Pre-Teen is resentful of how much I work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, what's hard to understand is that you think that 1 parent is absent when there is a big earner?

I think OPs situation sucks. We all assume she's a big earner because she's a lawyer and she's working until 1 am, but, as I just said above, my DH is a lawyer and doesn't work until 1 am!! We would not be okay with that lifestyle.

The problem is that you assume a SAH parent and a big earner has 1 absent parent.

I do not assume 1 parent is absent. It was stated that 1 parent was absent so she SAH.

Here is the quote...

DH is working all the time.

I stated that.

Allowing this model to continue is terrible for both the future of our sons and daughters.

Men need to raise their kids and stop using work as an excuse.

Then somebody posted...

I think that's easy to say, but sometimes harder to put into practice.

All I was saying was that kids need 2 parents. I did not say every single high earner is a neglectful parent. I did not say all SAH moms have a H that is neglectful.

I said if somebody works all the time (like OP and her H) that BOTH need to adjust their schedule not just one of them.

My advice to OP is that BOTH of them need to be in their kids lives... do you disagree?

You are pulling a lines from a bunch of different posts that were all pointed in somewhat different directions and written by different people, and then pretending they were some kind of unified statement. That's not how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

Exactly. As the poster who has been repeatedly criticized as having disengaged father for a husband, my husband rarely works as late as OP does. He travels sometimes, but not every month, and even then we schedule skype calls for him with the kids every day, we've even done things like set up the ipad at the table so we all play a board game together and I make the moves DH tells me to, or we buy a second copy of our younger child's favorite book (he can't read yet) so they can read it together over skype. He often isn't home until after bedtimes, but he goes into work after the kids go to school, and they're up early enough that there's time for them to spend undistracted time with their father in the mornings. Does he do mid-week Target runs? Generally no, I handle that, but so what? If there's the need for a weekend Target run with the kids, more likely than not he will handle it because I hate Target on the weekend with the fire of a thousand suns.

So then why are you making this about you. This thread is about OP and her H who clearly are not there.

Why is your advise that OP's kids only need her and not her H?

Other than sharing some snippets of my own experience to put context to my thoughts, I've only made about me the parts where you've attacked me personally. I never advised OP that her kids need only her and not her husband, I've been very careful in my posts to say that OP and her husbandneed to figure out some changes to make sure the kids' needs are being met. I'm not in OP's life to know who has more flexibility where to make those changes so I wouldn't presume to tell her how it should happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, what's hard to understand is that you think that 1 parent is absent when there is a big earner?

I think OPs situation sucks. We all assume she's a big earner because she's a lawyer and she's working until 1 am, but, as I just said above, my DH is a lawyer and doesn't work until 1 am!! We would not be okay with that lifestyle.

The problem is that you assume a SAH parent and a big earner has 1 absent parent.

I do not assume 1 parent is absent. It was stated that 1 parent was absent so she SAH.

Here is the quote...

DH is working all the time.

I stated that.

Allowing this model to continue is terrible for both the future of our sons and daughters.

Men need to raise their kids and stop using work as an excuse.

Then somebody posted...

I think that's easy to say, but sometimes harder to put into practice.

All I was saying was that kids need 2 parents. I did not say every single high earner is a neglectful parent. I did not say all SAH moms have a H that is neglectful.

I said if somebody works all the time (like OP and her H) that BOTH need to adjust their schedule not just one of them.

My advice to OP is that BOTH of them need to be in their kids lives... do you disagree?

The quote "DH is working all the time" is so vague, and I'm so sorry you took that literally. If I were to say this (I'm the PP who said DH doesn't work until 1 am and I consider him someone who works long hours and is a big earner, while I SAH) I wouldn't mean working until 1 am every weekday night. Even at the busiest of times I cannot remember a time when DH didn't stop working from 7:30-8:30 or 9:00 to be with the family, most weekday nights. If he worked until 1 am it would be exceptional. It happens, but it would be exceptional. So I might say, "oh he works all the time," meaning he really can't miss work to take a kid to the doctor or be home for the plumber when the fridge breaks or whatever, plus things have been "extra crazy" if he's working late a couple nights recently.

The last and only time he worked hours that long were when we was a junior associate, and was young, and proving himself (and we didn't have kids). Sometimes I think big law gets a bad reputation because people LEAVE at that point and think it goes on like that forever, but usually lawyers don't continue to work late into the night all the time as they get more senior.

The point is, you're grabbing hold of these vague statements and taking them very literally. I don't think the PP who said her H works "all the time" LITERALLY has a husband who is working all the time!

[Anonymous]

^^ Which is to say, yes, both OP and her H should adjust their schedules, and figure out what they are doing that is causing them to work so late so often. They shouldn't be doing that, if they are efficient and productive, and have the right support team at home (hired or not).

It might help OP to try to get a better sense of what other people in her (and her husband's) place of work do to manage work/life balance. Something isn't right if she's regularly working those hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op you need to get your values in line. This is horrible and very sad. There is nothing more important in life than parenting your children, if you make the choice to have them.

Amen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have truly beat this dead horse until there's nothing left to say. You refuse to see what multiple posters have patiently been explaining to you, so I won't bother (again). You don't make any sense at all, and several people have called you on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

Exactly. PP just keeps repeating a straw man that no one has even said. Talk about projecting. It's futile trying to explain to her what everyone else here seems to agree on, so I'm not going to bother anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

You have some serious reading comprehension issues. I'm one of the posters you claim has said this, and what you're reading into my posts isn't there any more than your posts say you had a ham sandwich for lunch.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I have to shake my head when I hear posters (always only here in DCUM-land) who make sweeping assumptions that SAHPs *must* have a WOHP who is never home due to a high-powered career w/travel, long hours, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth among people I know and in my own family. Yes, usually the WOHP parent is a high-earner, but with lots of seniority/high-level/flexibility to come home whenever and/or make their own hours. I think there's a lot of jealousy (yes, I said it) among women who criticize SAHMs. They simply can't - and won't - believe that these SAHMs have spouses who are extremely involved in their kids' lives because they're home early every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 was not close to my SAHM. Just because she was physically there does not mean she was present. She was busy... cooking, cleaning, watching her soaps, taking care of her mother.

I knew my dad would be home at 5 and he was the one that understood and cared. He never missed my sports and was fun and caring.

I was never that close with my mom, not nearly as close as I was with my dad.

That's really sad. I had a SAHM and consider myself incredibly fortunate. My mom was so much fun, and had the best sense of humor, always playing with us, pulling pranks, and just generally hanging out. I hope I'm half as good a mother to my own kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

No I am not shocked. Most of the families I know SAH/WOH/WAH earn a lot of money and are home with their kids.

What I don't think is a good model is having 1 parent at home and 1 parent that is absent. How is that hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, what's hard to understand is that you think that 1 parent is absent when there is a big earner?

I think OPs situation sucks. We all assume she's a big earner because she's a lawyer and she's working until 1 am, but, as I just said above, my DH is a lawyer and doesn't work until 1 am!! We would not be okay with that lifestyle.

The problem is that you assume a SAH parent and a big earner has 1 absent parent.

THIS. This is the straw man that the PP won't let go of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I have to shake my head when I hear posters (always only here in DCUM-land) who make sweeping assumptions that SAHPs *must* have a WOHP who is never home due to a high-powered career w/travel, long hours, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth among people I know and in my own family. Yes, usually the WOHP parent is a high-earner, but with lots of seniority/high-level/flexibility to come home whenever and/or make their own hours. I think there's a lot of jealousy (yes, I said it) among women who criticize SAHMs. They simply can't - and won't - believe that these SAHMs have spouses who are extremely involved in their kids' lives because they're home early every day.

My DH comes home early and is very involved and it comes at the expense of his working at a higher level at work. He does earn a fine salary but he does worry that when there are cut backs and layoffs they'll zero in on him. It's a regular worry these days. You can't actually have your cake and eat it too , there are trade offs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are these parents are who drop everything to run to Target at night because their middle schooler didn't plan ahead and now needs something last minute?

Are you the same parents who predict OP is screwing up her kids "by working too much"?

Seems to me a 12 year old is more than old enough to understand -- and experience -- the consequences of her own choices and actions.

If she fails to plan and leaves things to the last minute, she is out of luck. Let her go in to school the next day and work it out with the teacher. Next time she'll likely plan and communicate more appropriately about what she needs and when.

By the way, my 9 year old gets this completely.

She's in fourth grade, and she knows it's her responsibility to write assignments in her planner and share them with us when she needs help (like supplies from Target). Nothing is ever last minute because she stays on top of it. In part because she learned long ago that she's responsible for her actions -- not me, and not DH.

Our role is to love her, listen to her, support her, experience life with her etc. Not to be at her beck and call, and not to bail her out with "emergency" Target runs at night because she forgot that she needs poster board or god knows what else for the following morning.

Everyone agrees no one needs to be at her beck and call. But to love her, listen to her, support her and experience life with her, the parent actually has to be there. That is what OPs daughter is really saying. She needs a parent present in her life to e experiencing life with her. She needs someone who has te time to listen and support her. All those things take time and if you work to 12 or 1 am, you have no time

Exactly. It's clear there are some posters who want to insist the only problem here is that OP's daughter asked for supplies at the last minute and should have planned ahead. That's the LEAST of OP's issues. The actual problem is that neither OP nor her husband are around - ever. And when they are home, they are immersed in work. The daughter has learned that she can't rely on her parents, she can't ask to go out to dinner as a family, and she can't ask them to take her to friends' houses. Why? Because both parents have *chosen* work over parenting. And that's the crux of the matter. Not some stupid poster board run.

I think this thread makes clear that some people feel their only responsibility as parents is to provide food/clothing/shelter. Emotional engagement isn't something they take seriously. Other people view parenting differently.

+1. I'm going to channel our president regarding 1/3rd of the parents on this thread:

SAD!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I have to shake my head when I hear posters (always only here in DCUM-land) who make sweeping assumptions that SAHPs *must* have a WOHP who is never home due to a high-powered career w/travel, long hours, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth among people I know and in my own family. Yes, usually the WOHP parent is a high-earner, but with lots of seniority/high-level/flexibility to come home whenever and/or make their own hours. I think there's a lot of jealousy (yes, I said it) among women who criticize SAHMs. They simply can't - and won't - believe that these SAHMs have spouses who are extremely involved in their kids' lives because they're home early every day.

My DH comes home early and is very involved and it comes at the expense of his working at a higher level at work. He does earn a fine salary but he does worry that when there are cut backs and layoffs they'll zero in on him. It's a regular worry these days. You can't actually have your cake and eat it too , there are trade offs.

Not always. Just because this is your husband's situation, doesn't mean it applies to everyone.