Would you stay at home with small children, or wait for more work flexibility for kids when older?

[Anonymous]

^^^^PP here. Forgot to say that I've chosen to be home throughout both stages because I feel parental presence is important throughout childhood and adolescence. But if I had to choose, it would definitely be option one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you kidding? We see this all the time. Someone says they SAH because it's best for their family. Then someone predictably and defensively responds that in *their* family, both parents wanted "equal" amounts of time with their kids and so they decided for both parents to work so they'd each be able to spend exactly the same amount of time with their kids. Which makes zero sense when they could have one parent spend a lot of time with them instead, giving the working parent far more quality time with the kids than they'd have with two working parents; all the errands and chores are completed by the time working parent gets home, as well as free weekends without scrambling around, trying to get everything done. That doesn't leave quality time for anyone.

So yes, this circular reasoning is seen all the time here on DCUM. It's a result of the defensive bean counting mentality in which all things must be split 50/50, even when it makes no sense and results in less quality time for everyone.

No, that's not all the same thing as "the father couldn't stay at home, therefore the mother also didn't stay at home". That's -- both parents wanted time with the kids. And if both parents wanted time with the kids, then having one parent stay at home full time and the other parent work full time does not accomplish that goal.

What you're saying, basically, is that you think parents who want equal time with the kids are wanting the wrong thing --- what they should want is for the kids to have a stay-at-home parent. But people get to want what they actually want, not what you think they should want.

Of course they do. However, what I said is still correct: having one SAHP and one working parent allows *both* parents more quality time with the kids, for all the reasons I listed above. Instead of both parents getting a little bit of rushed time with their kids at the end of the day, the working parent in this scenario gets to have relaxing quality time with the kids after work while the SAH parent gets to spend all day with them.

Clearly everyone's entitled to want what they want. But there's no denying that this scenario allows for far more parent/child time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course they do. However, what I said is still correct: having one SAHP and one working parent allows *both* parents more quality time with the kids, for all the reasons I listed above. Instead of both parents getting a little bit of rushed time with their kids at the end of the day, the working parent in this scenario gets to have relaxing quality time with the kids after work while the SAH parent gets to spend all day with them.

Clearly everyone's entitled to want what they want. But there's no denying that this scenario allows for far more parent/child time.

It allows for far more one-parent/child time.

What's more, it's not an instance of families deciding that, since it's not possible for both parents to stay home, neither parent will stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I never said I came back as partner I actually came back as a fed in one of the high paying financial regulatory agencies.

And all I did when I was home was pay bar fees, neither Maryland nor DC bars have CLE requirement.

I'm happy for you. But for a mother who is thinking about leaving the paid workforce for a few years and then re-entering at her previous high level, I wouldn't recommend that she count on federal employment as a likely way of doing that, these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I never said I came back as partner I actually came back as a fed in one of the high paying financial regulatory agencies.

And all I did when I was home was pay bar fees, neither Maryland nor DC bars have CLE requirement.

I'm happy for you. But for a mother who is thinking about leaving the paid workforce for a few years and then re-entering at her previous high level, I wouldn't recommend that she count on federal employment as a likely way of doing that, these days.

I got back in at the height of the legal recession in 2009. Can't predict where the economy will be in 4 to 8 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree. So much so, that my husband and I made it a priority to have one of us at home during all of these stages.

Which one of you?

In our family we chose the person who carries and nurses the baby. We also chose the person who needed the money, whereas I didn't;. Men deserve the right to be financially secure, as well.

So, "My husband and I made it a priority to have me (the wife) at home during all of these stages"?

So what's wrong with that? Have you not noticed a rather large tendency among all species for the mother to be the primary caregiver? Are we to assume that's just meaningless?

If you what you mean is, "We made it a priority to have the mother at home", then you should say that, not "We made it a priority to have one parent at home".

(Also, yes, I do actually consider it rather meaningless to my life decisions that among (for example) cats and grizzly bears, mothers are the primary caregivers. Just as you presumably consider it meaningless to your life decisions that among many birds, both parents are equal caregivers, and that among many amphibians, reptiles, and fish, neither is a caregiver at all.)

DP here. As we all know, if you admit this here on DCUM, you're crucified for "selling out womankind," or some such drivel. Of course many women and couples make it a priority to have the mother at home with the kids. I know I'm not alone in saying that's exactly what we did. I had always wanted to be a SAHM, and my husband completely agreed, so that's what worked best for our family. But there are some women who cannot stand to hear that and feel they must chastise those of us who have left the workforce. I never see that kind of rabid response anywhere but DCUM, and I can't fathom why these women take it so personally when other women choose to be home with their children - as if it's somehow abnormal to want to do so. Really absurd line of thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course they do. However, what I said is still correct: having one SAHP and one working parent allows *both* parents more quality time with the kids, for all the reasons I listed above. Instead of both parents getting a little bit of rushed time with their kids at the end of the day, the working parent in this scenario gets to have relaxing quality time with the kids after work while the SAH parent gets to spend all day with them.

Clearly everyone's entitled to want what they want. But there's no denying that this scenario allows for far more parent/child time.

It allows for far more one-parent/child time.

What's more, it's not an instance of families deciding that, since it's not possible for both parents to stay home, neither parent will stay home.

You make no sense. I think you just want to argue. PP is absolutely correct, but it's understandable that you don't want to recognize or admit this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A ton of educational and psychology research shows that the first five years of a child's life are foundational in many ways. I hear parents on here frequently saying that it doesn't matter who is taking care of the kids when they are babies and that "it doesn't matter to a baby but it does to an older child." This could not be more wrong. Parents engage differently than care-givers and are more invested. If you can stay home with young children, it is the better option. Those early years can be drudgery but it is more important for a loving parent to be there then versus later on. Practically speaking, it also makes more sense to stay at home when kids are young since older kids, especially in middle and high school, are in school and afterschool sports or programs until nearly 5 pm. It just doesn't make sense to drop out of the work force for a few hours a day.

I agree that there is value in staying home in the early years, however if someone has to choose between early and later years, I would still chose later. The stress of trying to work while keeping up with hectic pace of a teen's life can just about kill you, and quite frankly those are the years that the kids need the most guidance and are making decisions that can have life long consequences.

+1

And it isn't like you are not raising them those first 5 years!! You still have them mornings, evenings, and all weekends. When they are in daycare or with a nanny they are learning social skills and also that others can love and help them. That is not a bad thing. I think many new moms think their kids need them so much more when they are younger and have so much guilt. They think "Once they get into school I can work FT" but they have no idea how much busier life gets, especially with 2+ kids. I rarely find a mom with teens or empty nesters that say kids need you more those newborn thru 5yrs old years. They almost always say the tween/teen years are the toughest and when they need you the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did both. I stayed home in the beginning. Went back to work at 2-5yrs old and put them in a great preschool/daycare. Once they went into K, I stayed home again. I am currently working part time with youngest in 3rd and oldest in 10th. It is still REALLY hard to schedule everything. The activities, the school functions, the high school games right after school to watch, the carpooling, the dinners, helping with homework, lunches, etc... I honestly have no idea how working moms do it. I worked full time one year when I had two kids in school and my weekends were all about catching up. I was miserable.

So if I had to pick, I would pick working FT while they are young. Why?

1. They are playing ALL day and when you go and get them you can focus on them on YOUR terms. You feel like crap after a bad day a work? Snuggling at home and PB&J sandwiches for dinner will make those little ones and you happy. You have a crappy day at work when they are older and you miss your kid's lacrosse game, are late picking up son from karate, and when you get home everyone wants to know what is for dinner? Oh and you have a school function that night. It SUCKS!!

2. You will be able to get back to you if you are home when the kids are in school. Yes, you use that time to cook, clean, shop, and errands so you can focus on the kids when they get home but if you time manage, you can volunteer, do a hobby, go to the gym in peace. Happy wife and mom makes for a very happy home.

3. Your weekends are much more relaxing (schedule-wise) when the kids are young. You can spend so much time with them. Plan day trips, visit family, go to playgrounds, have working mom playgroups. As your kids get older, they will be going to activities, parties, etc.. and not only will your weekends be in the car a lot. You won't see them as much. If you are working, it is really tough to keep up with what is going on in their lives and it is a very crucial time to be able to do that.

4. Kids are exhausted after school no matter what their age and it is nice to not be exhausted and snippy along with them. Kids enjoy coming home to mom. Snacks, some downtime, kisses. Even my teen and tween are talkative about their day after a plop on the couch and a decent snack.

5. Summers. Camps are thru the roof expensive and most kids hate going week after week. Getting just a summer nanny is really expensive.

6. Days off from school. Random holidays, teacher days, your kid's sick days, snow days, etc... They add up very quickly. Not really an issue when they are younger. You can focus on work more. Not sitting at work creating your family schedule in hopes that you don't have to ask for 4 days off a month.

7. Two working parents figuring out who is getting who each days is a nightmare and very stressful on the marriage. Very little time to see each other and have time alone and date nights. I now meet my husband for lunch once a week or so. It is very nice to do that without worrying about babysitters, etc..

8. Just my opinion but the school years are what the kids remember and emotionally need you more. Younger kids seem needier but the olders ones secretly need you around.

Almost all these issues can be easily remedied with a part time nanny or sitter to help with activities and sick days, if one wants to work (.preferring to stay home is fine, but not a necessity). I am happy I was able to spend time at home when my kids were little and parent centrc.

You are incorrect. Kids won't sit down and talk to their "part time" nanny after school and if they did, you still won't have a clue what is going on. You still can't get to those high school games after school. You still are just as tired and snippy as your kids once you get home. You are still not seeing your husband as much. You are still paying for a nanny all summer long. You are still working all week and carpooling, laundry, errands, and grocery shipping all weekend. Never time to rest. And even so, most nanny's don't work part time 3-6pm and are always there for any day off at a minute's notice and all summer. Not a very ideal job unless you are paying thru the roof. No kid wants their nanny to come to their activities or watch their games. They want a parent there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No brainer. Work and continue advancing and building income (financial security) when kids are younger.

I did. I've worked hard the last 10 years (while my children have had excellent childcare), and now I'm in a position to retire at age 45.
Many of my friends quit to become SAHMs in their early 30's, and went back to work about 10 years later. They started back at much lower salaries and now have to work until age 67.

Unfortunately, a woman's prime earning years are around age 35-45. Being out of the workforce for most of that time is extremely detrimental to your family's financial security.

Don't let emotion overrule your decision

I stayed home for the first 8 years with my kids and then returined to a six figure flexible law job. I could afford to stay at home indefinitely but have no desire to retire in my forties. Everyone has their own best course,

This. Sounds very similar to my own situation, though I'm not in law. And now that my kids are older and busy with their own lives, I'm happy to be back at work. I also have no desire to retire in my forties, and my kids needed me most when they were young. I feel extremely fortunate that I was able to be there with them during that time, as I know it's not financially possible for so many parents. Those were some of the best years of my life.

I can go back FT when they go off to college. I will be 49. I don't get the "retire" at 40 comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are 12 and 15. I've been lucky enough to work part time (24-32 hrs per week) throughout my kids' lives, but as infants and toddlers, they still had to go to daycare, as we have no family in the area and I was too nervous to go the nanny route.

Looking back and at where we are now, I think flexibility has become more important in their later childhood (tweens and teens).

Despite what some may suggest on this site, you're not a bad mom if you work to secure your family's financial stability.

What if you're in a job that offers no flexibility? I'm a teacher and my hours will always be set.

Except for the 4 months you have off a year, of course. Thats pretty darn flexible.

I don't have the flexibility to work from home, or leave work early on Tuesdays to pick up my kid from soccer practice, etc.

How can they have soccer practice during school hours? Aren't the kids in school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How can they have soccer practice during school hours? Aren't the kids in school?

NP. Teachers' hours are longer than kids' school hours. I am not a teacher, but I know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can they have soccer practice during school hours? Aren't the kids in school?

NP. Teachers' hours are longer than kids' school hours. I am not a teacher, but I know that.

I don't know any teacher who works past 5:30. With three kids in year round sports I have never had a practice start before 5:30 PM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can they have soccer practice during school hours? Aren't the kids in school?

NP. Teachers' hours are longer than kids' school hours. I am not a teacher, but I know that.

Every time we return to the school for something we forgot about 3/4 of the teachers are gone. Teachers may need aftercare at school for an hour but they can make practices/dinners. They are flexible except for a weekly meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 2. I work as I like to work. I'd love to stay at home with my children, but frankly, I think I would get bored. I'd rather have more time when they are older.

While I agree that kids continue to need parental presence even as they get older, it's a fallacy that you actually spend more time with them during middle and high school. When they're little, they need you all the time. Older kids are far too busy with their own friends and activities to need you nearly as much.

Yes, we realize they don't "need" us in the same sense that little kids do. They "need" us to make sure they don't do stupid shit that can ruin their lives.