S/O Why do you care if moms stay home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a wohm. I admit that it’s a constant struggle between wanting to spend time with kids but also working. I want both! I spent so many years in school and am excited about my career. I also love my kids! I look for flexible jobs that will allow me to be home early to pick them up from preschool.

I sometimes feel guilty when sahms say, “i want to be there for my kids,” “family first,” “i could never send them to daycare/nanny,” “can’t trust anyone,” etc.

At work, I feel bad for having to draw the line and say I can’t do certain things bc of my kids.

It would be amazing if the sahms and wohms, non parents - EVERYONE- understood that raising good kids is a benefit to society. If that means wohms who have more flexible schedules offer other wohms to carpool more or sahms offer to help the wahms bc they have more time, that would be great! Employers understanding that parents (not just moms) need flexibility is amaing. We need everyone to help each other and not just focus on our nuclear family. If we did this, society would be so mich better off

I don't. Seriously, I don't care what you do, but the minute a woman says something suggesting that women who work don't love their kids as much, I write them off as a piece of shit. Seriously. I don't care what you do, but insinuating that other mothers don't love their kids makes you a garbage person. Period. It's worse, IMO, than thinking that women who stay at home are lazy or whatever.

Do whatever you want--work, don't--but keep your sanctimonious self-justification to yourself.

Yep.

Your reaction is an eye-opener. If someone suggested that I am not a good mom, I would just laugh. Your reaction suggests that you are well aware that you fall short in giving your time to your child. That's why even a perceived suggestion makes you mad.

And who are you to decide that calling a SAHM as lazy is less egregious? I think a woman who leaves her high paying job to put in the effort to raise her child herself is far better than one who pays someone else a low salary to look after her child. It shows what you value. You are able to put a low dollar amount to the effort of spending the time with your own child. Unless your salary is being earned so that you can put a roof over your head and feed your family, you have no moral high ground to stand on.

As a WOHM, how are you helping other WOHMs? How are you fighting for better conditions for all parents at your workplace? Oh, you are doing nothing? I thought so.

You are off your rocker. You are probably the most judgmental disgusting person on this thread. The fact that you don't see that is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Toddler sized soccer ball on sale - $3
A bottle of bubbles - $1
Cost of gas to drive to the nearest state park - $2
Packing a picnic and hanging out in the park with your toddlers today - Priceless!!

You are the reason WOHMs care if moms stay home. Because it creates assholes like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have done both and currently work. Snide comments come from WOHMs for sure. Never heard a SAHM say anything. WOHMs make comments. “Why did they plan x event? Some of us WORK.” Etc

So you must have walked away before the SAHMs got their snide comment in. Seriously, any of you people who believe the nastiness only comes from one side are deluding yourselves.

Hard ont his thread, it seems like the WOH vitriol is worse.

SAHM: I stay at home because I couldn’t bear to do daycare
WOHM: I woh and SAHM should too because they are bringing down all women and society omg

Consider the context - the question was directed at WOHMs. Hence, more of the responses came from WOHMs. Want me to start a thread about why SAHMs care if moms work and see how that goes? I've seen both sides, and the comments from SAHMs were way worse. I can't even think of anything a WOHM mom ever said other than that she thought her SAHM SIL was dull.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a wohm. I admit that it’s a constant struggle between wanting to spend time with kids but also working. I want both! I spent so many years in school and am excited about my career. I also love my kids! I look for flexible jobs that will allow me to be home early to pick them up from preschool.

I sometimes feel guilty when sahms say, “i want to be there for my kids,” “family first,” “i could never send them to daycare/nanny,” “can’t trust anyone,” etc.

At work, I feel bad for having to draw the line and say I can’t do certain things bc of my kids.

It would be amazing if the sahms and wohms, non parents - EVERYONE- understood that raising good kids is a benefit to society. If that means wohms who have more flexible schedules offer other wohms to carpool more or sahms offer to help the wahms bc they have more time, that would be great! Employers understanding that parents (not just moms) need flexibility is amaing. We need everyone to help each other and not just focus on our nuclear family. If we did this, society would be so mich better off

I don't. Seriously, I don't care what you do, but the minute a woman says something suggesting that women who work don't love their kids as much, I write them off as a piece of shit. Seriously. I don't care what you do, but insinuating that other mothers don't love their kids makes you a garbage person. Period. It's worse, IMO, than thinking that women who stay at home are lazy or whatever.

Do whatever you want--work, don't--but keep your sanctimonious self-justification to yourself.

Yep.

Your reaction is an eye-opener. If someone suggested that I am not a good mom, I would just laugh. Your reaction suggests that you are well aware that you fall short in giving your time to your child. That's why even a perceived suggestion makes you mad.

And who are you to decide that calling a SAHM as lazy is less egregious? I think a woman who leaves her high paying job to put in the effort to raise her child herself is far better than one who pays someone else a low salary to look after her child. It shows what you value. You are able to put a low dollar amount to the effort of spending the time with your own child. Unless your salary is being earned so that you can put a roof over your head and feed your family, you have no moral high ground to stand on.

As a WOHM, how are you helping other WOHMs? How are you fighting for better conditions for all parents at your workplace? Oh, you are doing nothing? I thought so.

You are off your rocker. You are probably the most judgmental disgusting person on this thread. The fact that you don't see that is laughable.

Yeah, someone suggesting that I'm not a good mom because I work doesn't make me mad because I take it personally or deep down I think it's true. It makes me think you're a crap human being because it's a garbage thing to say to a parent. I don't get mad when someone says that, I just write you off as a shitty person. So, based on what you wrote, I think you are a gross person. A gross, judgmental person, who I hopefully do not know in real life.

And I'm entitled to have the perfectly reasonable opinion that, on the scale of insults, "lazy" is not as bad as "doesn't love or value your own child." (I don't, in fact, think that all SAHMs are lazy, or that it's okay to say that they are, just that calling someone a bad mother who doesn't love her children is worse than calling them lazy.) Fortunately, in real life, the women I know, whether they work or don't, don't talk like this about each other, because apparently I know decent, normal women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a wohm. I admit that it’s a constant struggle between wanting to spend time with kids but also working. I want both! I spent so many years in school and am excited about my career. I also love my kids! I look for flexible jobs that will allow me to be home early to pick them up from preschool.

I sometimes feel guilty when sahms say, “i want to be there for my kids,” “family first,” “i could never send them to daycare/nanny,” “can’t trust anyone,” etc.

At work, I feel bad for having to draw the line and say I can’t do certain things bc of my kids.

It would be amazing if the sahms and wohms, non parents - EVERYONE- understood that raising good kids is a benefit to society. If that means wohms who have more flexible schedules offer other wohms to carpool more or sahms offer to help the wahms bc they have more time, that would be great! Employers understanding that parents (not just moms) need flexibility is amaing. We need everyone to help each other and not just focus on our nuclear family. If we did this, society would be so mich better off

I don't. Seriously, I don't care what you do, but the minute a woman says something suggesting that women who work don't love their kids as much, I write them off as a piece of shit. Seriously. I don't care what you do, but insinuating that other mothers don't love their kids makes you a garbage person. Period. It's worse, IMO, than thinking that women who stay at home are lazy or whatever.

Do whatever you want--work, don't--but keep your sanctimonious self-justification to yourself.

Yep.

Your reaction is an eye-opener. If someone suggested that I am not a good mom, I would just laugh. Your reaction suggests that you are well aware that you fall short in giving your time to your child. That's why even a perceived suggestion makes you mad.

And who are you to decide that calling a SAHM as lazy is less egregious? I think a woman who leaves her high paying job to put in the effort to raise her child herself is far better than one who pays someone else a low salary to look after her child. It shows what you value. You are able to put a low dollar amount to the effort of spending the time with your own child. Unless your salary is being earned so that you can put a roof over your head and feed your family, you have no moral high ground to stand on.

As a WOHM, how are you helping other WOHMs? How are you fighting for better conditions for all parents at your workplace? Oh, you are doing nothing? I thought so.

You are off your rocker. You are probably the most judgmental disgusting person on this thread. The fact that you don't see that is laughable.

Yeah, someone suggesting that I'm not a good mom because I work doesn't make me mad because I take it personally or deep down I think it's true. It makes me think you're a crap human being because it's a garbage thing to say to a parent. I don't get mad when someone says that, I just write you off as a shitty person. So, based on what you wrote, I think you are a gross person. A gross, judgmental person, who I hopefully do not know in real life.

And I'm entitled to have the perfectly reasonable opinion that, on the scale of insults, "lazy" is not as bad as "doesn't love or value your own child." (I don't, in fact, think that all SAHMs are lazy, or that it's okay to say that they are, just that calling someone a bad mother who doesn't love her children is worse than calling them lazy.) Fortunately, in real life, the women I know, whether they work or don't, don't talk like this about each other, because apparently I know decent, normal women.

Agreed. Not only that, but she's claiming that childcare providers are somehow unworthy because they earn a low salary. While she earns nothing.

And then gets on WOHMs for not fighting for better conditions... while she's being a judgmental witch... it's all laughable.

And I'd take 1000 low paid childcare providers caring for my kid over them spending one day in this psycho's 'care.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

nope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

nope

+1 Amazing how somehow these women would not consider a kindergarten teacher a primary care giver but they make these inane statements. Are you homeschooling? Because if not, then by your definition you aren't the primary care giver once your kid enters K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

nope

How is that "nope" for the majority of 9-5 full time jobs? My daughter is awake from 7:45 to 1 and 3 to 8. That is 10.25 hrs. Six of those hours are between 9 am and 5 pm. Realistically, if you have an average commute, we're really talking about the 7 waking hours between 8:30 and 5:30 pm. And the remaining 3.25 hrs is filled with things like getting dressed, eating breakfast and lunch, taking a bath, getting ready for bed, etc. AND also probably involves a parent getting themselves ready, making dinner, etc. I'm not saying any of that is BAD. I'm just saying for most of your child's waking hours, especially the fun hours that don't involve some kind of chore, someone else is taking care of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

nope

+1 Amazing how somehow these women would not consider a kindergarten teacher a primary care giver but they make these inane statements. Are you homeschooling? Because if not, then by your definition you aren't the primary care giver once your kid enters K.

Agreed. Someone who's going on and on about primary caregiving, what switch flips when a kid turns 5 and goes to school? What about if they go to preschool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

nope

+1 Amazing how somehow these women would not consider a kindergarten teacher a primary care giver but they make these inane statements. Are you homeschooling? Because if not, then by your definition you aren't the primary care giver once your kid enters K.

Agreed. Someone who's going on and on about primary caregiving, what switch flips when a kid turns 5 and goes to school? What about if they go to preschool?

Can't help you if you don't see the developmental difference between a toddler and an elementary schooler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

nope

+1 Amazing how somehow these women would not consider a kindergarten teacher a primary care giver but they make these inane statements. Are you homeschooling? Because if not, then by your definition you aren't the primary care giver once your kid enters K.

Agreed. Someone who's going on and on about primary caregiving, what switch flips when a kid turns 5 and goes to school? What about if they go to preschool?

Can't help you if you don't see the developmental difference between a toddler and an elementary schooler.

It's the same "switch" that flips that makes it illegal to have more than two infants with a daycare worker, but makes it okay for a class of 20+ 5-year-olds to be with one teacher.

[Anonymous]

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII DONNNNNN''''TTTTT CAAAAARRREEEE. You (any individual, making any life choice) are just not that important in the grand scheme of things!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

nope

+1 Amazing how somehow these women would not consider a kindergarten teacher a primary care giver but they make these inane statements. Are you homeschooling? Because if not, then by your definition you aren't the primary care giver once your kid enters K.

Agreed. Someone who's going on and on about primary caregiving, what switch flips when a kid turns 5 and goes to school? What about if they go to preschool?

Can't help you if you don't see the developmental difference between a toddler and an elementary schooler.

Enlighten me. In your own words, please. I wouldn't consider a 5 year old about to start K a toddler, but you do you.

[Anonymous]

I could not care less. I just refuse to give any credence to the "hardest and most important job in the world" needs some SAHM have for recognition and back pats. I get this on the regular also from the men I practice with who have SAH wives. 'I just don't know how she does it! I could never do all that she does. Makes our jobs look easy' etc. and repeat. THAT makes me rage-y.

I always think, bottom line, it SHOULD be the easiest and best choice for you. 0 clue why we are arguing about who has it harder. Not the way to go about things. Pick the easiest way. For me, that's working, all the way. I make a ton, I get a break, I hire awesome care, I can pay for stuff my kids need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never jump into these stupid debates and did not read the prior posts, but for this one I have to, because the OP betrays the total ignorance about history, women's rights, and the role of women in society.

It is not just about what you, Cindy Lou, decide to do with your career once you have kids. It's about the bigger picture, and the fact that when women are not able to, for various reasons, combine career with family, or when we collectively as a society start to spin a narrative that children are hurt when women work, then women feel pressured to drop out, or guilted into dropping out, or forced into it, and then women (and children) suffer the consequences, for example:

-when you have only male OB/GYNs who force you into c-sections and many other procedures because of a lack of understanding or care for what women face
-when there is less money given in the budget process of government to education, or protection for families, because men typically value these things less
-- when you get no paid maternity leave because CEOs are all men and so are the legislators
-- when scientists run studies only on male subjects because they assume women are the same
-- when rape kids go untouched because it's simply not a priority for police departments (mostly male)
-when you have no access to birth control because male legislators don't value it

I could go on and on. All of the above is part of our history and was part of our reality for hundreds/thousands of years. This is why women have fought to be in the workplace. So when SAHMs start talking about "who cares when women aren't part of the workforce," well that is just completely stupid.

I appreciate everything you said, but none of it would make it possible for me to put my 4-month-old in daycare. There is something primal/emotional in me that will not let someone else be my infant/toddler’s primary caregiver. It’s not guilt or worry - it’s just a deep desire to be with her. Do I think these are all good arguments to return to work when she’s like 5? yes. Also, remember that I vote for all the policies you suggested, even if I’m not currently working. And really, what is to stop someone from taking a couple years off from their medical practice, for ex, and then returning when her kids are in preschool? I mean, even Nancy Pelosi was a sahm for awhile....

What you don’t understand is that many working moms are still primary caregivers.

If your infant or toddler is in daycare of with a nanny, then that person is your child's primary care giver, not you. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's just a fact.

nope

+1 Amazing how somehow these women would not consider a kindergarten teacher a primary care giver but they make these inane statements. Are you homeschooling? Because if not, then by your definition you aren't the primary care giver once your kid enters K.

Agreed. Someone who's going on and on about primary caregiving, what switch flips when a kid turns 5 and goes to school? What about if they go to preschool?

Can't help you if you don't see the developmental difference between a toddler and an elementary schooler.

Enlighten me. In your own words, please. I wouldn't consider a 5 year old about to start K a toddler, but you do you.

Where did I say a 5-year-old is a toddler...?