Stay-at-home motherhood
Kelli Arena used to be a correspondent for CNN. In fact, she worked there for 25 years covering the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, among other beats. She and her husband have three children, so she was very much the “working mother.” Writing for a recent issue of Guideposts, Arena described her initial reaction when her job at CNN was eliminated just a few days before Christmas:
“Part of me was actually excited—for the first time since my kids were born I’d be able to celebrate Christmas without obsessively checking my BlackBerry or getting hauled off at three in the morning to cover some breaking news story.”
In fact, she described the evening she told her children about her job loss as being “one of those rare nights when I actually sat down for dinner with my family.”
The more time she spent around her kids, the more she realized how much she’d been missing by simply not being there. Picking her older daughter up from school one day, they talked about the pressures of middle school. She wrote, “I was getting to participate in her life in a whole new way. All of my years at CNN I had prided myself on moving heaven and earth to be there for the kids’ milestones. Suddenly I realized where parenting really happens—in all of the little day-to-day stuff.”
With three children to put through college, Arena wrote that she knows she’ll have to find another job soon. But her time at home has taught her what really matters.
The revisionist history of feminism would have us believe that mothers who dedicated their lives to raising children in pre-feminist times were demeaned and demoralized by it. The pressure from society to stay at home was oppressive and evil. More and more modern day women like Kelli Arena are discovering that there are great rewards to be had from being full-time mothers, to say nothing of the benefits their children reap. Society may smile benignly on both mothers who work and those who stay home. Now it’s the pressure to survive economically that stops many women from being able to choose what they believe would be best for their families.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top50 Comments to “Stay-at-home motherhood”
What’s interesting to me (a professional mother who augments her real job with part time work), is among the professional working mothers I know who lost their jobs, none have complained about the opportunity to be at home with their children.
Like Arena they may fret about college fees and falling behind in their profession (and who wouldn’t?), but none complain about the sweetness of at-home-with-the-kids-even-if-the-kids-are-at-school-during-the-day life.
And the kid activities are all very well organized. E-mail schedule, anyone?
Report comment to moderator
I am also a professional, homeschooling mother w/part time at-home paid work.
Our family has sacrificed toys and tech and stuff for me to stay home. It is so worth it.
And who says we have to pay for our kids’ college? They can earn it themselves (as my oldest son is doing in the military) if that’s even what they want.
In the long run, being home with my kids for all the little things that add up to the big things in life, is worth more to them than a big house, cable TV, new cars, and a free ride at college.
It’s about time that the rest of society figures this out!
Report comment to moderator
Fear not, this is becoming old news. And there is nothing new about the economy playing a big part in how mothers organize their families. Feminism, as a “liberating” movement for women, focused on equality with men in building careers without children.
Report comment to moderator
The tax structure today. along with ongoing inflation and all the many ways that all sorts of taxes are being passed down to the consermer, makes it far more difficult to get by as a family with one income than it was one and two generations ago. This is not accidental. Somebody has to pay for all the booming entitlement and public pension over-spending we do as a nation.
Report comment to moderator
Tell me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding the ability for families to make do on one income changed about the time banks began to allow that second salary to be counted toward a house payment.
(Prior to circa 1970, only one income could be used when applying for a mortgage–at least that’s my understanding).
Once both incomes could be taken into account, housing prices began to go up until they’re so high now, at least in California, that it’s a rare family that can afford a home on just one paycheck. Several of our military friends told me the only reason they could afford to have one parent at home is because the military provided health care and housing–particularly in the very expensive spots like Hawaii.
Financial decision in the macro have micro consequences.
Report comment to moderator
Some salient quotes from a landmark little book written by Elton & Pauline Trueblood in 1953:
* “We cannot understand modern Marxist doctrine unless we know something of the degree to which it has embraced militant feminism. The basic idea is that men and women must be treated in identical ways except for some special provision for pregnancy and nursing.” Elton & Pauline Trueblood, “The Recovery of Family Life.” Harper & Brothers, 1953 (p. 14).
* “Women must, therefore, be expected to work in factories, in offices and on farms, exactly as men do. They will earn in the same way and be willing to give up the antiquated notion that children are better trained in homes than they are in public institutions.” Elton & Pauline Trueblood, from “The Recovery of Family Life.” (p. 14). Trueblood is commenting on the communist call for a shift of the cultural center of gravity from the home to public institutions.
* “The official Marxist doctrine, all along, has been that the home, when it is given social priority and real importance, involves parasitism. The unemployed woman is declared to be a parasite…” Elton & Pauline Trueblood, “The Recovery of Family Life.” Harper & Brothers, 1953 (p. 15).
* “We are doing by neglect much what the Marxists have done by social planning.” Elton & Pauline Trueblood, “The Recovery of Family Life.” Harper & Brothers, 1953 (p. 13).
__________________
Report comment to moderator
Relevant insights from famous Marxists:
* “The government of the proletarian dictatorship, together with the Communist Party and the trade unions, is, of course, leaving no stone unturned in the effort to overcome the backward ideas of men and women, to destroy the old uncommunist psychology . . . We are establishing communal kitchens and public eating-houses, laundries, and repairing shops, infant asylums, kindergartens, children’s homes, educational institutes of all kinds. In short, we are seriously carrying out the demand of our programme for the transference of the economic and educational functions of the separate household to society.” ~ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870 – 1924), leader of the Russian Revolution and the Russian Communist Party. 1920.
* “Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever” ~ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870 – 1924), leader of the Russian Revolution and the Russian Communist Party.
* “We replace home education by social.” The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1848.
Report comment to moderator
I’m so tired of hearing that it takes two incomes “nowadays.” We’ve lived on one blue-collar salary (18-30K/year) for 27 years (w/o welfare I might add). All that time (my adult married life) women tell me they HAVE to work to get by. All I see is that they sacrifice what’s best for their family to have a big(ger) house, a new(er) car, Flat panel TVs in every room, Cable, Blackberries, new clothes, expensive hairdo, and nails, dining out, and on and on.
If a family really wants it, mom can follow her heart and stay home. It’s a demanding, frustrating job, and the most rewarding in this life and the next!
Report comment to moderator
Never met a mother who regretted staying home with her children. We have five adult children who have all thanked us for me being home and the value of growing up in a home that valued more than toys and money. Hubby is a school teacher. Sure the three still at home grumble when we can’t afford stuff, but I know their thank-yous are just around the bend.
Best days of my life have been with the kids in the everyday stuff of life, not the milestones.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, that was because the banks assumed mother would stay home if kids arrived. They no longer do, not to mention that it was considered discriminatory not to count the second income.
I have no kids, just a cat, but I see he gets upset when he’s alone too much. I don’t answer the phone in the evenings, and I find myself resenting it a lot during the day if I have other plans. So, I cannot understand why this woman never got bent out of shape enough to say enough already, I don’t want to live this way. It shouldn’t have taken the loss of the job to want to eat dinner with her kids. She chose that crazy life.
Report comment to moderator
Cactigal, thank you for your comments. As a single woman who would have liked to get married and have kids (and who, ironically, mostly works out of my house now, even single), I really wish I could “convince” working women of what you’ve said from your own experience. (I’ve seen it repeatedly in my family.) First that it really is possible to make it work on a fairly low income, and second, that being home with one’s kids is more important than paying for their college education.
As one of seven, Dad with a low blue-collar income and Mom at home in all my memory, who didn’t receive a dime from parents for college (I did get a few hundred dollars, maybe $300 or $400, toward a course Mom wanted me to take that I attended before college), I can testify that the siblings and the stay-at-home mom were more important than a more luxurious childhood or paid-for college. And as a woman who has longed for children, I want to tell women don’t take this gift from God for granted, and please don’t give them second best, things instead of you.
Report comment to moderator
I have been both, a professional woman with my older two and a stay-at-home mom with my younger two.
During my “professional” years I had a couple of years unemployment and discovered what my children and I were missing.
After years of yearning I finally managed to leave my high paying job in order to stay home with my younger two. I knew many women in the work force who envied my transition to the home, but they did not feel they could also do so.
What I usually saw in their lives (and in my earlier life) was a two-fold problem:
1. An obsession with material goods. Adult toys, beautiful clothes and homes. Eating out. Perfectionism.
2. Husbands who craved the income their wives could produce rather than the home and family life they could create.
Very sad.
Report comment to moderator
#8 – “I’m so tired of hearing that it takes two incomes ‘nowadays.’”
I do not think it is essential to have two incomes for a family to make a decent life. I know some who do decently on one income and I admire them greatly. For too many, it is a cop-out excuse. But in my view, honesty demands that we aver that it is much more difficult nowadays to live near the same middle class level as a family used to on one income. But difficulty should not determine our resolve to do the best we can do at what we believe is right.
Report comment to moderator
“The revisionist history of feminism would have us believe that mothers who dedicated their lives to raising children in pre-feminist times were demeaned and demoralized by it.”
I’d like to respectfully take issue with that statement. I don’t believe these women were dedicated to raising children. Prior to feminism, the stay-at-home-MOM was known as a “houseWIFE.” To borrow from John Rosemond, I believe the focus needs to return to being a wife rather than a mom. If we succeed in our marriage vows (which children are not a part of), then our children will flourish in a secure environment.
Report comment to moderator
I think the words stay at home mom and housewife are pretty much interchangeable when there are kids. The woman’s job was taking care of the house, the kids, the cleaning and the grocery shopping, etc., etc. There’s a lot to that job. I can attest to that because I have to do that all for myself (including “caring” for the car), and as a full-time worker, that’s what suffers.
I have a friend who doesn’t make a lot of money, her husband doesn’t have a lot income at all, he’s a stay at home dad, but somehow they have what they need and the kids are taken care of, though the kids would prefer their mother being home to their father. (Not that he’s incompetent, just uses a different approach).
It was harder for women to get certain jobs, and I am grateful that now women can get into the jobs they want and aren’t locked into only teaching and nursing. Women really can do just about everything.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – I too am glad we live in an age when a woman can have any career she wants to go into, because many women are not married and/or do not have children.
As women, though, I don’t think we can deny that our heart is at home when we have a husband and children to care for. Working mothers (designed to nurture) have been conflicted over their dual responsibilities far more than men, who I believe are designed to be providers.
Homemaking has been denigrated because it used to be the only option, but it’s nice to see it receiving better treatment as a worthwhile and rewarding career choice for those who are willing to sacrifice extra income, career advancement, and employer accolades.
Living on one income puts one in the lower middle class for sure, unlike in the past, because the middle class has become so much richer on two incomes. Used to be everyone was poor
Report comment to moderator
The revisionist history of feminism would have us believe that mothers who dedicated their lives to raising children in pre-feminist times were demeaned and demoralized by it.
Often they were. Not by the mere act of staying home and caring for children. They were demeaned and demoralized by the attitude that stipulated that’s all they were capable of, and left them few other options.
The pressure from society to stay at home was oppressive and evil.
I totally agree.
More and more modern day women like Kelli Arena are discovering that there are great rewards to be had from being full-time mothers, to say nothing of the benefits their children reap.
I totally agree. Though, I expect that if you asked Arena whether she’d wish for a return to the times when her journalism career would have been an impossibility, and she would have had no choice but to stay home and raise her children, she would not yearn for a return to those times.
Report comment to moderator
I’d like to comment that living on one income actually requires a resourceful and clever stay-at-home spouse. I used all my education those first years when we had so little money by researching ways to save money to be efficient with what we had.
I see a different attitude at work in our society that says if you lack money for something, work harder to earn what you need (or in many cases, borrow the funds). We fthought finding ways to SAVE money was better than earning more money (particularly when my husband factored in taxes). That being said, where do young people learn how to scrimp and manage? My kids know how from observation, but a whole lot of other young people simply have no clue.
One of my peers used to say to me after a visit to Costco, “you have to spend money to save money.”
That never made any sense to me. The only way you save money is by not spending it in the first place.
I used to tell her it was a good day when I didn’t drive my car. She didn’t understand, so I would explain.
First, I didn’t spend gas money leaving the house, second, I didn’t buy anything, so I didn’t spend anything. That’s a good day.
It’s a different mentality. The paper today trumpeted “tourism loses $150 million last year.” How could that be? A reading of the story showed they didn’t lose the money, they just never earned it. A fine distinction, but it can make all the difference when you’re working with attitude and funds.
Anyway, I salute all those who stay at home on very slim pay checks. It’s hard. You have to be creative. And your kids frequently turn out better money managers and more grounded than those whose had all the latest gadgets.
Report comment to moderator
Expanding on Michelle’s comment a bit, indeed kids from resourceful parents will be better money managers, in most cases, partly because they’ve seen it modeled and have practiced it, and partly because they themselves haven’t gotten spoiled.
Example: I grew up in three bedroom houses that had up to eight people living in the house. Children’s bedrooms were 10 by 12 or smaller (probably never that large). So, we got used to sharing a small bedroom with up to two siblings, and sharing a bathroom with up to five siblings. (I don’t actually remember the days when six of us kids lived at home, for the record; I do remember four, and vaguely remember five. And I remember having overnight guests, one more person or couple to squeeze into the house.)
When I was 20, my sister and I and a friend got an apartment together. It was two bedrooms, one bathroom for three women in their twenties–hardly ideal. But to us it was a bit luxurious because it had a separate dining room with a real chandelier (we’d always had an eat-in kitchen) and it had air conditioning (we’d always had swamp coolers). The place swarmed with roaches, but we dealt with it because it seemed so “nice” to us in other ways. (In retrospect, we must have had a neighbor who didn’t clean. But at the time we lived there, we simply accepted the roaches as a natural, unpleasant part of apartment living.)
I frequently hear parents say that kids “have to” have their own bedrooms by the time they’re teens, but I’ve never heard why. In fact, I daresay that by the time there were only three of us kids at home, my little brother seemed if anything jealous that we girls had a roommate to whisper to, and he was alone.
But when I see today’s children each getting a 12×15 bedroom and maybe a private bath, I actually feel a little sorry for them. Because it is just possible that adult life won’t start out that cushy. They won’t be happy to share an 800-foot apartment with two other people, not when they had a 3,200-foot house for four. So chances are they’ll go into debt for housing, rather than living cheaply for a few years and saving cash for a good down payment.
Furthermore, never having had to negotiate with one or two siblings in a 100-sqare foot bedroom, they’ve missed some natural preparation for marriage.
So those of you who fear that you might give your kids less if you downsize, actually you’ll give them more.
Report comment to moderator
SPENDING & SAVING:
One thing I tell our daughter when she is holding a coupon–whether 25%, 33%, 40% off–that she is still paying 75%, 67%, 60% for the item. Think about how much you will spending. Do you NEED the item or just WANT it. (She throws that one back at me.
)
She likes to buy books. We have been spending more time borrowing more books from the library. Did you know you can recommend that a library purchase an item? We have recommended books and DVDs for purchase.
If I see a COUPON for 25 cents or 10% off, I feel like it’s a waste of time to even read about it. And if a $1 coupon doesn’t bring the price low enough even with the sale, then I don’t buy it.
Report comment to moderator
It’s VERY ANNOYING that companies are DOWNSIZING PRODUCTS and then telling us they are keeping the prices low. (doublespeak) Toilet tissue looks miniscule on the holder.
And did you notice that MORE and MORE things are put in PLASTIC containers (like mayo and coffee)? I thought plastic was BAD for the ENVIRONMENT. I thought plastic was bad for our HEALTH. Is glass worse than plastic?
Report comment to moderator
The revisionist history of feminism would have us believe that mothers who dedicated their lives to raising children in pre-feminist times were demeaned and demoralized by it.
Um no what traditional feminists of the 70s said was that women should not be forced to consider a stay at home life as the only proper role fit for a women.
Most feminists are happy with a set up which allows women to achieve their education potential and allows them a choice of career if they so choose.
Report comment to moderator
Is that what people say to you at parties, HRW? Have you ever had someone ask you what you do and then when you answer “stay at home with the kids,” have them turn their back on you and walk away?
I agree with you in theory; alas my practical experience has been otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
I encourage all my fellow homemakers – in God’s eyes you are accomplishing the most valued task. Don’t expect the world to ever value you as you are worth. Husbands who work hard and appreciate their house wife: God bless you!
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, HRW, but I was alive when feminism came about in the 70s and that’s exactly what was said. Betty Friedan made a big thing out of the fact that she felt stuck at home and demeaned. So, your revisionist history stinks and it’s dishonest. That’s what the whole thing was about — these women wrote books because they were a) unhappy with their relationship with the father and b) were bored at home.
Like Cheryl, had I married and had kids, I would have wanted to stay home. My sister did until her kids were all in school, my mother took a part time job on Friday nights and Saturdays to help and our father watched us. (His cooking was lousy but it improved greatly by the time he retired.) We were raised in a church that taught God first, family second, business third.
I live in a town where I see three things, the working mother, the working mother with a nanny, and the stay at home mother. I will never understand why a woman who has it all (I am referring to wealthy families here) don’t at least want to spend time with their kids when they are little, but would rather pay a nanny who really doesn’t pay attention to the kids but rather talks on her friends on the cell phone. This is why we have rich kids who take golf clubs to the rare irises in the iris garden.
Things cost so much today that I don’t see how people do it without at least a part-time extra salary. It is hard sometimes for me as a single person and I don’t live high on the hog. I do blame this to some degree on the fact that prices were raised by two earner families.
Report comment to moderator
The tax structure today makes it impractical to have 2 people working away in families with 3+ kids. 2 incomes make most families ineligible for EIC and Child tax credits. Couple that with the cost of day care and the increase stress on the family, more quick unhealthy food, etc… and you have a recipe for an unfulfilled life.
Report comment to moderator
#23: My wife works at a Legal Aid office, whose employees are universally liberal. Two of her male co-workers’ wives, who were themselves attorneys, quit during the last few years to stay at home with their kids. Everyone in the office was fully supportive.
I won’t say there aren’t people out there like the one you describe, but I think they’re rarer than you suggest.
#26: Purely financially speaking, it would depend on how large the second income is, right?
Report comment to moderator
Wow. I do hope the Arena family seeks to make the changes necessary for mom to continue to be home with maybe a part time position. I too had a great & successful career when we began having kids & I had no intention of being home. Through much prayer and the influence of friends who had made the decision to have a parent at home, we spent a year changing our lifestyle and expenses so we could give it a try. That was 15 years ago and I’ve never looked back. I have stayed involved professionally by volunteering, continuing ed., community activism, etc. We have been incredibly blessed by that early decision and I can’t imagine any career being more influential or important than the day to day raising of our own kids.
Report comment to moderator
In the legal aid world where the majority of lawyers are liberal, they would be supportive of a father becoming a househusband. I’d bet you, however, that the wife is working for a big firm and pulling in a lot of money. They look at life through the lens of the law, not through the lens of the Bible. It’s a different standard, and since they have the money, there’s no reason for them to apply a biblical standard.
Report comment to moderator
People will choose to do what they want and continue to make excuses for it. We know many people who could never afford to do what we do, yet they have two incomes and no or few children. We can’t afford it either but it is what we do and now plan to have hubbykins home as well and live off of his mil retirement. It worked for the first thirty years.
Report comment to moderator
But Mumsee, what you do isn’t based on funding, it comes from within.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
I don’t question whether or not people should do this or not, merely find it amusing that the reason is “we could never afford to do that!”
Report comment to moderator
Maybe it depends on where you live in the country because some places are cheaper, but pretty much you are right that people choose to spend their money on what they think they “need.”
Report comment to moderator
We have heard the stories of how expensive it is to live somewhere and not being able to afford anything, but the ability to move around in America is a freedom we might want to use a bit more. Having to stay in one’s city because it is the only place one can buy a particular brand of plastic wrap (or whatever) is hardly a valid reason.
Report comment to moderator
If I had financial independence, I would want to move to Maine, but then what would I do about family? That’s one of the reasons people don’t move.
Report comment to moderator
#29: They probably would be okay with a house-husband. But that’s not what happened in the two situations I’m aware of.
I actually asked my wife about this subject today. She’s more more “liberal” than I am, and definitely considers herself a “feminist”. I asked her if she’d ever run into *anyone* who expressed scorn towards a woman who chose to stay home with her kids. According to her, she never has.
All the “feminists” I’m personally acquainted with frame the issue in terms of “women should have the freedom and opportunity to do what they want”, whether that means working or staying home.n
Report comment to moderator
That has not been my experience, but then again, liberals have a tendency to follow the script and that’s what that quote sounds like to me. I’ve run into women lawyers who simply could not handle the thought of having to take care of their own children, that it would be just too boring. Nannies all the way. And I’ve seen the nannies, too, with the kids. They keep the kids from running into the street, but there’s not a lot of interaction with them. They do the same thing with the old people they are supposed to watch. If you are walking ahead of your charge and talking on the phone, how are you there to help the elderly person when she falls? You aren’t.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, I happen to know a very diligent nanny, so I know there are some out there. But I also had a roommate once who couldn’t stand kids, and worked in a day care (!). She’d tell me that when she had to take a crying child out of his crib, she’d purposely turn the child with his back toward her so that he couldn’t touch her. The good nanny I know once worked in a day care. And the parents decided they didn’t really want their kids–one born, one on the way–in day care, so they hired the one day care worker who really seemed to care about their son to be a nanny. This was a “good” day care too, but nothing I’ve ever heard about day care sounds good to me.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, since your wife isn’t the stay-at-home mother, she may well never have heard such comments, but that doesn’t mean no one else ever has. But I will tell you this one: Ask any mother of three or more children if they’ve ever had a stranger make snide comments about the size of their family, and you’ll hear that it happens all the time. Starting with just three kids!
Report comment to moderator
#37: “I’ve run into women lawyers who simply could not handle the thought of having to take care of their own children”
Sure. Those people definitely exist. But are they going to crap on another woman for choosing to stay home? Maybe, maybe not. But, really, those types probably aren’t working for Legal Aid, considering L.A. attorneys make substantially less than they would at a private firm.
“And I’ve seen the nannies, too, with the kids. They keep the kids from running into the street, but there’s not a lot of interaction with them.”
Probably depends on the nanny. Some of the kids who live on my street have actually picked up Spanish as a second language simply from being around their nannies. To me, that suggests there’s some non-trivial interaction going on. No doubt there are also terrible nannies who do only the bare minimum.
#39: “since your wife isn’t the stay-at-home mother, she may well never have heard such comments”
I’d expect her to be *more* privy to these types of comments, made about *other* women who’ve chosen to stay home. Such as the wives of these co-workers of hers. For the record, my wife works half-time. Her L.A. office is so “pro-family” they let her go to 20 hrs/week and still keep health insurance and benefits. Our son stays with her parents while she’s at work, which they’re okay with since it means they get more time with their only grandchild.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy, you are welcome to come to my town any day and observe the nannies. They are not Mary Poppins and certainly not Nanny McPhee (loved that movie!).
Report comment to moderator
I was in high school in the 70s. The choice of being a housewife was beyond contempt.
Report comment to moderator
The spectrum from right to left is in large part a spectrum from emowering family to empowering politicians. The tow are increasingly incompatible.
Report comment to moderator
I mean, “the two…”
Report comment to moderator
Dedication to raising children is more respectable than just about any other option in life, regardless of what revisionist guilt-laden academicas and feminists say.
It was healthier for civilization when we thought more in pro-family terms than in pro-women or pro-male or pro-child rights terms.
Report comment to moderator
Kwerna is right about the 70s.
Report comment to moderator
I also was in high school in the (late) 70’s. I have no memory of anyone else’s comments or attitudes about being a housewife, but I remember when my best friend’s older sister got married right after high school, and I thought it was such a surprising choice to make.
She was eager to have children (she didn’t get married because she was pregnant but she sure didn’t wait long about it once they were married), and to stay home and raise them. Her husband didn’t go to college either, I forget what his trade was but it was semi-skilled, I think. They had a small home but they and their children were happy.
I didn’t think that having more stuff made one happy (we never had much, and I never planned on having much even if I were able to afford it). But I had trouble imagining taking care of children making one happy either. I was the younger of two girls, so I had no experience at home taking care of a younger child, and when I tried to babysit or help in the church nursery I had no idea what I was doing and just wanted it to be over with.
My mother had always told me that she had no idea how to be a mother because she hadn’t had one (her mother committed suicide when she was seven), so I didn’t see how I could ever be a good mother. I found fulfillment in intellectual achievements, and wanted to spend my life in academia.
Everyone had always told me what great potential I had, and I felt it was not only my opportunity but almost a duty not to waste it. I had no interest in guys, and none in babies, so why would I ever consider being a housewife?
Obviously that eventually changed, largely through the influence of a family, messed up in their own way but perhaps less than my own family, that took me in when I was in my 20s. I became messed up in new ways as a result, but I also started thinking about the possibility of marriage and children.
Report comment to moderator
The best money management book I have read states that one person needs to be the wage earner, one the wage spender, that it takes time to spend money well. That is the way I grew up, learning that it takes time to do things to not need to spend much money.
Titus 2:5 states that a Godly woman is to be busy at home. It takes time to make a home that our husbands want to come home to, be comforted in, and not be tempted away. It takes time to teach our children to love God and cling to Him. It takes time to build relationships with neighbors and friends to win them to Christ, as well as time to spend wisely what is earned.
Report comment to moderator
I’m a homeschooling mother of four (soon to be five). My husband works long hours, to provide the best life we can for our kids. We rent a small house (half a duplex), we don’t have cable or fancy TV services (what’s the point? We have kids and watch their antics!) and my hubby repairs and maintains our three old cars (the newest is a 1993 minivan).
The only person who snubbed me for wanting to be home with my children was my female boss who viewed her own children as trophies to show off that she had it all; I worked full time until my second child was about 2-1/2, then began an in-home day-care. Family members snubbed me when I was single as a “career woman” although I wanted more than anything to marry and have children, it just didn’t happen as early as it does for some.
People are terribly rude about the number of children we have. Three children are acceptable IF your first two are the same sex (ours aren’t). We see people, including children, as assets–blessings to Christians! But our culture increasingly sees people of all ages as liabilities, a drain on natural resources, instead of a source of creativity and joy that honors our Creator.
Report comment to moderator
(Child needed help)
Managing money is a constant challenge. We have to watch every penny. We’re not saving much right now. I see college as an option, not the purpose of life, and we’ll help the kids who want to earn a degree as much as we can, when the time comes.
Meanwhile, my kids are learning so much more real education by spending time with their parents and each other, and the wide variety of people we have contact with, since they aren’t stuck in a classroom with a bunch of kids the same age. I know what I learned, and it wasn’t academic and it wasn’t edifying–nothing of value. I can’t imagine staying home alone all day by myself, while the kids are with mercenary nannies hired by the state (yes, I know not all teachers are bad, just as all nannies aren’t either–I was a teacher).
If you want to experience LIFE even more, bring mom AND the kids home! And, Dad, make sure you make time to be actively engaged with your wife and kids.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!