Are you offended when someone says they “didnt want someone else to raise my kids”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

There are 168 hours in a week.
Infants are awake for 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 48 of those hours, you see your kid 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 28% of the time, you see your kids 37% of the time.
It's 23% of their waking time... 15 hours.

Thanks for pointing out how little actual time is spent "raising" your kids.... lol 37% of your time.

Well, first, like I said, I'm a FT working mom. My kids are in ES now, but when my oldest was an infant we had a nanny. I was gone from 8 to 4. This DD actually was a "unicorn" napper who took an am nap from 9-11 and a pm nap from 1:30 to 3:30. So I missed out on 3.5 waking hours of time with my DD M-F. A lot of PPs (you included) think that is a small amount, but I don't think it is percentage wise. It was like a full third to almost 40% of her 9 waking hours each weekday! No one is raising their kids during their sleeping hours -- those 9 hours are all we have to work with and all that matter for this dicussion. I missed out on a bit more than a third to 40% of them each day. It's a lot to me. (With my second I had a WFH job which meant my younger DD was with a nanny or later daycare more like 9 to 3:30, and I felt much better about that percentage of time away.) But I guess it's all personal...

I also had a similar schedule. A baby doesn’t sleep that much forever. Sure, maybe the first year. I can’t remember. I’m sure you spent plenty of time with your kid as did I. Theee people trying to calculate how much they spend with their kids are annoying.

I was a working mom and a SAHM. I spent more time with my kids when I was a SAHM. The end.

NP. The point you're missing is "time" doesn't mean just hours of proximity. The point people are trying to make is quality time, not simply the passage of time, is what matters. Of course a SAHM spends more hours with her kids. She's home with them all day. But when you take out sleeping hours and hours spent doing other things like errands/laundry, etc., the hours of quality time spent are fewer than the hours of just time spent. If a WOHM outsources everything like cleaning/laundry and therefore spends all her non-working awake hours 1:1 with her kids, then that increases the number of hours of quality time she is able to spend. So the people saying WOHMs spend more time with their kids than SAHMs do are nuts and the people saying SAHMs spend all their waking hours 1:1 with their kids are nuts. The truth lies closer to the middle so just acknowledge that and stop arguing about these insane schedules and children who either sleep all day or never napped more than 7 minutes at a time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Yes it is true most SAHM's that are wealthy and poor send their kids to 5 days of preschool because of the value it adds. For the poor it's free and for the wealthy it's not a big deal.

But if you give up an income and have to skrimp I understand you can't send your kids 5 days a week and that's fine, they will be fine.

I live in a UMC suburb. The wealthy SAHMs here do "3 day 3's" -- preschool 3 mornings a week. They don't see a value beyond that amount of preschool time for a 3 yr old.

Good for them, I’m sure their status of wealthy SAHMs gives them the knowledge to know there’s no value after 3 days. You should ask them to help write policy with their expertise based on being wealthy stay at home moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Yes it is true most SAHM's that are wealthy and poor send their kids to 5 days of preschool because of the value it adds. For the poor it's free and for the wealthy it's not a big deal.

But if you give up an income and have to skrimp I understand you can't send your kids 5 days a week and that's fine, they will be fine.

I live in a UMC suburb. The wealthy SAHMs here do "3 day 3's" -- preschool 3 mornings a week. They don't see a value beyond that amount of preschool time for a 3 yr old.

Our SAHM do preschool 5 days and aftercare 2-3 days a week (easier than playdates which have to be planned). Aftercare just ended up being easier than trying to figure out playdate in the middle of dinner.

I find this very hard to believe! Here (again, wealthy area with lots of SAHMs) the typical schedule is:

3yr olds - preschool 3 mornings a week (typically 9 to noon)
4 yr olds (i.e. "pre-k" year) - 5 days a week (typically 9-1)...some families do "enrichment" add-ons until 3ish one or two days a week
Then no aftercare once in ES, but some after-school ECs, playground meet-ups, etc.

+1
Our preschool was around 3 hrs / 3 days for pre-3, and 4 hours / 4 days for pre-K. Anything beyond those hours typically falls under the daycare umbrella.

My kids went to Langley Pre-K 3 five days a week. Then we moved and they went to another private for Pre-K 4 five days a week.

But I guess those schools are really masquerading as daycares.

The consensus on this thread seems to be that if you're a SAHM, your children are probably napping most of the day. Yet if you happen to work full time and your children are at Langley, they're fully awake and engaged in advanced academic pursuits from drop-off to pick-up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Yes it is true most SAHM's that are wealthy and poor send their kids to 5 days of preschool because of the value it adds. For the poor it's free and for the wealthy it's not a big deal.

But if you give up an income and have to skrimp I understand you can't send your kids 5 days a week and that's fine, they will be fine.

I live in a UMC suburb. The wealthy SAHMs here do "3 day 3's" -- preschool 3 mornings a week. They don't see a value beyond that amount of preschool time for a 3 yr old.

Our SAHM do preschool 5 days and aftercare 2-3 days a week (easier than playdates which have to be planned). Aftercare just ended up being easier than trying to figure out playdate in the middle of dinner.

I find this very hard to believe! Here (again, wealthy area with lots of SAHMs) the typical schedule is:

3yr olds - preschool 3 mornings a week (typically 9 to noon)
4 yr olds (i.e. "pre-k" year) - 5 days a week (typically 9-1)...some families do "enrichment" add-ons until 3ish one or two days a week
Then no aftercare once in ES, but some after-school ECs, playground meet-ups, etc.

+1
Our preschool was around 3 hrs / 3 days for pre-3, and 4 hours / 4 days for pre-K. Anything beyond those hours typically falls under the daycare umbrella.

My kids went to Langley Pre-K 3 five days a week. Then we moved and they went to another private for Pre-K 4 five days a week.

But I guess those schools are really masquerading as daycares.

The consensus on this thread seems to be that if you're a SAHM, your children are probably napping most of the day. Yet if you happen to work full time and your children are at Langley, they're fully awake and engaged in advanced academic pursuits from drop-off to pick-up.

I have kids who went to a well regarded daycare and a kid who went to a well respected preschool. The daycare did many more activities than the much more expensive preschool. The preschool had many children of famous and rich parents. The daycare had MC/UMC dual working families. The preschool counseled/kicked out kids with behavioral problems.

You can’t see much difference at age 5 but there is a huge difference ten years later. This has everything to do with the parents and nothing to do with the preschool, daycare or nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Yes it is true most SAHM's that are wealthy and poor send their kids to 5 days of preschool because of the value it adds. For the poor it's free and for the wealthy it's not a big deal.

But if you give up an income and have to skrimp I understand you can't send your kids 5 days a week and that's fine, they will be fine.

I live in a UMC suburb. The wealthy SAHMs here do "3 day 3's" -- preschool 3 mornings a week. They don't see a value beyond that amount of preschool time for a 3 yr old.

Good for them, I’m sure their status of wealthy SAHMs gives them the knowledge to know there’s no value after 3 days. You should ask them to help write policy with their expertise based on being wealthy stay at home moms.

Goodness, what are you so angry about? Many preschool programs for 3 yr olds tend to be 3 mornings a week, so someone out there other than "wealthy SAHMs" presumably thinks that is a developmentally appropriate/desirable amount of time for a 3 yr old to be spending in a structured, classroom, group setting. Jeez, simmer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Yes it is true most SAHM's that are wealthy and poor send their kids to 5 days of preschool because of the value it adds. For the poor it's free and for the wealthy it's not a big deal.

But if you give up an income and have to skrimp I understand you can't send your kids 5 days a week and that's fine, they will be fine.

I live in a UMC suburb. The wealthy SAHMs here do "3 day 3's" -- preschool 3 mornings a week. They don't see a value beyond that amount of preschool time for a 3 yr old.

Good for them, I’m sure their status of wealthy SAHMs gives them the knowledge to know there’s no value after 3 days. You should ask them to help write policy with their expertise based on being wealthy stay at home moms.

Goodness, what are you so angry about? Many preschool programs for 3 yr olds tend to be 3 mornings a week, so someone out there other than "wealthy SAHMs" presumably thinks that is a developmentally appropriate/desirable amount of time for a 3 yr old to be spending in a structured, classroom, group setting. Jeez, simmer.

+1. If you actually enjoy being home with your children, it’s really hard to do museums, pumpkin patches/farms, zoos, etc. if you send them to preschool 5 mornings a week. That’s why I didn’t do it. The SAHMs I know who used the 5 day program didn’t really seem to like being at home and/or were trying to work PT without other childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

There are 168 hours in a week.
Infants are awake for 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 48 of those hours, you see your kid 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 28% of the time, you see your kids 37% of the time.
It's 23% of their waking time... 15 hours.

Thanks for pointing out how little actual time is spent "raising" your kids.... lol 37% of your time.

Well, first, like I said, I'm a FT working mom. My kids are in ES now, but when my oldest was an infant we had a nanny. I was gone from 8 to 4. This DD actually was a "unicorn" napper who took an am nap from 9-11 and a pm nap from 1:30 to 3:30. So I missed out on 3.5 waking hours of time with my DD M-F. A lot of PPs (you included) think that is a small amount, but I don't think it is percentage wise. It was like a full third to almost 40% of her 9 waking hours each weekday! No one is raising their kids during their sleeping hours -- those 9 hours are all we have to work with and all that matter for this dicussion. I missed out on a bit more than a third to 40% of them each day. It's a lot to me. (With my second I had a WFH job which meant my younger DD was with a nanny or later daycare more like 9 to 3:30, and I felt much better about that percentage of time away.) But I guess it's all personal...

I also had a similar schedule. A baby doesn’t sleep that much forever. Sure, maybe the first year. I can’t remember. I’m sure you spent plenty of time with your kid as did I. Theee people trying to calculate how much they spend with their kids are annoying.

I was a working mom and a SAHM. I spent more time with my kids when I was a SAHM. The end.

NP. The point you're missing is "time" doesn't mean just hours of proximity. The point people are trying to make is quality time, not simply the passage of time, is what matters. Of course a SAHM spends more hours with her kids. She's home with them all day. But when you take out sleeping hours and hours spent doing other things like errands/laundry, etc., the hours of quality time spent are fewer than the hours of just time spent. If a WOHM outsources everything like cleaning/laundry and therefore spends all her non-working awake hours 1:1 with her kids, then that increases the number of hours of quality time she is able to spend. So the people saying WOHMs spend more time with their kids than SAHMs do are nuts and the people saying SAHMs spend all their waking hours 1:1 with their kids are nuts. The truth lies closer to the middle so just acknowledge that and stop arguing about these insane schedules and children who either sleep all day or never napped more than 7 minutes at a time.

Nah, those types of arguments always wreak of insecurity too, and are wildly over-stated or concocted to fit some narrative. SAHMs get lots of household chores done while their kids are napping and/or at preschool (errands also run during the latter). (Also involving toddlers in household chores is fantastically good for them!) And UMC SAHMs have cleaning ladies for the bigger stuff. And WOHMs don't outsource "everything". They often have to run errands, etc. during weekends. And by the time they get home for their "quality" hours they are exhausted from a full day of work, and their kids are at their crankiest too. SAHMs get the quality time earlier in the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Yes it is true most SAHM's that are wealthy and poor send their kids to 5 days of preschool because of the value it adds. For the poor it's free and for the wealthy it's not a big deal.

But if you give up an income and have to skrimp I understand you can't send your kids 5 days a week and that's fine, they will be fine.

I live in a UMC suburb. The wealthy SAHMs here do "3 day 3's" -- preschool 3 mornings a week. They don't see a value beyond that amount of preschool time for a 3 yr old.

Good for them, I’m sure their status of wealthy SAHMs gives them the knowledge to know there’s no value after 3 days. You should ask them to help write policy with their expertise based on being wealthy stay at home moms.

Goodness, what are you so angry about? Many preschool programs for 3 yr olds tend to be 3 mornings a week, so someone out there other than "wealthy SAHMs" presumably thinks that is a developmentally appropriate/desirable amount of time for a 3 yr old to be spending in a structured, classroom, group setting. Jeez, simmer.

+1. If you actually enjoy being home with your children, it’s really hard to do museums, pumpkin patches/farms, zoos, etc. if you send them to preschool 5 mornings a week. That’s why I didn’t do it. The SAHMs I know who used the 5 day program didn’t really seem to like being at home and/or were trying to work PT without other childcare.

Yeah, and it's not just about outings like that (which are lovely). It's that 3 yr olds are not 4 yr olds or 5 yr olds. They need more unstructured time leading the way and doing their own thing. They need less rule following. They need more time with a caregiver as opposed to peers. They need more down time and quiet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

There are 168 hours in a week.
Infants are awake for 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 48 of those hours, you see your kid 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 28% of the time, you see your kids 37% of the time.
It's 23% of their waking time... 15 hours.

Thanks for pointing out how little actual time is spent "raising" your kids.... lol 37% of your time.

Well, first, like I said, I'm a FT working mom. My kids are in ES now, but when my oldest was an infant we had a nanny. I was gone from 8 to 4. This DD actually was a "unicorn" napper who took an am nap from 9-11 and a pm nap from 1:30 to 3:30. So I missed out on 3.5 waking hours of time with my DD M-F. A lot of PPs (you included) think that is a small amount, but I don't think it is percentage wise. It was like a full third to almost 40% of her 9 waking hours each weekday! No one is raising their kids during their sleeping hours -- those 9 hours are all we have to work with and all that matter for this dicussion. I missed out on a bit more than a third to 40% of them each day. It's a lot to me. (With my second I had a WFH job which meant my younger DD was with a nanny or later daycare more like 9 to 3:30, and I felt much better about that percentage of time away.) But I guess it's all personal...

I also had a similar schedule. A baby doesn’t sleep that much forever. Sure, maybe the first year. I can’t remember. I’m sure you spent plenty of time with your kid as did I. Theee people trying to calculate how much they spend with their kids are annoying.

I was a working mom and a SAHM. I spent more time with my kids when I was a SAHM. The end.

NP. The point you're missing is "time" doesn't mean just hours of proximity. The point people are trying to make is quality time, not simply the passage of time, is what matters. Of course a SAHM spends more hours with her kids. She's home with them all day. But when you take out sleeping hours and hours spent doing other things like errands/laundry, etc., the hours of quality time spent are fewer than the hours of just time spent. If a WOHM outsources everything like cleaning/laundry and therefore spends all her non-working awake hours 1:1 with her kids, then that increases the number of hours of quality time she is able to spend. So the people saying WOHMs spend more time with their kids than SAHMs do are nuts and the people saying SAHMs spend all their waking hours 1:1 with their kids are nuts. The truth lies closer to the middle so just acknowledge that and stop arguing about these insane schedules and children who either sleep all day or never napped more than 7 minutes at a time.

What?? It is a tiny percentage of working mothers that can outsource all cleaning and laundry.

[Anonymous]

I think people who say this are ignorant and a bit dumb in addition to socially clueless

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

There are 168 hours in a week.
Infants are awake for 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 48 of those hours, you see your kid 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 28% of the time, you see your kids 37% of the time.
It's 23% of their waking time... 15 hours.

Thanks for pointing out how little actual time is spent "raising" your kids.... lol 37% of your time.

Well, first, like I said, I'm a FT working mom. My kids are in ES now, but when my oldest was an infant we had a nanny. I was gone from 8 to 4. This DD actually was a "unicorn" napper who took an am nap from 9-11 and a pm nap from 1:30 to 3:30. So I missed out on 3.5 waking hours of time with my DD M-F. A lot of PPs (you included) think that is a small amount, but I don't think it is percentage wise. It was like a full third to almost 40% of her 9 waking hours each weekday! No one is raising their kids during their sleeping hours -- those 9 hours are all we have to work with and all that matter for this dicussion. I missed out on a bit more than a third to 40% of them each day. It's a lot to me. (With my second I had a WFH job which meant my younger DD was with a nanny or later daycare more like 9 to 3:30, and I felt much better about that percentage of time away.) But I guess it's all personal...

I also had a similar schedule. A baby doesn’t sleep that much forever. Sure, maybe the first year. I can’t remember. I’m sure you spent plenty of time with your kid as did I. Theee people trying to calculate how much they spend with their kids are annoying.

I was a working mom and a SAHM. I spent more time with my kids when I was a SAHM. The end.

NP. The point you're missing is "time" doesn't mean just hours of proximity. The point people are trying to make is quality time, not simply the passage of time, is what matters. Of course a SAHM spends more hours with her kids. She's home with them all day. But when you take out sleeping hours and hours spent doing other things like errands/laundry, etc., the hours of quality time spent are fewer than the hours of just time spent. If a WOHM outsources everything like cleaning/laundry and therefore spends all her non-working awake hours 1:1 with her kids, then that increases the number of hours of quality time she is able to spend. So the people saying WOHMs spend more time with their kids than SAHMs do are nuts and the people saying SAHMs spend all their waking hours 1:1 with their kids are nuts. The truth lies closer to the middle so just acknowledge that and stop arguing about these insane schedules and children who either sleep all day or never napped more than 7 minutes at a time.

What?? It is a tiny percentage of working mothers that can outsource all cleaning and laundry.

funny how it's the mother who is outsourcing, not the dad - like it's the mother's rsponsibility unless SHE finds an alternative

[Anonymous]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAOLVwouYIC/?igsh=eDJ4MWRrZThmZDl3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

There are 168 hours in a week.
Infants are awake for 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 48 of those hours, you see your kid 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 28% of the time, you see your kids 37% of the time.
It's 23% of their waking time... 15 hours.

Thanks for pointing out how little actual time is spent "raising" your kids.... lol 37% of your time.

Well, first, like I said, I'm a FT working mom. My kids are in ES now, but when my oldest was an infant we had a nanny. I was gone from 8 to 4. This DD actually was a "unicorn" napper who took an am nap from 9-11 and a pm nap from 1:30 to 3:30. So I missed out on 3.5 waking hours of time with my DD M-F. A lot of PPs (you included) think that is a small amount, but I don't think it is percentage wise. It was like a full third to almost 40% of her 9 waking hours each weekday! No one is raising their kids during their sleeping hours -- those 9 hours are all we have to work with and all that matter for this dicussion. I missed out on a bit more than a third to 40% of them each day. It's a lot to me. (With my second I had a WFH job which meant my younger DD was with a nanny or later daycare more like 9 to 3:30, and I felt much better about that percentage of time away.) But I guess it's all personal...

I also had a similar schedule. A baby doesn’t sleep that much forever. Sure, maybe the first year. I can’t remember. I’m sure you spent plenty of time with your kid as did I. Theee people trying to calculate how much they spend with their kids are annoying.

I was a working mom and a SAHM. I spent more time with my kids when I was a SAHM. The end.

NP. The point you're missing is "time" doesn't mean just hours of proximity. The point people are trying to make is quality time, not simply the passage of time, is what matters. Of course a SAHM spends more hours with her kids. She's home with them all day. But when you take out sleeping hours and hours spent doing other things like errands/laundry, etc., the hours of quality time spent are fewer than the hours of just time spent. If a WOHM outsources everything like cleaning/laundry and therefore spends all her non-working awake hours 1:1 with her kids, then that increases the number of hours of quality time she is able to spend. So the people saying WOHMs spend more time with their kids than SAHMs do are nuts and the people saying SAHMs spend all their waking hours 1:1 with their kids are nuts. The truth lies closer to the middle so just acknowledge that and stop arguing about these insane schedules and children who either sleep all day or never napped more than 7 minutes at a time.

What?? It is a tiny percentage of working mothers that can outsource all cleaning and laundry.

funny how it's the mother who is outsourcing, not the dad - like it's the mother's rsponsibility unless SHE finds an alternative

I noticed this too. Dads get to be exempt from the parenting debate, also exempt from laundry duty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Yes it is true most SAHM's that are wealthy and poor send their kids to 5 days of preschool because of the value it adds. For the poor it's free and for the wealthy it's not a big deal.

But if you give up an income and have to skrimp I understand you can't send your kids 5 days a week and that's fine, they will be fine.

I live in a UMC suburb. The wealthy SAHMs here do "3 day 3's" -- preschool 3 mornings a week. They don't see a value beyond that amount of preschool time for a 3 yr old.

Good for them, I’m sure their status of wealthy SAHMs gives them the knowledge to know there’s no value after 3 days. You should ask them to help write policy with their expertise based on being wealthy stay at home moms.

Goodness, what are you so angry about? Many preschool programs for 3 yr olds tend to be 3 mornings a week, so someone out there other than "wealthy SAHMs" presumably thinks that is a developmentally appropriate/desirable amount of time for a 3 yr old to be spending in a structured, classroom, group setting. Jeez, simmer.

+1. If you actually enjoy being home with your children, it’s really hard to do museums, pumpkin patches/farms, zoos, etc. if you send them to preschool 5 mornings a week. That’s why I didn’t do it. The SAHMs I know who used the 5 day program didn’t really seem to like being at home and/or were trying to work PT without other childcare.

I stayed home with my third child. She went to preschool when her older siblings were in elementary school. When she was 2.5, she went to preschool for 2 hours 2 days per week. When she was 3, she went 3 hours per day for 3 days. At age 4, she went for 4 days for 3 hours. When she was younger, she came home for nap in afternoons and on the 3 days she did not have preschool, we did all the fun things around the DMV and had lots of play dates. She also would do ballet or swim class while older siblings were in school.

I used to have a FT housekeeper even when I stopped working. We live in a large house and I did not want to be cleaning this house all day.

[Anonymous]

I work and I'm secure in my choices and not easily offended. However, no SAHM has ever said that to me, and I wonder what OP said to the SAHM to get that kind of response?