Pre-Teen is resentful of how much I work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I'm shocked at all the comments which blame the mom for working. How the hell are they suppose to support 3 kids if they don't work and you have no right to judge how many kids they have. I feel like kids of this age and this "class" are a bit too entitled. When my child tells me they need something last minute I tell them no. Learn to plan ahead, I'm not your maid or your nanny. Even if I do have the time I refuse to do anything last minute and I don't like to buy them stuff even though I do tend to give in. I grew up poor and I never saw my mom because she worked constantly to put me through private school. I never questioned why she had to work or asked her for anything other than what was necessary.. and most times not even that. I knew we just didn't have the money. To be honest, my kids piss me off sometimes with everything that they have. They don't know how good they have it and they are not grateful when you give them everything they ask for.

Thr majority of us support 3 kids without having children that have tp beg us to have a family meal and without keepingboir kids in daycare until 630pm. These kids dont need more money and dont need to wven go to target. They need parents who love them and dont treat them like an accessory.

The OP and her husband suck and their kids know it, we know it. I hope with their mountain of money, they are saving for thearapy.

And another thing, i bet when these kids grow up they will have absolutely no attachment to their parents. The OP will grow old all alone, comforted only by their bank account.

I don't have an opinion on OP (we don't know enough about her life, IMO), but I see this threat about growing old alone thrown at parents who don't act the way other parents think they should all the time. Have you spent time in nursing homes or spent a lot of time doing elder care? The homes are filled with the parents of children who grew up with the traditional SAHM/WOHP family structure. This idea that raising your kids in one particular structure means that you will or won't be alone is nonsense. Using one particular family structure doesn't guarantee attachment.

Dual-income working parents don't have to work around the clock. At least one parent needs to make him or herself available for their kids. That should be obvious to anyone choosing to have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

I see what you're saying; however, there are some posters who will insist that if there is a SAHP, then the WOHP parent by default *must* work long hours. This just isn't true - not in my family and not in the families of many other SAHPs I know. More often than not, the WOHP is home in the early evening, not working until midnight (who even does this?). My own spouse is home almost every day by 5:30, and has plenty of time to spend with our kids. Just wanted to point that out.

Also, I'd like to add that the whole "quality over quantity time" is a complete fallacy. They need their parents with them, making dinner, supervising homework, running errands, carpooling, etc. Kids need their parents' presence, period. They don't just fit neatly into some BS planned 'quality time.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

DP here. I think the point that you're missing is this: Not only does OP work long hours, but her husband ALSO works the same long hours. Who is available for the kids? NO ONE. That's the point. There's no SAHP, there's no parent working a basic 9-5. There are simply two absent parents. In this scenario, who exactly is taking care of the kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

As one of the posters pretty involved in that strain of the debate (and the poster who was attacked as a hypocrite there), I want to clarify something about my views on this. Parenting is a multi-dimensional thing. There is the bonding side of it, whether you're spending time with your children in a way that is meaningful to you both and that deepens your connection. This is something that both parents need to be available to do with their kids so that the kids have the opportunity to form emotional bonds with each parent. It needs regular/consistent engagement, but doesn't fall apart if there are days here and there when the parent-child engagement is more of a quick conversation over a meal (or a phone call if the parent is traveling or working particularly late). A parent who works longer hours during the week can make up for a lot of that by being an engaged parent throughout the weekend, even if some of it is by doing errands together and chatting while you're in the car. The key there is that the parent is engaged during those times, and isn't spending all of that "together" time running through their to-do list in their head, putting the kids in front of a screen so they can clean up the kitchen, and then checking their email all through dinner. I have no idea how OP operates in this regard.

Then there is the side of it that's whether your children feel they can trust and rely upon their parents to be there for them on a day-to-day basis for basics needs. This is more along the lines of will there be meals prepared, will the permission slip get signed, will the poster board be purchased (leaving aside the issue of how much notice should be given of the need for poster board), i.e., can the child trust that their needs will be met. When parents are married/cohabitating, they can act more as a unit on this one rather than both people needing to be there for every need. You only need one parent to cook dinner, sign the permission slip or buy poster board, so for this aspect of parenting, it's okay if only one parent is there while the other is working, as long as the kids can trust that someone will be there to get it done. Especially because the deeper emotional bonding described above generally does not occur (at least not in a healthy way) if the foundational trust that needs will be met doesn't exist. The bonding can happen regardless of which parent has done more of meeting the basic needs; just because dad went to Target doesn't mean mom won't be able to form a bond with her child (and vice versa).

Yes, OP should set reasonable limits and doesn't need to jump on a moment's notice because her daughter wants to get poster board for her project, but there also needs to be some expectation that these things will happen eventually in a reliable way. "Larla, I can't take you to Target tonight for poster board but I will put in on the calendar for Wednesday night, which will still give you plenty of time to finish your project." If OP and her husband are doing this and then following through, their kids will develop that trust in their parents to meet their needs, regardless of which parent takes them to buy the poster board this week. If OP (and/or her husband) is instead telling her daughter "tomorrow," but then says the same thing the next night and the night after that, or won't commit to a day at all and just says she'll get to it when she can, her daughter is going to have a harder time trusting that her needs are going to be met. Only OP knows how this goes in her own household, but based on her posts throughout the thread, I suspect there's a fair amount of the latter going on. Otherwise this would just be about a whiny kid with unreasonable expectations and not a bunch of whining from OP about how she's stretched too thin and just can't do it. As for how this all affects OP's bond with her daughter, there's not enough here to say that for sure. But the fact that OP's posts suggest the foundational trust may be shaky is a red flag that the deeper bonding isn't happening.

+1,000,000
So well said. The issue is indeed - who can this child trust to take care of her needs? Neither parent is proving especially trustworthy in that regard and the daughter knows she's last priority. The whole thing is very sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

I agree with everything except the last part.

Both parents need to cut back a little and raise their kids. Children deserve 2 parents.

They obviously have enough money to take care is the obligation that are not child related... Cooking, cleaning, fixing the car.

If a SAHP does all those thing to free up time for the father.... And the father is "fully engaged"... Then OP and her H could, in theory, hire someone to do all those chores... So they can both be fully engaged.

I personally disagree that H in this situation are fully engaged.... So really they both need to cut back.

Also, SAHP with a H working tons need to figure out how to either spend less or make money so their H have time to emotionalky support their kids.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids want to feel loved, it is that simple. Think about how many wives are posting(yes, it is almost always women posting here) about DH working too much, spending too much with ILS, never being there for them, and a 12 year old is supposed to be all rational and understand that mom can't spend some time with her, when many grown ups feel resentful in the same situation? And yes, 12 year old will be disorganized and forget to pan a week ahead, that is how most teens are. OP, your DD wants you, she wants to spend time with you, and all the rest is just her lashing out in the only way she knows.

Sometimes I think that most people on this board do not remember what it was like to be a child. When I was a tween, feeling loved wasn't my main concern. I knew I was loved, but I didn't much care. I had all sorts of miserable tangled emotions running through me as a result of the hormonal shifts of puberty, and my mom made a very convenient outlet / focus / punching bag for all of my angst. She was a wonderful mother – it did not make a wet of a difference to me. I was in raged – and I knew I could reach at her because she was one of the only people in the world who had to put up with me – and nothing she could've changed would have me be less angry at her.

OP, if you feel like you're not giving your children enough time with you, that is one thing. But I'm not convinced from the small amount of information that you've given us that you are necessarily doing anything so wrong as to account for your child's anger at you. Some of us were just angry kids. On the bright side, for all that I gave my mother hell, I voluntarily spend as much time as possible with her nowadays, because she is awesome.

Your childhood sounds quite different than mine. I adored my mom, even through my hormonal teens. She's the person who got me through the worst of those times. Why? Because she was available and she was present. I knew I could rely on her and lean on her and she would always be there for me. I knew that she loved me - and yes, that was crucial knowledge to me. I had friends who much preferred to spend time at my house because my mom was there and such a stabilizing influence. To this day she's still my biggest supporter and best friend. And before anyone chimes in with, "Well, what about your DAD??" - I loved him very much too, but we just didn't have the same closeness that my mom and I had.

I highly doubt the OP's daughter feels that way about OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids want to feel loved, it is that simple. Think about how many wives are posting(yes, it is almost always women posting here) about DH working too much, spending too much with ILS, never being there for them, and a 12 year old is supposed to be all rational and understand that mom can't spend some time with her, when many grown ups feel resentful in the same situation? And yes, 12 year old will be disorganized and forget to pan a week ahead, that is how most teens are. OP, your DD wants you, she wants to spend time with you, and all the rest is just her lashing out in the only way she knows.

Sometimes I think that most people on this board do not remember what it was like to be a child. When I was a tween, feeling loved wasn't my main concern. I knew I was loved, but I didn't much care. I had all sorts of miserable tangled emotions running through me as a result of the hormonal shifts of puberty, and my mom made a very convenient outlet / focus / punching bag for all of my angst. She was a wonderful mother – it did not make a wet of a difference to me. I was in raged – and I knew I could reach at her because she was one of the only people in the world who had to put up with me – and nothing she could've changed would have me be less angry at her.

OP, if you feel like you're not giving your children enough time with you, that is one thing. But I'm not convinced from the small amount of information that you've given us that you are necessarily doing anything so wrong as to account for your child's anger at you. Some of us were just angry kids. On the bright side, for all that I gave my mother hell, I voluntarily spend as much time as possible with her nowadays, because she is awesome.

Not everyone had the same experience as a teenager that you did. I wasn't always peaches and cream for my mom, but I wasn't perpetually enraged and definitely didn't treat my mother the way you've suggested you did.

+1
I wouldn't have dreamed of treating my mother that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

But you're essentially saying that the parent who cuts back is the one responsible for meeting the emotional needs of a preteen. In that sort of set-up, how is the WOHP any different than OP in this situation?

You can't claim that your WOHP husband who works very long hours is a great dad but at the same time say OP is a terrible mom for working the same long hours. I, by the way, don't think we know anywhere near enough to judge OP's fitness as a parent, or that of anybody else in this thread, so I am not saying OP is bad parent or your husband is a bad parent. I am just saying that people are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this thread.

Not at all. The vast majority of PPs have been saying that *at least* one parent needs to either cut back their hours so as to be available to their children, or be a SAHP. Again: in OP's situation, BOTH parents are unavailable. How is that good for their kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

DP here. I think the point that you're missing is this: Not only does OP work long hours, but her husband ALSO works the same long hours. Who is available for the kids? NO ONE. That's the point. There's no SAHP, there's no parent working a basic 9-5. There are simply two absent parents. In this scenario, who exactly is taking care of the kids?

They need a live in Au Pair of Nanny. I know people who have these even while the kids are in high school - just for these reasons (Target run, soccer practice) and by high school age the nanny has become family too (so, hard to let go). She can help with shopping and cooking too.

This is the reality of a two career couple with kids - you need live in help. Heck I know people who have live in help even with a SAHP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You've set your priorities, and she knows where she falls. I'm also curious to know where the other parent is in this, and why that parent can't do these things for her. After all, if you're working those kinds of hours, you sure as hell had better be sufficiently well compensated to afford a second car so that everyone else in the family isn't held hostage to your work schedule.

This. I hope you start to recognize this.

Scale back the job.
That's what 99% of us did.
If one of us has the "BIG" job (long hours, stress, consistent evening work, and/or travel) the other one scales back to a 9-5.
I live in NW DC and almost everyone I know (about 100 families) has this arrangement.

This. I would NOT work if i couldnt be thwre for my kids. Why even have them if yiu cant be there for them

These poor kids have 2 parents who care more about their jobs than them. At the very least the OP needs to hire a long term loving and attentive nanny who can act as a surrogate parent.

Geez Louise by this age your teens are calling their parents 'stupid' and 'lazy' if you are a SAHP. Or, just if you are on the earth and you are breathing - they feel disgust for you. Stop judging. Keep the job, just get some help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

As one of the posters pretty involved in that strain of the debate (and the poster who was attacked as a hypocrite there), I want to clarify something about my views on this. Parenting is a multi-dimensional thing. There is the bonding side of it, whether you're spending time with your children in a way that is meaningful to you both and that deepens your connection. This is something that both parents need to be available to do with their kids so that the kids have the opportunity to form emotional bonds with each parent. It needs regular/consistent engagement, but doesn't fall apart if there are days here and there when the parent-child engagement is more of a quick conversation over a meal (or a phone call if the parent is traveling or working particularly late). A parent who works longer hours during the week can make up for a lot of that by being an engaged parent throughout the weekend, even if some of it is by doing errands together and chatting while you're in the car. The key there is that the parent is engaged during those times, and isn't spending all of that "together" time running through their to-do list in their head, putting the kids in front of a screen so they can clean up the kitchen, and then checking their email all through dinner. I have no idea how OP operates in this regard.

Then there is the side of it that's whether your children feel they can trust and rely upon their parents to be there for them on a day-to-day basis for basics needs. This is more along the lines of will there be meals prepared, will the permission slip get signed, will the poster board be purchased (leaving aside the issue of how much notice should be given of the need for poster board), i.e., can the child trust that their needs will be met. When parents are married/cohabitating, they can act more as a unit on this one rather than both people needing to be there for every need. You only need one parent to cook dinner, sign the permission slip or buy poster board, so for this aspect of parenting, it's okay if only one parent is there while the other is working, as long as the kids can trust that someone will be there to get it done. Especially because the deeper emotional bonding described above generally does not occur (at least not in a healthy way) if the foundational trust that needs will be met doesn't exist. The bonding can happen regardless of which parent has done more of meeting the basic needs; just because dad went to Target doesn't mean mom won't be able to form a bond with her child (and vice versa).

Yes, OP should set reasonable limits and doesn't need to jump on a moment's notice because her daughter wants to get poster board for her project, but there also needs to be some expectation that these things will happen eventually in a reliable way. "Larla, I can't take you to Target tonight for poster board but I will put in on the calendar for Wednesday night, which will still give you plenty of time to finish your project." If OP and her husband are doing this and then following through, their kids will develop that trust in their parents to meet their needs, regardless of which parent takes them to buy the poster board this week. If OP (and/or her husband) is instead telling her daughter "tomorrow," but then says the same thing the next night and the night after that, or won't commit to a day at all and just says she'll get to it when she can, her daughter is going to have a harder time trusting that her needs are going to be met. Only OP knows how this goes in her own household, but based on her posts throughout the thread, I suspect there's a fair amount of the latter going on. Otherwise this would just be about a whiny kid with unreasonable expectations and not a bunch of whining from OP about how she's stretched too thin and just can't do it. As for how this all affects OP's bond with her daughter, there's not enough here to say that for sure. But the fact that OP's posts suggest the foundational trust may be shaky is a red flag that the deeper bonding isn't happening.

+1,000,000
So well said. The issue is indeed - who can this child trust to take care of her needs? Neither parent is proving especially trustworthy in that regard and the daughter knows she's last priority. The whole thing is very sad.

I'm a SAHP out of necessity - special kid - so I've gotten to know my teens well and I would tell you that if they thought you quit your job to run to the Target with them during the week they would label you as 'stupid'.

Hire help for things like shopping and cooking and some of the supply runs so that you have more time for the kids but don't quit. I'm sure they are proud of you and they'll be gone soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

But you're essentially saying that the parent who cuts back is the one responsible for meeting the emotional needs of a preteen. In that sort of set-up, how is the WOHP any different than OP in this situation?

You can't claim that your WOHP husband who works very long hours is a great dad but at the same time say OP is a terrible mom for working the same long hours. I, by the way, don't think we know anywhere near enough to judge OP's fitness as a parent, or that of anybody else in this thread, so I am not saying OP is bad parent or your husband is a bad parent. I am just saying that people are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this thread.

Not at all. The vast majority of PPs have been saying that *at least* one parent needs to either cut back their hours so as to be available to their children, or be a SAHP. Again: in OP's situation, BOTH parents are unavailable. How is that good for their kids?

I am not defending OP's situation. What I am addressing are the wives in this thread who have talked about how they scaled back so their husbands could work long hours, are criticizing OP, but are simultaneously posting that their WOH spouses are excellent parents. My only point is that they cannot simultaneously believe that their WOH spouses are excellent parents even though they work long hours, but at the same time claim OP is a terrible parent because she works long hours. In other words, if you believe absentee parents are across-the-board bad, you need to include your own long-hours spouse in that category.

Also, I don't believe all SAH parents have this model of a long-hours spouse and I never made a statement close to that. Frankly, I don't believe in much of the judgment going either way in this thread: families are complicated, and it's not as easy as a lot of you seem to make it out. Families can't be narrowed down to the narrow judgment a lot of you seem to enjoy. My only point was that if you are one of the SAHPs with a husband who is working long hours, you can't simultaneously believe your husband is an awesome parent and that OP is a terrible parent because they are doing the same thing. I am only pointing out the contradiction from the prior posters. That is the extent of what I am saying. I have no position on whether anybody is in fact a good or bad parent; I think we're all more complex than a few lines on DCUM.

There is a different poster who is criticizing SAHPs with long-working-hours WOHPs, but that is not me, and in fact I disagree with that poster. I am not criticizing that model; in fact, I think it can be a great model. The only point I am making is what I wrote above, no more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I'm shocked at all the comments which blame the mom for working. How the hell are they suppose to support 3 kids if they don't work and you have no right to judge how many kids they have. I feel like kids of this age and this "class" are a bit too entitled. When my child tells me they need something last minute I tell them no. Learn to plan ahead, I'm not your maid or your nanny. Even if I do have the time I refuse to do anything last minute and I don't like to buy them stuff even though I do tend to give in. I grew up poor and I never saw my mom because she worked constantly to put me through private school. I never questioned why she had to work or asked her for anything other than what was necessary.. and most times not even that. I knew we just didn't have the money. To be honest, my kids piss me off sometimes with everything that they have. They don't know how good they have it and they are not grateful when you give them everything they ask for.

Thr majority of us support 3 kids without having children that have tp beg us to have a family meal and without keepingboir kids in daycare until 630pm. These kids dont need more money and dont need to wven go to target. They need parents who love them and dont treat them like an accessory.

The OP and her husband suck and their kids know it, we know it. I hope with their mountain of money, they are saving for thearapy.

And another thing, i bet when these kids grow up they will have absolutely no attachment to their parents. The OP will grow old all alone, comforted only by their bank account.

I don't have an opinion on OP (we don't know enough about her life, IMO), but I see this threat about growing old alone thrown at parents who don't act the way other parents think they should all the time. Have you spent time in nursing homes or spent a lot of time doing elder care? The homes are filled with the parents of children who grew up with the traditional SAHM/WOHP family structure. This idea that raising your kids in one particular structure means that you will or won't be alone is nonsense. Using one particular family structure doesn't guarantee attachment.

Dual-income working parents don't have to work around the clock. At least one parent needs to make him or herself available for their kids. That should be obvious to anyone choosing to have kids.

Yes, but if you spend any time with eldercare you'll know that having a SAHP is no recipe for not being alone in your old age, which is the only point I was making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You've set your priorities, and she knows where she falls. I'm also curious to know where the other parent is in this, and why that parent can't do these things for her. After all, if you're working those kinds of hours, you sure as hell had better be sufficiently well compensated to afford a second car so that everyone else in the family isn't held hostage to your work schedule.

This. I hope you start to recognize this.

Scale back the job.
That's what 99% of us did.
If one of us has the "BIG" job (long hours, stress, consistent evening work, and/or travel) the other one scales back to a 9-5.
I live in NW DC and almost everyone I know (about 100 families) has this arrangement.

This. I would NOT work if i couldnt be thwre for my kids. Why even have them if yiu cant be there for them

These poor kids have 2 parents who care more about their jobs than them. At the very least the OP needs to hire a long term loving and attentive nanny who can act as a surrogate parent.

Geez Louise by this age your teens are calling their parents 'stupid' and 'lazy' if you are a SAHP. Or, just if you are on the earth and you are breathing - they feel disgust for you. Stop judging. Keep the job, just get some help.

Or cut back on the job hours and, you know, actually parent your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

I agree with everything except the last part.

Both parents need to cut back a little and raise their kids. Children deserve 2 parents.

They obviously have enough money to take care is the obligation that are not child related... Cooking, cleaning, fixing the car.

If a SAHP does all those thing to free up time for the father.... And the father is "fully engaged"... Then OP and her H could, in theory, hire someone to do all those chores... So they can both be fully engaged.

I personally disagree that H in this situation are fully engaged.... So really they both need to cut back.

Also, SAHP with a H working tons need to figure out how to either spend less or make money so their H have time to emotionalky support their kids.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.