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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I each make about 250k in tech and law. In no world what we do “meaningful” or “making a difference.” Unless you are a health professional or researcher, I can almost guarantee you aren’t either.

Eh, I would not agree. All paid work has value in and of itself just because you are being paid. Earning a paycheck and using it to provide for your family has value and meaning right there. Using your paycheck to purchase goods and keep others in business has value and meaning. Paying taxes on your salary has value. Even if your company or organization is not curing cancer it is presumably making some good or providing some service to society and churning the economy. If your employer is successful then it can presumably employ lots of folks, down to the janitors who clean your office suite, and those employees can then in turn provide for their families. It all does add up to "making a difference". And even if the subject matter of your work is not like fodder for dinner-party conversation, a worker might still find it intellectually stimulating or challenging to them.

(And I say this as someone who, when her oldest was 15 months, realized she wanted to spend a lot more time with her kid than her work was then allowing. But I did enjoy my non-healthcare related career and find it fulfilling and meaningful, so I went the route of finding a less demanding and flexible job...which I totally understand is not always possible. That was the right move for me.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3 year old is in preschool from 9-5pm five days a week. I don't kid myself about who DC is spending the majority of their waking hours with.

Back when SAHMs were the norm, people would say the dad works while the mom raised the kids. Ok, so now that mom is working, who do you think is raising the kids? It's not to say that the parental contribution is insignificant, but let's be real.

lol SAHM has never been the norm

are you high?

DP. No...she's just not delusional enough to think that rich, white women were ever the norm in the US.

Ok, so you're just willingly stupid. The percentage of women in the labor force didn't reach 50% until 1978. That would mean the majority of women were not working until 1978. SAHMs absolutely were the norm. FFS. Female empowerment doesn't mean rewriting history to align with your narrative.

Thank you. It’s often repeated on this board that only rich white women stayed at home.

Logically this doesn’t make sense. Birth control wasn’t even invented, women were often expected to quit working when they became pregnant, daycares weren’t a thing and most families only had one car. Dual earners were NOT common. Census data supports this.

I know this would take some logical reasoning skills that you lack but "working in the labor force" and working are 2 different things. You think the farm ran itself? Who was responsible for the cow and the chickens and other jobs. While it's true they did not have a dual income we know that women's work has not been documented as real work for centuries.

You think moms during the 30's were home with kids reading and writing? come on man!

I’m confused. Is being home taking care of the kids not real work in your mind? You are correct that “women’s work” hasn’t counted as “real work” for centuries, but you seem to be fine with it.

They were not “home” caring for kids.

They didn’t live on their family farms? It wasn’t home? Their kids weren’t there being taken care of? And again, do you think taking care of kids is not “real work”? Or is it only when you’re taking care of your OWN kids that it doesn’t count?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just cannot imagine not having a meaningful career. It's so a part of who I am as a person, a mother, a wife, and a role model for my son and daughter. I love my work and feel that it makes a difference in the world. I'm proud that my kids see that and my husband respects what I do outside the home. I want my son and daughter to believe they can choose whatever work they want in life. Yes I cook and clean and drive and do laundy and volunteer at school and sign up for sports and summer camps and am on the mom group chats and all the rest of it. Maybe not as much or as well as a stay at home parent. But I never question the trade offs. We've had a nanny and now a part time baby sitter for help with driving. But I would never ever give up meaningful work that also allows us to pay for kids activities, vacations, etc. No one else raised my kids. They are in middle school now and I help them solve their problems, guide them through challenges, cheer them on at their activities, check in on their homework, and help them navigate puberty. No one else is raising my kids.

So you’re never going to retire?

Believe it or not, many SAHMs have had meaningful careers at some point and many will again. Taking some time away from paid employment to focus on other things shouldn’t define a person’s entire existence. IMO, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3 year old is in preschool from 9-5pm five days a week. I don't kid myself about who DC is spending the majority of their waking hours with.

Back when SAHMs were the norm, people would say the dad works while the mom raised the kids. Ok, so now that mom is working, who do you think is raising the kids? It's not to say that the parental contribution is insignificant, but let's be real.

lol SAHM has never been the norm

are you high?

DP. No...she's just not delusional enough to think that rich, white women were ever the norm in the US.

Ok, so you're just willingly stupid. The percentage of women in the labor force didn't reach 50% until 1978. That would mean the majority of women were not working until 1978. SAHMs absolutely were the norm. FFS. Female empowerment doesn't mean rewriting history to align with your narrative.

Thank you. It’s often repeated on this board that only rich white women stayed at home.

Logically this doesn’t make sense. Birth control wasn’t even invented, women were often expected to quit working when they became pregnant, daycares weren’t a thing and most families only had one car. Dual earners were NOT common. Census data supports this.

I know this would take some logical reasoning skills that you lack but "working in the labor force" and working are 2 different things. You think the farm ran itself? Who was responsible for the cow and the chickens and other jobs. While it's true they did not have a dual income we know that women's work has not been documented as real work for centuries.

You think moms during the 30's were home with kids reading and writing? come on man!

I’m confused. Is being home taking care of the kids not real work in your mind? You are correct that “women’s work” hasn’t counted as “real work” for centuries, but you seem to be fine with it.

It’s only real work if you pay someone else to do it. If you do it yourself it’s suddenly not work. That’s the pretzel logic.

what it means is when you google statistics on women working it will give you a false % because the statistics don't count women working on the farm, in the shop, taking in sewing FOR OTHERS, caring FOR OTHER kids, cleaning OTHER'S homes, cooking FOR OTHERS etc

None of that is in the statistics because the world (not me) did not count it as work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3 year old is in preschool from 9-5pm five days a week. I don't kid myself about who DC is spending the majority of their waking hours with.

Back when SAHMs were the norm, people would say the dad works while the mom raised the kids. Ok, so now that mom is working, who do you think is raising the kids? It's not to say that the parental contribution is insignificant, but let's be real.

lol SAHM has never been the norm

are you high?

DP. No...she's just not delusional enough to think that rich, white women were ever the norm in the US.

Ok, so you're just willingly stupid. The percentage of women in the labor force didn't reach 50% until 1978. That would mean the majority of women were not working until 1978. SAHMs absolutely were the norm. FFS. Female empowerment doesn't mean rewriting history to align with your narrative.

Thank you. It’s often repeated on this board that only rich white women stayed at home.

Logically this doesn’t make sense. Birth control wasn’t even invented, women were often expected to quit working when they became pregnant, daycares weren’t a thing and most families only had one car. Dual earners were NOT common. Census data supports this.

I know this would take some logical reasoning skills that you lack but "working in the labor force" and working are 2 different things. You think the farm ran itself? Who was responsible for the cow and the chickens and other jobs. While it's true they did not have a dual income we know that women's work has not been documented as real work for centuries.

You think moms during the 30's were home with kids reading and writing? come on man!

I’m confused. Is being home taking care of the kids not real work in your mind? You are correct that “women’s work” hasn’t counted as “real work” for centuries, but you seem to be fine with it.

It’s only real work if you pay someone else to do it. If you do it yourself it’s suddenly not work. That’s the pretzel logic.

I sometimes wonder if I would be a respectable contributor to society again if my husband paid me like an employee. Sure we’d lose out on all the extra taxes I’d suddenly be paying (and he would as well, as my employer) but that seems a small price to pay to show my children the importance of capitalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3 year old is in preschool from 9-5pm five days a week. I don't kid myself about who DC is spending the majority of their waking hours with.

Back when SAHMs were the norm, people would say the dad works while the mom raised the kids. Ok, so now that mom is working, who do you think is raising the kids? It's not to say that the parental contribution is insignificant, but let's be real.

lol SAHM has never been the norm

are you high?

DP. No...she's just not delusional enough to think that rich, white women were ever the norm in the US.

Ok, so you're just willingly stupid. The percentage of women in the labor force didn't reach 50% until 1978. That would mean the majority of women were not working until 1978. SAHMs absolutely were the norm. FFS. Female empowerment doesn't mean rewriting history to align with your narrative.

Thank you. It’s often repeated on this board that only rich white women stayed at home.

Logically this doesn’t make sense. Birth control wasn’t even invented, women were often expected to quit working when they became pregnant, daycares weren’t a thing and most families only had one car. Dual earners were NOT common. Census data supports this.

I know this would take some logical reasoning skills that you lack but "working in the labor force" and working are 2 different things. You think the farm ran itself? Who was responsible for the cow and the chickens and other jobs. While it's true they did not have a dual income we know that women's work has not been documented as real work for centuries.

You think moms during the 30's were home with kids reading and writing? come on man!

I’m confused. Is being home taking care of the kids not real work in your mind? You are correct that “women’s work” hasn’t counted as “real work” for centuries, but you seem to be fine with it.

They were not “home” caring for kids.

They didn’t live on their family farms? It wasn’t home? Their kids weren’t there being taken care of? And again, do you think taking care of kids is not “real work”? Or is it only when you’re taking care of your OWN kids that it doesn’t count?

Your misreading. The farm is acres and acres and they are out working all day ... the kids are not by their side or even anywhere to be seen they are not in the home with the kids... you know there was very little "caring for kids" until the 50's. Once mom had to go back to tending to things kids were on their own.

Women would go clean houses and just leave their kids home with older siblings or alone, there was no had to be 8 law. That is not counted in the labor statistics that was quoted. None of that was considered "labor force" in the statistics that are quoted.

Most women were working, not staying home with children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3 year old is in preschool from 9-5pm five days a week. I don't kid myself about who DC is spending the majority of their waking hours with.

Back when SAHMs were the norm, people would say the dad works while the mom raised the kids. Ok, so now that mom is working, who do you think is raising the kids? It's not to say that the parental contribution is insignificant, but let's be real.

lol SAHM has never been the norm

are you high?

DP. No...she's just not delusional enough to think that rich, white women were ever the norm in the US.

Ok, so you're just willingly stupid. The percentage of women in the labor force didn't reach 50% until 1978. That would mean the majority of women were not working until 1978. SAHMs absolutely were the norm. FFS. Female empowerment doesn't mean rewriting history to align with your narrative.

Thank you. It’s often repeated on this board that only rich white women stayed at home.

Logically this doesn’t make sense. Birth control wasn’t even invented, women were often expected to quit working when they became pregnant, daycares weren’t a thing and most families only had one car. Dual earners were NOT common. Census data supports this.

I know this would take some logical reasoning skills that you lack but "working in the labor force" and working are 2 different things. You think the farm ran itself? Who was responsible for the cow and the chickens and other jobs. While it's true they did not have a dual income we know that women's work has not been documented as real work for centuries.

You think moms during the 30's were home with kids reading and writing? come on man!

I’m confused. Is being home taking care of the kids not real work in your mind? You are correct that “women’s work” hasn’t counted as “real work” for centuries, but you seem to be fine with it.

It’s only real work if you pay someone else to do it. If you do it yourself it’s suddenly not work. That’s the pretzel logic.

I sometimes wonder if I would be a respectable contributor to society again if my husband paid me like an employee. Sure we’d lose out on all the extra taxes I’d suddenly be paying (and he would as well, as my employer) but that seems a small price to pay to show my children the importance of capitalism.

He does pay you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3 year old is in preschool from 9-5pm five days a week. I don't kid myself about who DC is spending the majority of their waking hours with.

Back when SAHMs were the norm, people would say the dad works while the mom raised the kids. Ok, so now that mom is working, who do you think is raising the kids? It's not to say that the parental contribution is insignificant, but let's be real.

lol SAHM has never been the norm

are you high?

DP. No...she's just not delusional enough to think that rich, white women were ever the norm in the US.

Ok, so you're just willingly stupid. The percentage of women in the labor force didn't reach 50% until 1978. That would mean the majority of women were not working until 1978. SAHMs absolutely were the norm. FFS. Female empowerment doesn't mean rewriting history to align with your narrative.

DP. The idea of being a SAHP that we have now is vastly different than what was in the past before many women began working. Ask your parents or grandparents what they did when they were kids during time they were not in school. The vast majority were not spending one-on-one time with their parent. They were running around the neighborhood with other kids while their parent (usually mom) was doing the housework and cooking. Housework was more intensive then, because technology was different. Cooking and housework took more time and weren't outsourced unless you were really rich. So the idea that you have had this modern version of stay at home helicopter parenting is recent and different than most of human history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3 year old is in preschool from 9-5pm five days a week. I don't kid myself about who DC is spending the majority of their waking hours with.

Back when SAHMs were the norm, people would say the dad works while the mom raised the kids. Ok, so now that mom is working, who do you think is raising the kids? It's not to say that the parental contribution is insignificant, but let's be real.

lol SAHM has never been the norm

are you high?

DP. No...she's just not delusional enough to think that rich, white women were ever the norm in the US.

Ok, so you're just willingly stupid. The percentage of women in the labor force didn't reach 50% until 1978. That would mean the majority of women were not working until 1978. SAHMs absolutely were the norm. FFS. Female empowerment doesn't mean rewriting history to align with your narrative.

Thank you. It’s often repeated on this board that only rich white women stayed at home.

Logically this doesn’t make sense. Birth control wasn’t even invented, women were often expected to quit working when they became pregnant, daycares weren’t a thing and most families only had one car. Dual earners were NOT common. Census data supports this.

I know this would take some logical reasoning skills that you lack but "working in the labor force" and working are 2 different things. You think the farm ran itself? Who was responsible for the cow and the chickens and other jobs. While it's true they did not have a dual income we know that women's work has not been documented as real work for centuries.

You think moms during the 30's were home with kids reading and writing? come on man!

I’m confused. Is being home taking care of the kids not real work in your mind? You are correct that “women’s work” hasn’t counted as “real work” for centuries, but you seem to be fine with it.

They were not “home” caring for kids.

They didn’t live on their family farms? It wasn’t home? Their kids weren’t there being taken care of? And again, do you think taking care of kids is not “real work”? Or is it only when you’re taking care of your OWN kids that it doesn’t count?

Your misreading. The farm is acres and acres and they are out working all day ... the kids are not by their side or even anywhere to be seen they are not in the home with the kids... you know there was very little "caring for kids" until the 50's. Once mom had to go back to tending to things kids were on their own.

Women would go clean houses and just leave their kids home with older siblings or alone, there was no had to be 8 law. That is not counted in the labor statistics that was quoted. None of that was considered "labor force" in the statistics that are quoted.

Most women were working, not staying home with children.

But if my kids are being tended to by the ipad while I grocery shop, cook, and clean that’s still not real work, right? Many women worked all day in the fields on subsistence farms (meaning they weren’t selling anything for a profit, it stayed within their immediate family). Was that real work? If I have a huge garden and grow all of our vegetables (to include canning for the winter) is that real work?

Or is work only “real” when money is changing hands?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t read all the thread but YES!!!!! Very offended!! I would have given my left arm to be a SAHM but I couldn’t. Check your privilege.

If someone said this to you, you probably said something to deserve it. But nobody actually leads with this statement.

This is so disingenuous. There are posters who said just that and exactly that as their sole post, not in response to anything. Stop acting like SAHMs are only sh!tty when WOHMs say mean things first. I could show you hundreds of posts on here where that is not true.

On the flip side, I can show you nasty, unprovoked posts from WOHMs as well, but for you to claim that no SAHM would ever say something like this unless they were insulted first is beyond ridiculous.

Your opinion is worthless. it’s clear where the vitriol is coming from in here.

Yes, you're right. It's coming from people who think if you don't spend 24/7 with your kids then you don't raise them.

Funny you think that when a post just above it the the typical post in here calling people who stay home stupid and unemployable. Again, it’s clear where the vitriol is.

You think being called stupid and unemployable is more offensive than being told you didn't raise your children? Are you effing kidding me?

Who told you you aren’t raising your children? That’s you twisting this to make it about you. It’s not about you, it’s about them. I had someone tell me they could never breastfeed their kids because their breasts were a big part of their sex life and it was sexual to them. I breastfed my kids. But I didn’t care that my friend made a different choice because it wasn’t about me. You sound like a narcissist.

And you sound like a moron. The example you gave isn't the same at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3 year old is in preschool from 9-5pm five days a week. I don't kid myself about who DC is spending the majority of their waking hours with.

Back when SAHMs were the norm, people would say the dad works while the mom raised the kids. Ok, so now that mom is working, who do you think is raising the kids? It's not to say that the parental contribution is insignificant, but let's be real.

lol SAHM has never been the norm

are you high?

DP. No...she's just not delusional enough to think that rich, white women were ever the norm in the US.

Ok, so you're just willingly stupid. The percentage of women in the labor force didn't reach 50% until 1978. That would mean the majority of women were not working until 1978. SAHMs absolutely were the norm. FFS. Female empowerment doesn't mean rewriting history to align with your narrative.

Thank you. It’s often repeated on this board that only rich white women stayed at home.

Logically this doesn’t make sense. Birth control wasn’t even invented, women were often expected to quit working when they became pregnant, daycares weren’t a thing and most families only had one car. Dual earners were NOT common. Census data supports this.

I know this would take some logical reasoning skills that you lack but "working in the labor force" and working are 2 different things. You think the farm ran itself? Who was responsible for the cow and the chickens and other jobs. While it's true they did not have a dual income we know that women's work has not been documented as real work for centuries.

You think moms during the 30's were home with kids reading and writing? come on man!

I’m confused. Is being home taking care of the kids not real work in your mind? You are correct that “women’s work” hasn’t counted as “real work” for centuries, but you seem to be fine with it.

It’s only real work if you pay someone else to do it. If you do it yourself it’s suddenly not work. That’s the pretzel logic.

I sometimes wonder if I would be a respectable contributor to society again if my husband paid me like an employee. Sure we’d lose out on all the extra taxes I’d suddenly be paying (and he would as well, as my employer) but that seems a small price to pay to show my children the importance of capitalism.

He does pay you.

Oh that’s great news! I guess I DO have a job then!

[Anonymous]

The mental gymnastics people are performing to defend their life choices are truly impressive, Olympic worthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is an acceptable reason for someone to say they decided to stay ay home? It’s all offensive to someone.

First of all, no one asks anyone WHY they stay at home. That's just something someone said to stir the pot. And well done, I guess.

Second of all, it's not all offensive. You can say you wanted to be with your kids all day. That's fine, and I'm assuming the truth. Saying you didn't want someone else to RAISE your kids is inflammatory and if you are too stupid to see that I don't know what to do for you.

People do ask. Especially if you had a decent career before hand. A lot of people ask instinctively because it's not something they even considered so it's surprising to them. I got people who literally just said "what? why?" when I told them I'd quit to stay home for a bit.

People are also baffled and ask other questions that reflect their misunderstanding of why people do this and how it works. I had one friend who asked me "So do you just like take the baby to classes and stuff all the time?" She was thinking of like mommy and me classes -- music and swim and movement. I explained that no that wasn't a big part of our schedule and that having done a couple of them I found they were mostly just for the adults (to meet other moms) and I already had other friends so it seemed like a waste of time and money.

So she kept asking "then what do you do all day?" It was very confusing to her how I was filling my time. She went to an office and worked and that was her frame -- she couldn't imagine what I could be doing. In her mind it sounded very passive. Like I must have just been sitting around while the baby just laid there I guess? It was interesting hearing her describe what she thought it must be like. It makes you realize what people think their nannies and daycares are doing all day and that's eyeopening.

And then when I did actually explain what I was doing there was strong resistance to it -- like no you can't actually be doing that or no there's no way that fills your time. Again it's just this narrow outlook and refusal to accept information that might disrupt it. She was very committed to the idea that my life must be very dull and unproductive. When I'd talk about what I was doing either for my DC or for myself or for my community there was a lot of defensiveness. Even though I didn't mean any of it as an indictment of her choices. I was answering questions she had asked. But she asked them believing she knew the answers (that I was bored and that I wasn't doing anything and that my child wasn't benefitting in any way) and when I answered in ways that upended those beliefs she was frustrated and annoyed.

Similar to the vibe on this thread. A lot of people cling to this belief that SAHMs are dumb and boring and that caring for children is easy and uninteresting. This belief is very closely tied to how they think about their own lives and choices. It's fascinating.

So you had one dumb friend but that speaks to the experience of all parents. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m getting a laugh out of this “firsts” hissy fit.

My daughter took her first steps in my office where she was playing on the floor when I was working late on something. She then refused to do it again for weeks and weeks, home or childcare. Getting to see the firsts are a roll of the dice.

And again something I don’t see male parents told they should quit their jobs to witness…

Who told you to quit your job?

The “not missing out on milestones is priceless” poster comes to mind.

I imagine she’d put a price on it real quick if her husband told her he was quitting his job to not miss out on firsts.

She quit her job because she didn’t want to miss out on milestones. She didn’t tell you to quit your job.

Something can be priceless to one person and not matter as much to another person.

I wonder if these same moms don’t care when their kid looks sad when their parents aren’t there for thanksgiving lunch at school or holiday parties or pastries with parents. All these things won’t matter when your kid is 10 but tell that to the 5-6 year old sobbing in kindergarten.

My husband and I both work full-time but have never missed an in-class activity. I can tell you neither of us have ever seen a kid crying because their parent isn't there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m getting a laugh out of this “firsts” hissy fit.

My daughter took her first steps in my office where she was playing on the floor when I was working late on something. She then refused to do it again for weeks and weeks, home or childcare. Getting to see the firsts are a roll of the dice.

And again something I don’t see male parents told they should quit their jobs to witness…

Who told you to quit your job?

The “not missing out on milestones is priceless” poster comes to mind.

I imagine she’d put a price on it real quick if her husband told her he was quitting his job to not miss out on firsts.

She quit her job because she didn’t want to miss out on milestones. She didn’t tell you to quit your job.

Something can be priceless to one person and not matter as much to another person.

I wonder if these same moms don’t care when their kid looks sad when their parents aren’t there for thanksgiving lunch at school or holiday parties or pastries with parents. All these things won’t matter when your kid is 10 but tell that to the 5-6 year old sobbing in kindergarten.

So do you just have one child? If not, what do you do with your other kids when one of your kids has a school lunch? And what if all three of your kids have a lunch on the same day? You sound simple minded.