Sacrifice is noble, but you haven't

[jackfaire]

I have no issue with stay at home parents. I think if you can stay at home and spend time with your kids when you choose to that's fine. Most parents who do this seem to understand how amazing their lives are that they can afford to do this.

Then there are some who think the world should hold them up on a pedestal and ask "what the hell is wrong with working parents why can't they be as noble as me?"

We see this in bad advice columns that ignore everything working parents or single parents deal with in raising their kids and proceeds to lecture said parents on "How you're doing it wrong"

So here's the thing. Sacrifice is Noble. Doing what you want that directly benefits you is not. We know there is no harm on kids who have two working parents much of the world's population has this scenario. I know back when I was a kid they tried to tell everyone that us Latchkey kids were suffering but we read those articles and were left wondering if they had even met a latchkey kid.

Most of us spent quality time with our families. In fact most of us liked our parents more than our peers because for us they weren't on top of us all the time micromanaging our lives. Our parents raised but rather than treat us like children all of the way gave us more and more independence and responsibility so that when we were old enough we could survive on our own.

I can clean my own house, cook my own meals, pick out my own clothes and have been able to from before I was old enough to move out of my parents house. At age 15 my parents could leave on a business trip for a weekend and I could feed, clothe myself, get my homework done and not throw a loud raucous house party because that's dumb.

My point is that it's not hurting kids having working parents and thus "staying home" whey are healthy fully functioning people is not a sacrifice. Thus it's not noble.

This minority of parents who want everyone to think it is will tell working mothers to their faces what horrible people they are for making their kids come home to an empty house (You know like many adults do until they get married)

They want ticker tape parades because they figured out how to do what they want with their lives without having to sacrifice their quality of living and yet we should call that a sacrifice.

That's when it bugs me really when a person claims that something that benefited them without a single bit of suffering on their part is sacrifice.

For example (Not that I think this is noble) for two years I have been stuck living in a town with no jobs. An opportunity presented itself to crash on a friend's couch in my home city where I can find a job. I will be allowed to stay until I am working and then once working start moving towards getting my own place.

To do this I have to give up everything but the clothes on my back. (All of my stuff will be in storage at my mom's so I will get it eventually) I won't have any of the services I enjoy, TV, Netflix, anything. Every dime I earn will be put towards the goal of creating a stable life with a stable living environment.

I will be sacrificing a lot to make this work. But I also want to do this I don't want to be stuck living at my mom's because I can't afford anything else. I don't want to keep being so far away from my friends that I only see them every few months. I want to come home. Thus it's not noble. But it's full of sacrifices.

Sitting down and realizing that with little to no adjusting to your life you can stay at home with the kids when that is exactly what you want to do. That isn't sacrifice and it sure as shit isn't noble.

Working a double shift so that your kid isn't going to school from the inside of a homeless shelter? Now that's sacrifice. That's noble. Show some damn respect.

[s_stabeler]

Agreed in principle, though you do need to be careful. To cut a long story short, it IS a sacrifice when you need to give something up. However, deciding to be a stay-at-home parent is not necessarily a sacrifice ( it can be, but only when you never planned on being a stay-at-home parent in the first place)

as for latch-key kids, I'd say it depends. The most obvious point is the kid really needs to be old enough- I accept childcare is expensive, but until the kid can look after themselves for an evening, you really do need childcare. Second is it depends on the area. ( for example, the stereotypical village where everyone knows each other by name and probably grew up as the best friend in the saying " a good friend will bail you out of jail. a best friend will be sitting beside you in the cell" it's probably safe enough- especially since there's likely SOMEONE trustworthy to watch the kids don't get into too much trouble- since it's the kind of place where people might not even have a lock on the front door. Whereas if you live somewhere where, in the words of James May on Top Gear "live in an area of London that's usually on fire" it's probably irresponsible to bring up a kid there, let alone leave them at home.)

[jackfaire]

Whereas if you live somewhere where, in the words of James May on Top Gear "live in an area of London that's usually on fire" it's probably irresponsible to bring up a kid there, let alone leave them at home.)

I would never ever ever let my kid be a latchkey kid in a small community where everyone knows everybody.

Ever. It's unsafe and dangerous. If we are talking a genuine "everyone knows everyone" if we are talking where that's actually the case and not really "it's not the size of New York" then it's dangerous as hell. Typically those homes are far apart. There is no neighbor's house to run to if a stranger breaks in. Say the attacker is someone you know they will catch you before you can reach safety.

Emergency services likely non-existent. Basically it's not safe out there.

My cousin grew up on a farm he would never ever have been allowed to be a latchkey kid like I was. Meanwhile I grew up in the city where there was a neighborhood precinct my next door neighbor was across my lawn. There were a ton of people to hear me scream for help.

Emergency services could get to me quickly and easily. Small communities don't mean close communities. It's not like Smurf Village.

My little brother broke his arm falling off our playset once. EMTs were there in less than 15 minutes. My cousin on the farm would have taken him 45 minutes to get to the nearest hospital and that's only once my aunt or uncle found him on their farm after searching however long it took if he was in too much pain to move.

Cities seem less safe because of the higher concentration of people thus more people who can commit crimes. But more people means more people. You're not in the middle of nowhere hoping someone finds you.

[Aragarthiel]

Small community doesn't necessarily mean the middle of nowhere, though.

I live near a small town, population ~300. It is the kind of community where everyone knows everyone else. However, it is also large enough for its own grocery store as well as a couple of restaurants. Outside of the town, it's difficult to find houses that are far enough apart that you couldn't get to your neighbors' in an emergency. You may have trouble getting there if you broke your leg and have to crawl, for example, but you wouldn't go for days without being found.

As for emergency services, well, that depends on the individual area. Police have no trouble getting to our area in a decent amount of time, but the ambulance services are pretty well known for not knowing the area like they should and getting lost. For example, my sister once had to drive her mother-in-law into town, where she had a medical emergency. They parked the car literally across the street from the ambulance bay (they didn't want to move her any more due to the nature of the emergency), and my sister spent ten minutes arguing with the 911 dispatcher that they were literally ACROSS THE STREET from the ambulances before she went over there and pounded on the door herself.

Don't ask me why she didn't do that to begin with. My sister is not known for her common sense.

[s_stabeler]

I'm more thinking of the small village version- note that I said that there would probably be someone with the free time to watch the kids. My point is that "latch-key" kids aren't inherently unsafe.