Mom’s Who Left Career to SAHP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I loved SAH in the early years. It was exhausting but rewarding. I now SAH with teens. I am just a cook and driver and ATM. It’s not as rewarding. I could go back to work but my husband is literally no help apart from earning an income. He thinks he is an involved dad but he really is not. He has no patience for listening to their teen dramas and complaints, he attends their events somewhat grudgingly. He doesn’t like helping with driving after a long day of work, or making dinner, or cleaning the kitchen.

So now I just feel stuck. I like him as a person, but he’s kind of a crappy coparent.

Your issue is your marriage, not your status as a stay at home mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want strangers raising my children.

They're probably better at it than you.

Why would a random daycare worker be better at taking care of kids than their own parent?

Yes, every parent is a fit to parent by virtue of being a parent. Anyone who is paid to provide childcare could never be as fit. 🙄

Yeah I think parents are more fit to be a parent than some low paid daycare worker who focuses 9-5. A parent is more invested and more loving to the child than any paid employee. That’s reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, we had saved a lot of money (my own 401k an other investments were solid; jointly we were doing great), had all the right insurance set up, had a solid emergency fund, were in our forever home, liked our public schools if needed, DH's compensation was less than mine but solid and we had confidence in his career trajectory, and we both grew up with far less so we know how to scrape by in a pinch if it ever happened and took longer than expected for me to return to work.

On balance, we felt our kid's particular needs at the time were not compatible with the hours were both worked and something had to give (work life was far less flexible back then). I was confident that I would be happy taking on that role, even though giving up the work was not an easy choice (nor would it have been easy to go the other way).

As time went on, we became even more financially comfortable, our family needs increased, my time spent at nonpaying work became more and more valuable to me and the community. I never struggled to find intellectual stimulation or activities that were rewarding for me. Each time we revisited our family-work-life balance, we felt that the status quo was working best for us.

Valuable to the community, lol.

I’m not the PP, but volunteer work IS important to the community. Many vital jobs are unpaid whether you realize it or not.

They are not valuable if they are not paid. Seriously.

What a sad view of the world. I’m glad I don’t measure a person’s worth by their income.

Plus a million. I can’t believe someone actually thinks that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s really amazing to me that so many smart and well educated women seem to believe that the only way to be intellectually engaged is by working some job.

What other ways do you suggest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want strangers raising my children.

They're probably better at it than you.

Why would a random daycare worker be better at taking care of kids than their own parent?

Yes, every parent is a fit to parent by virtue of being a parent. Anyone who is paid to provide childcare could never be as fit. 🙄

Yeah I think parents are more fit to be a parent than some low paid daycare worker who focuses 9-5. A parent is more invested and more loving to the child than any paid employee. That’s reality.

It’s actually not reality. Look at how the PP quoted in 14:09 described their spouse and the parent of their children. Just because someone is invested does not mean that they are a good parent. Some parents are so invested they can’t separate from their children, which is problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really amazing to me that so many smart and well educated women seem to believe that the only way to be intellectually engaged is by working some job.

What other ways do you suggest?

Idk, I’m a working mom and my job at a F500 stopped being intellectually stimulating around the time I returned from my first maternity leave six years ago. I am burnt out from trying to be both a mother and employee to my standards. Frankly, I’m not sure why people feel it’s their place to pressure women to be “intellectually stimulated” through full time work while also carrying most of the weight of childcare.

I’m not sure who needs to hear this, but it’s okay to want to be a present, full time parent and make room for that in your life. It’s okay if being “intellectually stimulated” takes a back seat to raising your kids in that season of life.

And yes, there are ways to be intellectually stimulated without working in some corporate job. Most jobs are not exactly intellectual or stimulating. I work in a stuffy corporate financial services environment and my job bores me to death.

I’d rather be reading, at a book club, writing, reading a NYT article, teaching my kids their alphabet, or spending time with the amazing people they are and are becoming. All of those things are both more stimulating and meaningful to me than redundant meetings and town halls done by one of thousands of cogs in the wheel. I am replaceable at work, but I’m not replaceable to my kids.

If I could afford to, I’d quit and go back to work when I was ready

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really amazing to me that so many smart and well educated women seem to believe that the only way to be intellectually engaged is by working some job.

What other ways do you suggest?

Idk, I’m a working mom and my job at a F500 stopped being intellectually stimulating around the time I returned from my first maternity leave six years ago. I am burnt out from trying to be both a mother and employee to my standards. Frankly, I’m not sure why people feel it’s their place to pressure women to be “intellectually stimulated” through full time work while also carrying most of the weight of childcare.

I’m not sure who needs to hear this, but it’s okay to want to be a present, full time parent and make room for that in your life. It’s okay if being “intellectually stimulated” takes a back seat to raising your kids in that season of life.

And yes, there are ways to be intellectually stimulated without working in some corporate job. Most jobs are not exactly intellectual or stimulating. I work in a stuffy corporate financial services environment and my job bores me to death.

I’d rather be reading, at a book club, writing, reading a NYT article, teaching my kids their alphabet, or spending time with the amazing people they are and are becoming. All of those things are both more stimulating and meaningful to me than redundant meetings and town halls done by one of thousands of cogs in the wheel. I am replaceable at work, but I’m not replaceable to my kids.

If I could afford to, I’d quit and go back to work when I was ready

This makes no sense. If you could afford to you would quit and go back to work when you were ready? Are you working or a SAHM or neither?

Raising small children is not being at a book club meeting or reading a NYT article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want strangers raising my children.

They're probably better at it than you.

Why would a random daycare worker be better at taking care of kids than their own parent?

Yes, every parent is a fit to parent by virtue of being a parent. Anyone who is paid to provide childcare could never be as fit. 🙄

Yeah I think parents are more fit to be a parent than some low paid daycare worker who focuses 9-5. A parent is more invested and more loving to the child than any paid employee. That’s reality.

Parents can get burnt out though. The worker only has to be there 9-5, the parent has to do this all day every day. I’m not saying the daycare worker is “better” but sometimes they might have more energy and patience than a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, we had saved a lot of money (my own 401k an other investments were solid; jointly we were doing great), had all the right insurance set up, had a solid emergency fund, were in our forever home, liked our public schools if needed, DH's compensation was less than mine but solid and we had confidence in his career trajectory, and we both grew up with far less so we know how to scrape by in a pinch if it ever happened and took longer than expected for me to return to work.

On balance, we felt our kid's particular needs at the time were not compatible with the hours were both worked and something had to give (work life was far less flexible back then). I was confident that I would be happy taking on that role, even though giving up the work was not an easy choice (nor would it have been easy to go the other way).

As time went on, we became even more financially comfortable, our family needs increased, my time spent at nonpaying work became more and more valuable to me and the community. I never struggled to find intellectual stimulation or activities that were rewarding for me. Each time we revisited our family-work-life balance, we felt that the status quo was working best for us.

Valuable to the community, lol.

Yes, very. And more so as time moved on, and I had more time to contribute. Perhaps you are unaware of the vast network of unpaid labor in our society. Volunteer board members for nonprofits, church volunteers, school volunteers, environmental conservation volunteers, food pantry volunteers, volunteers who care for the elderly and severely disabled, and so on. Many people's lives would be far worse off without these selfless volunteers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, we had saved a lot of money (my own 401k an other investments were solid; jointly we were doing great), had all the right insurance set up, had a solid emergency fund, were in our forever home, liked our public schools if needed, DH's compensation was less than mine but solid and we had confidence in his career trajectory, and we both grew up with far less so we know how to scrape by in a pinch if it ever happened and took longer than expected for me to return to work.

On balance, we felt our kid's particular needs at the time were not compatible with the hours were both worked and something had to give (work life was far less flexible back then). I was confident that I would be happy taking on that role, even though giving up the work was not an easy choice (nor would it have been easy to go the other way).

As time went on, we became even more financially comfortable, our family needs increased, my time spent at nonpaying work became more and more valuable to me and the community. I never struggled to find intellectual stimulation or activities that were rewarding for me. Each time we revisited our family-work-life balance, we felt that the status quo was working best for us.

Valuable to the community, lol.

I’m not the PP, but volunteer work IS important to the community. Many vital jobs are unpaid whether you realize it or not.

They are not valuable if they are not paid. Seriously.

I'm a SAHP and I refused to get involved in volunteer work. Seriously, if I wanted a job, I'd go get one. Sure, I might chaperone a school trip, but not any more than a working parent.

Agree. It think navel gazing at these volunteer positions being 'vital' speaks volumes about the insecurity of the people that say those things. And, yes, tons of working parents volunteer at the school.

You guys have an EXTREMELY narrow understanding of what volunteers do in this world. It's not all room parents, lol. That's not even a blip on the radar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, we had saved a lot of money (my own 401k an other investments were solid; jointly we were doing great), had all the right insurance set up, had a solid emergency fund, were in our forever home, liked our public schools if needed, DH's compensation was less than mine but solid and we had confidence in his career trajectory, and we both grew up with far less so we know how to scrape by in a pinch if it ever happened and took longer than expected for me to return to work.

On balance, we felt our kid's particular needs at the time were not compatible with the hours were both worked and something had to give (work life was far less flexible back then). I was confident that I would be happy taking on that role, even though giving up the work was not an easy choice (nor would it have been easy to go the other way).

As time went on, we became even more financially comfortable, our family needs increased, my time spent at nonpaying work became more and more valuable to me and the community. I never struggled to find intellectual stimulation or activities that were rewarding for me. Each time we revisited our family-work-life balance, we felt that the status quo was working best for us.

Valuable to the community, lol.

I’m not the PP, but volunteer work IS important to the community. Many vital jobs are unpaid whether you realize it or not.

They are not valuable if they are not paid. Seriously.

I used to work a paid job and interacted with some volunteers. A big part of volunteerism is that people do it not because they want to help or actually are helping but because they want to feel like they are helping. It’s a nightmare honestly.

Look at you. So special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s really amazing to me that so many smart and well educated women seem to believe that the only way to be intellectually engaged is by working some job.

+1 I laugh every time I read that. I was so much more boring (and bored) when I only had time for the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom didn't feel like she had much of a choice in the 80s but says she wishes she'd done it differently.

I’m an 80s kid and don’t know a single SAHM.

+1 Everyone had to work in the 80s because the 70s were a financial disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want strangers raising my children.

They're probably better at it than you.

Why would a random daycare worker be better at taking care of kids than their own parent?

Yes, every parent is a fit to parent by virtue of being a parent. Anyone who is paid to provide childcare could never be as fit. 🙄

Yeah I think parents are more fit to be a parent than some low paid daycare worker who focuses 9-5. A parent is more invested and more loving to the child than any paid employee. That’s reality.

I've heard so many people say about their hired caregivers "She really cares about our child."
No doofus, she cares about a paycheck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom didn't feel like she had much of a choice in the 80s but says she wishes she'd done it differently.

I’m an 80s kid and don’t know a single SAHM.

+1 Everyone had to work in the 80s because the 70s were a financial disaster.

I'm the poster whose mom was SAHM starting in the 80s (I can't remember the 80s but my siblings and I were all born in the 80s) and what made my mom have to be a SAHM was that my Dad was a naval officer so we were constantly moving and she couldn't get a job established. That combo came with some serious isolation. You were basically expected to just hang out with other officers' wives.

Funnily enough of my mom's kids only my brother has been a SAHP (wife's career took them abroad and it can be very hard to find a job as a trailing spouse).