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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1

This is why we had a full time nanny.

OP to get back to topic. No, I don’t get offended that someone is so myopic as to believe their singular view is correct. I pity their ignorance and judge them accordingly. Lots of great SAHMs, WOHMs, nannies, SAHDs, WOHDs, grandparents, etc. As long as all the kids’ needs get met physically and emotionally - it’s all good.

Can you provide a link to preschools with 3x a week for 3 hours.

We also have a full time nanny for the infant but our 3 year old does 5 days a week preschool, because I can't find one that does 3 days a week. NW ish area or Bethesda would work.

Any church or temple based preschool is like this if they are not also trying to be a daycare. Methodist, Presbyterian or Episcopal are the most likely to offer preschool and typically very affordable because you aren't having to pay a lot extra for overhead - the church already has the space. Standard schedule is often 9am-12pm, some offer a "lunch bunch" from 12-1 or 1:30 or something like that and some just include it for everyone. They often still use the classroom 5 days a week but its shared between two classes. Ie: 3 day 3's use the classroom on MWF and 2 day 2's use the same room on TTH.

Here are some links! These programs really aren't tough to find.

https://www.ccpcwns.com/copy-of-nursery-school

https://ccbcchildrenscenter.org/programs/

That took a long time to find.

The 1st one is a church so yea ... no thanks.

The 2nd requires 5 days a week for 3.5 or older and the program is 9-12:30 (which is only 30 minutes shorter than the one I talked about). So if you want to split hairs for 6 months your child can do 3 days a week and 1/2 hour shorter.

You definitely are spending a TON of time more with your 3 year old.

/s lol.

They are both located in churches, but neither program is religious.

I live in an UMC Chicago suburb. I can think of 6 preschools off the top of my head (4 run through churches or temples and 2 that are totally secular) that offer 3 day 3's programs.

Here's one highly regarded secular option, just for example:

https://www.tamarakdaycamp.com/pdf/school_forms/TCS%20Class%20Descriptions%202024.2025.pdf

And those 3 day 3's options (with the earlier pick up) are what most of the SAHMs do around here. The fact that you would not do a church or temple preschool or would pick 5 days a week is all fine and dandy, but besides the point. Your narrative that all (or even many) of the 3 yr old kids of SAHMs are in preschool five days a week well into the afternoon is totally false! Seriously stop embarrassing yourself!

So you had to go all the way to the midwest to find a pre-school with a 3 day option?

Lady, stop! I live in the Chicago area now. My SAHM sister in Northern Virginia sent her 3 year old to a 3 day 3's program. It happens to be through a temple preschool (which we know isn't your cup of tea, but it's filled with the kids of SAHMs who are home with mom Tuesday and Thursday all day and by noon on Monday, Wednesday, Friday). I know, I know, just pretend these don't exist, got it! The types of preschools you are apparently looking at are filled with the kids of WOHMs with nannies in the afternoon.

I was not looking for a mommy and me type of situation since I had a nanny, I was looking for a preschool that prepared kids for K. It's not all that complex. All the programs in our area were 5 days a week 9-1.

The 3 day 3's programs I'm talking about are NOT mommy and me; they are 100% drop-off. Most people are looking for their kid's 4 yr-old preschool year (i.e, the pre-k year) to be the year that prepares them for kindergarten. I do see a lot of SAHM choose a 5-day option for the pre-k year, not suggesting otherwise. But I thought we were talking about 3-year old options (in other words, kid still has two years of preschool before kinder). You most certainly did not look hard enough if you could not find a 3 morning a week drop-off option for your 3 yr old. (And then follow that the next year by a 5-day option that is focused on preparing them for kinder.)

I know my area must have 20+ preschools. I would estimate half or more had a 3 day option.

I used to work and send my kid to a preschool with extended care. Even that school let me start off with 3 days. You just need another kid to take the 2 days. Not everyone wants 5 days. There were so many options at that school. 2 days half day to 5 days full day. They charged basically the same for 3 days as 5 days. If it was 1000 for 5 days, I probably paid 800 for 3 days or something like that. And if you wanted half day va full day, the price difference was also small.

My oldest went to a preschool (which we happened to LOVE!) that sounds very similar...you could kind of build your week how you needed to in terms of number of days, lunch pick up versus extended days, etc., because the school could usually find a kid for the room that wanted the hours/days that you did not. When this kid was 3, I was WOHM with a nanny so we did 5 mornings a week. Pretty much all the other 3 yr olds in that room doing 5 days also had WOHMs, except for one little girl whose SAHM had just had twins!

My kids are now teens. If I remember correctly, the core learning hours were 9-12. Nap was 1-3. I am almost certain kids had to be quiet or read or nap even if they dropped their nap. Then they had play time from then on. The cost of the aftercare was fairly low. You were mostly paying for 9-12.

[Anonymous]

Not sure how the preschool argument developed but I’m in Loudoun and you couldn’t throw a rock here without hitting a church based half day preschool. Most are not very religious at all. Ours said a brief prayer before snack and mentioned Jesus at Christmas and Easter. That was about it. Definitely no proselytizing.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1

This is why we had a full time nanny.

OP to get back to topic. No, I don’t get offended that someone is so myopic as to believe their singular view is correct. I pity their ignorance and judge them accordingly. Lots of great SAHMs, WOHMs, nannies, SAHDs, WOHDs, grandparents, etc. As long as all the kids’ needs get met physically and emotionally - it’s all good.

Can you provide a link to preschools with 3x a week for 3 hours.

We also have a full time nanny for the infant but our 3 year old does 5 days a week preschool, because I can't find one that does 3 days a week. NW ish area or Bethesda would work.

Any church or temple based preschool is like this if they are not also trying to be a daycare. Methodist, Presbyterian or Episcopal are the most likely to offer preschool and typically very affordable because you aren't having to pay a lot extra for overhead - the church already has the space. Standard schedule is often 9am-12pm, some offer a "lunch bunch" from 12-1 or 1:30 or something like that and some just include it for everyone. They often still use the classroom 5 days a week but its shared between two classes. Ie: 3 day 3's use the classroom on MWF and 2 day 2's use the same room on TTH.

Here are some links! These programs really aren't tough to find.

https://www.ccpcwns.com/copy-of-nursery-school

https://ccbcchildrenscenter.org/programs/

That took a long time to find.

The 1st one is a church so yea ... no thanks.

The 2nd requires 5 days a week for 3.5 or older and the program is 9-12:30 (which is only 30 minutes shorter than the one I talked about). So if you want to split hairs for 6 months your child can do 3 days a week and 1/2 hour shorter.

You definitely are spending a TON of time more with your 3 year old.

/s lol.

They are both located in churches, but neither program is religious.

I live in an UMC Chicago suburb. I can think of 6 preschools off the top of my head (4 run through churches or temples and 2 that are totally secular) that offer 3 day 3's programs.

Here's one highly regarded secular option, just for example:

https://www.tamarakdaycamp.com/pdf/school_forms/TCS%20Class%20Descriptions%202024.2025.pdf

And those 3 day 3's options (with the earlier pick up) are what most of the SAHMs do around here. The fact that you would not do a church or temple preschool or would pick 5 days a week is all fine and dandy, but besides the point. Your narrative that all (or even many) of the 3 yr old kids of SAHMs are in preschool five days a week well into the afternoon is totally false! Seriously stop embarrassing yourself!

So you had to go all the way to the midwest to find a pre-school with a 3 day option?

Are you actually looking for a 3 day preschool or not? Seems like not.

I had a nanny, i looked for a preschool for my kids at the time to prepare them for K, there was only a 5 day option. i had a nanny, I didn't need "day care", the only options were 5 days. Why is this so complicated for you.

DP here. You didn’t look very hard. At all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these posts "I work while my child sleeps and I spend all the waking moments with them along with my DH who also works unicorn hours. When they are preschool age we choose the best school ever....."
It's not real life, 99% of jobs are not like that and both parents equally parenting is difficult to manage too. Aren't parents often complaining about getting their spouse to take on more. I don't think the unicorn perfect parents of the world realize that most people cannot just "choose" this setup

Similarly

"I SAHM with my children, I even sleep with them to maximize my time "raising" them" ... I don't shower or cook or clean or workout or run errands or take walks or go on dates or see friends or do girls weekend or vacatino with my H or visit family without them or get sick or let my H take them or let them do independent play ever so I'm never away from them. I would never spend 1 hour away let alone 3 that is reducing my "raising" time by 20%. I spaced my kids perfectly so my toddler would never take time away from my infant."

It's not real life, 99% of SAHM's are doing stuff without their children for hours a day, they are not with them 24x7. They spend at most 6 hours a day one on one with them. I don't think it would even be healthy to be this invested and involved in every breath your child takes.

This is just not true.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. I think the difference depends entirely on your family priorities and individual schedule. I only know my work schedule + commute didn't allow me to see my child nearly as much as I currently do. But perhaps if you quit your job, you would see your child less than you do now. YMMV.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. I think the difference depends entirely on your family priorities and individual schedule. I only know my work schedule + commute didn't allow me to see my child nearly as much as I currently do. But perhaps if you quit your job, you would see your child less than you do now. YMMV.

I think the PP who said "the difference is nominal" is the lunatic who "did the math". She is apparently intimately familiar with her SAHM neighbor's life and determined that she (the WOHM math PP) spends more quality time with her kids than this particular SAHM neighbor who apparently rarely chooses to engage with her kids and uses every hour of preschool she can find, and doesn't go out with her kids, and blah blah blah blah. I mean, cool story bro. So what?

If the math PP quit her job then she would be spending more time with her own kids than she does now because she is obviously a fantastic mom who wouldn't be doing the things her neighbor does. That's the relevant comparison -- between your own WOHM self and your SAHM self; not that between how much she spends with her kids now compared to like the worst SAHM she can find. So utterly stupid!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No YOU are still missing the point.

The PP said she'd only say something like "I didn't want someone else to raise my kids" to someone who looks down on her for being a sahm. She's not just volunteering this to put down wohms or be a B. It's a response to someone who wants to shame her for not staying in her specific job which required her to work long hours and IN HER CASE would have meant spending an unacceptably small amount of time with her child.

She would not say this to someone who hadn't already put her down for being a sahm and therefore the fact that some people couldn't make the same choice she made is irrelevant. Also: no one has the same choices. Everyone's situation is unique. The PP was talking about her unique situation and how she handles it when people judge her for the way she navigates that situation. If the person she's talking to is secretly mad that they don't have the freedom to become a sahm that is still not an excuse for shaming the PP for making a choice that works for her family. You get what you give.

And yet, multiple people on here have volunteered this position without first being attacked and many people said they've never heard anyone say this in real life so...her post was in response to a made up situation but still you're defending it. Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp. I don’t necessarily think those women stayed home for their kids. They are just rich and don’t have to work.

Probably true for some, but the idea of staying home for your kids is not as crazy as so many working moms seem to want to think.

My H and I both sacrificed in many ways so one of us could stay home with our kids before they started full time school. We are not rich, far from it. I also ended up taking care of a few other kids of friends and relatives mostly so I could be home with my own kids.

Do you think everyone is able to "sacrifice" so that one parent stays at home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp. I don’t necessarily think those women stayed home for their kids. They are just rich and don’t have to work.

Probably true for some, but the idea of staying home for your kids is not as crazy as so many working moms seem to want to think.

My H and I both sacrificed in many ways so one of us could stay home with our kids before they started full time school. We are not rich, far from it. I also ended up taking care of a few other kids of friends and relatives mostly so I could be home with my own kids.

There are also plenty of working moms who sacrifice time with their kids so their kids get a better home, better education, and more stable financial footing. Sacrifice can go in many directions.

[Anonymous]

The “math” poster is crazy or has seen too many shows about trophy wives.

When I sahm’d I didn’t spend more than an hour away from my 0-2.5 year olds while they were awake, and that was to shower and while Dad did bedtime. And I did have cleaners, too much takeout and a few hours on one weekend day. I don’t think that’s unusual. It was intense but how I wanted it. It took me *years* to get and stay pregnant. I made the most of every minute with my kids and it still flew by so fast.

[Anonymous]

Nobody cares about this issue after 5. Unless you are a true moron with no other life experiences.

[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:

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?

I agree with her use of it but not with yours. That’s why I replied to your post and not hers.

Her usage is for a suggestion that will inevitably make some women feel inferior or incompetent, which is arguably toxic.

Your usage is for NOT giving enough accolades to people who already have everything in their lives perfectly managed (and therefore they shouldn’t need extra praise). Withholding their gold stars won’t affect women like this in the slightest, so why would it be toxic?

[Anonymous]

i keep thinking about this thread and i think there is one major takeaway that i cant stress enough.

If a sahm ever says this phrase to a working mom online or in person, she is saying it to make the working mom feel like sh*t. End of story. So no, it's not ok. Not true, and not ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody cares about this issue after 5. Unless you are a true moron with no other life experiences.

after 5 is a different story. saying you need to sah after kid is 5 and at school is just weird.

[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.

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.

The stay at homes are there you just don’t know them. Stay at home moms get to know each other because they have something in common. I’m not gonna lie, some of our kids were a little too catered to because they were our main job. We had money so there was really no limit on activities and getting together for whatever reason.

You obviously know the working people and their jobs but the stay at home parents have kids at your school, you just don’t know them.