Being a working parent sucks

[Anonymous]

We need policies that support families. Why are we so far behind other countries? It shouldn’t take 2 full-time working parents to have a decent middle-class life. I’m a SAHM now, but that’s only possible because DH & I bought our home before the housing boom and worked and saved like crazy for that to happen. We are lucky that our timing was good, but most parents now are exhausted. I worry about my teenage kids if they ever want to have families of their own.

[Anonymous]

I agree that it’s important for women to have their eyes wide open when starting college and settling on a career, but I was miserable being a sahm with my 2nd. We really need to be supportive of all choices. I sah for a few years while dh got settled in his career, then i went back to work ft for my own sanity right after I had my 3rd. Life was crazy the second year (1st year we had a lot of grandparent and neighbor help), but then dh was able to get a remote job, with flexible hours, so he is there to meet the kids off the school bus every day. I will never have the career I dreamed of but it is a good balance. We did move to a lower cola to make it all happen.

I have never heard of “aftercare” at camps but my kids do go to some full day camps. I went to some as well, even having a sahm. I think these can be wonderful places to have child-led socialization and outdoor time (plus a break from screens) - we don’t have the same culture these days where neighborhood kids meet up on their bikes and go out exploring together.

[Anonymous]

Genuine question: all I read about online is how awful it is to be a working mom, but I look at my SIL (my main point of reference) and she seems to be doing well with a high powered ft job and two tween/teen kids. They have a nanny who shuttles the kids to/from school and does some basic chores at home. They make a combined salary of around 300k so it’s not like they’re super wealthy. Is this not doable for most families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question: all I read about online is how awful it is to be a working mom, but I look at my SIL (my main point of reference) and she seems to be doing well with a high powered ft job and two tween/teen kids. They have a nanny who shuttles the kids to/from school and does some basic chores at home. They make a combined salary of around 300k so it’s not like they’re super wealthy. Is this not doable for most families?

Whether $300k is enough to afford a nanny into the teenage years depends on a lot of other factors (other costs/debt/cost of nanny in their area/etc), but contrary to DCUM talk, most families don’t even make $300k. And even people who could afford a nanny don’t necessarily want one — for example, I love my job but I also really wish I could be with my kids the entire time they’re not in school. By the time they’re teens I hope to be part time and fully responsible for ferrying them around myself. So no, your SIL’s life is doable/desirable for most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question: all I read about online is how awful it is to be a working mom, but I look at my SIL (my main point of reference) and she seems to be doing well with a high powered ft job and two tween/teen kids. They have a nanny who shuttles the kids to/from school and does some basic chores at home. They make a combined salary of around 300k so it’s not like they’re super wealthy. Is this not doable for most families?

That would be very unusual for $300k in this area. Is she in a much lower COLA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question: all I read about online is how awful it is to be a working mom, but I look at my SIL (my main point of reference) and she seems to be doing well with a high powered ft job and two tween/teen kids. They have a nanny who shuttles the kids to/from school and does some basic chores at home. They make a combined salary of around 300k so it’s not like they’re super wealthy. Is this not doable for most families?

Most typical mainstream families do not have even one person making $150k per year. Median HHI in metro DC is visibly below $100k/yr.

DCUM has different demographics, so a HHI of $200k or more might be quite common on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My nephew was in aftercare and when my sister would pick him up, he was literally sitting alone under a play structure, without a book or friends, bored and tired. She finally pulled him out because they did *nothing* with the kids. I’m not sure why these places advertise “activities” when they don’t even play a round of Uno with the kids.

DP.

Context: We could never afford an au pair or nanny. So those were not an option for us.

Aftercare and childcare quality varies WIDELY from one place to another, especially for kids age 7 and younger. One really ought to investigate multiple options before choosing a child care facility or in-home daycare.

Our preschool/daycare near Tysons had some letters/numbers/phonics exposure in the morning, educational things to play with, coloring and tracing with crayons, lots of toys to play with, a nice fenced playground with play equipment sun and shade, and many kids who were picked up between 5 and 5:20pm. There was a big late pickup fee if one’s kid were still there after 5:30pm, so most kids were picked up no later than 5:15pm. Most kids were dropped off between 8am and 8:30am. The place met all the VA Dept of Ed requirements, e.g., staff ratios, and had a clean history with the VA safety inspections. Also, they had an open door policy, which we sometimes used, where we could watch her in the classroom without needing a prior appointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the parent who keeps the flex schedule so kids aren't in SACC till 6 or stuck in camp aftercare which is ALWAYS terrible. But my career is so stymied by being parent friendly. Really wish we had focused on breadwinner SAHM model rather than equality and "do it all" fallacy.

That's all. Off to pick up my kids from camp.

I agree that there ought to be more options which really are workable for ordinary families. As a DH, I wish I could stay home with the kids, but the reality is that we both need to work FT outside home. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the parent who keeps the flex schedule so kids aren't in SACC till 6 or stuck in camp aftercare which is ALWAYS terrible. But my career is so stymied by being parent friendly. Really wish we had focused on breadwinner SAHM model rather than equality and "do it all" fallacy.

That's all. Off to pick up my kids from camp.

+1 In your same boat OP. My husband was working in big law when I had my first and told me he'd happily be the breadwinner if I wanted to stay at home. I blame years of indoctrination from my education and even my own parents that WOMEN MUST HAVE A CAREER AND YES THEY CAN HAVE IT ALL, I chose to stay in my well paid but stressful consulting job. As much as it hurt to see my baby get whisked off by a nanny (yes, we had the privilege of affording a nanny but I still didn't love the arrangement), I just could not give up my career. I didn't even love my job, but I loved that I had a career and that's what my peers and society told me I had to have.

Fast forward 5 years, we've had a second kid and husband now works as a government lawyer. I essentially had to mommy track at some point and now I'm neither here nor there. No longer work for the prestigious big name company but still have to keep working so I'm constantly stretched thing as the primary back-up care person, especially in the summer.

Wish I had chosen to be a SAHM when the chance was there. Or not had kids. Or just had one.

If your husband is a gov lawyer, why isn’t he sharing back up duties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question: all I read about online is how awful it is to be a working mom, but I look at my SIL (my main point of reference) and she seems to be doing well with a high powered ft job and two tween/teen kids. They have a nanny who shuttles the kids to/from school and does some basic chores at home. They make a combined salary of around 300k so it’s not like they’re super wealthy. Is this not doable for most families?

Whether $300k is enough to afford a nanny into the teenage years depends on a lot of other factors (other costs/debt/cost of nanny in their area/etc), but contrary to DCUM talk, most families don’t even make $300k. And even people who could afford a nanny don’t necessarily want one — for example, I love my job but I also really wish I could be with my kids the entire time they’re not in school. By the time they’re teens I hope to be part time and fully responsible for ferrying them around myself. So no, your SIL’s life is doable/desirable for most people.

My tween and teen ferry themselves around on the bus and metro. Kids Ride Free has been a godsend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feminist here who never considered being a SAHM because she wanted her independence. While I would not change my path, I have to lament. IT ABSOLUTELY SUCKS for parents that work. The world (at least in the US) is not built for us.

[I'm addressing women because I am one, but this would obviously apply to anyone else who is the Default Parent]

I think women who want to work should but we need an honest conversation about what you give up to work. And I'm not talking about what YOUR KIDS give up, I'm talking about what you as a HUMAN give up. Your time, your peace of mind, your ability to REST is all but eliminated for years. You work all day. You parent evenings and weekends. You don't get a break unless you leave the kids with someone and go somewhere. It takes a toll.

Your kids will be fine no matter what. My kids have amazing caregivers at daycare and great experiences. But I WISH I HAD A FRACTION of my old lifestyle. You can do that, but you have to pay for it with expensive childcare/nannies or live-in family members.

Amen. I just read through this entire thread, but this is the post that resonated the most with me. Flexible work hours, remote work, part-time work, and other flexibility make it easier to be a working parent, but even with those things, it's still hard. You can't do it all yourself, even with an involved partner. Most people who claim that they managed work and family just fine either had extensive family help or outsourced a huge chunk of household and childcare responsibilities, which requires money to do effectively. Perhaps there are some superior human beings who can be on all the time, productively working, parenting, cooking, cleaning, working out, and otherwise attending to the needs of their families and their own, but most of us will become exhausted and overwhelmed trying to do all of these things year after year. Something has to give somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hated it. I felt like I never did anything well.

That’s because being a parent is a FT job. So that’s two FT jobs and only one pays. No one can do that well without a lot of help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m an “anti-aftercare” poster. And a feminist. One has nothing to do with the other. Women should of course be able to work and have full lives. But infants and toddlers should also not be looked after in chaotic institutional settings by minimum-wage employees for 10 hours per day. It’s just wrong in a civilized, wealthy society. And the more anxious society gets, the more vulnerable our kids are. It’s a vicious cycle. And it all coincides with reduced standards in schools, nutrition, environment, security, etc.

I don’t know the solution but the first step in giving children a better start is for the professional classes to recognize the reality most of humankind knows. Flex hours, a few years of paid leave for both sexes, higher pay for daycare workers…all of this would be a start. But all the feminists who deny basic child development make me so upset. In my circle, most of the biggest aftercare and daycare users actually had sahms or nannies themselves.

They think because I didn’t change my name, vote for dems, married late, am an atheist etc that I agree with them. I don’t want anyone to feel judged because it’s not about them—it’s about what’s right for children.

Not all daycare is like this. Other countries like France have developed great universal childcare systems. Additionally, “years of paid leave” is neither realistic nor good for our economy nor good for women. Let’s start with 12 weeks. Paying women to stay at home is something Hungary does, not France.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminist here who never considered being a SAHM because she wanted her independence. While I would not change my path, I have to lament. IT ABSOLUTELY SUCKS for parents that work. The world (at least in the US) is not built for us.

[I'm addressing women because I am one, but this would obviously apply to anyone else who is the Default Parent]

I think women who want to work should but we need an honest conversation about what you give up to work. And I'm not talking about what YOUR KIDS give up, I'm talking about what you as a HUMAN give up. Your time, your peace of mind, your ability to REST is all but eliminated for years. You work all day. You parent evenings and weekends. You don't get a break unless you leave the kids with someone and go somewhere. It takes a toll.

Your kids will be fine no matter what. My kids have amazing caregivers at daycare and great experiences. But I WISH I HAD A FRACTION of my old lifestyle. You can do that, but you have to pay for it with expensive childcare/nannies or live-in family members.

Amen. I just read through this entire thread, but this is the post that resonated the most with me. Flexible work hours, remote work, part-time work, and other flexibility make it easier to be a working parent, but even with those things, it's still hard. You can't do it all yourself, even with an involved partner. Most people who claim that they managed work and family just fine either had extensive family help or outsourced a huge chunk of household and childcare responsibilities, which requires money to do effectively. Perhaps there are some superior human beings who can be on all the time, productively working, parenting, cooking, cleaning, working out, and otherwise attending to the needs of their families and their own, but most of us will become exhausted and overwhelmed trying to do all of these things year after year. Something has to give somewhere.

I agree, the post you quoted is one of the realest I've read! I really appreciated it and I'm happy that you quoted it because I missed it initially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an “anti-aftercare” poster. And a feminist. One has nothing to do with the other. Women should of course be able to work and have full lives. But infants and toddlers should also not be looked after in chaotic institutional settings by minimum-wage employees for 10 hours per day. It’s just wrong in a civilized, wealthy society. And the more anxious society gets, the more vulnerable our kids are. It’s a vicious cycle. And it all coincides with reduced standards in schools, nutrition, environment, security, etc.

I don’t know the solution but the first step in giving children a better start is for the professional classes to recognize the reality most of humankind knows. Flex hours, a few years of paid leave for both sexes, higher pay for daycare workers…all of this would be a start. But all the feminists who deny basic child development make me so upset. In my circle, most of the biggest aftercare and daycare users actually had sahms or nannies themselves.

They think because I didn’t change my name, vote for dems, married late, am an atheist etc that I agree with them. I don’t want anyone to feel judged because it’s not about them—it’s about what’s right for children.

How are you so supposedly educated and not know about Montessori education? They have awesome afrercare too. My kids get mad if I pick them up early and they miss cooking, chess, or any of the other activities.

Also what are you rambling about with child development? Do you run a cooking class from you house after school? And is your chess game good enough to teach chess? And do you also personally teach your kids violin? Flute? What about a second language? You aren't the end all and be all for your child. To believe that is unhealthy!

Kids don’t need chess and cooking classes in elementary school. They need a family member and a peaceful home.

This is absolutely the worst. People who think their kids need just them to thrive and be happy. Talk to other adults who had to grow up in homes where family time was all that was available. It’s not great.