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

[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...

What you are missing are the waking hours SAHM's are not watching their kids. That isn't even taken into account. How often did you get home from work and say to your H - tag you are it I need a break and how many SAHM's don't take any break when their H gets home.

The reality is they are spending less time in the evening because they have help - that's a good thing. They've been with their child all day and they will give the care over to their H.

and

You are not using that time to not be with your child because you were away during the day.

So if you took actual hour.. it's equal.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. It's not equal, and that's not what routinely happens in most SAHM households. But even if it were...I though this thread was about having paid caregivers raise/partially raise your kids. A father, OTOH, spending evenings with his children sounds wonderful; who in the world thinks otherwise?

It’s about SAHMs claiming they are with their kids ever moment of the day (they aren’t).
Go to your local gym 8a-2p and check out the daycare.

One SAHM said sleeping hours counted as parenting because she co slept. 😂😱

It’s equal for me and if it’s not for you that is fine. You don’t have to try to discredit my experience to justify yours.

I was made guardian for my neighbors children, her SAHM friend was not happy I was chosen. We did the math on how much time I was caring for kids vs her and I was with my kids just as many hours . So sure there are other situations I was lucky.

How many times have you told this story?

PP should refer neighbor to her many, MANY posts on this thread. I suspect unwitting neighbor doesn’t realize this woman is nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a reason for why one spouse chose not to work or works from home/at a flexible part time job? Or is this an acceptable turn of phrase?

Triggered but not offended. Someone who says that has unresolved issues.

[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.

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...

What you are missing are the waking hours SAHM's are not watching their kids. That isn't even taken into account. How often did you get home from work and say to your H - tag you are it I need a break and how many SAHM's don't take any break when their H gets home.

The reality is they are spending less time in the evening because they have help - that's a good thing. They've been with their child all day and they will give the care over to their H.

and

You are not using that time to not be with your child because you were away during the day.

So if you took actual hour.. it's equal.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. It's not equal, and that's not what routinely happens in most SAHM households. But even if it were...I though this thread was about having paid caregivers raise/partially raise your kids. A father, OTOH, spending evenings with his children sounds wonderful; who in the world thinks otherwise?

It’s about SAHMs claiming they are with their kids ever moment of the day (they aren’t).
Go to your local gym 8a-2p and check out the daycare.

One SAHM said sleeping hours counted as parenting because she co slept. 😂😱

It’s equal for me and if it’s not for you that is fine. You don’t have to try to discredit my experience to justify yours.

I was made guardian for my neighbors children, her SAHM friend was not happy I was chosen. We did the math on how much time I was caring for kids vs her and I was with my kids just as many hours . So sure there are other situations I was lucky.

How many times have you told this story?

PP should refer neighbor to her many, MANY posts on this thread. I suspect unwitting neighbor doesn’t realize this woman is nuts.

Is she the lady who said her neighbor was doing home renovations and not spending time with her children as much as the working mom?

I hate that I know the details of this lady’s neighbor.

When I gave birth, my working mom friend and family watched my two kids. I asked them because they were our close friends, not because of the mom’s working status.

[Anonymous]

All the sahm’s I know are clear about what we’ve given up: career (to varying degrees), income, societal respect (depending on your circle), marital power (depending on wealth)…

What bothers me about many wohm I know is that they insist they’ve given up nothing. They “have it all”—as if the hundreds of hours of one-on-one parenting, freedom and slower pace have no value to kids, moms or families. It’s like, yes, they’ve *acquired* it all, but there is so much they missed out on. And that’s okay because we’re all making trade-offs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the sahm’s I know are clear about what we’ve given up: career (to varying degrees), income, societal respect (depending on your circle), marital power (depending on wealth)…

What bothers me about many wohm I know is that they insist they’ve given up nothing. They “have it all”—as if the hundreds of hours of one-on-one parenting, freedom and slower pace have no value to kids, moms or families. It’s like, yes, they’ve *acquired* it all, but there is so much they missed out on. And that’s okay because we’re all making trade-offs.

In my circle of WOHM none of us claim to have it all. We're all exhausted. The only moms I envy are the SAHM, who have giant trust funds as they do have it all: true financial security independent of their marriage, maximum time with their kids, and maximum time for themselves when the kids are in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the sahm’s I know are clear about what we’ve given up: career (to varying degrees), income, societal respect (depending on your circle), marital power (depending on wealth)…

What bothers me about many wohm I know is that they insist they’ve given up nothing. They “have it all”—as if the hundreds of hours of one-on-one parenting, freedom and slower pace have no value to kids, moms or families. It’s like, yes, they’ve *acquired* it all, but there is so much they missed out on. And that’s okay because we’re all making trade-offs.

I don't disagree with your overarching point about us all having tradeoffs but I don't think the people who want to claim they've figured it all out and have only benefit and no downside are limited to wohms. I know sahms like that too. I think some people deal with their insecurities (and perhaps some grief over what they lost in order to make their life work) by simply denying it. It's not enough to say "I'm happy with my choices -- these tradeoffs were the right thing for me." It has to be "There are no tradeoffs -- everything about my life is correct and people who do it another way are simply wrong." Admitting that there are ANY compromises in their life means allowing doubt to creep in and some people cannot live with doubt of any kind.

It's the same with decisions like whether to have kids at all or whether to get married or whether to go to grad school. Some people can handle the fact that making these choices always implies a loss of the road not traveled. But some people are okay contemplating the sliding doors type situation we all find ourselves in and can even use it to have empathy towards other people instead of to feel bad about ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the sahm’s I know are clear about what we’ve given up: career (to varying degrees), income, societal respect (depending on your circle), marital power (depending on wealth)…

What bothers me about many wohm I know is that they insist they’ve given up nothing. They “have it all”—as if the hundreds of hours of one-on-one parenting, freedom and slower pace have no value to kids, moms or families. It’s like, yes, they’ve *acquired* it all, but there is so much they missed out on. And that’s okay because we’re all making trade-offs.

I don't disagree with your overarching point about us all having tradeoffs but I don't think the people who want to claim they've figured it all out and have only benefit and no downside are limited to wohms. I know sahms like that too. I think some people deal with their insecurities (and perhaps some grief over what they lost in order to make their life work) by simply denying it. It's not enough to say "I'm happy with my choices -- these tradeoffs were the right thing for me." It has to be "There are no tradeoffs -- everything about my life is correct and people who do it another way are simply wrong." Admitting that there are ANY compromises in their life means allowing doubt to creep in and some people cannot live with doubt of any kind.

It's the same with decisions like whether to have kids at all or whether to get married or whether to go to grad school. Some people can handle the fact that making these choices always implies a loss of the road not traveled. But some people are okay contemplating the sliding doors type situation we all find ourselves in and can even use it to have empathy towards other people instead of to feel bad about ourselves.

+1. Life is full of trade offs.

[Anonymous]

Everyone’s situation is so unique which is why any blanket statements about SAHM/WOHM are nonsensical. You can’t compare your WOHM life with the SAHM down the street. You have to compare it with your own life if you SAH.

You have to factor in:
- your and DH hours, work travel, flexibility
- availability of grandparent/extended family help
- your satisfaction with the quality of childcare
- your satisfaction with your job, and feasibility of re-entering
- your DH’s personality: would he lose respect for you and/or get less involved with kids and house if you quit
- your own personality: are you okay with chilling out and having unstructured time, or is it going to drive you to be on your phone 24/7 or in depression? are you able to compartmentalize work stress, or is it eating into what should be quality time?
- your kid’s personality (though honestly I can’t think of any kid who would prefer to be in group care vs. one-on-one with a loving caregiver and frequent playground time or play dates)
- your level of savings, DH’s job stability, your financial goals

[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.

I said IF. Also, who is talking about LC SAHMs or WOHMs? Come on, this conversation is about UMC moms.

But thanks for proving that literally no one is willing to have a reasonable conversation about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I never heard anything like this when I was a working mom. There were times when I felt guilty for not having as much time with my kids but SAHMs didn’t say these rude comments to me.

I’m a SAHM now and I do get some rude comments by working moms. Some are back handed compliments like how it must be nice to have a rich husband so I can shop and travel as much as I want or how they could never stay at home all day or they couldn’t wait to go back to work because their brain wasn’t being used. I don’t really get bothered and move on. I don’t jab back.

Funny, I've only gotten rude comments from SAHMs when I worked. So I guess our experiences cancel each other out.

[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.

Most WOHM can’t and don’t outsource everything. Most MC and UMC people do their own laundry, clean up after their kids every day (even if they outsource a monthly or biweekly deep clean), do some yard work, bring their cars to get repairs, make dinner, organize clothing, do grocery pick up. Also, this idea of quality time with kids can kind of miss the point. When your kids are young and you take them to the DMV or to buy a car or to the grocery store you can still connect with them and talk to them. I see tons of parents on their phones at the playground or at soccer games every weekend. Most of us are mentally exhausted from the week and doing our best to be present on the weekends, but the idea that somehow we’re able to extract more quality from our interactions than a SAHM is a stretch. There is a trade off.

I wrote this before but I still had to clean up every evening. Unless you have someone who works for you until 9, you still need to do the dishes after dinner. Kids still spill and drop food.

I feel like I clean all the time. Even when the cleaners leave, on the same day a few hours later, the house looks messy again. This is what happens with 3 kids.

So do SAHMs...

[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...

What you are missing are the waking hours SAHM's are not watching their kids. That isn't even taken into account. How often did you get home from work and say to your H - tag you are it I need a break and how many SAHM's don't take any break when their H gets home.

The reality is they are spending less time in the evening because they have help - that's a good thing. They've been with their child all day and they will give the care over to their H.

and

You are not using that time to not be with your child because you were away during the day.

So if you took actual hour.. it's equal.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. It's not equal, and that's not what routinely happens in most SAHM households. But even if it were...I though this thread was about having paid caregivers raise/partially raise your kids. A father, OTOH, spending evenings with his children sounds wonderful; who in the world thinks otherwise?

DP here. When kids are school age, I do think the difference in time spent with kids is nominal. For kids ages 5 and under, this accounting that working parents spend as much time with kids than SAHMs is just wrong no matter how much you slice and dice the hours.

There are many different types of families and everyone does what is best for their own family. A kind patient happy working mom or a nurturing SAHM sounds good to me. When I was working, I often felt tired after work and did not have all this super quality time with my kids like many women on here are saying after work. It was mostly surviving during those years. Then you blink and your kids are not little anymore.

Most moms are in workforce when their kids are back at school. That’s why these debates are always so dumb! The moms who stay home when their kids are in full time school are a minority and it’s not reflective of the average SAH experience. 78 percent of women with kids ages 6-17 are working compared with 66 percent (ages six and under) according to BLS.

And frankly if a SAHM makes a comment like this to OP, she is realizing saying that she doesn’t want others raising her kids “at this point in time”.

Doesn't make it any less rude or any more true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you all arguing about schedules and hours? You don't need to prove something how your schedule is superior to someone else. People have different lives, so what

Well this whole thread is about how many hours you spend with your kids so....

And of course SAHM’s spend more, so the whole argument is stupid.

The difference is nominal.

It really depends on both the type of work the working parent is doing and how demanding it is (ie: cushy WFH office gig vs. Big Law or busy medical practice or long commute) and also how much the SAHM is farming out her kids either through nearly full day preschool (ie: 9-2pm 5 days a week) or a "part-time nanny" or whatever. We all know different families on all ends of these spectrums.

+1 and for SAHMs of school age children there is a wide variety of involvement. Some use their time to volunteer at the school and spend the whole summer with kids. Some are picking kids up right ght after school and spending the entire afternoon engaging with them. Others aren't doing any of those things. I know plenty of SAHMs who are spending A LOT of time with their school age kids, or directly engaged with their schools or activities, and not only do working parents not do all that but they often benefit from it.

And before you yell at me yes I also know working parents who run PTAs and volunteer a lot. But you need a specific kind of personality and job for that. Most working parents cannot do all that.

Most SAHM's do not volunteer at school or run the PTA.

I don't think what happens after school is SAHM/WOHM related. Enganged moms are engaged and it has nothing to do with the working status.

My kids are in private and pretty much every parent with a position in our parents association until like 2nd is a SAHM. The heads of the auction are SAH. I volunteer about 20 hours total throughout the year (I WOH) but I can’t commit to the level of involvement required and I don’t want to drop the ball have a bunch of parents hate me.

My kids are in private and pretty much every parent with a position in our parents association works, both the men and the women. The most involved two I can think of are a radiologist and a child psychologist. I'm a lawyer, along with a handful of other lawyers. We have some realtors, multiple doctors and nurses, and some finance people. I can only think of one SAHP actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only say that in response to people who constantly think they’re the only ones who are busy and imply my life is so relaxing compared to theirs because they work.

But also, it’s the truth. I don’t work because I wanted to raise my kids. PhD scientist here so don’t worry about my brain, it’s doing just fine.

+2 I say it when rude people look down on me. Attorney that opted to stay home and raise my kids because a nanny would have been with them 12 hours a day. That wasn’t okay with me.

Does it ever occur to you that for other people it also wasn't ok with them but they didn't have a choice?

I'm not that person, my husband and I did what we wanted to do and we are lucky enough to have had a choice, but there are tons of people who also don't think it's ok to have a kid with a nanny (or really more likely in daycare) for 8-12 hours a day but they don't get to choose an alternative.

And I think that's where this bothers me the most. If you want to comment on some UC women's choice to work her cushy, easy, flexible job, then go ahead. She doesn't care and clearly made the choice she wanted to make. But when you say stuff like "I didn't want someone else to raise my kids" to someone who had no choice but to have childcare help, it's disgusting.

I'm not offended by what any SAHM or WOHM says to me because I don't care, but I do think some of you are seriously tone deaf when you talk about staying home like everyone has that choice. And don't go on to me about how you were willing to give up your European vacations in order to raise your kids. That's wildly out of touch and totally inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you all arguing about schedules and hours? You don't need to prove something how your schedule is superior to someone else. People have different lives, so what

Well this whole thread is about how many hours you spend with your kids so....

And of course SAHM’s spend more, so the whole argument is stupid.

The difference is nominal.

It really depends on both the type of work the working parent is doing and how demanding it is (ie: cushy WFH office gig vs. Big Law or busy medical practice or long commute) and also how much the SAHM is farming out her kids either through nearly full day preschool (ie: 9-2pm 5 days a week) or a "part-time nanny" or whatever. We all know different families on all ends of these spectrums.

+1 and for SAHMs of school age children there is a wide variety of involvement. Some use their time to volunteer at the school and spend the whole summer with kids. Some are picking kids up right ght after school and spending the entire afternoon engaging with them. Others aren't doing any of those things. I know plenty of SAHMs who are spending A LOT of time with their school age kids, or directly engaged with their schools or activities, and not only do working parents not do all that but they often benefit from it.

And before you yell at me yes I also know working parents who run PTAs and volunteer a lot. But you need a specific kind of personality and job for that. Most working parents cannot do all that.

Most SAHM's do not volunteer at school or run the PTA.

I don't think what happens after school is SAHM/WOHM related. Enganged moms are engaged and it has nothing to do with the working status.

My kids are in private and pretty much every parent with a position in our parents association until like 2nd is a SAHM. The heads of the auction are SAH. I volunteer about 20 hours total throughout the year (I WOH) but I can’t commit to the level of involvement required and I don’t want to drop the ball have a bunch of parents hate me.

Well I can commit at that level so I’m there and no the majority are not SAHM. Especially the things that don’t require M-F meetings like PTA, treasurer, sports committee (almost all working dads), holiday party planning, pancakes fundraiser, the auction (needs working parents with connections to get stuff to auction), sports coaches, teacher appreciation day. All mostly working parents or at least 50/50. Especially since SAHMs have no childcare day or evening.

I live in NYC and at my kids’ private if you’re working you have a high powered job. Maybe you live a LCOL area or an area where many people have low key jobs. I can’t attend meetings from 9-10 am and 1-3 pm regularly. Nor can I commit to fiddling with signup genius for hours or responding to other parents questions, etc.

Not PP but another parent with kids in private in the DMV who knows very few SAHMs who are involved in school-related stuff. For one thing, we don't have meetings from 9-10 and 1-3 regularly. For another, it takes less than five minutes to set up a Sign Up Genius. I've been a room mom for five years in a row and it's one of the least time-consuming things I do. (I work full-time as a lawyer for a big firm).