Lori Alexander talks the expense of children

[lilwriter85]

Lori's posting from today. I think she exaggerates certain things regarding material possessions and travel. Lori and her family seem to travel a few times a year, I guess she doesn't give that up.

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-expense-of-children.html

It is sad and unfortunate that the world has no trouble investing money into material possessions, technology, trips, large homes, and fancy cars, but find children too expensive. Material things rust and decay. Why not invest in things that are eternal like your husband and your children?

I write about this topic quite often. Children are indeed a blessing from the Lord. Helen Aardsma wrote The Mother's Companion for many years. I have written about her before. She has ten children and is a very wise, older woman. I learned a lot from reading all of her writings.

When she was young, there was a woman in her life that impacted her life greatly. She had many children, was home all the time, gardened, canned, sewed, entertained, and volunteered a lot. Helen wrote, "I remember her saying once that she felt belittled by the more modern women of the church, that she had little education and no 'real' job. But her family felt differently, and she impacted me more than all the 'modern' women of the church put together."

Helen is married to an amazing godly man. She is so grateful to him for "giving me the greatest earthly gift a woman can have: a godly home full to the brim with little ones." She lives in Illinois and they have never had much money. They live on a farm and their children all know how to work hard.

Our society today values careers, education, travel, and material possessions. Women who don't go after higher education and careers are looked down upon. If you are a stay-at-home mother, your value to society is immense. You are raising eternal treasures.

I don't look down on women who don't go after higher education or careers, but I think they should have back up plans in place.

[Lala]

It's my kids that are bankrupting me - and we don't do the latest and greatest gadgets. Our home is modest, our cars are paid off, we garden, I shop at thrift shops, make all of our own meals. I have 3 kids and would have loved to have had more, but they cost money and I would like to give them a decent life.

[ILoveJellybeans]

A sports car, computer, iPad, vacation...are all just one off purchases. Children cost way more, its just spread out across 18 years.

You can raise children with no money, but its not exactly giving them a good life-sleeping on a shelf crammed in a room with their 10 siblings, malnourished because 2 chicken breasts cant feed a family that big, never going to college....

[Sobeknofret]

We're financially tight because we made the decision to forgo my salary in favor of me staying home and homeschooling. We rarely travel, we don't have the latest gadgets, and the few we do have were almost universally given to us as gifts. Our furniture doesn't match, we don't have a showplace home, and our cars are at least 12 years old. If it's needed, I can go back to work in a second, but c'mon Lori.

[AtroposHeart]

Lori is just too priveldged to see actual finicial struggles of women "beneath" her.

She assumes since she has always had plenty of money, that means EVERYONE has always had the money they needed.

And if they struggle with children they obviously aren't trying hard enough.

I would love for Lori to change places with a minimiumun wage mother who lives in the ghetto and sees if she comes back with the same tune

[keen23]

Fuck Lori. I'm a mother, and I still don't understand the idea that motherhood is a calling from God (probably because I'm an atheist, and I didn't have my imaginary friend telling me to have kids to glorify "him"). I have three kids, because that's what my body was able to produce safely. And, we can provide for them comfortably on two salaries- yeah, I work, and I like to work. Even if I had one kid, I'd be working, because I don't want to stay home full time. But, it's my choice to work. I have tons of respect for women who choose to stay home, because they want to, and it works for their family. I don't respect women who stay home because they are told by their religion that it is the ONLY thing they can/should do.

[salex]

Lori's posting from today. I think she exaggerates certain things regarding material possessions and travel. Lori and her family seem to travel a few times a year, I guess she doesn't give that up.

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-expense-of-children.html

I don't look down on women who don't go after higher education or careers, but I think they should have back up plans in place.

What I find is that I could give shit less what Lori Alexander is a monster thinks, says or writes about anything, ever. I figure half her readers are from here, and the other half are choir.... I can only hope that her impact becomes less and less, if she has ever had any to begin with. I think the post you quoted is her fantasy about how people view her. I suspect most people care far less than she thinks about her, her godly home or her advice to young women. But, if she doesn't praise the sahm and godly obedient woman, then what has her life been for? She seems to have no real impact--no volunteer work that mattered, no job, no achievements other than writing about being spanked by Ken (or wtf ever they do). Her blog is sort of a midlife crisis diary.

[Katiebug]

We both work, although I'm on maternity leave for a few months right now. I am the bigger breadwinner and my employer provides our insurance benefits. It would not be possible for me to be a SAHM unless we chose to unload our house (probably via short sale or foreclosure in light of the current housing market in our area) and rehome our dog in order to live in a small 2 bedroom apartment in a crummy neighborhood, to have our children go on state insurance and for the two of us to be uninsured, to cut back to one car, and to be eating beans and rice and canned vegetables every day. While my husband earns less than I do, he does not want to be a SAHDad. He was laid off during my pregnancy and just recently started working again and the experience reinforced to us that getting by on my income only is not even remotely comfortable and we'd have to sacrifice too much to make it work in the long run. So we both work.

I like working. I like being around other adults and doing fairly interesting things. I like that our girls will see their mom and dad both working to support the family and both doing household chores and parenting. I like that I can go to the supermarket without counting every penny. I wish sometimes that I could work part time but PT opportunities in my line of work and with my employer are not easy to get.

We have a 3 year old and a newborn and will decide in a few years if our family is complete or if we will go for a third. 3 kids is our maximum. Our combined income allows us to live a comfortable (although not lavish) lifestyle. We certainly don't have luxuries; there are no iPads in our home, our smart phones are both over 2 years old, we haven't been on a real vacation in over 2 years (and it'll likely be another 2-3 before our next one), our house is small and the kitchen and bathrooms are in need of remodeling, my husband's car is 12 years old, and once our new one starts daycare our child care bill will be greater than our mortgage. You get the idea.

That said, the fact that both of us work does give us some financial freedom that we wouldn't have on a single income. We are able to keep our older daughter in daycare right now even while I'm on maternity leave, which minimizes the disruption to her daily routine and lets me focus on our new baby during the day. We have the money to contribute to 529 plans for each of our children (it's not much but it will help) and also to contribute to our 401(k)s and IRAs. We have our older daughter in swim lessons and will be able to let our kids be on sports teams and to have dance or art or music lessons too. We can have aquarium and science center memberships. We have a CSA share and can afford to feed our family a healthy diet. We can clothe our children (and ourselves) without having to shop for everything at the Goodwill. We may not live in a McMansion and drive fancy cars, but they will always have all of their needs met and some of their wants, too.

Kids ARE expensive - to us they're worth every penny! It's just that in our opinion, there's more to raising kids than just meeting the bare minimum on their physical needs; we want to give them whatever fun and enrichment we can during childhood and to help financially with their tertiary education and launching into adulthood. For our family that means both of us work.

Now, in an hour or two I have to go pick up our older kid from the EVIL daycare - where she's spent the day playing outside with friends, interacted with the school's resident guinea pig, learned about shapes and colors, had a nap, listened to her teacher read a Caldecott award winning children's book, and then done an art project related to the theme of that book. Such an awful situation, isn't it? :lol:

[Maggie Mae]

It is sad and unfortunate that the world has no trouble investing money into material possessions, technology, trips, large homes, and fancy cars, but find children too expensive. Material things rust and decay. Why not invest in things that are eternal like your husband and your children?

Biological "things" also decay and die, so I don't really understand what she is getting at here.

Our society today values careers, education, travel, and material possessions. Women who don't go after higher education and careers are looked down upon. If you are a stay-at-home mother, your value to society is immense. You are raising eternal treasures.

I do value career, education and travel. I think that education is important to society, I think that travel is invaluable in creating well-rounded people, and I think that having a career is important. I don't think less of women who choose not to go to university and pursue a career, but I doubt we will have much to talk about. Most of the women in my family work, but they don't have careers or degrees, and while I love them and they are really great people, there are not a lot of lively conversations happening. I have friends who got degrees and then decided to stay home with the kids - I don't talk to them much either. Not because I don't respect their decisions, but because we no longer have anything in common. They don't want to hear about my pets or my boyfriend or what I did last weekend, because in their mind, little Johnny is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT.

Stay-at-home moms are not invaluable to society soley for staying at home. My mom worked full time, my dad was disabled and stayed home, not out of desire but out of need, and somehow I managed to get to school, extra curricular activities, was fed three meals a day (breakfast was usually just oatmeal and fruit, lunch was packed and usually a sandwich + carrot sticks + (sometimes) chips or crackers, and dinner was a salad + a veggie + a main dish.) Somehow I survived and I never really understood the point of stay-at-home moms, especially when the children are in school. What do they DO all day? Why is it important to be at home if your kids are in school?

People who are invaluable to society are people who do things with their lives, people who invent things, people who rescue other people, people who go above and beyond the bare minimum to innovate, create, help, education, teach, and just overall be decent people.

[rward]

Yes, Lori, all those poor women whose children only eat when they get free lunch at the evil public school are only poor because they buy too many ipads. :roll:

[Jana814]

Agree with you! I know a woman who has 2 kids (13 months apart) they are now 7 & 8 she does NOT work, I think she should her kids r in school all day, and right they are in camp all day. (she takes after her Mother-in-law (who I also know) who never worked a day in her life either)

[salex]

Agree with you! I know a woman who has 2 kids (13 months apart) they are now 7 & 8 she does NOT work, I think she should her kids r in school all day, and right they are in camp all day. (she takes after her Mother-in-law (who I also know) who never worked a day in her life either)

A woman I met said she was a SAHM Of course her youngest was fighting in Iraq... So, I'm not sure she shouldn't at least change to Homemaker....

[lilith]

Agree with you! I know a woman who has 2 kids (13 months apart) they are now 7 & 8 she does NOT work, I think she should her kids r in school all day, and right they are in camp all day. (she takes after her Mother-in-law (who I also know) who never worked a day in her life either)

My kids are school age and I'm a SAHM. The school day (9am to 3pm) is significantly shorter than a work day, before and after school care and vacation care costs a lot for three kids, I admin for partner's business, shop and cook and clean, volunteer at the kid's school (which relies on volunteers that are getting scarcer and scarcer as more mums have to work), help with homework for at least an hour every evening, take kids to after school activities, pay bills, and do all the other tasks that keep our home running. I am definitely privileged not to have to work and spend 75% of my income on the childcare that would allow me to work, like some of my friends, but it's not just an economic decision - there is value to me not working that is appreciated by every member of my family.

I actually work harder now than I did when my kids were babies and toddlers and everything was home based. Coordinating and facilitating the schedules of three busy primary school kids can be hectic.

[SPHASH]

Agree with you! I know a woman who has 2 kids (13 months apart) they are now 7 & 8 she does NOT work, I think she should her kids r in school all day, and right they are in camp all day. (she takes after her Mother-in-law (who I also know) who never worked a day in her life either)

Sounds like Ann Romney, except I think Ann had nannies to raise her brats.

[Jana814]

Sounds like Ann Romney, except I think Ann had nannies to raise her brats.

I think your r right!

[momo27]

Somehow I survived and I never really understood the point of stay-at-home moms, especially when the children are in school. What do they DO all day? Why is it important to be at home if your kids are in school?

* Regular lurker poking her head out of the shadows*

I don't know what other women do while their kids are at school, but I spend my time tutoring math in a middle school, serving as our neighborhood action coordinator, volunteering as an adult literacy tutor at the public library, chairing an organization that supports women running for local public office, teaching financial education courses for low-income people interested in starting small businesses, organizing voter registration and information campaigns, serving on the city transportation planning commission and on the board of the local housing authority. Seems like my days are usually pretty full.

[wayward]

Yeah, the Aardmas live in a nearby county and I used to know one of their sons. He seemed like a nice guy, but there was something about Helen Aardsma's blog that really creeped me out.

themotherscompanion.org/correspondence/discipline/discipline.php

Lori's posting from today. I think she exaggerates certain things regarding material possessions and travel. Lori and her family seem to travel a few times a year, I guess she doesn't give that up.

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-expense-of-children.html

I don't look down on women who don't go after higher education or careers, but I think they should have back up plans in place.

[FeministShrew]

Lori's posting from today. I think she exaggerates certain things regarding material possessions and travel. Lori and her family seem to travel a few times a year, I guess she doesn't give that up.

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-expense-of-children.html

I don't look down on women who don't go after higher education or careers, but I think they should have back up plans in place.

What I want to know is how anyone can volunteer & still be home all the time. :shifty-kitty:

[GolightlyGrrl]

Sounds like Ann Romney, except I think Ann had nannies to raise her brats.

I figured Ann might have worked jobs during high school and college and I thought she may had gone to work before she had kids. But nope. This bitch never actually held a J.O.B. She has no idea what it's like to get up early in the morning, get ready to work, fight traffic, deal with a giant work load, bosses, co-workers, a measly paycheck and crappy benefits like 99.9% of Americans do. And you know what? I don't think she has enough empathy to give a shit.

On-topic:

http://jezebel.com/babies-not-even-wort ... -718813405

[Hisey]

* Regular lurker poking her head out of the shadows*

I don't know what other women do while their kids are at school, but I spend my time tutoring math in a middle school, serving as our neighborhood action coordinator, volunteering as an adult literacy tutor at the public library, chairing an organization that supports women running for local public office, teaching financial education courses for low-income people interested in starting small businesses, organizing voter registration and information campaigns, serving on the city transportation planning commission and on the board of the local housing authority. Seems like my days are usually pretty full.

Here's what I do. First, the usual stuff like cook, shop, clean, laundry. That way I don't have to do that stuff while the kids are home. And I spend time with the hubby. He doesn't work a 9-5 job, though he does work full time. This way we get some time alone without the kids. And I exercise, usually at the gym, for an hour a week, plus I've taken yoga. Actually I often do this with Mr. Hisey. Then I volunteer at a low-income school (tutoring). Then I volunteer at the kids' school (some years, that's been a biggie) I also do our taxes during those school hours, and do my husband's business paperwork (there's a lot of that).

I actually would like to work, but have never been able to find a job that lets me work from 9:15 (when my oldest is off to school) to 2 (my youngest is home at 2:15). And until recently, I drove the kids to school, so that took up a lot of time.

Basicaly, it makes DH and me happy to have someone at home (or near home) to make things run smoother, but one thing I never do is judge others choices. My own history has partly led me to make this choice, and I'm assuming other people have different histories, and make different choices.

[patsymae]

What is so wrong about liking nice things and wanting a decent standard of living (which can vary according to individual wants/needs, of course)?

As I kid I lived through both "real" poverty (not enough food, water turned off at times, no dental care, father died because of not having money to pay a doctor), and also I guess what you would call "relative" poverty--not being able to participate in the life of the community. We lived in a summer resort town but we were the only kids there who weren't allowed on the beach or the boardwalk during the summer--lots of fun. Never could go with other kids to the movies or get a coke, join a school club or sports team, or be in a show or learn a musical instrument. Hand-me-down clothes from a cousin who was younger than me but bigger than me--so when I was 12 I was wearing clothes that her mother picked out for a 10-year-old. Home hair cuts, and my mother wasn't good at that; bringing a cringe-inducing gift to a birthday party, not being able to play Barbie dolls. Wearing boots that were my brothers and too big. Constantly being made fun of. None of this evokes fond memories.

I was a single mom who struggled like we all do, and now I live quite modestly, I think (think freecycle, goodwill, queen of the groupons), but that's my choice. I see NOTHING virtuous about grueling poverty and NOTHING wrong with wanting a nice home, nice clothes, professional haircuts, a car that not only works but won't embarrass you if you go on a job interview, sending decent wedding gifts, and providing your children with the same types of clothes, leisure activities and opportunities that others in your community have. Actually, I see nothing wrong with wanting to eat in nice restaurants as often as you like, buy a quality camera or telescope or quilting machine or whatever it is you enjoy, take cruises twice a year or buy yourself an effing cottage in Brittany if that's what you like to do. As long as you aren't screwing anyone over (and I don't count screwing over the potential poverty-stricken children that you could be breeding instead of working for what you want), there's IMO nothing wrong with wanting to live comfortably in the material world.

[Minerva]

It is sad and unfortunate that the world has no trouble investing money into material possessions, technology, trips, large homes, and fancy cars, but find children too expensive.

9 in 10 Americans deem "investing" in children worthwhile. But sure, Lori, keep thinking children are an endangered fucking species.

Material things rust and decay. Why not invest in things that are eternal like your husband and your children?

Part of the reason I'd rather have material things than children is because material things don't stay in your life forever. You can't get rid of a kid once you have them. You can give them up for adoption, but the fact that you have a kid will still stay with you forever. If anything, I think I'd cope less well with giving up a child I birthed than raising a child I didn't want.

Also, you might be more likely to lose something material, but when that happens, it's a not big deal. I only have a 0.6% chance of losing a child before their 1st birthday, only about a 0.03% chance of losing them between age 1 and adulthood*, but that would be literally the most devastating loss I could experience. It's not something I'm going to risk setting myself up for unless I really want to be a parent.

[link=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf]*Calculated based on 2010 American death rates.[/link]

[Kailash]

I am also a SAHM. I got my first job at age 15, worked steadily until I was 28. At one point I was a full time college student, working 32+ hours a week at one job, and 15-20 hours at another. I also later supported my husband while he got a master's degree in Biology. Now he works full time, our daughter will be in 2nd grade and goes to public school. What do I do all day? Sometimes I nap. Sometimes I read for hours. But on other days I help out friends and family with babysitting, house cleaning, various errands. I am the person they call when they're stranded or whatnot. I am lucky enough to get to attend all of my daughter's school trips and other activities. When my daughter is home I am "on call" 24/7. I take care of everything in the house and keep the cars maintained. I have a job. I just don't get paid, and I don't get sick days or vacation days.

What Lori refuses to accept is that being a SAHM isn't for everyone, and hers is not the best way for every family, either.

[Sumeri]

Lori doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about. My husband and I have 4 children combined, 2 of whom are in adulthood, one starting college in the fall, and one elementary school aged. it takes both of our salaries to keep our house and one decent (low end, base model) car running. Has she ever bought groceries for three teenaged boys? Pfft. We live in an area of the country where housing is cheap, auto and home insurance is cheap, public education is good, and my son has earned thousands of dollars for college due to hard, hard, hard work. We don't SPLURGE. I get my hair cut at WalMart like twice a year and buy my clothes at Salvation Army. There is no way in hell that we could make it in any way on one salary by "cutting back" or "counting our blessings". I'm not bitching - not by a long shot. I love my children. But I also grew up in extreme poverty with a crazy mother and there is no way I am subjecting my kids to a life of deprivation so I can stay home when they are not even here all day.

[treehugger]

I've said this before, but.... I do see my daughter as a blessing. That is why my husband and I are not planning on having a million kids. I would like to provide a great education for my daughter. I would like to be able to give her the chance to experience travel, sports, and to be able to pursue her interests. I am a SAHM, but I am thankful we can afford to buy our girl new clothes every now and then, take her on trips and give her real food to eat. If we could not afford to do that, I would find a job (and we would stop with the one kid we have, and not have two like we are planning ;) ).