[beck12]

Do you think a child benefits more when dad has to work excessive hours (like 50-60 at one job, or even juggling a couple of jobs) so mom can be a SAHM, or do you feel in that case it would be better for both parents to work to make sure daddy had adequate boding time too?

[SusieQ2]

My DH has a full time job and then has a part time job that he works 2 nights a week. I have a seasonal part time job that I only work a couple evenings a week. That way usually one of us is home with him.

I don't think it's fair to expect the dad to work so many hours just so mom can stay home though. I see how much our son loves spending time with his Daddy and I know it's important to have that time together.

I really hate when people have the mentality that the Mom is more important than Dad.

[zzz]

I think that this can only be answered on a case by case basis. Each family is different, and the dynamic between each parent and child(ren) is different.

From a purely economic standpoint - I would have to say that it would probably be better for one parent to work and one to be a sahp because if both parents work, then there will be a significant amount of money going out each month for child care when both parents are away. (Of course, this is assuming that both parents have similar work schedules.)


Lisa

[AMDG]

Do you think a child benefits more when dad has to work excessive hours (like 50-60 at one job, or even juggling a couple of jobs) so mom can be a SAHM, or do you feel in that case it would be better for both parents to work to make sure daddy had adequate boding time too?[/b]

That is a good question but one that i think has to be answered different for each individual family. There are so many variables and factors that are unique to each situation - I don't think there is an answer that fits all families.
Would mom work while dad is at home or would the child have to go to daycare?
When would dad have to work the extra hours? weekend? a couple of late nights a week?
Does dad make the most of his time off or is he so stressed and exhausted that he has no engery left?
Do mom and dad agree or does one feel resentful of the other?
How old is the child/children?

[Momo]

It's always best for a child to be raised and taught about life by someone who unconditionally loves them than by a third party, no matter how nurturing or sweet. So I would say it's best to have one parent be a sah parent than to have both parents be absent for the majority of the child's waking hours.

[$pryNinja]

well if I had things my way we would both work from home so that we could be together as a family unit for most of the time.
I think the best thing for a child is to be surrounded by her family and the people she loves constantly (with alone time when needed of course). I think it is AWFUL that dad's have to work so long and hard to support their family because of our total dependance on money as a global nation. I don't think the answer to the problem is having the mothers go out and work to give daddy's extra bonding time though. I think the smartest thing to do would be to down size, stop spending money on useless material things and stick to the basics. All you really need money for is to keep a roof over your head and food on the table, and you can grow your own food if you truly wanted to. Mostly everything else is meaningless entertainment, I know personally I would rather have her daddy home with her then trying to live a life of luxury. Time spent with a child is more precious than money ever will be.

[Frozendesire]

My husband works atleast 50 hours a week if not more. I am a SAHM. DH comes home for an hour at lunch and spends time with Curtis. He is home by 6:30, 7 and Curtis is in bed by 8, 8:30. DH has Sat and Sun off. I think we have plenty of family time. DH also get Curtis all morning/afternoon on Sat as I sleep in and they are awake together.

I think that's decent.

I really think it's a family to family thing.

When my cousin had her first child, her husband took on a second full-time job so that she could be a SAHM. He worked his day job and then had about 3 or 4 hours to sleep and then went to his night job. His son didn't ever see him and when any man would come to the door he would call him daddy. I don't think this was in the best interest of the child. My cousin really wanted to be a SAHM (which I think is great) but she also just doesn't like working and can never hold down a job. Anyway, I think it was somewhat selfish of her to expect her husband to work 24/7 so she could be a SAHM.

I don't think the answer to the problem is having the mothers go out and work to give daddy's extra bonding time though. I think the smartest thing to do would be to down size, stop spending money on useless material things and stick to the basics. All you really need money for is to keep a roof over your head and food on the table, and you can grow your own food if you truly wanted to. Mostly everything else is meaningless entertainment, I know personally I would rather have her daddy home with her then trying to live a life of luxury. Time spent with a child is more precious than money ever will be.[/b]

Beautifully stated! For us it came down to this: it makes no sense for one of us to work all day annd be on baby duty all night, while the other is on baby duty all day and working all night. Daycare runs about 300-400/week per kid. We decided that it would be simpler for one of us to be the main breadwinner and the other to be the home economist. It means living in a 1 bedroom apartment for the forseeable future... but its worth it.

This is interesting. My dh has just started working in his new profession as a trainee while still keeping his full time job AND he stays home with our daughter while I work a few mornings a week. Instead of putting our dd in daycare as his hours increase mine will decrease, it is our priority that DD be raised by us so we are making the necassary material sacrifices to do this. I do think this is a personal family desicion BUT I do think also that people live WAY too large in our society and that many people are in the two income "trap".

Okay so the original poster asked which is better for the child....I say a child needs a strong sense of family to succeed and do well its up to each of us to create that.

[TheOtherMichelle]

We both have to work, so I'm probably a little biased on this, but I do think it's important for both parents to have bonding time.

I do think it's important for a child to have bonding time with both parents, as well as being a benefit to the parents, as a couple. I am actually glad that our situation makes it so that I have to work and dh has to be a caregiver. I think we both appreciate and understand both sides because we have both been there. We share housework, although I do most, partly because I do work less and partly out of inclination. We both teach dd different things and interact with her in different ways. I really think that having mommy full-time is only an advantage if the child is breast-fed, since pumping isn't always successful. I was still able to BF dd as long as she wanted, she just had to be supplemented after a certain point, but overall I think that is the only downside. I like knowing that dh knows exactly how to care for her, which I don't know would be the case if I didn't work and he only had her once in a blue moon when I was sick or needed a break.

I absolutely think its best that both have adequate bonding time, but it really depends on each family and what they feel will work best, and each individual circumstance.

I do feel though that if mom is breastfeeding fulltime, it's better for her to stay home with the child since it'll make the breastfeeding relationship a lot easier than if she was working.

[Theo]

I think it's best that they have both parents in equal quantities. I also think kids need both male and female figures in their lives. Not necessarily two parents - could be a grandparent or aunt/uncle, whatever - but they need a balanced view of both genders to grow up healthy, IMO.