The post that is going to get my.. uh, butt kicked.

I watched a news piece about a family who had two girls, looking to be ages 3 and 5, where Dad worked, Mom stayed home, and they couldn't afford to buy toys for Christmas. So there is a program set up where Police Officers take those children shopping for some toys since they won't be getting any under their tree. The kids they showed picked clothes and shoes, because they needed them more than toys. This put two thoughts into my head. The first was that the kids really felt that they were in need, and were being frugal. That thought made me want to cry. The second was (and here is where you begin hating me) "Why in the world doesn't the mom get a JOB?" I mean, I know I stay home, but most of the time, we can afford that without worries about where our next meal is going to come from, or whether or not the next growth spurt is going to put us in the poor house. (Not the Momma -- Please note I said most of the time. I am fully aware that your child will very soon begin eating food. For real. And when that happens, I'm prepared to start hunting rabbits and squirrels so we don't have to give up TiVo, and so that the baby can wear pants that actually hit his ankle rather than the kind that make you think you should be building an ark in preparation for the big flood.) My initial thoughts were: This lady was accepting charity because she couldn't afford clothing and toys for her kids, but she doesn't have a job? Something seems a bit off about that. I mean, really, surely she can find a job so that they can afford to buy their kids clothing....


My problem is that they don't have enough money to clothe their children, yet the mother chooses to be a Stay at Home Mom. There is something wrong with that. Now, before you go all crazy and start hurling those rotten tomatoes again, remember that I stay home. (I work, but don't make much, my money goes for fun stuff, like my clothing. And shoes. And Starbucks. )Remember, I am a stay at home mom. I understand the need to work to support your family, I am not trying to pick on mothers who work, even if they don't have to. I'm not trying to pick on mothers who stay home when money is tight. I have issues because the family was seemingly having trouble affording to buy clothes for their children and was receiving charity because of a choice the family had made.



I understand that in some cases, it isn't possible for both parents to work, because it isn't cost effective. I know that if the SAH parent could only make minimum wage, and the children have to go to daycare, forget it. You're actually losing money on the deal. I know that. We only have one child, age one. When we starting trying to have kids (oh... almost five years ago now) I spent a lot of time thinking about this issue. I made multiple spreadsheets comparing how much money I would actually make after considering all of the costs associated with working (work clothing, lunches out, daycare, lost time with the baby, gas spent driving to/from work, etc.) I figured out then that I had to make around $10/hour to break even until the baby grew up enough to get past that expensive "baby" phase at daycare.



When I looked at the amount of money I would actually bring home at the end of the month, it didn't seem worth letting someone else raise my child for 50 or so hours per week and giving up all of those hours when the baby was awake. (And now that I am a mommy, I think about the hours and hours of extra sleep I've gotten because when I've needed to I can nap when the baby naps. That makes everyone's life around here just a bit better.) Another thing to consider, my husband is in the military so he's never home. And by never, I mean, NEVER. Not, he works 80 hours per week, like, Next Tuesday he's leaving for six, no wait, eight, no, I take that back, 18 months. Over those 18 months he will often work 100+ hour weeks, 16+ hour days, sometimes 24 hours per day. That kind of Never. Never, like something on the ship broke, and they need it fixed yesterday, so sorry about that birthday party, or anniversary, or planned trip to the amusement park never. Never, like, he's really physically UNABLE to be around to do things like go to doctor appointments, school programs, take care of sick children never. We decided that one of us has to be available to be around for the important moments, and because his career has the health insurance and retirement plan, we picked his over mine. Oops, I'm rambling again. What I was saying is that we weighed the options. He agrees (or at least he used to) that staying home was the best option for our family. However, I know, that if money got so tight that we were tempted to rely on charity to provide things for our children, I would no longer be staying at home. The baby would be going into daycare, and I would be finding a job. At least until things got better.