Sacrifice is under rated

I have made a few sacrifices in my life. All were for family. Most were for my children. In today’s world society seems to admire those who are successful making money more than those who are successful in their relationships with people.

I don’t believe that poverty equals happiness or that wealth equals misery. Wealth causes its own challenges and problems and so does poverty. What I do believe is that sacrifice is under rated. Sacrifice takes strength of character. Sacrifice means putting someone else’s needs before your own. When that other person is your child, then sacrifice equals love. You can never under rate love. It is the most powerful motivator in the universe.

Photo: Flickr/Kelly Sikkema

Photo: Flickr/Kelly Sikkema

When my ex-husband and I divorced my economic situation took an abrupt downturn. My son and I moved from a luxurious home in an affluent suburb to a small apartment in a blue collar neighborhood. Our new home had none of the frills and extra amenities like the home we left behind. It was elbow-cracking small, the unreliable air conditioning made it heavy with heat in the Texas summers, and the neighbors were sometimes sketchy. But it was the best my budget could afford.

My son, they said, didn’t deserve to have his standard of living change like it did. They believed I should have put him in daycare and returned to the workforce full time.


My son and I went from being part of the upper class to living below the poverty level. We didn’t go out to eat or take vacations anymore. I paid cash for a car that I had to drive with my fingers crossed that it would make it to our destination. Things that used to be a regular part of our budget, like a gym membership and weekend movie outings, became luxuries. Now we could only afford most of the basics, most of the time.

I hadn’t worked full time since my marriage. After the divorce, I could have. Many people let it be clearly known that they thought I should have. My son, they said, didn’t deserve to have his standard of living change like it did. They believed I should have put him in daycare and returned to the workforce full time. But I knew that doing that would exact a price much higher than the disappointment of not going to the movie theater or the neighborhood pizza place.

When my son was an infant, just learning to pull himself up and creep along low level furniture, he was mauled by a dog. The animal, a golden retriever three times his size, sunk its teeth into both sides of my boy’s head and threw him, effortlessly, into the air. That moment, forever etched into my brain, changed my son from a confident, happy little boy into an anxious, uncertain one. It was as if his life was cracked in half: before the mauling, when he was carefree in a world that was his playground, and after the mauling, when he felt unsafe anywhere but in my arms.

Putting him into daycare for 40 to 50 hours a week would have undermined the hard work we’d both put into restoring his self-confidence.
My son did not quickly recover his belief that he’s safe in the world separate from me. He is better now, but in those years after the divorce he was still recovering his confidence in himself and his ability to navigate through life. His one safe place was in our little apartment with me by his side. Even with other family members he felt exposed. He had no tolerance for strangers or unfamiliar environments.

Putting my son in daycare would have cost him more than sadness about not going out to eat anymore. He didn’t need a restaurant-made pizza. He did need to spend as much time as possible in an environment where he felt safe. Putting him into daycare for 40 to 50 hours a week would have undermined the hard work we’d both put into restoring his self-confidence.

Instead of taking a job that would have required my son being under someone else’s care for the bulk of the work week, I took a job I could do from home, on my own schedule. While the income did allow me to buy a reliable car and increase our weekly food budget, it still left us living on an income below the federal poverty level.

But I was home with my son when he struggled through panic attacks or was barely functional during the day because he hadn’t slept the night before due to nightmares and anxiety. He wasn’t with other caregivers trying to wrestle with those challenges on his own because he couldn’t trust them to keep him safe.

Financial poverty was my choice. I made it because I knew that being in daycare would take emotional health from my son that no amount of money could replace. I never asked anyone else to be responsible for my choice though. We never received public assistance. There were a few times when I went to a local food bank because my court-ordered support payments lagged behind. But other than those few times, I didn’t ask anyone to bear the cost of my choosing poverty.

Why do we find it more acceptable for a parent to be emotionally unavailable to their son or daughter than we do for a parent to choose to live below the poverty line?
I was still judged, sometimes harshly, for that decision. Our society can set very limiting norms for determining what is and is not acceptable parenting behavior. We are told that the choice of being poor is one made by lazy parents who would rather not have to work than provide a good life for their children. Somehow we have equated living above the poverty line with the preferred place to raise children. The two are not mutually exclusive

Children need more than money and the things that money can buy. They do have a right to having their basic needs met; housing, clothing, food, education and medical care. But they also require love, guidance and protection. When mothers and fathers cannot provide those, no amount of money can fill the aching loss a child feels. Why do we find it more acceptable for a parent to be emotionally unavailable to their son or daughter than we do for a parent to choose to live below the poverty line?

My choice was never the popular one. But it was the right one. It gave my son the safe space he needed to regain his footing. His counselor educated me in ways to help him navigate his anxiety. When he was wringing wet with fear I was there to talk him through his overwhelming feelings. Those were the benefits of our living in financial poverty.

As my son’s health improved I increased my number of hours worked. Slowly, we crept into the lower middle class then into the true middle class. I’m now able to provide him with the newly released video games or a trip to the movie theater. If I had chosen to return to work full time and place him in daycare I doubt those luxuries would have meant much to him. Now, as a teenage boy who became healthy in a financially impoverished but emotionally rich home, he can fully enjoy them along with his restored sense of confidence in himself and the goodness of the world.
– goodmenproject.com

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Peter Jenkins

    That is an excellent story, and I would say that she (or he, it isnt clear from the story) made the right choise for their son. My only question is why didnt the owner of the golden retriever pay towards their living costs? Surely they had a moral obligation to do so considering it was their animal that had attacked this person’s son?

    • DrFix

      “That is an excellent story, and I would say that she (or he, it isnt clear from the story) ” …. When my ex-husband and I divorced

  • Odd Ball

    A very good post.
    When you have children to look after, there can be peer pressure to go find a job, however, there are possible issues that some of those cost free moralists never consider.
    There are 12 weeks of school holidays a year, if you have a full time job you only have 4 weeks holidays a year, which means your children are in daycare for 8 weeks. This means you are working to pay someone else to look after your kids over this time, and you are probably going backwards financially during this time.
    During the school term, it’s likely you need to use either before school care and/or after school care during the week, which can be an expensive exercise.
    It can be argued that the grandparents should be involved somehow, but that assumes they are actually capable of this.
    The other issue is that your assuming that the childcare service is looking after your child & keeping them on the right track, but what if they aren’t?
    The last time I had a full time job, the kids needed to be in before & after school care, my oldest was OK, but my youngest one just didn’t cope, I spoke to them several times about this, and all I got was reassuring platitudes.
    After 2 weeks, her teacher called us in for a meeting & told us our child was unteachable by lunchtime, because she was so distressed about going to childcare.
    I quit the the job the next day, and just got them out of there.
    These days I do some casual work, which is far much flexible, and the kids are a lot happier & secure in themselves.

  • Another Middleagedwhiteguy

    Up several more notches in my esteem, SB.

    And we wonder why so many people abandon their oldies into “old peoples’ homes” – guess some of them were trained up in that way of thinking, abandoned by their own oldies when they were vulnerable. Given expensive presents instead of attention, anything to make them shut up and go away. Sow what you want to reap . . .

    Harry Chapin comes to mind with “Cat’s in the cradle”

    Our social-control gurus tell us that full-time jobs are essential and daycare is good, but that is simply because they want to break the bonds of trust and affection, replace all reality and loyalty with their rubbishy stuff, and control future generations.

38%