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

[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.

Do you hear how judgmental you are?

You're saying SAHMs have given up material things only whereas WOHMs have missed out on basically enjoying their kids. Is it even possible for you people to not be total a$$holes? I guess not.

[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.

And people make it clear that they think the things they gave up are morally inferior. Oh, I gave up my career, but you gave you up your children.

You are not a better person because you stayed at home with your kids. You're also not a better person because you managed to work and have kids at the same time. Anyone who looks down on someone else's life is not worth listening to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

You just can't help yourself, can you? You start off saying everyone should be able to make the decision that is the best choice for them and their family but then you mention that no child wants to be in daycare. So your entire post is now trash. Congratulations, you people keep getting SO close to sounding possibly reasonable and then you throw in stuff like this. It's unbelievable.

[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?

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.

It’s true in that that was her motivation. Opinions aren’t true or false, they just are. It is definitely a rude thing to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And people make it clear that they think the things they gave up are morally inferior. Oh, I gave up my career, but you gave you up your children.

You are not a better person because you stayed at home with your kids. You're also not a better person because you managed to work and have kids at the same time. Anyone who looks down on someone else's life is not worth listening to.

Yet here you are introducing language that is a jab at parents who don't have a paying job - because they can't "manage" it.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is closer to what is going on at our schools but I live down south. Wohms are volunteering and holding pta positions. However, working moms outnumber us sahms so much we couldn't show up in significant numbers anyway. When I volunteer, it's rare to come across another sahm. I do agree that some wohms have a facility for planning and getting things done thanks to the nature of their work. It's not a monolith description though, everyone has their strengths. I think the suggestion that wohms or sahms are juggling everything and killing it in any sphere is toxic.

[Anonymous]

Lots of envy and insecurity from both working moms and stay at home moms on display in this thread (as per usual).

[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.

Few of the volunteer activities are 9-10 am or 1-3 pm. We don't allow parents in the classroom because they are not trained.

Our volunteers do more valuable things like sit on the board, plan golf fundraiser (aka call their country club and have the planner plan it), the auction is not planned during the day, nobody is doing sign up genius or selling wrapping paper, ... teacher appreciation... the boxes of presents were created in the evening not during the day. There is no sports team in NYC without the working dads overinvolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What you are missing about the PP is that while she had a choice it was a limited one -- she was in a field where staying in her job meant working looong days and being away from her child every day (and likely travel and weekend work as a lawyer). Probably not that easy to change to a more accommodating role quickly when she had a baby. So she felt like her choices were rather constrained -- quit her job and stay home (and actually get to spend time with her child) or stay in her job and almost never see her child.

She also said she'd only say this to someone who was looking down on her for staying home. Women who leave prestigious careers to stay home frequently get a lot of judgment for "wasting" their education and career on being sahms which is viewed by people in these professions as a very low status role and kind of an embarassment. So you're actually much more likely to get nasty comments about that choice than you might coming from a different industry or community that isn't so status-obsessed.

Within that context the PP's comment makes perfect sense. You are lecturing her about understanding that not everyone has the same [limited and full of trade-offs] choice she had while refusing to actually contemplate what it is like to be the person making the choice the PP made and why her attitude might actually be appropriate in that context. I don't think the PP is "wildly out of touch" but I think you could stand to do a closer read.

[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.

This is closer to what is going on at our schools but I live down south. Wohms are volunteering and holding pta positions. However, working moms outnumber us sahms so much we couldn't show up in significant numbers anyway. When I volunteer, it's rare to come across another sahm. I do agree that some wohms have a facility for planning and getting things done thanks to the nature of their work. It's not a monolith description though, everyone has their strengths. I think the suggestion that wohms or sahms are juggling everything and killing it in any sphere is toxic.

I agree, mostly, but I think that saying there are NO WOHMs and NO SAHMs killing it is also toxic.

It's like, can we please not talk about the moms who are doing a ton because it makes others feel bad. Why?

Also, maybe you meet mostly WOHMs because most SAHMs go back to work when kids are in school. It's not like they were never SAHMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is closer to what is going on at our schools but I live down south. Wohms are volunteering and holding pta positions. However, working moms outnumber us sahms so much we couldn't show up in significant numbers anyway. When I volunteer, it's rare to come across another sahm. I do agree that some wohms have a facility for planning and getting things done thanks to the nature of their work. It's not a monolith description though, everyone has their strengths. I think the suggestion that wohms or sahms are juggling everything and killing it in any sphere is toxic.

I agree, mostly, but I think that saying there are NO WOHMs and NO SAHMs killing it is also toxic.

It's like, can we please not talk about the moms who are doing a ton because it makes others feel bad. Why?

Also, maybe you meet mostly WOHMs because most SAHMs go back to work when kids are in school. It's not like they were never SAHMs.

This. People talk about being a sahm or a working mom like it's a religion or something. I think it's common for women to spend time in both camps. Whether that's taking time off when kids are little or something else. I have a good friend who quit her job and took 3 years off when her kids were late elementary. She'd say she was "on sabbatical" but it was functionally the same as being a sahm. She spent a lot of time with her kid and volunteered at their school and focused on stuff like organizing and decorating their house and planning vacations. She also cooked and crafted a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is closer to what is going on at our schools but I live down south. Wohms are volunteering and holding pta positions. However, working moms outnumber us sahms so much we couldn't show up in significant numbers anyway. When I volunteer, it's rare to come across another sahm. I do agree that some wohms have a facility for planning and getting things done thanks to the nature of their work. It's not a monolith description though, everyone has their strengths. I think the suggestion that wohms or sahms are juggling everything and killing it in any sphere is toxic.

I agree, mostly, but I think that saying there are NO WOHMs and NO SAHMs killing it is also toxic.

It's like, can we please not talk about the moms who are doing a ton because it makes others feel bad. Why?

Also, maybe you meet mostly WOHMs because most SAHMs go back to work when kids are in school. It's not like they were never SAHMs.

DP but why on earth would this be “toxic”? It might not be completely true, but “toxic”? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is closer to what is going on at our schools but I live down south. Wohms are volunteering and holding pta positions. However, working moms outnumber us sahms so much we couldn't show up in significant numbers anyway. When I volunteer, it's rare to come across another sahm. I do agree that some wohms have a facility for planning and getting things done thanks to the nature of their work. It's not a monolith description though, everyone has their strengths. I think the suggestion that wohms or sahms are juggling everything and killing it in any sphere is toxic.

I agree, mostly, but I think that saying there are NO WOHMs and NO SAHMs killing it is also toxic.

It's like, can we please not talk about the moms who are doing a ton because it makes others feel bad. Why?

Also, maybe you meet mostly WOHMs because most SAHMs go back to work when kids are in school. It's not like they were never SAHMs.

DP but why on earth would this be “toxic”? It might not be completely true, but “toxic”? Really?

I used her wording.. she wrote “I think the suggestion that wohms or sahms are juggling everything and killing it in any sphere is toxic.”

Everyone has a different feeling about the word toxic, do you agree with her use of the word toxic in this statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What you are missing about the PP is that while she had a choice it was a limited one -- she was in a field where staying in her job meant working looong days and being away from her child every day (and likely travel and weekend work as a lawyer). Probably not that easy to change to a more accommodating role quickly when she had a baby. So she felt like her choices were rather constrained -- quit her job and stay home (and actually get to spend time with her child) or stay in her job and almost never see her child.

She also said she'd only say this to someone who was looking down on her for staying home. Women who leave prestigious careers to stay home frequently get a lot of judgment for "wasting" their education and career on being sahms which is viewed by people in these professions as a very low status role and kind of an embarassment. So you're actually much more likely to get nasty comments about that choice than you might coming from a different industry or community that isn't so status-obsessed.

Within that context the PP's comment makes perfect sense. You are lecturing her about understanding that not everyone has the same [limited and full of trade-offs] choice she had while refusing to actually contemplate what it is like to be the person making the choice the PP made and why her attitude might actually be appropriate in that context. I don't think the PP is "wildly out of touch" but I think you could stand to do a closer read.

She was still lucky enough to be able to stay at home. You're totally missing the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is closer to what is going on at our schools but I live down south. Wohms are volunteering and holding pta positions. However, working moms outnumber us sahms so much we couldn't show up in significant numbers anyway. When I volunteer, it's rare to come across another sahm. I do agree that some wohms have a facility for planning and getting things done thanks to the nature of their work. It's not a monolith description though, everyone has their strengths. I think the suggestion that wohms or sahms are juggling everything and killing it in any sphere is toxic.

I agree, mostly, but I think that saying there are NO WOHMs and NO SAHMs killing it is also toxic.

It's like, can we please not talk about the moms who are doing a ton because it makes others feel bad. Why?

Also, maybe you meet mostly WOHMs because most SAHMs go back to work when kids are in school. It's not like they were never SAHMs.

Why should we pay lip service when they're all over this thread talking about how much they kill it. They toot their own horns enough as is.