Being a working parent sucks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so hard to admit that daycare/aftercare is a lesser experience for kids than sahp, barring strange outliers? It doesn’t mean it’s a *bad* experience or that you’re a bad parent. It’s just reality.

I couldn’t breastfeed my children. I acknowledge the reality that this was a negative for them. They lost out on bonding and lifelong health benefits. But it was out of my hands and there was nothing more I could do.

I couldn’t have a vaginal delivery. Again, a lesser experience for them in terms of future health, etc.

It’s magical thinking to not admit some scenarios are simply better for kids. I personally think if we want society to start improving childcare we need to start with a shared understanding of what benefits infants and toddlers, not corporations or bank accounts.

because I genuinely don't think that's universally the case.
We have HHI of aprox $700-$750. My kids go to aftercare when we could easily afford childcare. That's because it's way more fun for them to be in aftercare (where they do sports and activities and play pick up basketball with their friends) than it is to come home and sit in our apartment.
I also genuinely do not think that formula or vaginal delivery are 'better'. I breastfed and had a vaginal delivery but I wouldn't have cared at ALL if I didn't do either.
I think what objectively does make a difference for kids is money. Being able to to to private school if your kid needs it. Not having money saved for college, not having any parental help to buy their first home. Money is a huge differentiator when it comes to 'future health'. So I work because i think that these small things that parents stress about -LIKE breastfeeding and aftercare and all that crp -absolutely pale in terms of impact on children in comparison to having less net worth and less ability to help your kids.

oh well if thats your solution....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so hard to admit that daycare/aftercare is a lesser experience for kids than sahp, barring strange outliers? It doesn’t mean it’s a *bad* experience or that you’re a bad parent. It’s just reality.

I couldn’t breastfeed my children. I acknowledge the reality that this was a negative for them. They lost out on bonding and lifelong health benefits. But it was out of my hands and there was nothing more I could do.

I couldn’t have a vaginal delivery. Again, a lesser experience for them in terms of future health, etc.

It’s magical thinking to not admit some scenarios are simply better for kids. I personally think if we want society to start improving childcare we need to start with a shared understanding of what benefits infants and toddlers, not corporations or bank accounts.

because I genuinely don't think that's universally the case.
We have HHI of aprox $700-$750. My kids go to aftercare when we could easily afford childcare. That's because it's way more fun for them to be in aftercare (where they do sports and activities and play pick up basketball with their friends) than it is to come home and sit in our apartment.
I also genuinely do not think that formula or vaginal delivery are 'better'. I breastfed and had a vaginal delivery but I wouldn't have cared at ALL if I didn't do either.
I think what objectively does make a difference for kids is money. Being able to to to private school if your kid needs it. Not having money saved for college, not having any parental help to buy their first home. Money is a huge differentiator when it comes to 'future health'. So I work because i think that these small things that parents stress about -LIKE breastfeeding and aftercare and all that crp -absolutely pale in terms of impact on children in comparison to having less net worth and less ability to help your kids.

Be honest. You don’t actually think about or deeply consider any of this stuff, and I do not believe you have ever put even an hour’s worth of effort into reading actual research on any of these topics. You just want to do what you want to do, and that’s the end of the story. You can come up with all sorts of justifications as to why your way is not only fine, but actually better, and they may or may not be true. But that doesn’t actually matter to you.

(And for whatever it’s worth, money for college or a downpayment on a home isn’t something you’re doing for kids… it’s something you’re planning to do for future adults.)

Enormous amounts of research.
Plus the wild move of actually asking my kids what they want to do.
Semantics are irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually feel like I have a lot more personal time and more of an independent personal life after going back to work. I loved being a sahm but it was a huge amount of work and I did not feel like I had control of my day the way I do now.

Of course this depends on the circumstance (I had 3 little kids as a sahm, didn’t have household help) but I don’t think it’s always true that being a sahm allows for more freedom and personal time or that working is inherently drudgery (my job can be frustrating at times but I find it to be mentally stimulating and interesting)

All just to say there are pros and cons to both. I’ve done both and, for now at least, prefer working.

You must have some laid back job if you felt you had more personal time and independence when returning to work. With all the demands at work,it's not quiet time. The commute is a mad rush to get back before after care ends. And immediately when you are home at six you make dinner and ready kids for bed.

Sure as a SAHM of 3 under 5, that is a lot of labor. But you answer to no one, can coral them to a portion of the house or spend more time at the park to reduce mess, and have no other demands from a boss or customer.

I can always tell when a post is written by someone who never stayed home full time with little kids and no outside help.

Sorry I was home for two years when my second was born. Nice try. Loved it. We live 3000 miles from family.

I guess you can tell when someone never had to care for little kids AND work a full time job? I mean the daytime part of child rearing is the most fun part. Going to the park and library story times, mid day naps, making meals. The evening of fighting to bed, waking up at all hours, and the cleaning STILL has to be done working parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fairly happy with my setup during the school year but summers are hard! Aftercare at camp is extra expensive and also basically warehousing kids with no supervision, so it isn’t an affordable or quality option.

I agree with this. The school year is fine. I only do a little aftercare because they don’t love it but they don’t mind going 1-2 days a week and I can start my day early.

But the summer….My kids like camp but it’s very tiring. I attempted one day of aftercare the first year and it sounded miserable (at a $$$ camp). So I leave at 2:45 to do camp pick up and work at night. I am looking at this as an investment in having an interesting and meaningful career when my kids are grown. I think all the time about my beautiful and brilliant daughter and if this is what I’d want for her and the answer is yes if she wants it.

Agree with this. Aftercare, camps etc are not a monolith. Some are better than others. Some kids enjoy them more than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fairly happy with my setup during the school year but summers are hard! Aftercare at camp is extra expensive and also basically warehousing kids with no supervision, so it isn’t an affordable or quality option.

I agree with this. The school year is fine. I only do a little aftercare because they don’t love it but they don’t mind going 1-2 days a week and I can start my day early.

But the summer….My kids like camp but it’s very tiring. I attempted one day of aftercare the first year and it sounded miserable (at a $$$ camp). So I leave at 2:45 to do camp pick up and work at night. I am looking at this as an investment in having an interesting and meaningful career when my kids are grown. I think all the time about my beautiful and brilliant daughter and if this is what I’d want for her and the answer is yes if she wants it.

Agree with this. Aftercare, camps etc are not a monolith. Some are better than others. Some kids enjoy them more than others.

Right and if you’re sending your kid to a public with a 9 or 10 rating chances are the aftercare is not awful.

If you cannot afford to be zoned for a good school then chances are you need to be working anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fairly happy with my setup during the school year but summers are hard! Aftercare at camp is extra expensive and also basically warehousing kids with no supervision, so it isn’t an affordable or quality option.

I agree with this. The school year is fine. I only do a little aftercare because they don’t love it but they don’t mind going 1-2 days a week and I can start my day early.

But the summer….My kids like camp but it’s very tiring. I attempted one day of aftercare the first year and it sounded miserable (at a $$$ camp). So I leave at 2:45 to do camp pick up and work at night. I am looking at this as an investment in having an interesting and meaningful career when my kids are grown. I think all the time about my beautiful and brilliant daughter and if this is what I’d want for her and the answer is yes if she wants it.

Agree with this. Aftercare, camps etc are not a monolith. Some are better than others. Some kids enjoy them more than others.

Right and if you’re sending your kid to a public with a 9 or 10 rating chances are the aftercare is not awful.

If you cannot afford to be zoned for a good school then chances are you need to be working anyway.

That's where you are confused. Schools with 9 and 10 GS ratings are generally rich. Which means lots of SAHMs and nannies -- so after care is an after thought for us leftovers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a 4.5 year-old and a baby just over 1. Baby in full day daycare and the older one has done DCPS PreK + aftercare for the past two years which he loved. Now in summer camp + aftercare, though he deeply misses all his school friends (who scatter to the wind during the summer).

Two kids is wild. One of us is home by 545 with the kids, dinner, play, bath time, etc. Our oldest kid won't go to bed at 715pm anymore and is stretching out bed time + longer daylight hours. We don't get a free moment until 9pm; it's killing us. Have a long list of babysitters and we rotate through them, it's been nice to get out of the house in the evening once the baby is down for the night.

Strongly considering an au pair. We can afford it ($250K x 2 jobs). Would be super helpful for getting kids ready in the AM, picking up our oldest kid from school/camp, packing the lunch box, etc.

Get a real nanny. At your income you can afford it and sounds like you really need the help

Why get a "real nanny"? I'd need to hire a top-notch nanny for her to cover everything my baby does in his Montessori daycare (with instructors who have college degrees). So probably at least $70K after-tax to get a high quality nanny. Doesn't seem worth it.

Literally only need an extra set of hands for 1 hour in the morning and 3 hours in the evening. Plus have an au pair do sporadic kid stuff - laundry, lunch boxes, straightening up their rooms - throughout the week. I don't think an au pair would even hit 40 hours with us in a week.

You do you. I'm not a fan of kids taking care of kids and especially babies.

What are you talking about? Our au pair is 26 with a college degree. She's using her au pair year to perfect her English so she can get a job with a multinational company when she goes home. She's absolutely an adult and is fantastic.

At our aftercare a parent came to pick up their kid with their leashed dog. Apparently a kid asked to pet the dog and the adult said okay. Then the dog lunged and bit the child in the face. The bleeding kid ran to the bathroom. The parent with the dog left. The aftercare staff saw *none* of this, even though all the kids were aware and there was a big commotion. When the parent of the bleeding kid showed up for pickup the staff still had no idea. The kid ended up needing several stitches on his face. It was a huge deal at our school.

I don't even consider aftercare to be childcare--no one actually watches or cares for the kids. It's basically a fee you pay so your child can hang at the school until you get off work. We're much happier with our au pair.

Sounds like it worked out for you.
Most au pairs are teenagers

I disagree. Most are in their 20s. The program is for 18-26 yos.

We've never had an au pair under the age of 21 as we don't want to worry about under age drinking laws. Similar for other families we know.

The prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until 26-ish. The one that works out goof judgment, memory retrieval, stress control, and behavioral flexibility.

So you have no childcare ever by people under the age of 26? That's nuts. I can assure you that my kids are totally fine being watched by someone I've vetted who is in their 20s. They eat breakfast, get ready for school and walk to school with her. After school she meets them and then they play with friends on the playground before walking home for a snack and homework. It's basic childcare, not brain surgery.

Sure we have teen baby sitters for a couple of hours. But no, my family doesn't have anyone under 26 drive my babies around or provide childcare for extended times every day. It's that so unusual? Most familied I know have slightly older nannies (not au pairs) at least over 30. And yes, they are expensive because they need to paid a living wage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so hard to admit that daycare/aftercare is a lesser experience for kids than sahp, barring strange outliers? It doesn’t mean it’s a *bad* experience or that you’re a bad parent. It’s just reality.

I couldn’t breastfeed my children. I acknowledge the reality that this was a negative for them. They lost out on bonding and lifelong health benefits. But it was out of my hands and there was nothing more I could do.

I couldn’t have a vaginal delivery. Again, a lesser experience for them in terms of future health, etc.

It’s magical thinking to not admit some scenarios are simply better for kids. I personally think if we want society to start improving childcare we need to start with a shared understanding of what benefits infants and toddlers, not corporations or bank accounts.

because I genuinely don't think that's universally the case.
We have HHI of aprox $700-$750. My kids go to aftercare when we could easily afford childcare. That's because it's way more fun for them to be in aftercare (where they do sports and activities and play pick up basketball with their friends) than it is to come home and sit in our apartment.
I also genuinely do not think that formula or vaginal delivery are 'better'. I breastfed and had a vaginal delivery but I wouldn't have cared at ALL if I didn't do either.
I think what objectively does make a difference for kids is money. Being able to to to private school if your kid needs it. Not having money saved for college, not having any parental help to buy their first home. Money is a huge differentiator when it comes to 'future health'. So I work because i think that these small things that parents stress about -LIKE breastfeeding and aftercare and all that crp -absolutely pale in terms of impact on children in comparison to having less net worth and less ability to help your kids.

Be honest. You don’t actually think about or deeply consider any of this stuff, and I do not believe you have ever put even an hour’s worth of effort into reading actual research on any of these topics. You just want to do what you want to do, and that’s the end of the story. You can come up with all sorts of justifications as to why your way is not only fine, but actually better, and they may or may not be true. But that doesn’t actually matter to you.

(And for whatever it’s worth, money for college or a downpayment on a home isn’t something you’re doing for kids… it’s something you’re planning to do for future adults.)

Enormous amounts of research.
Plus the wild move of actually asking my kids what they want to do.
Semantics are irrelevant.

I mean, some kids can sense that they’re an afterthought, or an accessory, or in your case a status symbol. The claim that your kids prefer aftercare to spending more time with you (undoubtedly being nonstop “productive” and doing “enriching” activities) is the most honest thing you’ve said. Other than that your 750K HHI is merely a sacrifice you’re making “for the children” of course

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a 4.5 year-old and a baby just over 1. Baby in full day daycare and the older one has done DCPS PreK + aftercare for the past two years which he loved. Now in summer camp + aftercare, though he deeply misses all his school friends (who scatter to the wind during the summer).

Two kids is wild. One of us is home by 545 with the kids, dinner, play, bath time, etc. Our oldest kid won't go to bed at 715pm anymore and is stretching out bed time + longer daylight hours. We don't get a free moment until 9pm; it's killing us. Have a long list of babysitters and we rotate through them, it's been nice to get out of the house in the evening once the baby is down for the night.

Strongly considering an au pair. We can afford it ($250K x 2 jobs). Would be super helpful for getting kids ready in the AM, picking up our oldest kid from school/camp, packing the lunch box, etc.

Get a real nanny. At your income you can afford it and sounds like you really need the help

Why get a "real nanny"? I'd need to hire a top-notch nanny for her to cover everything my baby does in his Montessori daycare (with instructors who have college degrees). So probably at least $70K after-tax to get a high quality nanny. Doesn't seem worth it.

Literally only need an extra set of hands for 1 hour in the morning and 3 hours in the evening. Plus have an au pair do sporadic kid stuff - laundry, lunch boxes, straightening up their rooms - throughout the week. I don't think an au pair would even hit 40 hours with us in a week.

You do you. I'm not a fan of kids taking care of kids and especially babies.

What are you talking about? Our au pair is 26 with a college degree. She's using her au pair year to perfect her English so she can get a job with a multinational company when she goes home. She's absolutely an adult and is fantastic.

At our aftercare a parent came to pick up their kid with their leashed dog. Apparently a kid asked to pet the dog and the adult said okay. Then the dog lunged and bit the child in the face. The bleeding kid ran to the bathroom. The parent with the dog left. The aftercare staff saw *none* of this, even though all the kids were aware and there was a big commotion. When the parent of the bleeding kid showed up for pickup the staff still had no idea. The kid ended up needing several stitches on his face. It was a huge deal at our school.

I don't even consider aftercare to be childcare--no one actually watches or cares for the kids. It's basically a fee you pay so your child can hang at the school until you get off work. We're much happier with our au pair.

Sounds like it worked out for you.
Most au pairs are teenagers

I disagree. Most are in their 20s. The program is for 18-26 yos.

We've never had an au pair under the age of 21 as we don't want to worry about under age drinking laws. Similar for other families we know.

The prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until 26-ish. The one that works out goof judgment, memory retrieval, stress control, and behavioral flexibility.

So you have no childcare ever by people under the age of 26? That's nuts. I can assure you that my kids are totally fine being watched by someone I've vetted who is in their 20s. They eat breakfast, get ready for school and walk to school with her. After school she meets them and then they play with friends on the playground before walking home for a snack and homework. It's basic childcare, not brain surgery.

Sure we have teen baby sitters for a couple of hours. But no, my family doesn't have anyone under 26 drive my babies around or provide childcare for extended times every day. It's that so unusual? Most familied I know have slightly older nannies (not au pairs) at least over 30. And yes, they are expensive because they need to paid a living wage.

Yes, it's pretty extreme. Many families have au pairs, college aged baby sitters or younger nannies watch their kids. None of them refuse based on incomplete brain development for someone in their 20s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a 4.5 year-old and a baby just over 1. Baby in full day daycare and the older one has done DCPS PreK + aftercare for the past two years which he loved. Now in summer camp + aftercare, though he deeply misses all his school friends (who scatter to the wind during the summer).

Two kids is wild. One of us is home by 545 with the kids, dinner, play, bath time, etc. Our oldest kid won't go to bed at 715pm anymore and is stretching out bed time + longer daylight hours. We don't get a free moment until 9pm; it's killing us. Have a long list of babysitters and we rotate through them, it's been nice to get out of the house in the evening once the baby is down for the night.

Strongly considering an au pair. We can afford it ($250K x 2 jobs). Would be super helpful for getting kids ready in the AM, picking up our oldest kid from school/camp, packing the lunch box, etc.

Get a real nanny. At your income you can afford it and sounds like you really need the help

Why get a "real nanny"? I'd need to hire a top-notch nanny for her to cover everything my baby does in his Montessori daycare (with instructors who have college degrees). So probably at least $70K after-tax to get a high quality nanny. Doesn't seem worth it.

Literally only need an extra set of hands for 1 hour in the morning and 3 hours in the evening. Plus have an au pair do sporadic kid stuff - laundry, lunch boxes, straightening up their rooms - throughout the week. I don't think an au pair would even hit 40 hours with us in a week.

You do you. I'm not a fan of kids taking care of kids and especially babies.

What are you talking about? Our au pair is 26 with a college degree. She's using her au pair year to perfect her English so she can get a job with a multinational company when she goes home. She's absolutely an adult and is fantastic.

At our aftercare a parent came to pick up their kid with their leashed dog. Apparently a kid asked to pet the dog and the adult said okay. Then the dog lunged and bit the child in the face. The bleeding kid ran to the bathroom. The parent with the dog left. The aftercare staff saw *none* of this, even though all the kids were aware and there was a big commotion. When the parent of the bleeding kid showed up for pickup the staff still had no idea. The kid ended up needing several stitches on his face. It was a huge deal at our school.

I don't even consider aftercare to be childcare--no one actually watches or cares for the kids. It's basically a fee you pay so your child can hang at the school until you get off work. We're much happier with our au pair.

Sounds like it worked out for you.
Most au pairs are teenagers

I disagree. Most are in their 20s. The program is for 18-26 yos.

We've never had an au pair under the age of 21 as we don't want to worry about under age drinking laws. Similar for other families we know.

The prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until 26-ish. The one that works out goof judgment, memory retrieval, stress control, and behavioral flexibility.

So you have no childcare ever by people under the age of 26? That's nuts. I can assure you that my kids are totally fine being watched by someone I've vetted who is in their 20s. They eat breakfast, get ready for school and walk to school with her. After school she meets them and then they play with friends on the playground before walking home for a snack and homework. It's basic childcare, not brain surgery.

Sure we have teen baby sitters for a couple of hours. But no, my family doesn't have anyone under 26 drive my babies around or provide childcare for extended times every day. It's that so unusual? Most familied I know have slightly older nannies (not au pairs) at least over 30. And yes, they are expensive because they need to paid a living wage.

I mean rental cars won't let 25 year old drive, they shouldn't be driving small children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a 4.5 year-old and a baby just over 1. Baby in full day daycare and the older one has done DCPS PreK + aftercare for the past two years which he loved. Now in summer camp + aftercare, though he deeply misses all his school friends (who scatter to the wind during the summer).

Two kids is wild. One of us is home by 545 with the kids, dinner, play, bath time, etc. Our oldest kid won't go to bed at 715pm anymore and is stretching out bed time + longer daylight hours. We don't get a free moment until 9pm; it's killing us. Have a long list of babysitters and we rotate through them, it's been nice to get out of the house in the evening once the baby is down for the night.

Strongly considering an au pair. We can afford it ($250K x 2 jobs). Would be super helpful for getting kids ready in the AM, picking up our oldest kid from school/camp, packing the lunch box, etc.

Get a real nanny. At your income you can afford it and sounds like you really need the help

Why get a "real nanny"? I'd need to hire a top-notch nanny for her to cover everything my baby does in his Montessori daycare (with instructors who have college degrees). So probably at least $70K after-tax to get a high quality nanny. Doesn't seem worth it.

Literally only need an extra set of hands for 1 hour in the morning and 3 hours in the evening. Plus have an au pair do sporadic kid stuff - laundry, lunch boxes, straightening up their rooms - throughout the week. I don't think an au pair would even hit 40 hours with us in a week.

You do you. I'm not a fan of kids taking care of kids and especially babies.

What are you talking about? Our au pair is 26 with a college degree. She's using her au pair year to perfect her English so she can get a job with a multinational company when she goes home. She's absolutely an adult and is fantastic.

At our aftercare a parent came to pick up their kid with their leashed dog. Apparently a kid asked to pet the dog and the adult said okay. Then the dog lunged and bit the child in the face. The bleeding kid ran to the bathroom. The parent with the dog left. The aftercare staff saw *none* of this, even though all the kids were aware and there was a big commotion. When the parent of the bleeding kid showed up for pickup the staff still had no idea. The kid ended up needing several stitches on his face. It was a huge deal at our school.

I don't even consider aftercare to be childcare--no one actually watches or cares for the kids. It's basically a fee you pay so your child can hang at the school until you get off work. We're much happier with our au pair.

Sounds like it worked out for you.
Most au pairs are teenagers

I disagree. Most are in their 20s. The program is for 18-26 yos.

We've never had an au pair under the age of 21 as we don't want to worry about under age drinking laws. Similar for other families we know.

The prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until 26-ish. The one that works out goof judgment, memory retrieval, stress control, and behavioral flexibility.

So you have no childcare ever by people under the age of 26? That's nuts. I can assure you that my kids are totally fine being watched by someone I've vetted who is in their 20s. They eat breakfast, get ready for school and walk to school with her. After school she meets them and then they play with friends on the playground before walking home for a snack and homework. It's basic childcare, not brain surgery.

Sure we have teen baby sitters for a couple of hours. But no, my family doesn't have anyone under 26 drive my babies around or provide childcare for extended times every day. It's that so unusual? Most familied I know have slightly older nannies (not au pairs) at least over 30. And yes, they are expensive because they need to paid a living wage.

I mean rental cars won't let 25 year old drive, they shouldn't be driving small children

That's so silly. Not too long ago, 26 year olds had 2 to 3 kids already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fairly happy with my setup during the school year but summers are hard! Aftercare at camp is extra expensive and also basically warehousing kids with no supervision, so it isn’t an affordable or quality option.

I agree with this. The school year is fine. I only do a little aftercare because they don’t love it but they don’t mind going 1-2 days a week and I can start my day early.

But the summer….My kids like camp but it’s very tiring. I attempted one day of aftercare the first year and it sounded miserable (at a $$$ camp). So I leave at 2:45 to do camp pick up and work at night. I am looking at this as an investment in having an interesting and meaningful career when my kids are grown. I think all the time about my beautiful and brilliant daughter and if this is what I’d want for her and the answer is yes if she wants it.

Agree with this. Aftercare, camps etc are not a monolith. Some are better than others. Some kids enjoy them more than others.

Right and if you’re sending your kid to a public with a 9 or 10 rating chances are the aftercare is not awful.

If you cannot afford to be zoned for a good school then chances are you need to be working anyway.

That's where you are confused. Schools with 9 and 10 GS ratings are generally rich. Which means lots of SAHMs and nannies -- so after care is an after thought for us leftovers

I have friends with kids at multiple such schools and the aftercare is insane. 2 sports or activities a day and the kids can suggest any club they want and the school will do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so hard to admit that daycare/aftercare is a lesser experience for kids than sahp, barring strange outliers? It doesn’t mean it’s a *bad* experience or that you’re a bad parent. It’s just reality.

I couldn’t breastfeed my children. I acknowledge the reality that this was a negative for them. They lost out on bonding and lifelong health benefits. But it was out of my hands and there was nothing more I could do.

I couldn’t have a vaginal delivery. Again, a lesser experience for them in terms of future health, etc.

It’s magical thinking to not admit some scenarios are simply better for kids. I personally think if we want society to start improving childcare we need to start with a shared understanding of what benefits infants and toddlers, not corporations or bank accounts.

because I genuinely don't think that's universally the case.
We have HHI of aprox $700-$750. My kids go to aftercare when we could easily afford childcare. That's because it's way more fun for them to be in aftercare (where they do sports and activities and play pick up basketball with their friends) than it is to come home and sit in our apartment.
I also genuinely do not think that formula or vaginal delivery are 'better'. I breastfed and had a vaginal delivery but I wouldn't have cared at ALL if I didn't do either.
I think what objectively does make a difference for kids is money. Being able to to to private school if your kid needs it. Not having money saved for college, not having any parental help to buy their first home. Money is a huge differentiator when it comes to 'future health'. So I work because i think that these small things that parents stress about -LIKE breastfeeding and aftercare and all that crp -absolutely pale in terms of impact on children in comparison to having less net worth and less ability to help your kids.

Be honest. You don’t actually think about or deeply consider any of this stuff, and I do not believe you have ever put even an hour’s worth of effort into reading actual research on any of these topics. You just want to do what you want to do, and that’s the end of the story. You can come up with all sorts of justifications as to why your way is not only fine, but actually better, and they may or may not be true. But that doesn’t actually matter to you.

(And for whatever it’s worth, money for college or a downpayment on a home isn’t something you’re doing for kids… it’s something you’re planning to do for future adults.)

Enormous amounts of research.
Plus the wild move of actually asking my kids what they want to do.
Semantics are irrelevant.

I mean, some kids can sense that they’re an afterthought, or an accessory, or in your case a status symbol. The claim that your kids prefer aftercare to spending more time with you (undoubtedly being nonstop “productive” and doing “enriching” activities) is the most honest thing you’ve said. Other than that your 750K HHI is merely a sacrifice you’re making “for the children” of course

Look I hate working. But I do it because it gets my kids an amazing education, nice camps, good aftercare and college savings accounts so they won’t go into debt.

Your assertion is that the child of every working mother is doomed to think of themselves as an ‘afterthought’. No idea what you’re doing on the jobs board but that’s some pretty mysogynistic, antiquated and toxic bs right there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so hard to admit that daycare/aftercare is a lesser experience for kids than sahp, barring strange outliers? It doesn’t mean it’s a *bad* experience or that you’re a bad parent. It’s just reality.

I couldn’t breastfeed my children. I acknowledge the reality that this was a negative for them. They lost out on bonding and lifelong health benefits. But it was out of my hands and there was nothing more I could do.

I couldn’t have a vaginal delivery. Again, a lesser experience for them in terms of future health, etc.

It’s magical thinking to not admit some scenarios are simply better for kids. I personally think if we want society to start improving childcare we need to start with a shared understanding of what benefits infants and toddlers, not corporations or bank accounts.

because I genuinely don't think that's universally the case.
We have HHI of aprox $700-$750. My kids go to aftercare when we could easily afford childcare. That's because it's way more fun for them to be in aftercare (where they do sports and activities and play pick up basketball with their friends) than it is to come home and sit in our apartment.
I also genuinely do not think that formula or vaginal delivery are 'better'. I breastfed and had a vaginal delivery but I wouldn't have cared at ALL if I didn't do either.
I think what objectively does make a difference for kids is money. Being able to to to private school if your kid needs it. Not having money saved for college, not having any parental help to buy their first home. Money is a huge differentiator when it comes to 'future health'. So I work because i think that these small things that parents stress about -LIKE breastfeeding and aftercare and all that crp -absolutely pale in terms of impact on children in comparison to having less net worth and less ability to help your kids.

Be honest. You don’t actually think about or deeply consider any of this stuff, and I do not believe you have ever put even an hour’s worth of effort into reading actual research on any of these topics. You just want to do what you want to do, and that’s the end of the story. You can come up with all sorts of justifications as to why your way is not only fine, but actually better, and they may or may not be true. But that doesn’t actually matter to you.

(And for whatever it’s worth, money for college or a downpayment on a home isn’t something you’re doing for kids… it’s something you’re planning to do for future adults.)

Enormous amounts of research.
Plus the wild move of actually asking my kids what they want to do.
Semantics are irrelevant.

I mean, some kids can sense that they’re an afterthought, or an accessory, or in your case a status symbol. The claim that your kids prefer aftercare to spending more time with you (undoubtedly being nonstop “productive” and doing “enriching” activities) is the most honest thing you’ve said. Other than that your 750K HHI is merely a sacrifice you’re making “for the children” of course

Look I hate working. But I do it because it gets my kids an amazing education, nice camps, good aftercare and college savings accounts so they won’t go into debt.

Your assertion is that the child of every working mother is doomed to think of themselves as an ‘afterthought’. No idea what you’re doing on the jobs board but that’s some pretty mysogynistic, antiquated and toxic bs right there

That woman’s use of language like “afterthought” and “accessory” to describe suburban kids in one of the world’s most privileged areas shows she’s a small-minded fool. I wouldn’t have bothered replying to her if I were you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so hard to admit that daycare/aftercare is a lesser experience for kids than sahp, barring strange outliers? It doesn’t mean it’s a *bad* experience or that you’re a bad parent. It’s just reality.

I couldn’t breastfeed my children. I acknowledge the reality that this was a negative for them. They lost out on bonding and lifelong health benefits. But it was out of my hands and there was nothing more I could do.

I couldn’t have a vaginal delivery. Again, a lesser experience for them in terms of future health, etc.

It’s magical thinking to not admit some scenarios are simply better for kids. I personally think if we want society to start improving childcare we need to start with a shared understanding of what benefits infants and toddlers, not corporations or bank accounts.

because I genuinely don't think that's universally the case.
We have HHI of aprox $700-$750. My kids go to aftercare when we could easily afford childcare. That's because it's way more fun for them to be in aftercare (where they do sports and activities and play pick up basketball with their friends) than it is to come home and sit in our apartment.
I also genuinely do not think that formula or vaginal delivery are 'better'. I breastfed and had a vaginal delivery but I wouldn't have cared at ALL if I didn't do either.
I think what objectively does make a difference for kids is money. Being able to to to private school if your kid needs it. Not having money saved for college, not having any parental help to buy their first home. Money is a huge differentiator when it comes to 'future health'. So I work because i think that these small things that parents stress about -LIKE breastfeeding and aftercare and all that crp -absolutely pale in terms of impact on children in comparison to having less net worth and less ability to help your kids.

Be honest. You don’t actually think about or deeply consider any of this stuff, and I do not believe you have ever put even an hour’s worth of effort into reading actual research on any of these topics. You just want to do what you want to do, and that’s the end of the story. You can come up with all sorts of justifications as to why your way is not only fine, but actually better, and they may or may not be true. But that doesn’t actually matter to you.

(And for whatever it’s worth, money for college or a downpayment on a home isn’t something you’re doing for kids… it’s something you’re planning to do for future adults.)

Enormous amounts of research.
Plus the wild move of actually asking my kids what they want to do.
Semantics are irrelevant.

I mean, some kids can sense that they’re an afterthought, or an accessory, or in your case a status symbol. The claim that your kids prefer aftercare to spending more time with you (undoubtedly being nonstop “productive” and doing “enriching” activities) is the most honest thing you’ve said. Other than that your 750K HHI is merely a sacrifice you’re making “for the children” of course

Look I hate working. But I do it because it gets my kids an amazing education, nice camps, good aftercare and college savings accounts so they won’t go into debt.

Your assertion is that the child of every working mother is doomed to think of themselves as an ‘afterthought’. No idea what you’re doing on the jobs board but that’s some pretty mysogynistic, antiquated and toxic bs right there

I did not assert that at all. I am speaking to YOU, specifically. I’m actually a working mother myself, but I’m not so flippant about “all those things parents think matter” (which from your posts basically encompasses the parenting part of being a parent). I also don’t delude myself into thinking that a HHI of 350k vs 700k or whatever matters in the least when it comes to a child’s health and happiness.

YOU, specific PP who does not speak for all working mothers, YOU clearly value money more than time with your kids. That’s all.