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: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?

I'm not sure why you are missing this.

In the 1930's (for example) women were working and money was exchanging hands and they were still considered "not working" by the US labor statistics.

I think you are working when you are planting flowers to beautify your house.

If you do it for a neighbor and they pay you and money exchanges hands... the US labor statistics will say, you don't work.

[Anonymous]

I am a health researcher scientist and disagree with statement by previous poster that many other jobs don’t have value. I remember when I was in the depths of working hard that entertainment options ( movies/ dinners out/ socializing , etc) were essential for recovery from long focused work spells. So, we live in a community and need each other’s gifts for us to succeed as a society. 😀

[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: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!

Yep and if you stop, you stop getting paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a health researcher scientist and disagree with statement by previous poster that many other jobs don’t have value. I remember when I was in the depths of working hard that entertainment options ( movies/ dinners out/ socializing , etc) were essential for recovery from long focused work spells. So, we live in a community and need each other’s gifts for us to succeed as a society. 😀

We learned during COVID grocery store workings, factory workers, restaurant workers, farm hands, trash collection... they are pretty fricken important. It might not be your passion, but it is very, very important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What does a SAHM do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to reach 90 pages of comments to chime in here, but the comment is hurtful because it has a certain grain of truth in it.

We were lucky enough to have a nanny and WFH the first year of DC's life and then I stayed home until DC started daycare at 2. At that time, she was ready and chomping at bit for more social interaction.

Now, at 3, she absolutely loses her mind and bounces off the wall on days when she doesn't have the stimulation of school. But at the same time, she can (and HAS) verbalized to us that she misses us because she doesn't get to see us very much during the week. And this is with 2 WFH parents.

It sucks, and feels like you can't win, but we plug forward anyway.

If you would have read 90 pages nobody thinks there is a “grain of truth” except some extremely insecure SAHMs.

Why would the statement be offensive if there was zero truth to it? Do you get offended if someone says the earth is flat?

Are you really this moronic?!? I would hope you would agree that the statement "X people are all stupid" is offensive and rude and has no truth to it. Of course not all people in X group are anything, but people still say stuff like that all the time. But I guess you don't think that's offensive either?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to reach 90 pages of comments to chime in here, but the comment is hurtful because it has a certain grain of truth in it.

We were lucky enough to have a nanny and WFH the first year of DC's life and then I stayed home until DC started daycare at 2. At that time, she was ready and chomping at bit for more social interaction.

Now, at 3, she absolutely loses her mind and bounces off the wall on days when she doesn't have the stimulation of school. But at the same time, she can (and HAS) verbalized to us that she misses us because she doesn't get to see us very much during the week. And this is with 2 WFH parents.

It sucks, and feels like you can't win, but we plug forward anyway.

If you would have read 90 pages nobody thinks there is a “grain of truth” except some extremely insecure SAHMs.

Why would the statement be offensive if there was zero truth to it? Do you get offended if someone says the earth is flat?

+1

“The truth hurts. That’s how you know it’s true.”

Agreed 90 pages of stsy home moms fighting about their value over a working mom but the truth is it’s no value and well that truth hurts.

Please learn to speak English before contributing further to this discussion.

That was rude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to reach 90 pages of comments to chime in here, but the comment is hurtful because it has a certain grain of truth in it.

We were lucky enough to have a nanny and WFH the first year of DC's life and then I stayed home until DC started daycare at 2. At that time, she was ready and chomping at bit for more social interaction.

Now, at 3, she absolutely loses her mind and bounces off the wall on days when she doesn't have the stimulation of school. But at the same time, she can (and HAS) verbalized to us that she misses us because she doesn't get to see us very much during the week. And this is with 2 WFH parents.

It sucks, and feels like you can't win, but we plug forward anyway.

If you would have read 90 pages nobody thinks there is a “grain of truth” except some extremely insecure SAHMs.

Why would the statement be offensive if there was zero truth to it? Do you get offended if someone says the earth is flat?

For the same reason all bigoted statements are?

Now it’s bigoted? Just tell us you’re insecure about your choices, it would be more honest and it would lead to a much better discussion.

DP. FFS. The phrase isn't bigoted, the point is bigoted statements have zero truth to them but are still offensive. I hope you people are just pretending to be this obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to reach 90 pages of comments to chime in here, but the comment is hurtful because it has a certain grain of truth in it.

We were lucky enough to have a nanny and WFH the first year of DC's life and then I stayed home until DC started daycare at 2. At that time, she was ready and chomping at bit for more social interaction.

Now, at 3, she absolutely loses her mind and bounces off the wall on days when she doesn't have the stimulation of school. But at the same time, she can (and HAS) verbalized to us that she misses us because she doesn't get to see us very much during the week. And this is with 2 WFH parents.

It sucks, and feels like you can't win, but we plug forward anyway.

If you would have read 90 pages nobody thinks there is a “grain of truth” except some extremely insecure SAHMs.

Why would the statement be offensive if there was zero truth to it? Do you get offended if someone says the earth is flat?

For the same reason all bigoted statements are?

Now it’s bigoted? Just tell us you’re insecure about your choices, it would be more honest and it would lead to a much better discussion.

The reason “the earth is flat” isn’t offensive and “women aren’t suited for leadership roles” is isn’t because the latter is true, it’s because the latter is bigoted. So is the idea that WOHP aren’t raising their children. Keep up.

Maybe, just maybe the person who (hypothetically) made the comment had the type of work that was in person only. So, for her, in her particular case, not staying home would have meant spending a significant time away from her child, not raising it. And she didn’t want to do that. But, instead, you’ve decided that it’s a personal indictment of you and every other working mother. Just own up to your own insecurities. It’s blatantly obvious.

So dads who work long hours don't raise their 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:I'm not going to reach 90 pages of comments to chime in here, but the comment is hurtful because it has a certain grain of truth in it.

We were lucky enough to have a nanny and WFH the first year of DC's life and then I stayed home until DC started daycare at 2. At that time, she was ready and chomping at bit for more social interaction.

Now, at 3, she absolutely loses her mind and bounces off the wall on days when she doesn't have the stimulation of school. But at the same time, she can (and HAS) verbalized to us that she misses us because she doesn't get to see us very much during the week. And this is with 2 WFH parents.

It sucks, and feels like you can't win, but we plug forward anyway.

If you would have read 90 pages nobody thinks there is a “grain of truth” except some extremely insecure SAHMs.

Why would the statement be offensive if there was zero truth to it? Do you get offended if someone says the earth is flat?

For the same reason all bigoted statements are?

Now it’s bigoted? Just tell us you’re insecure about your choices, it would be more honest and it would lead to a much better discussion.

The reason “the earth is flat” isn’t offensive and “women aren’t suited for leadership roles” is isn’t because the latter is true, it’s because the latter is bigoted. So is the idea that WOHP aren’t raising their children. Keep up.

Maybe, just maybe the person who (hypothetically) made the comment had the type of work that was in person only. So, for her, in her particular case, not staying home would have meant spending a significant time away from her child, not raising it. And she didn’t want to do that. But, instead, you’ve decided that it’s a personal indictment of you and every other working mother. Just own up to your own insecurities. It’s blatantly obvious.

Parent, actually.

Are you a man all hot under the collar about all this?

No, I’m correcting because the statement isn’t an indictment of working mothers, it’s an indictment of working parents. By the logic of the statement a father who works full time isn’t raising his children either

Zero men would give a damn about any of this. This is all women up in their feelings about it. Most dads would laugh and move on.

Most men I know with kids (my husband included) would be pissed as hell to be told they’re not raising them, but that does represent a generational shift.

+1000

[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:I'm not going to reach 90 pages of comments to chime in here, but the comment is hurtful because it has a certain grain of truth in it.

We were lucky enough to have a nanny and WFH the first year of DC's life and then I stayed home until DC started daycare at 2. At that time, she was ready and chomping at bit for more social interaction.

Now, at 3, she absolutely loses her mind and bounces off the wall on days when she doesn't have the stimulation of school. But at the same time, she can (and HAS) verbalized to us that she misses us because she doesn't get to see us very much during the week. And this is with 2 WFH parents.

It sucks, and feels like you can't win, but we plug forward anyway.

If you would have read 90 pages nobody thinks there is a “grain of truth” except some extremely insecure SAHMs.

Why would the statement be offensive if there was zero truth to it? Do you get offended if someone says the earth is flat?

For the same reason all bigoted statements are?

Now it’s bigoted? Just tell us you’re insecure about your choices, it would be more honest and it would lead to a much better discussion.

The reason “the earth is flat” isn’t offensive and “women aren’t suited for leadership roles” is isn’t because the latter is true, it’s because the latter is bigoted. So is the idea that WOHP aren’t raising their children. Keep up.

Maybe, just maybe the person who (hypothetically) made the comment had the type of work that was in person only. So, for her, in her particular case, not staying home would have meant spending a significant time away from her child, not raising it. And she didn’t want to do that. But, instead, you’ve decided that it’s a personal indictment of you and every other working mother. Just own up to your own insecurities. It’s blatantly obvious.

Parent, actually.

Are you a man all hot under the collar about all this?

No, I’m correcting because the statement isn’t an indictment of working mothers, it’s an indictment of working parents. By the logic of the statement a father who works full time isn’t raising his children either

Zero men would give a damn about any of this. This is all women up in their feelings about it. Most dads would laugh and move on.

Most men I know with kids (my husband included) would be pissed as hell to be told they’re not raising them, but that does represent a generational shift.

Nobody told anyone they aren’t raising their kids. And no, most men would not be pissed as hell. Not a single man has even joined any part of this conversation. You would think at least one if they would be “pissed as hell”.

The above PP literally said that a parent who works long hours is not raising their kid:

"not staying home would have meant spending a significant time away from her child, not raising it"

And men have posted on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Does this hypothetical person bring their child to the pediatrician, a dentist, a restaurant, a museum, a music class, etc... because you certainly can't bring your kids anywhere without encountering someone who is working while their own children are in someone else's care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel way worse for the kids whose moms stayed home and as a result have no money for college tuition and have to work through school, or who don't get helped with a down payment on their first house, can't afford to take an unpaid internship etc bc it was so important for their mom to hang around the house while they were at school during the day.

Could you share data on this phenomena?

DP but there’s solid data that women raised by mothers who work outside the home earn more money and do less housework than their peers raised by mothers who did not.

Interestingly, when polled about their aspirations for their daughters, very few men aspired for them to be SAHP.

Women don’t aspire to be a SAHM. They usually have a job, have a kid and then decide they want to stay home to raise their kid(s). Not sure why this is so offensive.

This is true for me. I didn't realize I was going to stay home until I was about 5 months pregnant and realized my employer was only willing to pay for a 2 month maternity leave, and expected me to come back to working 60 hours weeks again after that (this was in 2012). That's when I really thought it through I decided I wanted a different level of engagement with my child. Prior to that, I would have told you that I intended to keep working (and had been working for a decade.)

It’s odd to me that it took a pregnancy to realize a 60 hours week work week was a bad idea.

It was totally fun before I had kids. I actually loved it -- it was a reporting job, and those hours involved being out in the world talking to people and then writing about it. Not 60 hours in an office. But, very hard lifestyle to mesh with having a breastfeeding infant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to derail the thread further but i have a large gap and have a kid in elementary school, middle school and high school. I also have elderly parents who can no longer care for themselves so I am juggling both my kids while caring for my parents. Welcome to the sandwich generation. My dad has 50 hours of home aid care but it is not enough. The same way a 40 hour week nanny isn’t enough for a baby.

What? Our nanny never worked more than 40 hours a week.

[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:I'm not going to reach 90 pages of comments to chime in here, but the comment is hurtful because it has a certain grain of truth in it.

We were lucky enough to have a nanny and WFH the first year of DC's life and then I stayed home until DC started daycare at 2. At that time, she was ready and chomping at bit for more social interaction.

Now, at 3, she absolutely loses her mind and bounces off the wall on days when she doesn't have the stimulation of school. But at the same time, she can (and HAS) verbalized to us that she misses us because she doesn't get to see us very much during the week. And this is with 2 WFH parents.

It sucks, and feels like you can't win, but we plug forward anyway.

If you would have read 90 pages nobody thinks there is a “grain of truth” except some extremely insecure SAHMs.

Why would the statement be offensive if there was zero truth to it? Do you get offended if someone says the earth is flat?

For the same reason all bigoted statements are?

Now it’s bigoted? Just tell us you’re insecure about your choices, it would be more honest and it would lead to a much better discussion.

The reason “the earth is flat” isn’t offensive and “women aren’t suited for leadership roles” is isn’t because the latter is true, it’s because the latter is bigoted. So is the idea that WOHP aren’t raising their children. Keep up.

Maybe, just maybe the person who (hypothetically) made the comment had the type of work that was in person only. So, for her, in her particular case, not staying home would have meant spending a significant time away from her child, not raising it. And she didn’t want to do that. But, instead, you’ve decided that it’s a personal indictment of you and every other working mother. Just own up to your own insecurities. It’s blatantly obvious.

Parent, actually.

Are you a man all hot under the collar about all this?

No, I’m correcting because the statement isn’t an indictment of working mothers, it’s an indictment of working parents. By the logic of the statement a father who works full time isn’t raising his children either

Zero men would give a damn about any of this. This is all women up in their feelings about it. Most dads would laugh and move on.

Most men I know with kids (my husband included) would be pissed as hell to be told they’re not raising them, but that does represent a generational shift.

Nobody told anyone they aren’t raising their kids. And no, most men would not be pissed as hell. Not a single man has even joined any part of this conversation. You would think at least one if they would be “pissed as hell”.

The bolded suggests you haven’t understood the thread, and I’m amazed you think you know the sex of every poster.

Go to the park in my neighborhood on a Sunday morning and tell the dad’s group they’re not raising their kids. See how much they appreciate it.

Many people seem to be getting offended when they don’t need to be.

If a woman says she decided to stay home because she didn’t want someone else to raise her kids, that doesn’t mean that someone else is not raising her kids. A single mom is raising her kids. A working mom is raising her kids. A working dad is raising his kids.

If a woman says she went back to work because she was bored at home and felt stupider being with her baby, that doesn’t mean that I am bored and getting stupider by being home with my children at home. I’m not offended. I seriously don’t care.

Um, wut?

Logic is not that PP's strong suit.