General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you do not provide financially for your children how can you say you are raising them?
You can't raise a child without providing financially for them.
You can't claim to be raising children if you don't provide for them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)didn't raise their children?
You might want to re-think this one...
OccupyTheIRS
(84 posts)Did they not raise their children?
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Announced the other day that money is a problem and we should just get rid of it. I didn't really know what to say....
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)
OccupyTheIRS
(84 posts)People will use things to represent money no matter what the government is minting. All things have value, and can be traded like money is.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)s/he said it.
surrealAmerican
(11,360 posts)That poor people shouldn't be allowed to have children?
If you lose your job, should they be put in a orphanage?
Even though it is desirable for parents to provide financially for their children, it isn't always possible, and might not always be in the children's best interest.
salin
(48,955 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Her father, my grandfather, earned a total of $1,200 in 1939 working as a university-educated registered pharmacist.
The family lived in a small town in Iowa. They owned their home, valued at $3,500. They bought it with a small inheritance that my grandmother got when her grandmother died.
My grandparents were never able to give money to their children. They kept them feed and clothed, just barely.
What exactly do you mean by "providing financially,", RB TexLa?
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you mean "at least one of a couple is earning an income", you are saying that an unemployed single parent or a couple who are both unemployed are not raising their children?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but being raised is happening, cant be stopped
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
appleannie1
(5,067 posts)I did it in conjunction with my husband, both when he worked and when he was laid off. There is more to raising kids than providing them financially. There are sleepless nights when they are sick, there is cleaning up after them, guiding them, etc. etc. It is all included in raising.
hlthe2b
(102,234 posts)(who seem to have inspired a lot of your attitudes), "RAISED" their children--sans money.
Do the countless numbers of women (and now men) with children widowed in war, and who received survivor's benefits, not RAISE their children?
Uggh....
lunatica
(53,410 posts)There is, of course, manners, character building, teaching socially acceptable ways of behaving, dressing, feeding, and nursing. Plus there's teaching discipline in making your kids do homework, their allotted chores, not lying, being kind to animals and other living things, and helping them communicate and act friendly. There's providing a way for them to join soccer, baseball, high school football, and generally teaching them to be good American citizens.
But if all you need to do is throw money at them, then you've obviously failed because all the above is not important and therefore useless.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)because they don't get paid to do it?
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)When I was a kid we had 6 kids in my family. We never felt poor. We always had good food on the table and I remember my mother (and dad) making our underwear out of bed sheets. They were better then the ones you buy today. My mother even made our Holy Commuion dresses out of bedsheets and she may our vails. We look like little brides and you would have never known they were sheets. At christmas time we were so lucky to get one or 2 gifts each. We were thrilled with that. We would share what we got. My parents bought 2 german sleds that we all shared. Of course back then we didn't have all these computer games, ipods and so on. But we had each other. We all go outside with the neighborhood kids and we all played. We got a good public school education. We didn't have to worry about wearing the fancy cloths back then. My mom made our cloths. They weren't the fancy ones but they got us through school. I wouldn't trade that life to see some of the lives that kids have today. They have ipods, computers, electronical games, parents that work hard and are so tired that some just want to come home and rest. Many people have to work. I hear some kids are upset because mom and dad didn't get them what they wanted. I see many spoiled kids and I see some great kids. Sometimes kids put pressure on their parents to keep up with their friends. I know some rich people that are so unhappy because they have to keep up with the Jones. Where I see families that aren't rich and the families are pretty happy.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)Stay at home mothers raise their children more than an often workaholic father does and while they might contribute quite a bit when it comes to home made meals, clothing, and even schooling, they don't contribute a dime of outside money.
I'd say simply contributing money doesn't count as raising offspring. It's the hands-on parenting that raises them.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)that theory only applies to humans - after the concept of money was conceived.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Maybe you can flesh it out a little more, so we can understand exactly what you meant by that. For example, is a poor woman who is raising children on her own, but cannot find work and is receiving various methods of taxpayer-provided support raising her children? If you believe she is not, what alternative do you suggest?
And what about a woman who does not work outside of the home, but whose family income is adequate?
Now, I would say that a deadbeat dad who refuses to pay child support, and who has little or no contact with them, is not raising his children. He may have fathered them, but is not raising them.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
LisaL
(44,973 posts)If you leave your children and don't provide for them, then you are not raising them.
But if you are staying home and take care of them, then you are raising them.
It's not about the source of money.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)None of us would be here, history would have been completely different.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)spectrum, shall we? That way you don't need to think of the poor to understand this. When wealthy parents die and minor children are left, it is often the case that the financial support for those children is more than sufficient to care for them. Those children, you see, will still need 'raising' and someone usually takes that role. The person who actually raises the children may or may not pay for their needs. If the children are in fact wealthy, they are now paying their own way, although others make the decisions for them, it is their money. And yet someone must still raise them.
So all the money in the world does not replace actual parenting, and the money is not the parenting. Many children with all the financial security in the world are not raised at all or are raised poorly or raised using proxies.
Same principles apply when there is little money. The parenting is not the paying, nor is the paying the parenting.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Smoking coming out of your ears? Bzzzzzttt...
Texasgal
(17,045 posts)People have been raising children for eons.
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)
RC
(25,592 posts)Are nannies included?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)we're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside.
Sid
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... subject line and saw the author
dems_rightnow
(1,956 posts)It makes you sound less intelligent than you surely are.
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)
fishwax
(29,149 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)so they should not have kids.
That's what you're implying.
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts)You can't be serious!
Dumbest post I've seen in a very long time. 
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I am embarrassed for you.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)It is ridiculous and hateful on so many levels.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I don't know if a jury has looked at the post, tho.
Sid
cali
(114,904 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Does anyone know if this has been alerted on? I hate using the alert button if a jury has already decided.
dems_rightnow
(1,956 posts)"extremely stupid" deserves an alert.
It's far more useful to leave up and laugh at.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)One can provide for a child and literally have no party in rearing them and one can do all the work and provide all the support of upbringing but not bring a dollar to the table.
I don't know what your actual point is but it seems important to you while being afraid to actually say it beyond a simplistic and less than accurate sentence or maybe you mean something totally else or maybe you don't know what you mean but on the surface it seems poorly thought out and less than sure what rearing children is.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)children to provide for them how can you say you raised them? You can't.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)However, that's one hell of a slam you're giving to real stay at home mothers who are taking financial and career hits as well as a huge personal risk to stay home with their kids while they're young.
Raising them means hands on parenting, not tossing money to the enterprise and especially not hiring staff.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Your original premise was ridiculous enough. Now this? So all the SAHM in the past decades did not raise their children? No, you are just CYA and being foolish.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)help with the homework, provide guidance, teach reading, writing, math, the arts, provide supervision, be responsible for discipline and do any of the thousands of things a great parent does and not provide financially.
Just as some rich out of touch ex-husband can write a check but otherwise not contribute a moment to the upbringing of children.
Ann Rmoney may have been a parent or she may have passed the buck to help but that is the measure not whether she provided money to the household or not.
You are essentially making the argument that say (if they were real) June Cleaver did not contribute to the upbringing of Wally and the Beaver because Ward was the one bringing home the bacon and you must realize the silliness of the position.
Hell, you're arguing my mother generally didn't raise us and that is more than one step over the line that no one would risk their ass saying to someone face to face.
Your point is wrong, illogical, and seems dismissive of all but cash to me.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)That is a dead beat mom, nothing else she does changes that.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)You are also essentially claiming that monetary contributions are all that has merit and that actual parenting is a nothing and that is way past disgusting.
I also tend to believe you are pushing a false point. At some point you had a stay at home ancestor and they probably worked harder than most alive now ever have.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)See how easy that was? And seeing as we are on the internet you have no idea if I'm working, staying home, telling the truth, lying, or just making fun of your post. For all you know I don't even have kids. 
KG
(28,751 posts)
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)is sending a child support check in an amount perfectly adequate for that child's material needs, yet does not have a thing to do with the kid, is he "raising" that child?
Sorry, I had to go to the opposite extreme to show you what I believe is the fallacy of your OP.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)You have just demolished the OP's premise. Well done. Thank you.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)'raising' them?
The parents, who jet off to the south of France every chance they get, leaving the kids behind?
The nanny, who sees the kids get dressed and off to school, takes them to their activities, sees to their general welfare seven days a week?
The person spending the money, or the person spending the time with the children?
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)But it's best not to go there with the Romneys. Chances are, they have tons of photos to release of family vacations, etc. Besides, Mormons try to stick to something called "Family Home Evening" generally on Monday nights, where everybody in the family participates in some sort of activity, and I'm not just talking about Monday Night Football, either. Unless Steve Young was playing.
We have far more to hit Mitt with in regard to his foreign bank accounts, Bain Capital's preditory capitalism, and his flip-flopping. Bringing his wife and kids into this is just dirty pool, and we cannot demand that our political enemies leave hands off of Michele and the Obama daughters if we engage in it.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Fair game, as they put themselves out there.
dems_rightnow
(1,956 posts)The best reason not to do it is because it will cost votes. Don't think it won't.
Response to RB TexLa (Original post)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
adigal
(7,581 posts)If "provide" means feeding them, and educating them, and taking them to the library and to their sports and nonsports activities, then I agree. I "provide" means paying for their college, 100%, then I disagree. We can only do what we can do, and my kids had to get scholarships and take out loans.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)adigal
(7,581 posts)Iggo
(47,552 posts)You saying my mom didn't raise me the first 12 years of my life, just because she didn't bring home a paycheck?
You're wrong, sir.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)happy?