do you believe kids should have a stay at home parent?

[blunt_trauma]

My honest opinion is you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to be a stay at home mom. Sadly I recognize we don't live in a world where that is always possible but still.

got me wondering how popular this ideal would be. assuming there was enough money, is it better to have a full time parent?

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

got me wondering how popular this ideal would be. assuming there was enough money, is it better to have a full time parent?

how about parents that don't go out partying all night bro?

Stew

 

[zipman]

got me wondering how popular this ideal would be. assuming there was enough money, is it better to have a full time parent?

Better? Yes, I think so but it's not necessary.

 

[koalabear]

got me wondering how popular this ideal would be. assuming there was enough money, is it better to have a full time parent?

Yes, but these days a lot of kids only have one parent around.

 

[Lancecastor]

got me wondering how popular this ideal would be. assuming there was enough money, is it better to have a full time parent?

The British Royal Family all grew up in the care of others, rarely spending any real time with their busy public servant/regal parents.

And look how they've all turned out.

http://gal.darkervision.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/prince_harry_nazi.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lthyjcu5Nq1qlsqdgo1_500.jpg

http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/img/blog/blog210208_scarlett3.jpg

http://www.page2live.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/epstein2.jpg

 

[Liar]

Me telling other people how to raise their kids usually ends in either unconfortable silence or assault.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Speaking for pool boys every were, I believe hot married moms should stay home all day...but only the hot ones

 

[CaudaLinea]

Raising kids isn't for the weak. Two adults are best. Doesn't matter what gender or relationship. One can do it solo, but it's difficult (I know from experience, and I never would have selected this for myself). Staying at home can be better in some regards for kids of a certain age, but I like to think that children who have parents with strong work ethics probably grow up to be fairly resilient people with a strong ability to support themselves. I don't know if one lifestyle is better than the other, but one theme for well-reared children seems to be parental involvement. And lots of it.

 

[neci]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/2508185479_cd18028eda.jpg

 

[CaudaLinea]

I swear to god, that's exactly how I picture David Sedaris' entire childhood.

 

[semen4her]

I should have one and so should kids.

 

[butters]

got me wondering how popular this ideal would be. assuming there was enough money, is it better to have a full time parent?

ideally? yes - and not necessarily the mother. either of the parents, which ever one's best suited for coping with the very real demands of the task. assuming we're speaking about decent parents here, the continuity is good for kids - it's a security, a safeguard, kids know they have someone there for them in the background at all times. secure kids tend to feel more confident about branching out into the world.

of course, not all parents are cut out for raising kids, and too many can't afford not to work meaning that plenty of kids are born only to be foisted onto nannies or relatives - and still there are those brought up by resentful/unfit parents. too many parents don't have the luxury to stay home, and most people don't choose to be single parents. shit happens. not every single parent has the support of the child's other parent in the huge responsibility that is raising a child. i still think kids need a stay at home parent till they're moving on to secondary school - so about 11 or so.

if the pressures for both parents to work didn't exist (scarily high mortgage payments to meet, lifestyles to bolster, the assumed 'laziness' of the non-working parent) then unemployment rates would fall dramatically as so many jobs would become available.

 

[neci]

http://runt-of-the-web.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/freshman-housewife.jpg

 

[neci]

still think kids need a stay at home parent till they're moving on to secondary school - so about 11 or so.

i honestly think stay at home parents are more important when a child reaches secondary age. when they are younger, it is easier to find suitable care, but once they are older, there is less care available and more temptation. kids are more likely to experiment with drugs and sex between 3-6pm than late at night.

 

[clutch1]

It all depends on the parent(s).
Some kids are better off away from them.

 

[BossMan62]

It all depends on the parent(s).
Some kids are better off away from them.

most belong at the zoo with all the other wild animals.

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

Leaving the kids with a cell phone and a contact number does not qualify as a stay at home parent. Neither does shutting them in a room with games or a computer to keep them occupied until bedtime.

 

[neci]

i don't believe in video games.

 

[Liar]

i don't believe in video games.

They exist. I've seen them first hand.

 

[BossMan62]

They exist. I've seen them first hand.

And I played them a time or two.

 

[blunt_trauma]

i honestly think stay at home parents are more important when a child reaches secondary age. when they are younger, it is easier to find suitable care, but once they are older, there is less care available and more temptation. kids are more likely to experiment with drugs and sex between 3-6pm than late at night.

you might be right.

personally though, i always shuddered at the thought of leaving kids with strangers before they are old enough to communicate what goes on when you're not there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11682161

 

[neci]

you might be right.

personally though, i always shuddered at the thought of leaving kids with strangers before they are old enough to communicate what goes on when you're not there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11682161

you honestly never know how many there are. that's why parents have to be vigilant. if you cannot "pop" in at any time of day, without warning, you shouldn't have your child there.

 

[blunt_trauma]

you honestly never know how many there are. that's why parents have to be vigilant. if you cannot "pop" in at any time of day, without warning, you shouldn't have your child there.

true. but it still worries me.
tiny tots have no way of telling you something is wrong.

 

[dirtwrench]

Kids need parents. I would have loved it if my wife or I could have stayed home with our kids when they were young.

However, we were lucky to have fantastic daycare providers. The type that sent home stuff the kids made, always had enough food ready at meal times that if a couple parents showed up they were prepared, etc. My boys are 18 & 20 now. They still talk about some of the fun they had and things they learned at daycare. So maybe it wasn't the worst thing?

note- I live in a very rural area. Two of my daycare providers were certified pre-school teachers who had decided to stay home to work rather than going to jobs in town. When they couldn't be there, Grandmas showed up as substitutes.