SAHM with kids in school? Dealing with judgement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say it to your face but I agree with her.
- Independently wealthy and working in a meaningful job

NP here. I would not say anything on your face, PP, but I wonder why is that your family not meaningful to you? Why is being with them and nurturing them not the most meaningful, loving and fulfilling job you could ever do? If you think that only little kids need a full time mom then you are deluded and not really been involved in raising kids. You have outsourced raising your kids (if you have kids) and it was probably ok for your family. Older kids need you differently, but not less. But, that is a moot point - your family is not the most meaningful and time consuming thing for you - and that is your prerogative.

I find people who say or think like the PP above, very unenlightened.

OP, you have the most meaningful and wonderful job in the world. If you have the money to take care of your needs and some wants, then feel free to LIVE your life and spend time with your family.

Stay Blessed!

D

it's not a job. Everyone's kids grow up.

Dp Ok if it isn't a job than why do you have to pay your nannies or daycare? Why don't they do it out of LOOOOVE for your precious snowflakes?

What a stupid question. No, nannies or daycare don't love your child - only you do. That's why you'd do it out love but they only do it for the money. You don't love any other children like your own either.

Stupid answer, you completely missed the PP point but proved their point. You agree that nannies don't love your children, they get paid because it's a job. You take care of your children because you love them, meaning it isn't a job because you don't get paid to do it, you take care of your family because it's a responsibility you have, like feeding your dog or watering your garden.

When the media talks about unpaid work people do apart from their actual jobs I think some SAHM's have taken that unpaid work to mean it's a job. It's like someone doing volunteer work and then saying that is their job. If someone told you they worked at a hospital you would think they got paid, now if they tell you they volunteer at a hospital you think it's volunteer work for a hobby.

Nannies get paid for their job, a mother has a child as a lifestyle choice and therefore has to parent that child. How you parent that child is again a lifestyle choice. Who cares if you decide to WOH or SAH, who cares but don't try to make it into something more important than it is. Have you ever seen a doctor walk around saying "I do the most important job in the world". No but they do, because it's the truth they don't need to shout out about it. No one believes the SAHM's, it's embarrassing when they try to argue the point, they just look stupid. Raise your family well and people will respect that, jump up and down how raising your child is a job and people will roll their eye's at you even if it's inward.

[Anonymous]

This is so sad. The non stop judgement and the fighting about sahm vs wohm. It’s a life choice and personal and what may work for one person may not for another. It’s like discussing politics. We need to stop. It’s not black and white. I live in an area where there are lots of SAHMs and WOHMs and we coexist fine and some are great friends. If anyone judges you negatively on your choices, stay away! Do a slow or fast fade and call it a day. Life’s too short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s envious. End of story.

definitely this.

So what would you say about women who have plenty of personal money and choose to work? And also have wonderful relationships with their children?

They are liars or their children are very young. No one always has wonderful relationships with their children, no matter what their working status.

So in your opinion why donstay at home moms claim they have better relationships with / “are doing it for” their children, despite research showing no effect on kids?

Because they probably do have better relationships. There is a long way between “better” and “wonderful.”

And every study that I have ever seen shows that when families are in the situation described above (stable marriage with plenty of money), that the kids are better off with stay at home mothers.

There aren't any large, peer-reviewed studies that say that. I am familiar with the academic work that is considered accepted, valid research, and there aren't any that say the bolded.

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-6-915.pdf

You have now seen this meta analysis. You’re welcome.

Uh, that doesn't say what you think it does. Do you understand academic work?

I am not great at statistics, but I can read a discussion.

"By and large, moderator analyses indicated that early maternal employment was associated with beneficial child outcomes when families were at risk socioeconomically, particularly in the context of families with single parents and on welfare; these findings support the compensatory hypothesis of employment for these families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003). In contrast, other analyses indicated that employment was associated with negative child outcomes when families were not at risk financially (i.e., when families were middle or upper-middle class); these findings support the lost resources hypothesis for these types of families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003)."

"The results of this meta-analysis suggest that early maternal employment in sole-provider families may bolster children’s achievement and buffer against problem behaviors, perhaps because of the added financial security and health benefits that accompany employment, as well as improved food, clothing, and shelter because of increased income and the psychological importance of having a role model for achievement and responsible behavior. In contrast, early maternal employment may be detrimental for the behavior of children in two-parent families if the increases in family income do not offset the challenges introduced by maternal employment during children’s early years of life"


I am not saying that people need to make personal family decisions based on population studies. Everyone has individual factors that they need to take into account. But research does show that maternal employment has an effect on kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say it to your face but I agree with her.
- Independently wealthy and working in a meaningful job

NP here. I would not say anything on your face, PP, but I wonder why is that your family not meaningful to you? Why is being with them and nurturing them not the most meaningful, loving and fulfilling job you could ever do? If you think that only little kids need a full time mom then you are deluded and not really been involved in raising kids. You have outsourced raising your kids (if you have kids) and it was probably ok for your family. Older kids need you differently, but not less. But, that is a moot point - your family is not the most meaningful and time consuming thing for you - and that is your prerogative.

I find people who say or think like the PP above, very unenlightened.

OP, you have the most meaningful and wonderful job in the world. If you have the money to take care of your needs and some wants, then feel free to LIVE your life and spend time with your family.

Stay Blessed!

D

it's not a job. Everyone's kids grow up.

Dp Ok if it isn't a job than why do you have to pay your nannies or daycare? Why don't they do it out of LOOOOVE for your precious snowflakes?

What a stupid question. No, nannies or daycare don't love your child - only you do. That's why you'd do it out love but they only do it for the money. You don't love any other children like your own either.

Stupid answer, you completely missed the PP point but proved their point. You agree that nannies don't love your children, they get paid because it's a job. You take care of your children because you love them, meaning it isn't a job because you don't get paid to do it, you take care of your family because it's a responsibility you have, like feeding your dog or watering your garden.

When the media talks about unpaid work people do apart from their actual jobs I think some SAHM's have taken that unpaid work to mean it's a job. It's like someone doing volunteer work and then saying that is their job. If someone told you they worked at a hospital you would think they got paid, now if they tell you they volunteer at a hospital you think it's volunteer work for a hobby.

Nannies get paid for their job, a mother has a child as a lifestyle choice and therefore has to parent that child. How you parent that child is again a lifestyle choice. Who cares if you decide to WOH or SAH, who cares but don't try to make it into something more important than it is. Have you ever seen a doctor walk around saying "I do the most important job in the world". No but they do, because it's the truth they don't need to shout out about it. No one believes the SAHM's, it's embarrassing when they try to argue the point, they just look stupid. Raise your family well and people will respect that, jump up and down how raising your child is a job and people will roll their eye's at you even if it's inward.

To the pp,

Most of the SAHM that I know do NOT jump up and down saying how they do the most important job although I would argue raising a child to be a productive, nice caring individual is the most important job whether it is done by a SAHP or nanny or daycare. I think the tables have turned as in the past it was the working moms who felt shame for having to leave their kids and now SAHM are shamed. If anything ( I was a SAHM) I was made to feel embarrassed or less than if I said I was one. Some people literally turned away from me at parties as if I have nothing interesting to contribute. Perhaps if we got away from asking that question "what do you do" Than we would get to know the person first before making judgement.

I was asked what I did at a doctor's office but, I fail to see how this is relevant to looking at my colon. As long as you are paid why do you need to know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God. The work I do for myself is far more meaningful than the corporation I worked for. It's sad we live in a culture that values money over absolutely everything: over friendship, family, humanism, activism, art and music, being happy or healthy. Some literally value this woman getting a meaningless job to earn pennies when she doesn't need it, even if it made her life shorter or her family more stressed. I hope that woman chokes on her sour grapes.

The fact of the matter is that your shelter and food isn't free. When one adult relies on another to supply that adult's basic needs, judgment comes up. It has nothing to do with art or music. I mean you can still have friends and love music and be happy while paying your own bills you know.

Of course, shelter and food isn't free. Yet, between a married couple, there is an arrangement where either both WOH and work in the domestic sphere, or one WOH and one SAH, or one WOH and helps around the house as needed and the other SAH and work parttimes, or whatever the hell works for both of them.

If you see marriage as a partnership where people WOH, SAH, WAH, and divvy up everything the best way that works for them, then the food and shelter is also part of the marriage partnership.

As long as people are not asking their neighbors to pay for their food and shelter, I am perfectly ok with couples to work it out the way it works for their relationship and family.

A family has obligation to meet the basic needs of its members. How well they do it, how egalitarian it is - is the minutia I don't care about. I think adults can work out these details in their own family.

The comment above has nothing to do a married couple. It mentioned money above "absolutely everything: over friendship, family, humanism, activism, art and music, being happy or healthy". All of these things are equally open to an unmarried person. So what you (or the person above is saying) is that you should be able to value these things over money - if your spouse agrees. Otherwise - or if you're single - art, music, humanism or being "happy or healthy" (whatever that is and as if that doesn't require money) can wait.

Np so there isn't any situation where we help our neighbors who may be down on their luck and need help with shelter or food? How about an emergency like hurricane, earthquake etc. We should have some basic empathy.

No. Helping as charity is different that providing for your family and dependents. You have a choice to help or not help your neighbor. You also have a choice to marry a person who has the same ideas as you about what the roles and divisions of responsibilities will be. If you have a spouse who does not want to work, you have the choice to divorce them under the rule of law, With a neighbor there is no such obligation or legal requirement to work collaboratively. What you give to a neighbor is what you give as charity. To your non-working souse and dependents, you have to give money for meeting basic needs. This is called alimony and child support if you divorce.

Seriously, are you that feeble minded that this was your response?

There was no need to call anyone feeble minded. Do you feel better after hurling that insult?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say it to your face but I agree with her.
- Independently wealthy and working in a meaningful job

NP here. I would not say anything on your face, PP, but I wonder why is that your family not meaningful to you? Why is being with them and nurturing them not the most meaningful, loving and fulfilling job you could ever do? If you think that only little kids need a full time mom then you are deluded and not really been involved in raising kids. You have outsourced raising your kids (if you have kids) and it was probably ok for your family. Older kids need you differently, but not less. But, that is a moot point - your family is not the most meaningful and time consuming thing for you - and that is your prerogative.

I find people who say or think like the PP above, very unenlightened.

OP, you have the most meaningful and wonderful job in the world. If you have the money to take care of your needs and some wants, then feel free to LIVE your life and spend time with your family.

Stay Blessed!

D

it's not a job. Everyone's kids grow up.

Dp Ok if it isn't a job than why do you have to pay your nannies or daycare? Why don't they do it out of LOOOOVE for your precious snowflakes?

SAHM here, and I hate this argument. Being a parent and caring for your own children isn't a job. It's a relationship.

If that doesn't make sense to you, think about brushing your teeth, delivering a Christmas gift to your mom, or having sex with your husband. Yes, you could pay someone to do those things, and when you do, they are doing a job. But when you are doing them yourself, it isn't a job. It's part of maintaining an important relationship with yourself, your mother, or your husband.

This is why being a present, available parent is so important to most people. It isn't a monetary calculation. It isn't because this job is preferable to some other job. It's because this relationship is important, and many people will give up something substantial, far more than the salary of a paid employee, in order to be able to do it.

I'm the pp and you missed my point entirely. I know it is a relationship but, it is also a job because other people get paid to do it if you are unable to. Got it?

You can pay someone to brush your teeth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say it to your face but I agree with her.
- Independently wealthy and working in a meaningful job

NP here. I would not say anything on your face, PP, but I wonder why is that your family not meaningful to you? Why is being with them and nurturing them not the most meaningful, loving and fulfilling job you could ever do? If you think that only little kids need a full time mom then you are deluded and not really been involved in raising kids. You have outsourced raising your kids (if you have kids) and it was probably ok for your family. Older kids need you differently, but not less. But, that is a moot point - your family is not the most meaningful and time consuming thing for you - and that is your prerogative.

I find people who say or think like the PP above, very unenlightened.

OP, you have the most meaningful and wonderful job in the world. If you have the money to take care of your needs and some wants, then feel free to LIVE your life and spend time with your family.

Stay Blessed!

D

it's not a job. Everyone's kids grow up.

Dp Ok if it isn't a job than why do you have to pay your nannies or daycare? Why don't they do it out of LOOOOVE for your precious snowflakes?

What a stupid question. No, nannies or daycare don't love your child - only you do. That's why you'd do it out love but they only do it for the money. You don't love any other children like your own either.

Stupid answer, you completely missed the PP point but proved their point. You agree that nannies don't love your children, they get paid because it's a job. You take care of your children because you love them, meaning it isn't a job because you don't get paid to do it, you take care of your family because it's a responsibility you have, like feeding your dog or watering your garden.

When the media talks about unpaid work people do apart from their actual jobs I think some SAHM's have taken that unpaid work to mean it's a job. It's like someone doing volunteer work and then saying that is their job. If someone told you they worked at a hospital you would think they got paid, now if they tell you they volunteer at a hospital you think it's volunteer work for a hobby.

Nannies get paid for their job, a mother has a child as a lifestyle choice and therefore has to parent that child. How you parent that child is again a lifestyle choice. Who cares if you decide to WOH or SAH, who cares but don't try to make it into something more important than it is. Have you ever seen a doctor walk around saying "I do the most important job in the world". No but they do, because it's the truth they don't need to shout out about it. No one believes the SAHM's, it's embarrassing when they try to argue the point, they just look stupid. Raise your family well and people will respect that, jump up and down how raising your child is a job and people will roll their eye's at you even if it's inward.

To the pp,

Most of the SAHM that I know do NOT jump up and down saying how they do the most important job although I would argue raising a child to be a productive, nice caring individual is the most important job whether it is done by a SAHP or nanny or daycare. I think the tables have turned as in the past it was the working moms who felt shame for having to leave their kids and now SAHM are shamed. If anything ( I was a SAHM) I was made to feel embarrassed or less than if I said I was one. Some people literally turned away from me at parties as if I have nothing interesting to contribute. Perhaps if we got away from asking that question "what do you do" Than we would get to know the person first before making judgement.

I was asked what I did at a doctor's office but, I fail to see how this is relevant to looking at my colon. As long as you are paid why do you need to know?

Probably to know if you’re exposed to any risk factors for cancer (or whatever) on the job. The same reason they ask for your height/weight and whether you smoke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say it to your face but I agree with her.
- Independently wealthy and working in a meaningful job

NP here. I would not say anything on your face, PP, but I wonder why is that your family not meaningful to you? Why is being with them and nurturing them not the most meaningful, loving and fulfilling job you could ever do? If you think that only little kids need a full time mom then you are deluded and not really been involved in raising kids. You have outsourced raising your kids (if you have kids) and it was probably ok for your family. Older kids need you differently, but not less. But, that is a moot point - your family is not the most meaningful and time consuming thing for you - and that is your prerogative.

I find people who say or think like the PP above, very unenlightened.

OP, you have the most meaningful and wonderful job in the world. If you have the money to take care of your needs and some wants, then feel free to LIVE your life and spend time with your family.

Stay Blessed!

D

it's not a job. Everyone's kids grow up.

Dp Ok if it isn't a job than why do you have to pay your nannies or daycare? Why don't they do it out of LOOOOVE for your precious snowflakes?

SAHM here, and I hate this argument. Being a parent and caring for your own children isn't a job. It's a relationship.

If that doesn't make sense to you, think about brushing your teeth, delivering a Christmas gift to your mom, or having sex with your husband. Yes, you could pay someone to do those things, and when you do, they are doing a job. But when you are doing them yourself, it isn't a job. It's part of maintaining an important relationship with yourself, your mother, or your husband.

This is why being a present, available parent is so important to most people. It isn't a monetary calculation. It isn't because this job is preferable to some other job. It's because this relationship is important, and many people will give up something substantial, far more than the salary of a paid employee, in order to be able to do it.

I'm the pp and you missed my point entirely. I know it is a relationship but, it is also a job because other people get paid to do it if you are unable to. Got it?

I didn’t miss your point.
If I can’t give my mom her christmas gift, I can pay a service to deliver it to her door. That doesn’t mean that giving my mom a Christmas gift is a job. It is, in fact, something much much more valuable. That is why I will pay $500 for a plane ticket to get it to her myself, but I will only pay a few dollars to have it shipped to her.
Same thing goes for feeding your children or putting them down for a nap. Yes. You can pay someone to do it, and for them it is a job. But for you, it is something different entirely. It is worth much more than what you would pay someone else to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s envious. End of story.

definitely this.

So what would you say about women who have plenty of personal money and choose to work? And also have wonderful relationships with their children?

They are liars or their children are very young. No one always has wonderful relationships with their children, no matter what their working status.

So in your opinion why donstay at home moms claim they have better relationships with / “are doing it for” their children, despite research showing no effect on kids?

Because they probably do have better relationships. There is a long way between “better” and “wonderful.”

And every study that I have ever seen shows that when families are in the situation described above (stable marriage with plenty of money), that the kids are better off with stay at home mothers.

There aren't any large, peer-reviewed studies that say that. I am familiar with the academic work that is considered accepted, valid research, and there aren't any that say the bolded.

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-6-915.pdf

You have now seen this meta analysis. You’re welcome.

Uh, that doesn't say what you think it does. Do you understand academic work?

I am not great at statistics, but I can read a discussion.

"By and large, moderator analyses indicated that early maternal employment was associated with beneficial child outcomes when families were at risk socioeconomically, particularly in the context of families with single parents and on welfare; these findings support the compensatory hypothesis of employment for these families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003). In contrast, other analyses indicated that employment was associated with negative child outcomes when families were not at risk financially (i.e., when families were middle or upper-middle class); these findings support the lost resources hypothesis for these types of families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003)."

"The results of this meta-analysis suggest that early maternal employment in sole-provider families may bolster children’s achievement and buffer against problem behaviors, perhaps because of the added financial security and health benefits that accompany employment, as well as improved food, clothing, and shelter because of increased income and the psychological importance of having a role model for achievement and responsible behavior. In contrast, early maternal employment may be detrimental for the behavior of children in two-parent families if the increases in family income do not offset the challenges introduced by maternal employment during children’s early years of life"


I am not saying that people need to make personal family decisions based on population studies. Everyone has individual factors that they need to take into account. But research does show that maternal employment has an effect on kids.

I haven’t read the study, but I’m pretty sure the challenges they’re referring to are things like being a latchkey kid, not having parents home at night, etc. Not going to a high- quality childcare center etc.

Anyway, I have boys and there is LOTS of evidence that men whose mothers worked are more involved and equal husbands. I’ll take it.

[Anonymous]

I deal with judgement by spending less of my time with those who wish to openly criticise me.

[Anonymous]

I don't get this thread. If get a inkling that someone is judgmental or jealous of me they are long gone.

If you have a OCD about people's life choices time to get some therapy.

Most women I know are in and out of the work force throughout their lives. If that works for them, and their family why on earth would anyone care?

Finally the court doesn't care who actually earns the income, it's equally both spouses. The pensions/assets earned during the marriage are both spouses. That's the law, instead of being jealous aim a little higher to make yourself happy and content. A few on here are obviously very unhappy with their given situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s envious. End of story.

definitely this.

So what would you say about women who have plenty of personal money and choose to work? And also have wonderful relationships with their children?

They are liars or their children are very young. No one always has wonderful relationships with their children, no matter what their working status.

So in your opinion why donstay at home moms claim they have better relationships with / “are doing it for” their children, despite research showing no effect on kids?

Because they probably do have better relationships. There is a long way between “better” and “wonderful.”

And every study that I have ever seen shows that when families are in the situation described above (stable marriage with plenty of money), that the kids are better off with stay at home mothers.

There aren't any large, peer-reviewed studies that say that. I am familiar with the academic work that is considered accepted, valid research, and there aren't any that say the bolded.

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-6-915.pdf

You have now seen this meta analysis. You’re welcome.

Uh, that doesn't say what you think it does. Do you understand academic work?

I am not great at statistics, but I can read a discussion.

"By and large, moderator analyses indicated that early maternal employment was associated with beneficial child outcomes when families were at risk socioeconomically, particularly in the context of families with single parents and on welfare; these findings support the compensatory hypothesis of employment for these families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003). In contrast, other analyses indicated that employment was associated with negative child outcomes when families were not at risk financially (i.e., when families were middle or upper-middle class); these findings support the lost resources hypothesis for these types of families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003)."

"The results of this meta-analysis suggest that early maternal employment in sole-provider families may bolster children’s achievement and buffer against problem behaviors, perhaps because of the added financial security and health benefits that accompany employment, as well as improved food, clothing, and shelter because of increased income and the psychological importance of having a role model for achievement and responsible behavior. In contrast, early maternal employment may be detrimental for the behavior of children in two-parent families if the increases in family income do not offset the challenges introduced by maternal employment during children’s early years of life"


I am not saying that people need to make personal family decisions based on population studies. Everyone has individual factors that they need to take into account. But research does show that maternal employment has an effect on kids.

Sigh. Yes, it's clear that you aren't great at statistics. Or academics, either. I give up.

This was the statement you or a PP made:

"every study that I have ever seen shows that when families are in the situation described above (stable marriage with plenty of money), that the kids are better off with stay at home mothers."

It's just wrong. You should stop saying it, because you sound very ignorant. And I have been both a SAHM and WOHM, currently WOH but likely to SAH again, so I don't have a "side" here. Do whatever you want, but stop lying about the academic research out there to make yourself feel better. Also, just know that when you wildly exaggerate academic research, it makes you sound desperate and defensive to those people who know the literature well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say it to your face but I agree with her.
- Independently wealthy and working in a meaningful job

NP here. I would not say anything on your face, PP, but I wonder why is that your family not meaningful to you? Why is being with them and nurturing them not the most meaningful, loving and fulfilling job you could ever do? If you think that only little kids need a full time mom then you are deluded and not really been involved in raising kids. You have outsourced raising your kids (if you have kids) and it was probably ok for your family. Older kids need you differently, but not less. But, that is a moot point - your family is not the most meaningful and time consuming thing for you - and that is your prerogative.

I find people who say or think like the PP above, very unenlightened.

OP, you have the most meaningful and wonderful job in the world. If you have the money to take care of your needs and some wants, then feel free to LIVE your life and spend time with your family.

Stay Blessed!

D

it's not a job. Everyone's kids grow up.

Dp Ok if it isn't a job than why do you have to pay your nannies or daycare? Why don't they do it out of LOOOOVE for your precious snowflakes?

What a stupid question. No, nannies or daycare don't love your child - only you do. That's why you'd do it out love but they only do it for the money. You don't love any other children like your own either.

Stupid answer, you completely missed the PP point but proved their point. You agree that nannies don't love your children, they get paid because it's a job. You take care of your children because you love them, meaning it isn't a job because you don't get paid to do it, you take care of your family because it's a responsibility you have, like feeding your dog or watering your garden.

When the media talks about unpaid work people do apart from their actual jobs I think some SAHM's have taken that unpaid work to mean it's a job. It's like someone doing volunteer work and then saying that is their job. If someone told you they worked at a hospital you would think they got paid, now if they tell you they volunteer at a hospital you think it's volunteer work for a hobby.

Nannies get paid for their job, a mother has a child as a lifestyle choice and therefore has to parent that child. How you parent that child is again a lifestyle choice. Who cares if you decide to WOH or SAH, who cares but don't try to make it into something more important than it is. Have you ever seen a doctor walk around saying "I do the most important job in the world". No but they do, because it's the truth they don't need to shout out about it. No one believes the SAHM's, it's embarrassing when they try to argue the point, they just look stupid. Raise your family well and people will respect that, jump up and down how raising your child is a job and people will roll their eye's at you even if it's inward.

Np. I don’t think SAHMs facing he scary role for the first time look stupid when hey seek advice about aspects of the role, which is my takeaway from your post. But let’s entertain the idea that you’re right. If so, SAHMs should never complain or fail at heir role because everyone does it? Is that the case with everyone that had your job title too that you earn wages for? No doctors can complain to each other? Not oatients, but peers? So where can those who live this type of life - where you stay at home for example and don’t Earn wages for work others may earn wages for, Discuss the hard work and judgment they deal with?

I’m not a SAHM, but I damn sure bitch about my work. Who cares if my SAHM friends bitch about their work? I don’t get to tell them, you don’t get paid, don’t complain. IF anything, I’d say, you don’t get paid, neither do I as a mom, let’s commiserate.

By the way, dc urban moms is a website that began from a community kistserve with many .. stay at home moms. Just a friendly reminder

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why people care whether a SAHM describes her work as a job. Saying that has no impact whatsoever. Who cares?

- WOHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I deal with judgement by spending less of my time with those who wish to openly criticise me.

Same here and I call them out every time.