms have entered the workforce.
And Hubby gets no time with his kids. Gee, that's fair. And, what's even more ridiculous are the women out there that have husbands willing to bust ass to make the rent so she can stay home with the kids (I know, playgroup, talking on the phone to Mom, sister, girlfriends, going to park, etc is soooooo hard) who then want to either split the household stuff 50/50 or complain that he is never home....
I could just as easily argue that society went down the toilet when women were allowed to vote.
The woman I found was great, but she said that she was really busy, and could her Puerto Rican boyfriend watch the sack of $100 bills instead.
My husband takes it back a few years earlier than that, even - he says the self-starting automobile was the culprit.
Also, I Like your tagline.
No you couldn't.
Hey, my household and my kids would be hosed without my wife. I know that for a fact.
FREERIDER I HATE IT WHEN THAT HAPPENS PING!
So who did those things before the children came? They didn't hire anyone (more than likely), they did it themselves, while both working full time jobs. Thus, your argument is a non-starter.
Tell him to either write his wife a check for the amount he would pay for others to do all this work or STFU and put in some OT. And be damn grateful his baby is safe at home with a loving mother that puts him or her first.
You're entirely missing the point. When your income drops by 40%, as is typical when the wife stops working, you need to adjust your standard of living accordingly. In other words, live within your means. What the husband complains of is his wife's refusal to live within their means.
As it is in my own household. However, we've ordered our lives so that we can live within our means, and I don't have to 'take up the slack.'
I don't know, but if you see 'em, you tell 'em for me, okay?
Cry me a f#%$ing river, lady. Corporate America doesn't exist to accomodate the wants and needs of people with kids. I'm sick and tired of covering for parents who aren't at work because their kid's babysitter is sick, they have to go to Junior's soccer practice, or some other such thing. This kind of crap makes me not want to hire any parents of young children, even though I know that they are not all selfish, irresponsible boobs.