A reader writes:
For many of us, the choice is not between the SUV, boat and the lakehouse or homeschooling. And I think that's where the whole Crunchy Con project has rubbed some people the wrong way. Don't get me wrong, my wife and I are on board with most of what you advocate. It's just I know from personal experience a great many working moms aren't doing so because they want a new Camry and a massage every month. They do it because if they didn't, the family would have to completely alter their lives. I would have given up beach trips, true, if my mom had not worked. My family would also have reverted to some sort of Wendell Berry lifestyle. That may be a good thing for many of us, but certainly not all of us. I fully support home schooling, and my wife and I are praying about how we should handle this when we have school age children. But it's unfair, and does great harm to the CC project, to suggest that those mothers who work and do not homeschool are out for the material life.
I appreciate the point. As I told the reader in a personal note, we've gone back and forth on homeschooling in our house. We started Matthew on it, then when he was having trouble with that, went through a couple of religious schools before reverting back to a different homeschool model, after discovering that he has a learning disability. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons why people can't homeschool. I don't mean at all to endorse the idea that the only reason more people don't is because they're too selfish or materialistic. (Again, just because I post an article here, don't assume that I endorse its point of view; sometimes I post controversial things just to see what y'all have to say about it).
Anyway, each family's situation is different. You and your spouse have to decide for yourselves whether or not it's something that makes sense for your family, financially or otherwise. I do think, though, that for at least some people, hostility to homeschoolers comes from a sense that they're willing to make sacrifices that they (the hostile folks) aren't, but somehow feel that they should. IOW, they feel judged by the very presence of homeschoolers. I think the social psychology of organic eating works in the same way.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Ron, agree that the homeschooling conversion on this blog has often been presented as if you aren't homeschooling then you are busily pursuing material wealth in place of time with your kids. However, the decision to homeschool is more complicated. My wife is a stay at mother and a degreed teacher but we have sent our three kids to a christian pre-school (at considerable expense) and will send them to the excellent public elementary school. We believe our children will receive a very good education while giving my wife the opportunity to get involved in the school, spend time with the kids, and be involved with local mission work. As you can see, not a wealth or lifestyle decision but an educational decision.
I think there's something of a problem here created by the purpose for which certain arguments are made. In my experience, when homeschoolers start talking about the economic realities and giving up certain things, it is not to make the point that other people are "greedy and selfish" for having mom work instead of homeschooling, it is simply to explain how and why it is possible to "do without" in order to homeschool. Now I don't deny that there are homeschoolers out there who take the self-righteous line, but in my experience, that's not usually what's in view when homeschoolers talk about how they manage to sacrifice a second income in order to homeschool. It's more of a response to "I could never," to which the response is, "Well, we do, so you probably could if you chose to." Very often, this conversation takes place between people of similar circumstance -- I don't see a lot of doctors' wives berating low-income families for not homeschooling.
Yet it is understandable that third parties, hearing of such exchanges, assume that the point is to berate non-homeschoolers for not making the same choices. They are like people who walk into a conversation that's been going on, and assume that it's about something different. I don't think, though, that most of the time, it really is about "judging" those who choose not to homeschool or feel unable to do so -- it is more about explaining that those of us who homeschool aren't doing so with the assistance of fairy godmothers, but have found ways to make different choices work.
I am one of those homeschool moms who could spin out a list of "essentials" as long as my arm that we have done without so that I could be home with the kids and teach them. Pentamom is right, however, that I would never do so with the implication of, "look what we're willing to do without. If you weren't so selfish you'd do the same." I totally respect that not everyone can/will/should do what we have done. If my kids had been different sort of kids, we might well not have done what we have done.
However, I do drag out my list to counter those people who assume that I am home simply because we can afford it. That I have no idea what sort of sacrifices most people would need to make to keep a parent home with the kids. SO NOT TRUE! Many of the homeschool moms I know have a running joke about people who say, "I wish my husband made enough money for me to stay home." Well, your husband probably does make enough money - if you're willing to give up buying clothes new, having cell phones, long distance, cable, taking vacations, having two working cars, owning a home, eating out ever, living in or near a city, etc, etc, etc. The point is not that anyone else should be willing to give up those things. The point is simply that this isn't something which is limited to those who can do it relatively free of pain. It can be hard when you've made a counter-cultural choice and struggle with whether it's actually worth it to hear, "well, I just couldn't stay home. We'd have to do without . . ." and then list things that you actually have given up. It sends the message that such sacrifices are patently absurd and no one would really be willing to do without such things. IE that you must be either well to do or a complete nut job.
Everything has a cost. And the truth is that as much as we all like to laud our own choices, we're all paying some sort of price for what we choose to do. That's not a bad thing, necessarily. It's just the way life works. I think we'd do well to remember that about each other.
When we've CONSIDERED homeschooling, finances never came into play. It was more about our children and what we feel would be best for them in the long run. I also believe that mothers who homeschool tend to neglect themselves in a variety of ways. This 'selflessness' that they perceive within themselves appears at times to be more of a bad case of martyrdom. Rarely have I come across a 'homeschool mom' who does not seem tired, dragging, and simply wasted. I don't know, is that really what's best for kids? I don't think so. It's NOT selfish for a mother to take time away from her kids and tend to herself. More homeschool moms should do it instead of resenting the moms that do. None of us want to let our precious ducklings go and yes, homeschooling is a way to temporarily prevent that from happening. It will happen at some point though, and the question is, will our children fit into the world around them? Or, will they see only their mom as head of their past 12 years and wonder why she never did anything else except stay home with them and help them with their math? This exact scenario comes from a homeschooler that I personally know of. She is actually disgusted by her mom never 'getting a life,' and instead of following the pounded in religiosity, she has nothing to do with church and lives with her boyfriend and is working around the clock because college never worked out for her. It's kind've sad and sometimes homeschooling seems to be all about the moms or dads and the kids are just the parent's gratifying pawns on the table. Now, that to me is kind've selfish.
I don't understand the implicated financial trade-off for being a stay-at-home mom; particularly one that homeschools. We have 3 children and I have not worked since becoming a mother 9 years ago. My husband makes about $30,000 a year. We live in a 3,300 square foot log cabin on 4 acres of mountain land, drive a mini-van and a sports car, eat wonderful meals, travel endlessly, and otherwise live a very nice and comfortable lifestyle.
What would more money afford us? I don't know. Maybe that constant stream of $4 lattes everyone else is always talking about.
All it takes is a little discipline. You don't have to eat out constantly, you don't need high dollar cable and phone packages. You don't have to cave into current fashion trends or "must-have" electronic gadgets.
I don't know exactly whay sets us apart from the rest of our counterparts; but for our measly one-income household, we have a heck of a lot to show for it. And happy, well-educated kids to boot!
I wouldn't have it any other way...
:) G
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.