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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Working mom here and I actually do think there is value when kids are very young (babies) to being near or with parents when they are napping. My sister is a developmental psychologist and turned me onto both attachment theory and the idea of "co-regulation" as a way to teach kids how to regulate emotions. The safety and security of sleeping in the vicinity of a parent as a baby may have real value to the parent-child relationship, and babies who learn to calm by co-regulating their bodies (breathing, heart rate) with a calm adult may do a better job calming themselves as they grow older due to modeling.

I was able to cobble together a European-style maternity leave (4 mo paid leave from generous employer, 1 week stored vacation and sick leave, 4 mo unpaid leave, and a 3 month "on ramp" where I started with just two mornings a week and then built back up to 32 hours adding both in-office and WFH hours) and I'm a real believer in the value of being physically present for very young children. And I stayed at 32 hours so even now I have a ton of flexibility-- if I didn't I'd probably seriously consider being a SAHM at least until my kid was older. But I recognize this is not a realistic option for most parents, including my DH who wanted to take a longer leave (and we could have afforded it even if unpaid) but his employer gave it a hard no. I was extremely fortunate to do what I did.

I wouldn't blink or be offended if a SAHM told me she wanted to stay home because she "didn't want someone else raising" her kids. I get it. I think in an ideal world you wouldn't have to choose but in the US you often do. I view it as a criticism of US's lack of supports for the parents of young kids and poor options for childcare. Work culture in the US is generally very anti-family and anti-child specifically. We have done very little as a family to enable families to engage in "best practices" in terms of early childhood development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Working mom here and I actually do think there is value when kids are very young (babies) to being near or with parents when they are napping. My sister is a developmental psychologist and turned me onto both attachment theory and the idea of "co-regulation" as a way to teach kids how to regulate emotions. The safety and security of sleeping in the vicinity of a parent as a baby may have real value to the parent-child relationship, and babies who learn to calm by co-regulating their bodies (breathing, heart rate) with a calm adult may do a better job calming themselves as they grow older due to modeling.

I was able to cobble together a European-style maternity leave (4 mo paid leave from generous employer, 1 week stored vacation and sick leave, 4 mo unpaid leave, and a 3 month "on ramp" where I started with just two mornings a week and then built back up to 32 hours adding both in-office and WFH hours) and I'm a real believer in the value of being physically present for very young children. And I stayed at 32 hours so even now I have a ton of flexibility-- if I didn't I'd probably seriously consider being a SAHM at least until my kid was older. But I recognize this is not a realistic option for most parents, including my DH who wanted to take a longer leave (and we could have afforded it even if unpaid) but his employer gave it a hard no. I was extremely fortunate to do what I did.

I wouldn't blink or be offended if a SAHM told me she wanted to stay home because she "didn't want someone else raising" her kids. I get it. I think in an ideal world you wouldn't have to choose but in the US you often do. I view it as a criticism of US's lack of supports for the parents of young kids and poor options for childcare. Work culture in the US is generally very anti-family and anti-child specifically. We have done very little as a family to enable families to engage in "best practices" in terms of early childhood development.

+1. Glad to see another rational working mom on here. The others can be as rabidly defensive as they’d like, but not all working moms have blinders on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Yes. Kids nap 8 hours a day from ages 0-3. Usually from about 8am to 4pm. Conveniently so their working mothers and fathers never miss a thing and nobody else has to be involved in any child care. Everyone knows this.

DP. I think you have to understand, you think your snark is clever but for those of us who had young kids in child care you sound ignorant and ridiculous. Like damn, you are really insecure that you feel the need to say sh$t like this.

DP. My kids were in childcare and I think her snark is hilarious.

[Anonymous]

I find the statement "I don't want someone else to raise my kids" to be weird because your children live in a society filled with tons of other people, and they learn how to act based on what they see other people are doing at the grocery store, playground, dance lessons, etc.

In addition, the moms who feel this way seem like helicopter parents, which is a style of parenting that strongly correlates to creating anxiety filled children. You might as well say, "I don't want to feed my kids nutritious foods."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Working mom here and I actually do think there is value when kids are very young (babies) to being near or with parents when they are napping. My sister is a developmental psychologist and turned me onto both attachment theory and the idea of "co-regulation" as a way to teach kids how to regulate emotions. The safety and security of sleeping in the vicinity of a parent as a baby may have real value to the parent-child relationship, and babies who learn to calm by co-regulating their bodies (breathing, heart rate) with a calm adult may do a better job calming themselves as they grow older due to modeling.

I was able to cobble together a European-style maternity leave (4 mo paid leave from generous employer, 1 week stored vacation and sick leave, 4 mo unpaid leave, and a 3 month "on ramp" where I started with just two mornings a week and then built back up to 32 hours adding both in-office and WFH hours) and I'm a real believer in the value of being physically present for very young children. And I stayed at 32 hours so even now I have a ton of flexibility-- if I didn't I'd probably seriously consider being a SAHM at least until my kid was older. But I recognize this is not a realistic option for most parents, including my DH who wanted to take a longer leave (and we could have afforded it even if unpaid) but his employer gave it a hard no. I was extremely fortunate to do what I did.

I wouldn't blink or be offended if a SAHM told me she wanted to stay home because she "didn't want someone else raising" her kids. I get it. I think in an ideal world you wouldn't have to choose but in the US you often do. I view it as a criticism of US's lack of supports for the parents of young kids and poor options for childcare. Work culture in the US is generally very anti-family and anti-child specifically. We have done very little as a family to enable families to engage in "best practices" in terms of early childhood development.

Dang! I had an even better schedule than you did but I took walks during naps and now I know that my children are screwed. All that for nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Yes. Kids nap 8 hours a day from ages 0-3. Usually from about 8am to 4pm. Conveniently so their working mothers and fathers never miss a thing and nobody else has to be involved in any child care. Everyone knows this.

DP. I think you have to understand, you think your snark is clever but for those of us who had young kids in child care you sound ignorant and ridiculous. Like damn, you are really insecure that you feel the need to say sh$t like this.

DP. My kids were in childcare and I think her snark is hilarious.

it's both hilarious and shows she is insecure about the fact some of us had really great work schedules as did our H's and she's all mad we had it all, work and home with kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Working mom here and I actually do think there is value when kids are very young (babies) to being near or with parents when they are napping. My sister is a developmental psychologist and turned me onto both attachment theory and the idea of "co-regulation" as a way to teach kids how to regulate emotions. The safety and security of sleeping in the vicinity of a parent as a baby may have real value to the parent-child relationship, and babies who learn to calm by co-regulating their bodies (breathing, heart rate) with a calm adult may do a better job calming themselves as they grow older due to modeling.

I was able to cobble together a European-style maternity leave (4 mo paid leave from generous employer, 1 week stored vacation and sick leave, 4 mo unpaid leave, and a 3 month "on ramp" where I started with just two mornings a week and then built back up to 32 hours adding both in-office and WFH hours) and I'm a real believer in the value of being physically present for very young children. And I stayed at 32 hours so even now I have a ton of flexibility-- if I didn't I'd probably seriously consider being a SAHM at least until my kid was older. But I recognize this is not a realistic option for most parents, including my DH who wanted to take a longer leave (and we could have afforded it even if unpaid) but his employer gave it a hard no. I was extremely fortunate to do what I did.

I wouldn't blink or be offended if a SAHM told me she wanted to stay home because she "didn't want someone else raising" her kids. I get it. I think in an ideal world you wouldn't have to choose but in the US you often do. I view it as a criticism of US's lack of supports for the parents of young kids and poor options for childcare. Work culture in the US is generally very anti-family and anti-child specifically. We have done very little as a family to enable families to engage in "best practices" in terms of early childhood development.

So most psychologist become one to figure out their screwed-up childhood. What happened to your sister?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Yes. Kids nap 8 hours a day from ages 0-3. Usually from about 8am to 4pm. Conveniently so their working mothers and fathers never miss a thing and nobody else has to be involved in any child care. Everyone knows this.

DP. I think you have to understand, you think your snark is clever but for those of us who had young kids in child care you sound ignorant and ridiculous. Like damn, you are really insecure that you feel the need to say sh$t like this.

DP. My kids were in childcare and I think her snark is hilarious.

it's both hilarious and shows she is insecure about the fact some of us had really great work schedules as did our H's and she's all mad we had it all, work and home with kids.

You take yourself way too seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Working mom here and I actually do think there is value when kids are very young (babies) to being near or with parents when they are napping. My sister is a developmental psychologist and turned me onto both attachment theory and the idea of "co-regulation" as a way to teach kids how to regulate emotions. The safety and security of sleeping in the vicinity of a parent as a baby may have real value to the parent-child relationship, and babies who learn to calm by co-regulating their bodies (breathing, heart rate) with a calm adult may do a better job calming themselves as they grow older due to modeling.

I was able to cobble together a European-style maternity leave (4 mo paid leave from generous employer, 1 week stored vacation and sick leave, 4 mo unpaid leave, and a 3 month "on ramp" where I started with just two mornings a week and then built back up to 32 hours adding both in-office and WFH hours) and I'm a real believer in the value of being physically present for very young children. And I stayed at 32 hours so even now I have a ton of flexibility-- if I didn't I'd probably seriously consider being a SAHM at least until my kid was older. But I recognize this is not a realistic option for most parents, including my DH who wanted to take a longer leave (and we could have afforded it even if unpaid) but his employer gave it a hard no. I was extremely fortunate to do what I did.

I wouldn't blink or be offended if a SAHM told me she wanted to stay home because she "didn't want someone else raising" her kids. I get it. I think in an ideal world you wouldn't have to choose but in the US you often do. I view it as a criticism of US's lack of supports for the parents of young kids and poor options for childcare. Work culture in the US is generally very anti-family and anti-child specifically. We have done very little as a family to enable families to engage in "best practices" in terms of early childhood development.

+1. Glad to see another rational working mom on here. The others can be as rabidly defensive as they’d like, but not all working moms have blinders on.

+2. I chimed in with similar comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Working mom here and I actually do think there is value when kids are very young (babies) to being near or with parents when they are napping. My sister is a developmental psychologist and turned me onto both attachment theory and the idea of "co-regulation" as a way to teach kids how to regulate emotions. The safety and security of sleeping in the vicinity of a parent as a baby may have real value to the parent-child relationship, and babies who learn to calm by co-regulating their bodies (breathing, heart rate) with a calm adult may do a better job calming themselves as they grow older due to modeling.

I was able to cobble together a European-style maternity leave (4 mo paid leave from generous employer, 1 week stored vacation and sick leave, 4 mo unpaid leave, and a 3 month "on ramp" where I started with just two mornings a week and then built back up to 32 hours adding both in-office and WFH hours) and I'm a real believer in the value of being physically present for very young children. And I stayed at 32 hours so even now I have a ton of flexibility-- if I didn't I'd probably seriously consider being a SAHM at least until my kid was older. But I recognize this is not a realistic option for most parents, including my DH who wanted to take a longer leave (and we could have afforded it even if unpaid) but his employer gave it a hard no. I was extremely fortunate to do what I did.

I wouldn't blink or be offended if a SAHM told me she wanted to stay home because she "didn't want someone else raising" her kids. I get it. I think in an ideal world you wouldn't have to choose but in the US you often do. I view it as a criticism of US's lack of supports for the parents of young kids and poor options for childcare. Work culture in the US is generally very anti-family and anti-child specifically. We have done very little as a family to enable families to engage in "best practices" in terms of early childhood development.

How many kids do you have and what is the spacing? Did you, or do you plan to, do something like this for each one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Yes. Kids nap 8 hours a day from ages 0-3. Usually from about 8am to 4pm. Conveniently so their working mothers and fathers never miss a thing and nobody else has to be involved in any child care. Everyone knows this.

DP. I think you have to understand, you think your snark is clever but for those of us who had young kids in child care you sound ignorant and ridiculous. Like damn, you are really insecure that you feel the need to say sh$t like this.

DP. My kids were in childcare and I think her snark is hilarious.

it's both hilarious and shows she is insecure about the fact some of us had really great work schedules as did our H's and she's all mad we had it all, work and home with kids.

Nah, it’s just clever and funny and shows she’s been following some of the rather absurd arguments made on this thread.

There is, however, insecurity in your posts (which is why you keep bringing up your schedule. Seriously, lady, nobody actually cares.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Working mom here and I actually do think there is value when kids are very young (babies) to being near or with parents when they are napping. My sister is a developmental psychologist and turned me onto both attachment theory and the idea of "co-regulation" as a way to teach kids how to regulate emotions. The safety and security of sleeping in the vicinity of a parent as a baby may have real value to the parent-child relationship, and babies who learn to calm by co-regulating their bodies (breathing, heart rate) with a calm adult may do a better job calming themselves as they grow older due to modeling.

I was able to cobble together a European-style maternity leave (4 mo paid leave from generous employer, 1 week stored vacation and sick leave, 4 mo unpaid leave, and a 3 month "on ramp" where I started with just two mornings a week and then built back up to 32 hours adding both in-office and WFH hours) and I'm a real believer in the value of being physically present for very young children. And I stayed at 32 hours so even now I have a ton of flexibility-- if I didn't I'd probably seriously consider being a SAHM at least until my kid was older. But I recognize this is not a realistic option for most parents, including my DH who wanted to take a longer leave (and we could have afforded it even if unpaid) but his employer gave it a hard no. I was extremely fortunate to do what I did.

I wouldn't blink or be offended if a SAHM told me she wanted to stay home because she "didn't want someone else raising" her kids. I get it. I think in an ideal world you wouldn't have to choose but in the US you often do. I view it as a criticism of US's lack of supports for the parents of young kids and poor options for childcare. Work culture in the US is generally very anti-family and anti-child specifically. We have done very little as a family to enable families to engage in "best practices" in terms of early childhood development.

So most psychologist become one to figure out their screwed-up childhood. What happened to your sister?

Personal attacks are the refuge of the insecure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Yes. Kids nap 8 hours a day from ages 0-3. Usually from about 8am to 4pm. Conveniently so their working mothers and fathers never miss a thing and nobody else has to be involved in any child care. Everyone knows this.

DP. I think you have to understand, you think your snark is clever but for those of us who had young kids in child care you sound ignorant and ridiculous. Like damn, you are really insecure that you feel the need to say sh$t like this.

DP. My kids were in childcare and I think her snark is hilarious.

it's both hilarious and shows she is insecure about the fact some of us had really great work schedules as did our H's and she's all mad we had it all, work and home with kids.

You take yourself way too seriously.

Another DP. I'm one of those moms with a flexible and largely WFH job. Why have my fellow moms in this category been so particularly insufferable on this thread?!?!

I think it's because we know that in a way we have given up the most...on the career side we took less money, prestige, advancement, best projects, etc. to get our flexible job. And on the parenting side, we still don't have the kind of autonomy over our schedule and household that SAHMs do and we still need to use appreciable chunks of paid childcare. I guess that explains the defensiveness.

I like the balance I've personally achieved and I'm content with the amount of time I spend with my kids and on career, etc. But I'm not obnoxiously in denial about the trade offs and sacrifices. And I'm not out here counting napping minutes and household chore minutes or whatever else trying to convince myself I spend as much so-called "quality" time with my kids as a SAHM who doesn't have 30 hours of paid work to do in a week a like I do. Those folks need to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Working mom here and I actually do think there is value when kids are very young (babies) to being near or with parents when they are napping. My sister is a developmental psychologist and turned me onto both attachment theory and the idea of "co-regulation" as a way to teach kids how to regulate emotions. The safety and security of sleeping in the vicinity of a parent as a baby may have real value to the parent-child relationship, and babies who learn to calm by co-regulating their bodies (breathing, heart rate) with a calm adult may do a better job calming themselves as they grow older due to modeling.

I was able to cobble together a European-style maternity leave (4 mo paid leave from generous employer, 1 week stored vacation and sick leave, 4 mo unpaid leave, and a 3 month "on ramp" where I started with just two mornings a week and then built back up to 32 hours adding both in-office and WFH hours) and I'm a real believer in the value of being physically present for very young children. And I stayed at 32 hours so even now I have a ton of flexibility-- if I didn't I'd probably seriously consider being a SAHM at least until my kid was older. But I recognize this is not a realistic option for most parents, including my DH who wanted to take a longer leave (and we could have afforded it even if unpaid) but his employer gave it a hard no. I was extremely fortunate to do what I did.

I wouldn't blink or be offended if a SAHM told me she wanted to stay home because she "didn't want someone else raising" her kids. I get it. I think in an ideal world you wouldn't have to choose but in the US you often do. I view it as a criticism of US's lack of supports for the parents of young kids and poor options for childcare. Work culture in the US is generally very anti-family and anti-child specifically. We have done very little as a family to enable families to engage in "best practices" in terms of early childhood development.

So most psychologist become one to figure out their screwed-up childhood. What happened to your sister?

Personal attacks are the refuge of the insecure.

It’s statistically true not a personal attack and I also don’t think having a bad childhood or mental health issues is something to be ashamed of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, women who aren't motherly or patient by nature, wouldn't their kids be better off getting raised by fathers, grandparents or hired help?

Just don’t call it raising. It hurts too many feelings. Call it something like “spending significant awake hours with” and you have to assume almost nothing happens during that time.

That doesn’t work because some SAHM think being there during nap time is significant to their kids lives and some colder so they are literally in bed with them.

Yes. Kids nap 8 hours a day from ages 0-3. Usually from about 8am to 4pm. Conveniently so their working mothers and fathers never miss a thing and nobody else has to be involved in any child care. Everyone knows this.

DP. I think you have to understand, you think your snark is clever but for those of us who had young kids in child care you sound ignorant and ridiculous. Like damn, you are really insecure that you feel the need to say sh$t like this.

DP. My kids were in childcare and I think her snark is hilarious.

it's both hilarious and shows she is insecure about the fact some of us had really great work schedules as did our H's and she's all mad we had it all, work and home with kids.

Nah, it’s just clever and funny and shows she’s been following some of the rather absurd arguments made on this thread.

There is, however, insecurity in your posts (which is why you keep bringing up your schedule. Seriously, lady, nobody actually cares.)

Yes it’s true I’ve followed the absurdity of the 24x7 parenting including co-sleeping to prove they spend more time with their child and now a psychologist’s sister who changed her whole schedule to be in the room next to her sleeping child because her sister said so.

lol.

Seriously lady nobody cares about your opinion.

I just keep this thread going for the sheer entertainment.

Thanks for playing along.