Working parents - feel like I spend no time with 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:

Anonymous wrote:I am a WOHM but the life OP describes would not be worth it to me. Flexibility is key when you have kids. And by that I mean the ability to come in late or leave early fairly regularly (and make it up at night) and WFH 1-2x a week.

My question is where is the DH in this?

My DH and I work staggered schedules to minimize childcare hours to 25-30 per week (half of which is spent napping anyway). And we each WFH a different day in the week so we can take the kids to various classes. He makes over $200k and I make $150k which is pretty good in our early-mid 30s.

I think it’s sad when women have to quit their jobs solely because their neanderthal husbands refuse to do something more flexible. It’s nice for kids to spend one-on-one time with their dads too (not just occasional “babysitting” time like DHs of SAHMs do). It’s also nice for them to see both parents be equal partners at home and helping each other achieve their goals outside the home.

This!!!!

Why do some supposedly happy WOHMs make comments like this about other people's realities? This is not the reality for many SAHMs who have involved, caring dads who are present in their kids' lives, who help out 50 50 with chores when home, who support their wives' goals. And on the flip side, disinterested workaholic and unhelpful husbands are the reality for some WOHMs who have the burden of an unequal partnership AND full time jobs. Every relationship is different but let's not paint all families with one brush.

My post was not about all SAHMs, only the ones who enjoyed working but we’re essentially forced to quit because their DH prioritized career advancement over family time. I mean, I miss my kids too, but if they can’t be with me then knowing they’re with their Dad for a good chunk of the day makes me feel better. If DH had been unwilling to negotiate flexibility with his employer then I would probably have quit. And anyway, it’s good for the workforce if men also force their employers to promote work-life balance.

Dp here. DH is a surgeon and he can’t work from home. However, he is a very involved parent. He takes kids to sports and we eat dinner with him most nights. Problem is I can never rely on him to pick up. Never know if surgery will have a complication or a pt shows up in the ER.

I was responsible for all drop offs, pick ups, school events, sick days, snow days and after school activities. I tried for years to get perfect mix of help. I had equal or higher income potential than DH. I decided I wanted to do the child activities I was trying to hire someone to do. And I hated that guilt when you miss the school parties that last a whole 15 minutes.

That’s the thing. Majority of men never feel that guilt.

+1. I'm a woman, but I feel about as much guilt for missing those parties as my husband does--that is to say, not much. And kid's school has lots of working parents, so in general it's not unusual for parents to miss these events.

Another woman here who doesn’t feel much guilt. I’m missing that chip that makes a woman lose her identity and quit her job for her kids. I love my kids but didn’t cry the first time I left one with a sitter or the first day of K. I consider myself lucky because most of the SAHMs I know seem to be staying home out of emotion instead of legitimate reasons.

NP here.

I think there are very legitimate reasons to stay home, but our society -and the husbands of these SAHMs- do not value those reasons.

I do not know any stay at home moms who have a good deal going. In my experience, they have husbands who have become self-centered and unaware of the work it takes to keep the house running.

However, I do not know any working mom whose "identity" is attached to their jobs-not even my cardiologist girlfriend. So that argument usually baffles me.

Yeah, I've never understood how HR manager at the Department of Agriculture is somehow a legit 'identity'.

Well I never understand how an educated, smart woman can do nothing while her kids are at school but get her hair done but YMMV. What exactly does your meal ticket - oh sorry, husband - do?

Wow. This thread got ugly fast. I went to Harvard, have two masters and was crushing it in my career. I excel at everything that I do. There is absolutely nothing that I am more passionate about than my children. If I could go back, I will pick my children every single time over my career. My issue was that I was not interested in crap work that paid decently. I earned high six figures and no amount of money was worth not seeing my children.

I do not know one woman who has it all. I know many women at the top of their industries and their family lives often suffer. I do think it is doable for two mediocre careers to achieve optimal work life balance. In my circles, our friends and colleagues are not the types to do mediocre.

Yours is the one of the ugliest post. "Mediocre careers?" Is that what you think of the careers your children's teachers, nurses, pediatricians, pharmacist, postal service workers, gym instructors, grocery store owners etc? Wow!

Pp here. I just reread my post and can see how it came off wrong. I meant that the worker who is trying to leave at 4pm is most likely not at the top of their industry as big jobs are usually demanding. My friends who have made lateral or cut down to lesser jobs aren’t happy with the jobs. My apologies if you took it the wrong way. We are late 30s/40s during prime working years.

[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 am a WOHM but the life OP describes would not be worth it to me. Flexibility is key when you have kids. And by that I mean the ability to come in late or leave early fairly regularly (and make it up at night) and WFH 1-2x a week.

My question is where is the DH in this?

My DH and I work staggered schedules to minimize childcare hours to 25-30 per week (half of which is spent napping anyway). And we each WFH a different day in the week so we can take the kids to various classes. He makes over $200k and I make $150k which is pretty good in our early-mid 30s.

I think it’s sad when women have to quit their jobs solely because their neanderthal husbands refuse to do something more flexible. It’s nice for kids to spend one-on-one time with their dads too (not just occasional “babysitting” time like DHs of SAHMs do). It’s also nice for them to see both parents be equal partners at home and helping each other achieve their goals outside the home.

This!!!!

Why do some supposedly happy WOHMs make comments like this about other people's realities? This is not the reality for many SAHMs who have involved, caring dads who are present in their kids' lives, who help out 50 50 with chores when home, who support their wives' goals. And on the flip side, disinterested workaholic and unhelpful husbands are the reality for some WOHMs who have the burden of an unequal partnership AND full time jobs. Every relationship is different but let's not paint all families with one brush.

My post was not about all SAHMs, only the ones who enjoyed working but we’re essentially forced to quit because their DH prioritized career advancement over family time. I mean, I miss my kids too, but if they can’t be with me then knowing they’re with their Dad for a good chunk of the day makes me feel better. If DH had been unwilling to negotiate flexibility with his employer then I would probably have quit. And anyway, it’s good for the workforce if men also force their employers to promote work-life balance.

Dp here. DH is a surgeon and he can’t work from home. However, he is a very involved parent. He takes kids to sports and we eat dinner with him most nights. Problem is I can never rely on him to pick up. Never know if surgery will have a complication or a pt shows up in the ER.

I was responsible for all drop offs, pick ups, school events, sick days, snow days and after school activities. I tried for years to get perfect mix of help. I had equal or higher income potential than DH. I decided I wanted to do the child activities I was trying to hire someone to do. And I hated that guilt when you miss the school parties that last a whole 15 minutes.

That’s the thing. Majority of men never feel that guilt.

+1. I'm a woman, but I feel about as much guilt for missing those parties as my husband does--that is to say, not much. And kid's school has lots of working parents, so in general it's not unusual for parents to miss these events.

Another woman here who doesn’t feel much guilt. I’m missing that chip that makes a woman lose her identity and quit her job for her kids. I love my kids but didn’t cry the first time I left one with a sitter or the first day of K. I consider myself lucky because most of the SAHMs I know seem to be staying home out of emotion instead of legitimate reasons.

NP here.

I think there are very legitimate reasons to stay home, but our society -and the husbands of these SAHMs- do not value those reasons.

I do not know any stay at home moms who have a good deal going. In my experience, they have husbands who have become self-centered and unaware of the work it takes to keep the house running.

However, I do not know any working mom whose "identity" is attached to their jobs-not even my cardiologist girlfriend. So that argument usually baffles me.

Yeah, I've never understood how HR manager at the Department of Agriculture is somehow a legit 'identity'.

Well I never understand how an educated, smart woman can do nothing while her kids are at school but get her hair done but YMMV. What exactly does your meal ticket - oh sorry, husband - do?

Are you going to put GS-15 on your tombstone? So everyone will know that you spent your time making sure everyone took their sensitivity training and knows who to call If they have questions about their EOBs from BCBS? How noble and worthy indeed.

I don’t work for the government so I have no idea what you’re saying. Still waiting on your husband’s noble job title?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you want to vacation, or see your children?

If you’re working to afford vacation and other niceties but sacrificing your life, then that’s hardly worth it.

I am working to afford nicer vacations and retirement and college and additional financial stability and because I like to work.

But I am not sacrificing my life. I work from 6:30 - 2:30 so I am home to pick up DS every day from school. I take him to baseball and scouts and swimming. He plays at the park with his friends. The only noticeable difference is in the summer when he goes to camp. His friends parents asked me to let them know what camps he is going to next year so they can enroll their kids in some of the same camps because it was too much time at home and the kids need to be doing something other then going to the pool.

Anonymous wrote: Pp here. I just reread my post and can see how it came off wrong. I meant that the worker who is trying to leave at 4pm is most likely not at the top of their industry as big jobs are usually demanding. My friends who have made lateral or cut down to lesser jobs aren’t happy with the jobs. My apologies if you took it the wrong way. We are late 30s/40s during prime working years.

I am sorry that your friends are not happy with their jobs. I happen to be fine with my job and I love that I am home with my child. Yes, I could be making more money and I could have climbed the corporate ladder but I am happy being a worker bee, making a very nice salary, who goes home after 8 hours and is with her kid. My DH feels the same about his job. Not everyone wants to be a manager or a VP. There are people who do not see their job as something that has to be the thing fulfilling our lives.

I am thrilled to be able to go to school for DS events, I know it is important to him even if he ignores me when I am there. I see the shy smile on his face and how he is happy to see me when I walk in. He asks me if I am going to be there and smiles when I say yes or looks bummed if I say no. And I see the kids whose parents can't make it and I see that they are disappointed. They understand why Mom or Dad can't be there, DS understands if I say no, but they are bummed.

So yeah, not mediocre at all. I could have a more exciting and challenging job but I don't want to give up the time with my child. I could stay at home but the money that I make provides me with additional security if something should happen to my DH and allows us to do more as a family. I am thrilled to know that DS won't have college debt because I worked and we could save that money. I am thrilled to know that DH and I will have a comfortable retirement because I worked. I am thrilled to know that DH is not stressed because we are in trouble if he loses his job for some reason and no one is working.

Not everyone is a type A personality that wants to be an industry lead. I am sorry that you can't seem to grasp that and think that people who are happy with where they are are "mediocre."

[Anonymous]

DP here. SAHM who saved her salary, lived well but under budget on DH's salary and now we are financially secure. College and retirement paid for, no debt. 1/2 mil per child for college and setting up in life. We have 200K in retirement income/pension - recession, inflation, after tax. Some people earn money, some people save and grow money - guess who have wealth? We are also heavily insured. There is no reason to be poor if you have 100K and above HHI. Rein in your spending, people!

[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:I am a WOHM but the life OP describes would not be worth it to me. Flexibility is key when you have kids. And by that I mean the ability to come in late or leave early fairly regularly (and make it up at night) and WFH 1-2x a week.

My question is where is the DH in this?

My DH and I work staggered schedules to minimize childcare hours to 25-30 per week (half of which is spent napping anyway). And we each WFH a different day in the week so we can take the kids to various classes. He makes over $200k and I make $150k which is pretty good in our early-mid 30s.

I think it’s sad when women have to quit their jobs solely because their neanderthal husbands refuse to do something more flexible. It’s nice for kids to spend one-on-one time with their dads too (not just occasional “babysitting” time like DHs of SAHMs do). It’s also nice for them to see both parents be equal partners at home and helping each other achieve their goals outside the home.

This!!!!

Why do some supposedly happy WOHMs make comments like this about other people's realities? This is not the reality for many SAHMs who have involved, caring dads who are present in their kids' lives, who help out 50 50 with chores when home, who support their wives' goals. And on the flip side, disinterested workaholic and unhelpful husbands are the reality for some WOHMs who have the burden of an unequal partnership AND full time jobs. Every relationship is different but let's not paint all families with one brush.

My post was not about all SAHMs, only the ones who enjoyed working but we’re essentially forced to quit because their DH prioritized career advancement over family time. I mean, I miss my kids too, but if they can’t be with me then knowing they’re with their Dad for a good chunk of the day makes me feel better. If DH had been unwilling to negotiate flexibility with his employer then I would probably have quit. And anyway, it’s good for the workforce if men also force their employers to promote work-life balance.

Dp here. DH is a surgeon and he can’t work from home. However, he is a very involved parent. He takes kids to sports and we eat dinner with him most nights. Problem is I can never rely on him to pick up. Never know if surgery will have a complication or a pt shows up in the ER.

I was responsible for all drop offs, pick ups, school events, sick days, snow days and after school activities. I tried for years to get perfect mix of help. I had equal or higher income potential than DH. I decided I wanted to do the child activities I was trying to hire someone to do. And I hated that guilt when you miss the school parties that last a whole 15 minutes.

That’s the thing. Majority of men never feel that guilt.

+1. I'm a woman, but I feel about as much guilt for missing those parties as my husband does--that is to say, not much. And kid's school has lots of working parents, so in general it's not unusual for parents to miss these events.

Another woman here who doesn’t feel much guilt. I’m missing that chip that makes a woman lose her identity and quit her job for her kids. I love my kids but didn’t cry the first time I left one with a sitter or the first day of K. I consider myself lucky because most of the SAHMs I know seem to be staying home out of emotion instead of legitimate reasons.

NP here.

I think there are very legitimate reasons to stay home, but our society -and the husbands of these SAHMs- do not value those reasons.

I do not know any stay at home moms who have a good deal going. In my experience, they have husbands who have become self-centered and unaware of the work it takes to keep the house running.

However, I do not know any working mom whose "identity" is attached to their jobs-not even my cardiologist girlfriend. So that argument usually baffles me.

Yeah, I've never understood how HR manager at the Department of Agriculture is somehow a legit 'identity'.

Well I never understand how an educated, smart woman can do nothing while her kids are at school but get her hair done but YMMV. What exactly does your meal ticket - oh sorry, husband - do?

Wow. This thread got ugly fast. I went to Harvard, have two masters and was crushing it in my career. I excel at everything that I do. There is absolutely nothing that I am more passionate about than my children. If I could go back, I will pick my children every single time over my career. My issue was that I was not interested in crap work that paid decently. I earned high six figures and no amount of money was worth not seeing my children.

I do not know one woman who has it all. I know many women at the top of their industries and their family lives often suffer. I do think it is doable for two mediocre careers to achieve optimal work life balance. In my circles, our friends and colleagues are not the types to do mediocre.

Yours is the one of the ugliest post. "Mediocre careers?" Is that what you think of the careers your children's teachers, nurses, pediatricians, pharmacist, postal service workers, gym instructors, grocery store owners etc? Wow!

Pp here. I just reread my post and can see how it came off wrong. I meant that the worker who is trying to leave at 4pm is most likely not at the top of their industry as big jobs are usually demanding. My friends who have made lateral or cut down to lesser jobs aren’t happy with the jobs. My apologies if you took it the wrong way. We are late 30s/40s during prime working years.

\

You need to expand your friend circle. For someone who doesn't work, you are overly wrapped up in the achievements of other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP here. SAHM who saved her salary, lived well but under budget on DH's salary and now we are financially secure. College and retirement paid for, no debt. 1/2 mil per child for college and setting up in life. We have 200K in retirement income/pension - recession, inflation, after tax. Some people earn money, some people save and grow money - guess who have wealth? We are also heavily insured. There is no reason to be poor if you have 100K and above HHI. Rein in your spending, people!

Nobody saves a million just for college just with 100K per year, nobody. So, stop preaching and lying. Plus your retirement fund sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here. SAHM who saved her salary, lived well but under budget on DH's salary and now we are financially secure. College and retirement paid for, no debt. 1/2 mil per child for college and setting up in life. We have 200K in retirement income/pension - recession, inflation, after tax. Some people earn money, some people save and grow money - guess who have wealth? We are also heavily insured. There is no reason to be poor if you have 100K and above HHI. Rein in your spending, people!

Nobody saves a million just for college just with 100K per year, nobody. So, stop preaching and lying. Plus your retirement fund sucks.

I took that as they’ll have $200k per year in retirement. But yeah, I’m guessing we don’t have the whole story here- inheritance maybe? Or bought their house 25 yrs ago and/or doesn’t live in the DMV.

[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:I am a WOHM but the life OP describes would not be worth it to me. Flexibility is key when you have kids. And by that I mean the ability to come in late or leave early fairly regularly (and make it up at night) and WFH 1-2x a week.

My question is where is the DH in this?

My DH and I work staggered schedules to minimize childcare hours to 25-30 per week (half of which is spent napping anyway). And we each WFH a different day in the week so we can take the kids to various classes. He makes over $200k and I make $150k which is pretty good in our early-mid 30s.

I think it’s sad when women have to quit their jobs solely because their neanderthal husbands refuse to do something more flexible. It’s nice for kids to spend one-on-one time with their dads too (not just occasional “babysitting” time like DHs of SAHMs do). It’s also nice for them to see both parents be equal partners at home and helping each other achieve their goals outside the home.

This!!!!

Why do some supposedly happy WOHMs make comments like this about other people's realities? This is not the reality for many SAHMs who have involved, caring dads who are present in their kids' lives, who help out 50 50 with chores when home, who support their wives' goals. And on the flip side, disinterested workaholic and unhelpful husbands are the reality for some WOHMs who have the burden of an unequal partnership AND full time jobs. Every relationship is different but let's not paint all families with one brush.

My post was not about all SAHMs, only the ones who enjoyed working but we’re essentially forced to quit because their DH prioritized career advancement over family time. I mean, I miss my kids too, but if they can’t be with me then knowing they’re with their Dad for a good chunk of the day makes me feel better. If DH had been unwilling to negotiate flexibility with his employer then I would probably have quit. And anyway, it’s good for the workforce if men also force their employers to promote work-life balance.

Dp here. DH is a surgeon and he can’t work from home. However, he is a very involved parent. He takes kids to sports and we eat dinner with him most nights. Problem is I can never rely on him to pick up. Never know if surgery will have a complication or a pt shows up in the ER.

I was responsible for all drop offs, pick ups, school events, sick days, snow days and after school activities. I tried for years to get perfect mix of help. I had equal or higher income potential than DH. I decided I wanted to do the child activities I was trying to hire someone to do. And I hated that guilt when you miss the school parties that last a whole 15 minutes.

That’s the thing. Majority of men never feel that guilt.

+1. I'm a woman, but I feel about as much guilt for missing those parties as my husband does--that is to say, not much. And kid's school has lots of working parents, so in general it's not unusual for parents to miss these events.

Another woman here who doesn’t feel much guilt. I’m missing that chip that makes a woman lose her identity and quit her job for her kids. I love my kids but didn’t cry the first time I left one with a sitter or the first day of K. I consider myself lucky because most of the SAHMs I know seem to be staying home out of emotion instead of legitimate reasons.

NP here.

I think there are very legitimate reasons to stay home, but our society -and the husbands of these SAHMs- do not value those reasons.

I do not know any stay at home moms who have a good deal going. In my experience, they have husbands who have become self-centered and unaware of the work it takes to keep the house running.

However, I do not know any working mom whose "identity" is attached to their jobs-not even my cardiologist girlfriend. So that argument usually baffles me.

Yeah, I've never understood how HR manager at the Department of Agriculture is somehow a legit 'identity'.

Well I never understand how an educated, smart woman can do nothing while her kids are at school but get her hair done but YMMV. What exactly does your meal ticket - oh sorry, husband - do?

Wow. This thread got ugly fast. I went to Harvard, have two masters and was crushing it in my career. I excel at everything that I do. There is absolutely nothing that I am more passionate about than my children. If I could go back, I will pick my children every single time over my career. My issue was that I was not interested in crap work that paid decently. I earned high six figures and no amount of money was worth not seeing my children.

I do not know one woman who has it all. I know many women at the top of their industries and their family lives often suffer. I do think it is doable for two mediocre careers to achieve optimal work life balance. In my circles, our friends and colleagues are not the types to do mediocre.

Yours is the one of the ugliest post. "Mediocre careers?" Is that what you think of the careers your children's teachers, nurses, pediatricians, pharmacist, postal service workers, gym instructors, grocery store owners etc? Wow!

Pp here. I just reread my post and can see how it came off wrong. I meant that the worker who is trying to leave at 4pm is most likely not at the top of their industry as big jobs are usually demanding. My friends who have made lateral or cut down to lesser jobs aren’t happy with the jobs. My apologies if you took it the wrong way. We are late 30s/40s during prime working years.

Maybe your idea of a "big job" is weird.

My younger sister is in her early 30s. She is Director of Pharmacy at a Hospital and pretty much works a 7:30-4:30. Once in a while, something goes wrong on the weekends, and she is called in for a couple of hours. That is a big job to me. And her hours are pretty good. And she makes over 180K and has a pretty good pension. She still has lots of room for growth when her children are older.

My kids' ped works an 8-5 and takes off a month during the summer to visit his country of origin. That is a big job to me.

My elementary school DD's principal works mostly 8:30-5 and makes over 100K. That is a big job to me.

Many attorneys who work at SEC or USPTO work 9-5 and/or with lots of flexibility and make over 150K. These are big and very respectable jobs.

Big jobs are not limited to investment banking or big law. Neither are they limited to making over 200K a year.

[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:I am a WOHM but the life OP describes would not be worth it to me. Flexibility is key when you have kids. And by that I mean the ability to come in late or leave early fairly regularly (and make it up at night) and WFH 1-2x a week.

My question is where is the DH in this?

My DH and I work staggered schedules to minimize childcare hours to 25-30 per week (half of which is spent napping anyway). And we each WFH a different day in the week so we can take the kids to various classes. He makes over $200k and I make $150k which is pretty good in our early-mid 30s.

I think it’s sad when women have to quit their jobs solely because their neanderthal husbands refuse to do something more flexible. It’s nice for kids to spend one-on-one time with their dads too (not just occasional “babysitting” time like DHs of SAHMs do). It’s also nice for them to see both parents be equal partners at home and helping each other achieve their goals outside the home.

This!!!!

Why do some supposedly happy WOHMs make comments like this about other people's realities? This is not the reality for many SAHMs who have involved, caring dads who are present in their kids' lives, who help out 50 50 with chores when home, who support their wives' goals. And on the flip side, disinterested workaholic and unhelpful husbands are the reality for some WOHMs who have the burden of an unequal partnership AND full time jobs. Every relationship is different but let's not paint all families with one brush.

My post was not about all SAHMs, only the ones who enjoyed working but we’re essentially forced to quit because their DH prioritized career advancement over family time. I mean, I miss my kids too, but if they can’t be with me then knowing they’re with their Dad for a good chunk of the day makes me feel better. If DH had been unwilling to negotiate flexibility with his employer then I would probably have quit. And anyway, it’s good for the workforce if men also force their employers to promote work-life balance.

Dp here. DH is a surgeon and he can’t work from home. However, he is a very involved parent. He takes kids to sports and we eat dinner with him most nights. Problem is I can never rely on him to pick up. Never know if surgery will have a complication or a pt shows up in the ER.

I was responsible for all drop offs, pick ups, school events, sick days, snow days and after school activities. I tried for years to get perfect mix of help. I had equal or higher income potential than DH. I decided I wanted to do the child activities I was trying to hire someone to do. And I hated that guilt when you miss the school parties that last a whole 15 minutes.

That’s the thing. Majority of men never feel that guilt.

+1. I'm a woman, but I feel about as much guilt for missing those parties as my husband does--that is to say, not much. And kid's school has lots of working parents, so in general it's not unusual for parents to miss these events.

Another woman here who doesn’t feel much guilt. I’m missing that chip that makes a woman lose her identity and quit her job for her kids. I love my kids but didn’t cry the first time I left one with a sitter or the first day of K. I consider myself lucky because most of the SAHMs I know seem to be staying home out of emotion instead of legitimate reasons.

NP here.

I think there are very legitimate reasons to stay home, but our society -and the husbands of these SAHMs- do not value those reasons.

I do not know any stay at home moms who have a good deal going. In my experience, they have husbands who have become self-centered and unaware of the work it takes to keep the house running.

However, I do not know any working mom whose "identity" is attached to their jobs-not even my cardiologist girlfriend. So that argument usually baffles me.

Yeah, I've never understood how HR manager at the Department of Agriculture is somehow a legit 'identity'.

Well I never understand how an educated, smart woman can do nothing while her kids are at school but get her hair done but YMMV. What exactly does your meal ticket - oh sorry, husband - do?

Wow. This thread got ugly fast. I went to Harvard, have two masters and was crushing it in my career. I excel at everything that I do. There is absolutely nothing that I am more passionate about than my children. If I could go back, I will pick my children every single time over my career. My issue was that I was not interested in crap work that paid decently. I earned high six figures and no amount of money was worth not seeing my children.

I do not know one woman who has it all. I know many women at the top of their industries and their family lives often suffer. I do think it is doable for two mediocre careers to achieve optimal work life balance. In my circles, our friends and colleagues are not the types to do mediocre.

Yours is the one of the ugliest post. "Mediocre careers?" Is that what you think of the careers your children's teachers, nurses, pediatricians, pharmacist, postal service workers, gym instructors, grocery store owners etc? Wow!

Pp here. I just reread my post and can see how it came off wrong. I meant that the worker who is trying to leave at 4pm is most likely not at the top of their industry as big jobs are usually demanding. My friends who have made lateral or cut down to lesser jobs aren’t happy with the jobs. My apologies if you took it the wrong way. We are late 30s/40s during prime working years.

Maybe your idea of a "big job" is weird.

My younger sister is in her early 30s. She is Director of Pharmacy at a Hospital and pretty much works a 7:30-4:30. Once in a while, something goes wrong on the weekends, and she is called in for a couple of hours. That is a big job to me. And her hours are pretty good. And she makes over 180K and has a pretty good pension. She still has lots of room for growth when her children are older.

My kids' ped works an 8-5 and takes off a month during the summer to visit his country of origin. That is a big job to me.

My elementary school DD's principal works mostly 8:30-5 and makes over 100K. That is a big job to me.

Many attorneys who work at SEC or USPTO work 9-5 and/or with lots of flexibility and make over 150K. These are big and very respectable jobs.

Big jobs are not limited to investment banking or big law. Neither are they limited to making over 200K a year.

same PP here. Most of these people have extremely short commutes. Of course, the ones in this area have to compromise on the size of their houses. But this is a good alternative to quitting altogether if one is invested in making a career work while raising a family.

[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:I am a WOHM but the life OP describes would not be worth it to me. Flexibility is key when you have kids. And by that I mean the ability to come in late or leave early fairly regularly (and make it up at night) and WFH 1-2x a week.

My question is where is the DH in this?

My DH and I work staggered schedules to minimize childcare hours to 25-30 per week (half of which is spent napping anyway). And we each WFH a different day in the week so we can take the kids to various classes. He makes over $200k and I make $150k which is pretty good in our early-mid 30s.

I think it’s sad when women have to quit their jobs solely because their neanderthal husbands refuse to do something more flexible. It’s nice for kids to spend one-on-one time with their dads too (not just occasional “babysitting” time like DHs of SAHMs do). It’s also nice for them to see both parents be equal partners at home and helping each other achieve their goals outside the home.

This!!!!

Why do some supposedly happy WOHMs make comments like this about other people's realities? This is not the reality for many SAHMs who have involved, caring dads who are present in their kids' lives, who help out 50 50 with chores when home, who support their wives' goals. And on the flip side, disinterested workaholic and unhelpful husbands are the reality for some WOHMs who have the burden of an unequal partnership AND full time jobs. Every relationship is different but let's not paint all families with one brush.

My post was not about all SAHMs, only the ones who enjoyed working but we’re essentially forced to quit because their DH prioritized career advancement over family time. I mean, I miss my kids too, but if they can’t be with me then knowing they’re with their Dad for a good chunk of the day makes me feel better. If DH had been unwilling to negotiate flexibility with his employer then I would probably have quit. And anyway, it’s good for the workforce if men also force their employers to promote work-life balance.

Dp here. DH is a surgeon and he can’t work from home. However, he is a very involved parent. He takes kids to sports and we eat dinner with him most nights. Problem is I can never rely on him to pick up. Never know if surgery will have a complication or a pt shows up in the ER.

I was responsible for all drop offs, pick ups, school events, sick days, snow days and after school activities. I tried for years to get perfect mix of help. I had equal or higher income potential than DH. I decided I wanted to do the child activities I was trying to hire someone to do. And I hated that guilt when you miss the school parties that last a whole 15 minutes.

That’s the thing. Majority of men never feel that guilt.

+1. I'm a woman, but I feel about as much guilt for missing those parties as my husband does--that is to say, not much. And kid's school has lots of working parents, so in general it's not unusual for parents to miss these events.

Another woman here who doesn’t feel much guilt. I’m missing that chip that makes a woman lose her identity and quit her job for her kids. I love my kids but didn’t cry the first time I left one with a sitter or the first day of K. I consider myself lucky because most of the SAHMs I know seem to be staying home out of emotion instead of legitimate reasons.

NP here.

I think there are very legitimate reasons to stay home, but our society -and the husbands of these SAHMs- do not value those reasons.

I do not know any stay at home moms who have a good deal going. In my experience, they have husbands who have become self-centered and unaware of the work it takes to keep the house running.

However, I do not know any working mom whose "identity" is attached to their jobs-not even my cardiologist girlfriend. So that argument usually baffles me.

Yeah, I've never understood how HR manager at the Department of Agriculture is somehow a legit 'identity'.

Well I never understand how an educated, smart woman can do nothing while her kids are at school but get her hair done but YMMV. What exactly does your meal ticket - oh sorry, husband - do?

Wow. This thread got ugly fast. I went to Harvard, have two masters and was crushing it in my career. I excel at everything that I do. There is absolutely nothing that I am more passionate about than my children. If I could go back, I will pick my children every single time over my career. My issue was that I was not interested in crap work that paid decently. I earned high six figures and no amount of money was worth not seeing my children.

I do not know one woman who has it all. I know many women at the top of their industries and their family lives often suffer. I do think it is doable for two mediocre careers to achieve optimal work life balance. In my circles, our friends and colleagues are not the types to do mediocre.

Yours is the one of the ugliest post. "Mediocre careers?" Is that what you think of the careers your children's teachers, nurses, pediatricians, pharmacist, postal service workers, gym instructors, grocery store owners etc? Wow!

Pp here. I just reread my post and can see how it came off wrong. I meant that the worker who is trying to leave at 4pm is most likely not at the top of their industry as big jobs are usually demanding. My friends who have made lateral or cut down to lesser jobs aren’t happy with the jobs. My apologies if you took it the wrong way. We are late 30s/40s during prime working years.

I'm the PP who said you have rigid and black-or-white thinking. You have pretty perfectionistic ideas about what types of work are "worth it" and which are not. Consider that there are many nuances to this issue and that one can still do work that is worthwhile and flexible, even if you don't go 100% hard in your career after kids. Overall, continuing to work in fields that we like reasonably well is still worth it to many working mothers, and research suggests it sets a good example for kids, too, both sons and daughters.

[Anonymous]

"Pp here. I just reread my post and can see how it came off wrong. I meant that the worker who is trying to leave at 4pm is most likely not at the top of their industry as big jobs are usually demanding. My friends who have made lateral or cut down to lesser jobs aren’t happy with the jobs. My apologies if you took it the wrong way. We are late 30s/40s during prime working years."

This follow up post didn't help your case at all. I'm not sure why you think only "big jobs" "at the top of their industry" are the only ones worth having as a parent, but that's your issue. Many of us know we can do meaningful, challenging, worthwhile work--and have meaningful, challenging, worthwhile careers--without focusing on how "big" our jobs are.

(Also, "my apologies if you took it the wrong way" is complete BS. Apologize for the ugliness of your opinions and own them, please.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't feel bad op. Until recent times mothers really didn't spend that much time with their kids, not even the rich or nobility. For them it was the choice, but for majority of women it was a necessity, they worked on their farms, cooking took all day, farming all day, working in factory all day, till you were dead at 30 and your kids were roaming the streets hungry. So, apart from last hundred years, give or take a few, your kids are much, much better off. Heck, even in 70s SAHM let their kids out as soon as they were old enough and called them for lunch. You are comparing to some new patriarchal idiocy that has no business telling women how they should raise their kids, sadly it is not men that enforce it, it is other women.

This just isn’t true (except the nobility part). Yes, women have always worked, but historically, they farmed, cleaned, cooked, etc alongside their children. The younger kids might be watched by older ones, but they were still together as a family. What’s new is the daycare your setting for infants and toddlers.

[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:I am a WOHM but the life OP describes would not be worth it to me. Flexibility is key when you have kids. And by that I mean the ability to come in late or leave early fairly regularly (and make it up at night) and WFH 1-2x a week.

My question is where is the DH in this?

My DH and I work staggered schedules to minimize childcare hours to 25-30 per week (half of which is spent napping anyway). And we each WFH a different day in the week so we can take the kids to various classes. He makes over $200k and I make $150k which is pretty good in our early-mid 30s.

I think it’s sad when women have to quit their jobs solely because their neanderthal husbands refuse to do something more flexible. It’s nice for kids to spend one-on-one time with their dads too (not just occasional “babysitting” time like DHs of SAHMs do). It’s also nice for them to see both parents be equal partners at home and helping each other achieve their goals outside the home.

This!!!!

Why do some supposedly happy WOHMs make comments like this about other people's realities? This is not the reality for many SAHMs who have involved, caring dads who are present in their kids' lives, who help out 50 50 with chores when home, who support their wives' goals. And on the flip side, disinterested workaholic and unhelpful husbands are the reality for some WOHMs who have the burden of an unequal partnership AND full time jobs. Every relationship is different but let's not paint all families with one brush.

My post was not about all SAHMs, only the ones who enjoyed working but we’re essentially forced to quit because their DH prioritized career advancement over family time. I mean, I miss my kids too, but if they can’t be with me then knowing they’re with their Dad for a good chunk of the day makes me feel better. If DH had been unwilling to negotiate flexibility with his employer then I would probably have quit. And anyway, it’s good for the workforce if men also force their employers to promote work-life balance.

Dp here. DH is a surgeon and he can’t work from home. However, he is a very involved parent. He takes kids to sports and we eat dinner with him most nights. Problem is I can never rely on him to pick up. Never know if surgery will have a complication or a pt shows up in the ER.

I was responsible for all drop offs, pick ups, school events, sick days, snow days and after school activities. I tried for years to get perfect mix of help. I had equal or higher income potential than DH. I decided I wanted to do the child activities I was trying to hire someone to do. And I hated that guilt when you miss the school parties that last a whole 15 minutes.

That’s the thing. Majority of men never feel that guilt.

+1. I'm a woman, but I feel about as much guilt for missing those parties as my husband does--that is to say, not much. And kid's school has lots of working parents, so in general it's not unusual for parents to miss these events.

Another woman here who doesn’t feel much guilt. I’m missing that chip that makes a woman lose her identity and quit her job for her kids. I love my kids but didn’t cry the first time I left one with a sitter or the first day of K. I consider myself lucky because most of the SAHMs I know seem to be staying home out of emotion instead of legitimate reasons.

NP here.

I think there are very legitimate reasons to stay home, but our society -and the husbands of these SAHMs- do not value those reasons.

I do not know any stay at home moms who have a good deal going. In my experience, they have husbands who have become self-centered and unaware of the work it takes to keep the house running.

However, I do not know any working mom whose "identity" is attached to their jobs-not even my cardiologist girlfriend. So that argument usually baffles me.

Yeah, I've never understood how HR manager at the Department of Agriculture is somehow a legit 'identity'.

Well I never understand how an educated, smart woman can do nothing while her kids are at school but get her hair done but YMMV. What exactly does your meal ticket - oh sorry, husband - do?

Wow. This thread got ugly fast. I went to Harvard, have two masters and was crushing it in my career. I excel at everything that I do. There is absolutely nothing that I am more passionate about than my children. If I could go back, I will pick my children every single time over my career. My issue was that I was not interested in crap work that paid decently. I earned high six figures and no amount of money was worth not seeing my children.

I do not know one woman who has it all. I know many women at the top of their industries and their family lives often suffer. I do think it is doable for two mediocre careers to achieve optimal work life balance. In my circles, our friends and colleagues are not the types to do mediocre.

Yours is the one of the ugliest post. "Mediocre careers?" Is that what you think of the careers your children's teachers, nurses, pediatricians, pharmacist, postal service workers, gym instructors, grocery store owners etc? Wow!

Pp here. I just reread my post and can see how it came off wrong. I meant that the worker who is trying to leave at 4pm is most likely not at the top of their industry as big jobs are usually demanding. My friends who have made lateral or cut down to lesser jobs aren’t happy with the jobs. My apologies if you took it the wrong way. We are late 30s/40s during prime working years.

I’m a researcher at a top university. Am now senior enough to leave at 4, or even 3, and work once the kids are in bed. We both thought about flexibility and weighed that when choosing a career. Research academia is pretty demanding and competitive. I think you might be confusing that with how much autonomy and control an individual has over their hours. I understand that in most corporate jobs the two are linked, but that’s not the case for every industry and field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't feel bad op. Until recent times mothers really didn't spend that much time with their kids, not even the rich or nobility. For them it was the choice, but for majority of women it was a necessity, they worked on their farms, cooking took all day, farming all day, working in factory all day, till you were dead at 30 and your kids were roaming the streets hungry. So, apart from last hundred years, give or take a few, your kids are much, much better off. Heck, even in 70s SAHM let their kids out as soon as they were old enough and called them for lunch. You are comparing to some new patriarchal idiocy that has no business telling women how they should raise their kids, sadly it is not men that enforce it, it is other women.

This just isn’t true (except the nobility part). Yes, women have always worked, but historically, they farmed, cleaned, cooked, etc alongside their children. The younger kids might be watched by older ones, but they were still together as a family. What’s new is the daycare your setting for infants and toddlers.

That’s not true if you look at developing countries. Kids are minded by grandparents, childless relatives, or even other ladies looking to make money. The romanticization of motherhood is a fairly modern invention and one that unduly burdens women. The idea that you shouldn’t have help from your village in raising kids is so isolating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't feel bad op. Until recent times mothers really didn't spend that much time with their kids, not even the rich or nobility. For them it was the choice, but for majority of women it was a necessity, they worked on their farms, cooking took all day, farming all day, working in factory all day, till you were dead at 30 and your kids were roaming the streets hungry. So, apart from last hundred years, give or take a few, your kids are much, much better off. Heck, even in 70s SAHM let their kids out as soon as they were old enough and called them for lunch. You are comparing to some new patriarchal idiocy that has no business telling women how they should raise their kids, sadly it is not men that enforce it, it is other women.

This just isn’t true (except the nobility part). Yes, women have always worked, but historically, they farmed, cleaned, cooked, etc alongside their children. The younger kids might be watched by older ones, but they were still together as a family. What’s new is the daycare your setting for infants and toddlers.

That’s not true if you look at developing countries. Kids are minded by grandparents, childless relatives, or even other ladies looking to make money. The romanticization of motherhood is a fairly modern invention and one that unduly burdens women. The idea that you shouldn’t have help from your village in raising kids is so isolating.

This. And this idea of all the special "moments" missed by those who WOH. It's a pressure in our patriarchal society that men aren't subject too. Hey, when my husband starts feeling pervasive "dad-guilt," I'll feel that same sense of pressure (hint: he won't).