Working parents - feel like I spend no time with my kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read this dear pp who thinks motherhood as you know it is not patriarchal product of men "reclaiming their power" in industrial era.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09612029900200202
Then read this
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/history-of-education-quarterly/article/making-good-wives-and-mothers-the-transformation-of-middleclass-girls-education-in-nineteenthcentury-britain/737D0E092DC98426B104A509194FFE00

I’ll look at your articles. But this is still a short view of human history. For thousands of years, (not exceptionally wealthy) women strapped the baby to them and went about their day of work. The PP is right that this couldn’t be avoided because they had to nurse the baby. Kids typically nursed for years, but of course they could be cared for by other family members once they were 2 or so. But being watched by grandma of a sibling is still very different from a modern daycare setting. You can argue it’s better or worse, but yes— a mother being away from her infant or toddler for 8+ hours a Day is relatively new in human history (again, excluding the rich & royal with wet nurses).

What is your point exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I love to farm with my toddler all day. He drives the tractor and milks the cows. Quality time.

NP. +1 to "this just isn't true." So many things....
First of all, don't pretend like 20th century SAHM's invented being close by to your children. If you look at breastfeeding, we are designed as humans to be close by our babies and young toddlers (and maybe even older toddlers) all day. I AM NOT saying formula is bad, daycare is bad, etc. I'm just saying, for most of human history, women didn't just leave their babies and toddlers all day. They couldn't. Historically, women that farmed, cooked, cleaned, did other chores all day, had their babies and toddlers nearby or even strapped onto them. No, they weren't actively playing with them all day, but having your baby nearby while you do something else is very different from having them in daycare.
Two, please remember OP is talking about a baby and a toddler! No, mom's in 70's weren't sending their BABIES AND TODDLERS out to roam the streets. Obviously. So how is it relevant to OP that 70s moms used to send their children out to play?

This is getting hilarious. You think upper-class women were with their babies and toddlers all day?

Okay no, many upper class women (ie a tiny slice of the population....) had wet nurses and nannies. I'm sure the ones who really let their wet nurses and nannies do most of the child rearing were the same as moms today who prefer to work and send their kids to daycare. No big deal. But I'm sure there were also plenty of rich women who spent a lot of time in the nursery with their babies and toddler even though they had wet nurses and nannies. It's not like they were forced to be away from them if they didn't want to be. I'm mostly responding to PP's idea that throughout history mothers have been separated from their babies and toddlers. It's just not true.

you are REALLY not very bright. Wow. I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

Show me your evidence for women throughout history being separated from their babies and toddlers! Show me your evidence that even rich women spent most of the day separated from their children, whether they wanted to or not. Let's picture OP as an 19th century wealthy woman. She decides she wants to spend more time with her baby than the usual one hour a day after tea or whatever. You think she wouldn't be allowed to for some reason...?

Your ignorance is seriously frightening.

You know who was separated from their children in your scenario? The wet nurses, nannies, and maids (and most of them were slaves).

We don't need to picture OP as a white wealthy woman of the 19 century. There are plenty of trashy novels that will help you with that fantasy.

What is your point, exactly? What I'm hearing from you is "It is normal and natural for mothers to be separated from their babies and young toddlers. This is proven by the historical examples of poor and enslaved women having to leave their babies. Therefore, OP should get over missing her child." ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

OP is not saying she feels guilty. She's saying she genuinely misses her child. Just because you don't feel that way doesn't mean other women don't feel that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read this dear pp who thinks motherhood as you know it is not patriarchal product of men "reclaiming their power" in industrial era.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09612029900200202
Then read this
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/history-of-education-quarterly/article/making-good-wives-and-mothers-the-transformation-of-middleclass-girls-education-in-nineteenthcentury-britain/737D0E092DC98426B104A509194FFE00

I’ll look at your articles. But this is still a short view of human history. For thousands of years, (not exceptionally wealthy) women strapped the baby to them and went about their day of work. The PP is right that this couldn’t be avoided because they had to nurse the baby. Kids typically nursed for years, but of course they could be cared for by other family members once they were 2 or so. But being watched by grandma of a sibling is still very different from a modern daycare setting. You can argue it’s better or worse, but yes— a mother being away from her infant or toddler for 8+ hours a Day is relatively new in human history (again, excluding the rich & royal with wet nurses).

I'm the "dear PP" that I think this PP is referring to. Are you really trying to argue that for most of human history, mothers left their INFANTS (remember, that's the age of child we're talking about) with other caretakers for 8+ hours every day? And that it is a recent idea that mothers should spend the majority of their day with their infant?

[Anonymous]

Comparing how we raise children now to the past is silly. I would like to think that maybe we've gotten better at it or at least would try to get better at it.

[Anonymous]

Unless you are the President of a country, a Nobel Prize winner, or, like, Beyoncé, you DO NOT have a big job. Sorry big law partners and iBankers, no one is going to remember you professionally 5 years after you retire. And worst of all, no one will care about you personally either, since you spent all your time at work!

[Anonymous]

I think being with my kids is a gift and my right as a mother. Thankfully, DH agreed with me and I have been with my children. Blessed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think being with my kids is a gift and my right as a mother. Thankfully, DH agreed with me and I have been with my children. Blessed.

So I guess it’s not his right as a father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless you are the President of a country, a Nobel Prize winner, or, like, Beyoncé, you DO NOT have a big job. Sorry big law partners and iBankers, no one is going to remember you professionally 5 years after you retire. And worst of all, no one will care about you personally either, since you spent all your time at work!

No one is going to remember you parented your kids either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I love to farm with my toddler all day. He drives the tractor and milks the cows. Quality time.

NP. +1 to "this just isn't true." So many things....
First of all, don't pretend like 20th century SAHM's invented being close by to your children. If you look at breastfeeding, we are designed as humans to be close by our babies and young toddlers (and maybe even older toddlers) all day. I AM NOT saying formula is bad, daycare is bad, etc. I'm just saying, for most of human history, women didn't just leave their babies and toddlers all day. They couldn't. Historically, women that farmed, cooked, cleaned, did other chores all day, had their babies and toddlers nearby or even strapped onto them. No, they weren't actively playing with them all day, but having your baby nearby while you do something else is very different from having them in daycare.
Two, please remember OP is talking about a baby and a toddler! No, mom's in 70's weren't sending their BABIES AND TODDLERS out to roam the streets. Obviously. So how is it relevant to OP that 70s moms used to send their children out to play?

This is getting hilarious. You think upper-class women were with their babies and toddlers all day?

Okay no, many upper class women (ie a tiny slice of the population....) had wet nurses and nannies. I'm sure the ones who really let their wet nurses and nannies do most of the child rearing were the same as moms today who prefer to work and send their kids to daycare. No big deal. But I'm sure there were also plenty of rich women who spent a lot of time in the nursery with their babies and toddler even though they had wet nurses and nannies. It's not like they were forced to be away from them if they didn't want to be. I'm mostly responding to PP's idea that throughout history mothers have been separated from their babies and toddlers. It's just not true.

you are REALLY not very bright. Wow. I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

Show me your evidence for women throughout history being separated from their babies and toddlers! Show me your evidence that even rich women spent most of the day separated from their children, whether they wanted to or not. Let's picture OP as an 19th century wealthy woman. She decides she wants to spend more time with her baby than the usual one hour a day after tea or whatever. You think she wouldn't be allowed to for some reason...?

Your ignorance is seriously frightening.

You know who was separated from their children in your scenario? The wet nurses, nannies, and maids (and most of them were slaves).

We don't need to picture OP as a white wealthy woman of the 19 century. There are plenty of trashy novels that will help you with that fantasy.

What is your point, exactly? What I'm hearing from you is "It is normal and natural for mothers to be separated from their babies and young toddlers. This is proven by the historical examples of poor and enslaved women having to leave their babies. Therefore, OP should get over missing her child." ?

If that's what you are "hearing" than you are seriously stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you are the President of a country, a Nobel Prize winner, or, like, Beyoncé, you DO NOT have a big job. Sorry big law partners and iBankers, no one is going to remember you professionally 5 years after you retire. And worst of all, no one will care about you personally either, since you spent all your time at work!

No one is going to remember you parented your kids either.

Umm... your kids will!

Btw, this is a jab at the “mediocre job” poster, not against working parents (as I am one). All hail the mediocre, non-consuming job that allows you to have a life while still finding some meaning in your work!

[Anonymous]

Cats in the Cradle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read this dear pp who thinks motherhood as you know it is not patriarchal product of men "reclaiming their power" in industrial era.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09612029900200202
Then read this
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/history-of-education-quarterly/article/making-good-wives-and-mothers-the-transformation-of-middleclass-girls-education-in-nineteenthcentury-britain/737D0E092DC98426B104A509194FFE00

I’ll look at your articles. But this is still a short view of human history. For thousands of years, (not exceptionally wealthy) women strapped the baby to them and went about their day of work. The PP is right that this couldn’t be avoided because they had to nurse the baby. Kids typically nursed for years, but of course they could be cared for by other family members once they were 2 or so. But being watched by grandma of a sibling is still very different from a modern daycare setting. You can argue it’s better or worse, but yes— a mother being away from her infant or toddler for 8+ hours a Day is relatively new in human history (again, excluding the rich & royal with wet nurses).

I'm the "dear PP" that I think this PP is referring to. Are you really trying to argue that for most of human history, mothers left their INFANTS (remember, that's the age of child we're talking about) with other caretakers for 8+ hours every day? And that it is a recent idea that mothers should spend the majority of their day with their infant?

What? No, that’s the exact opposite of what I’m saying. Please read my post again.

[Anonymous]

For the top of the industry poster, whom I imagine is looking around, shaking her head at the mediocrity- there are only so many top of the industry jobs. That’s the very definition of “top” isn’t it? Just a few. So the rest of us work in mediocre jobs, which is fine with me!

[Anonymous]

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.

Clearly you don't know women in academia then. For a lot of them their identity is very much tied to their work as a scholar and teacher. Just as it is for the men. It's why you see some professors still working in their 70's and 80's.