Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Choosing to have kids is your choice. There are people who do not choose that. So why should we all pay for you wanting to have a kid and stay home for more than 12 weeks? If you are an adult, you plan for that accordingly.
I'd much rather see universal healthcare as a thing, as it would literally benefit everyone, than universal maternity leave funded by the government.
Nobody is saying you cannot take the leave, just that you have to pay for your life choices.
If I choose to take 3 months off to care for an elderly parent or aunt or uncle, do I get paid time off? Where do you stop with "it benefits society"? I'd support a law that enables people to get time off each year, for family needs, and keep their job/a job at the company that is similar. But I do not think we should be funding any of that for the employees. It's up to the employer what to provide.
But why should everyone else fund your choice to have a kid? Or to have multiple kids? Do childless people get a sabbatical in place of not having kids?
It’s ultimately better for the economy for people to a) have kids and b) not need to leave the workforce after having kids. Most wealthy nations have universal maternal leave - many of them have it for a year, and also heavily subsidize childcare. A lot of the same nations also have universal healthcare, with private options.
And in most of those countries, you would pay significantly more in taxes than you do in the USA. I get the concept. But I dont' trust our government to enact it well, and I don't believe the govt needs to fund "optional" things, like having kids. I do support Universal Healthcare with private options for those who wish to pay more, and actually think it would cost everyone LESS. People wouldn't wait to take themselves or their kids to the ER when they are sick, costing us thousands for a visit---whereas if they got seen at their doctor or an Urgent care 5 days earlier, they'd have gotten antibiotics and wouldn't be hospitalized with pneumonia or something worse now. So a $120 doc visit would preempt a $10K+ ERisit/hospital stay.
Yeah, it's optional to choose to have kids but once kids are born, it would be better in the long run for all of society, if we chose to support families/children by having more generous parental leave and work schedules that accommodate parents spending more time with their children.
But how much do we need to spend to provide for people for their choices? I get you should have more flexibility, but why does the govt need to pay. encourage companies to allow longer mat leaves, and encourage them allowing more PT work, but it's up to the company if they choose to pay someone FT pay for that leave.
As it is, society already provides for schools (even if you don't have kids), free medical insurance for lower income families for their kids, free preschool if you are low income.
HOW IS IT OPTIONAL????? Please someone tell me how it is optional and possible to have a functioning society without the population continuing to have children.
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Choosing to have kids is your choice. There are people who do not choose that. So why should we all pay for you wanting to have a kid and stay home for more than 12 weeks? If you are an adult, you plan for that accordingly.
I'd much rather see universal healthcare as a thing, as it would literally benefit everyone, than universal maternity leave funded by the government.
Nobody is saying you cannot take the leave, just that you have to pay for your life choices.
If I choose to take 3 months off to care for an elderly parent or aunt or uncle, do I get paid time off? Where do you stop with "it benefits society"? I'd support a law that enables people to get time off each year, for family needs, and keep their job/a job at the company that is similar. But I do not think we should be funding any of that for the employees. It's up to the employer what to provide.
But why should everyone else fund your choice to have a kid? Or to have multiple kids? Do childless people get a sabbatical in place of not having kids?
It’s ultimately better for the economy for people to a) have kids and b) not need to leave the workforce after having kids. Most wealthy nations have universal maternal leave - many of them have it for a year, and also heavily subsidize childcare. A lot of the same nations also have universal healthcare, with private options.
And in most of those countries, you would pay significantly more in taxes than you do in the USA. I get the concept. But I dont' trust our government to enact it well, and I don't believe the govt needs to fund "optional" things, like having kids. I do support Universal Healthcare with private options for those who wish to pay more, and actually think it would cost everyone LESS. People wouldn't wait to take themselves or their kids to the ER when they are sick, costing us thousands for a visit---whereas if they got seen at their doctor or an Urgent care 5 days earlier, they'd have gotten antibiotics and wouldn't be hospitalized with pneumonia or something worse now. So a $120 doc visit would preempt a $10K+ ERisit/hospital stay.
Yeah, it's optional to choose to have kids but once kids are born, it would be better in the long run for all of society, if we chose to support families/children by having more generous parental leave and work schedules that accommodate parents spending more time with their children.
When did it become optional for a civilization to continue to have kids in order to go on? You all are delusional. What happens when everyone is 80 and dying?
never said not having kids. How about waiting until you can afford to have your kids? (yes I get its not optional in some states nowadasy---but the solution to that is to make a woman's right to choose legal everywhere and the people who want to keep it illegal don't want to support the kids once born or the parents anyhow).
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Choosing to have kids is your choice. There are people who do not choose that. So why should we all pay for you wanting to have a kid and stay home for more than 12 weeks? If you are an adult, you plan for that accordingly.
I'd much rather see universal healthcare as a thing, as it would literally benefit everyone, than universal maternity leave funded by the government.
Nobody is saying you cannot take the leave, just that you have to pay for your life choices.
If I choose to take 3 months off to care for an elderly parent or aunt or uncle, do I get paid time off? Where do you stop with "it benefits society"? I'd support a law that enables people to get time off each year, for family needs, and keep their job/a job at the company that is similar. But I do not think we should be funding any of that for the employees. It's up to the employer what to provide.
But why should everyone else fund your choice to have a kid? Or to have multiple kids? Do childless people get a sabbatical in place of not having kids?
It’s ultimately better for the economy for people to a) have kids and b) not need to leave the workforce after having kids. Most wealthy nations have universal maternal leave - many of them have it for a year, and also heavily subsidize childcare. A lot of the same nations also have universal healthcare, with private options.
And in most of those countries, you would pay significantly more in taxes than you do in the USA. I get the concept. But I dont' trust our government to enact it well, and I don't believe the govt needs to fund "optional" things, like having kids. I do support Universal Healthcare with private options for those who wish to pay more, and actually think it would cost everyone LESS. People wouldn't wait to take themselves or their kids to the ER when they are sick, costing us thousands for a visit---whereas if they got seen at their doctor or an Urgent care 5 days earlier, they'd have gotten antibiotics and wouldn't be hospitalized with pneumonia or something worse now. So a $120 doc visit would preempt a $10K+ ERisit/hospital stay.
Yeah, it's optional to choose to have kids but once kids are born, it would be better in the long run for all of society, if we chose to support families/children by having more generous parental leave and work schedules that accommodate parents spending more time with their children.
When did it become optional for a civilization to continue to have kids in order to go on? You all are delusional. What happens when everyone is 80 and dying?
never said not having kids. How about waiting until you can afford to have your kids? (yes I get its not optional in some states nowadasy---but the solution to that is to make a woman's right to choose legal everywhere and the people who want to keep it illegal don't want to support the kids once born or the parents anyhow).
I agree on abortion rights, of course. But we should absolutely make it more affordable and not only for the rich to have children. I've posted on this forum about Italy for example paying for 5 rounds of IVF because they have such abysmal natality rates. We need children to be born for a healthy society.
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Choosing to have kids is your choice. There are people who do not choose that. So why should we all pay for you wanting to have a kid and stay home for more than 12 weeks? If you are an adult, you plan for that accordingly.
I'd much rather see universal healthcare as a thing, as it would literally benefit everyone, than universal maternity leave funded by the government.
Nobody is saying you cannot take the leave, just that you have to pay for your life choices.
If I choose to take 3 months off to care for an elderly parent or aunt or uncle, do I get paid time off? Where do you stop with "it benefits society"? I'd support a law that enables people to get time off each year, for family needs, and keep their job/a job at the company that is similar. But I do not think we should be funding any of that for the employees. It's up to the employer what to provide.
But why should everyone else fund your choice to have a kid? Or to have multiple kids? Do childless people get a sabbatical in place of not having kids?
It’s ultimately better for the economy for people to a) have kids and b) not need to leave the workforce after having kids. Most wealthy nations have universal maternal leave - many of them have it for a year, and also heavily subsidize childcare. A lot of the same nations also have universal healthcare, with private options.
And in most of those countries, you would pay significantly more in taxes than you do in the USA. I get the concept. But I dont' trust our government to enact it well, and I don't believe the govt needs to fund "optional" things, like having kids. I do support Universal Healthcare with private options for those who wish to pay more, and actually think it would cost everyone LESS. People wouldn't wait to take themselves or their kids to the ER when they are sick, costing us thousands for a visit---whereas if they got seen at their doctor or an Urgent care 5 days earlier, they'd have gotten antibiotics and wouldn't be hospitalized with pneumonia or something worse now. So a $120 doc visit would preempt a $10K+ ERisit/hospital stay.
Yeah, it's optional to choose to have kids but once kids are born, it would be better in the long run for all of society, if we chose to support families/children by having more generous parental leave and work schedules that accommodate parents spending more time with their children.
When did it become optional for a civilization to continue to have kids in order to go on? You all are delusional. What happens when everyone is 80 and dying?
never said not having kids. How about waiting until you can afford to have your kids? (yes I get its not optional in some states nowadasy---but the solution to that is to make a woman's right to choose legal everywhere and the people who want to keep it illegal don't want to support the kids once born or the parents anyhow).
I agree on abortion rights, of course. But we should absolutely make it more affordable and not only for the rich to have children. I've posted on this forum about Italy for example paying for 5 rounds of IVF because they have such abysmal natality rates. We need children to be born for a healthy society.
Plenty of poor people have kids. They have sex too. In fact, they usually have kids younger and more of them.
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Good thing he will make it to superbowl, even if not your kids graduation! Lucky fam!
Why would he not go to my child’s graduation?
Do you think every physician is a bad parent? So odd.
Just the one who hasn't been around for 20 yrs. per your post.
He has only been a parent for 10 so there should be enough time for him to go to our kids’ future graduations.
Yes, he does not attend school events during the school day. I attend all of those. Some dads do come but the majority of attendees are moms. I handle mornings and after school and get the kids to dance, soccer, basketball, etc. He operates late 2-3 times per week. He has dinner with us on the other nights and takes the kids to their activities when he can. DH loves sports. He went to 2 of our kids’ sports games tonight.
Sorry, when is he around? HE doesn't even see the kids in the mornings? Wow.
OMG---you are relentless and beyond ridiculous! ES started at 9:20 for my kids. We were a 2 min drive from school, drop-off started at 9am. Let's see, I had kids who liked to sleep, so they got up at 8:15/8:30 to get to school.
My husband's job was 46 miles from home--so an hour commute (on a good day). He typically left for work by 7:30am at the latest. So yeah, nope, he didn't see the kids in the AM. Same for when they were in Preschool---we left at 8:50 for 9am drop-off.
99% of working parents were not going to see their kid before they leave, unless you mean quality time where you drag the kids out of bed at 6:20am, change their clothing and make them use the bathroom, then put them in the car to drive to daycare, dropping off so you both can get to work for the day. Are you referring to that quality time in the morning?
why do you think most parents aren't seeing their kid before school? the only parents i know who aren't seeing their kid before school are on wall street. Other than that and medical/ postal workers/ bus drivers and early store openers - most ppl have time to see their kid before school.
Can you read? ?!?!?! No, most people don't really "see their kids before school" Most parents are doing the best they can to shuttle the kids out the door to school on time. And even more stress and Time constraints if the parent (mom or dad) is trying to get the kids to before care and make it themselves to a job on time.
Almost all of my friend's kids didn't see their working parent before school. Why? Because the kids were still sleeping when that parent had to leave for work. Nobody wakes a kid up at 6am to have some quality time with a 6 yo---smart parents allow the kid to get some damn sleep.
Then again, maybe you and your friends all have jobs that don't start until 9am+? Or you live next-door to work? Or you don't understand that yes, there ar plenty of jobs where people leave for work at 7am daily (hour commute, gets you there at 8)
The only ones that saw both parents were kids being dragged to daycare/before care at 6:45/7am. Not exactly high quality time with your kids.
i think you are missing the point that the kids of parents who dont see them before school are either the kids of families who are likely not in a position to choose whether or not to work bc they are trying to make ends meet, or the kids of finance people who are making bank.
if you are in a position to choose whether or not to work, you are likely not also the same person who is being dragged out of the house at 5am to do said work.
Well, 95%+ of my friends spouses did not see the kids in the AM, or if they did, it was a very quick hello on the way out the door (and the kids were early risers--some 4 yo do get up at 6am, not all, but some)
Hint: none of my friends worked in Finance, and none were poor/working to make ends meet. All people in a variety of jobs (jobs that require a BS/MS) and making $150-200K. One was an architect---commute to work was almost an hour. Much of the time it was "on the project site", where you cannot just show up at 9am---you have to be there when the construction workers are there.
Many were in Tech. But none were in Wall Street finance like you are thinking.
And then if the 2nd parent went back to work, there was no quality time in the AM. It was rushing and sometimes yelling to get the slow half asleep kid up, ready and out the door to drop off so they could both get to work. I was drop-off for one friend and her kids for 2+ years in ES. Trust me, there was no "quality time" with those kids at that hour---they would rather have been sleeping
You do have trouble reading dont you? Nothing was said about quality time - just that a pps husband didnt even see his kids in the morning. Sounds like all those parents youre talking about DO see their kids. Is it the bestest quality time? Maybe not, but they still see them. So no, your 95% stat is clearly wrong. You keep twisting words to try and make your point, but it's just... incorrect.
Well I guess we value quality time a bit more than just "any time" when everyone is cranky and stressed. So once again, do what works for your family. But don't denigrate people who chose to have a SAHP and one in a higher powered (and most likely higher paying) career path and say the parent working longer hours/traveling for work is not "raising their kids". They are doing what works for them. Just like 2 career (or single parent) households are doing.
Sure, people value things differently. But you are purposely twisting words into things that are what YOU want, rather than what the pps have written. I highly doubt a surgeon who comes home at 9pm and kisses the kids when theyre already asleep considers that quality time either.
Going forward, it would be helpful if you replied to the actual topic at hand, instead of pretzeling to make your inaccurate point.
aren't we all glad when our heart stops beating or our leg gets severed in a car crash that there IS a surgeon of any gender willing to miss their kids bedtime to fix us? good LORD the myopathy is grueling on this thread.
Of course, has anyone said otherwise? Just that he cares more about his job (very important, life saving job) than his family. Which is fine.
WOW.
uh - no. You can care about both, you actual psychopath. In fact you can care MORE about your family and still have a demanding job that frequently prevents you putting children to bed. Both can be true. I'm sorry that you are mentally Amish.
Does this only apply if you have a penis? Because this whole thread is about working moms getting told they don't care about their family, they aren't raising their kids, etc etc. What kind of hypocrisy is this?
This whole thread? You’ve probably contributed half the posts denigrating women who stay at home who have done nothing to you. Why are yoj so angry? What is wrong with you?
Definitely not - there are multiple posters on here you know. But interesting that you still won't say that working moms are raising their kids. It does apparently only apply if you have a penis!
I don’t work for you so I won’t cave to your demands.
It's clear where you stand. Misogyny runs deep.
Like you who thinks female surgeons are the worst bc they dont have fake work from home jobs? Girl power!
Both male and female surgeons are barely around. It's just the truth. another truth, if they are both surgeons, they aren't raising their children. The primary care giver(s) is(are) the one raising your child. I have two teenagers, I spend more time with their peers and in interactions at school/clubs/sports than they do with me. It is developmentally normal for adolescents to spend less and less time with their parents as they prepare to leave the next, it's not developmentally normal for a baby or toddler to spend 50 hours a week at daycare.
But the point is I don’t really care what the surgeons are doing with their children or who is spending time with them raising them. I made decisions that worked for me based on my situation. My son has a friend with 2 surgeon parents. He’s the first kid dropped off at early care and the last kid picked up in the afternoon at the after care. That wouldn’t work for me, but we need surgeons, so it is what it is. I can see what that life is all about but it’s not my life or business. I doubt the surgeons care about my lifestyle either.
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Choosing to have kids is your choice. There are people who do not choose that. So why should we all pay for you wanting to have a kid and stay home for more than 12 weeks? If you are an adult, you plan for that accordingly.
I'd much rather see universal healthcare as a thing, as it would literally benefit everyone, than universal maternity leave funded by the government.
Nobody is saying you cannot take the leave, just that you have to pay for your life choices.
If I choose to take 3 months off to care for an elderly parent or aunt or uncle, do I get paid time off? Where do you stop with "it benefits society"? I'd support a law that enables people to get time off each year, for family needs, and keep their job/a job at the company that is similar. But I do not think we should be funding any of that for the employees. It's up to the employer what to provide.
But why should everyone else fund your choice to have a kid? Or to have multiple kids? Do childless people get a sabbatical in place of not having kids?
It’s ultimately better for the economy for people to a) have kids and b) not need to leave the workforce after having kids. Most wealthy nations have universal maternal leave - many of them have it for a year, and also heavily subsidize childcare. A lot of the same nations also have universal healthcare, with private options.
And in most of those countries, you would pay significantly more in taxes than you do in the USA. I get the concept. But I dont' trust our government to enact it well, and I don't believe the govt needs to fund "optional" things, like having kids. I do support Universal Healthcare with private options for those who wish to pay more, and actually think it would cost everyone LESS. People wouldn't wait to take themselves or their kids to the ER when they are sick, costing us thousands for a visit---whereas if they got seen at their doctor or an Urgent care 5 days earlier, they'd have gotten antibiotics and wouldn't be hospitalized with pneumonia or something worse now. So a $120 doc visit would preempt a $10K+ ERisit/hospital stay.
Yeah, it's optional to choose to have kids but once kids are born, it would be better in the long run for all of society, if we chose to support families/children by having more generous parental leave and work schedules that accommodate parents spending more time with their children.
When did it become optional for a civilization to continue to have kids in order to go on? You all are delusional. What happens when everyone is 80 and dying?
never said not having kids. How about waiting until you can afford to have your kids? (yes I get its not optional in some states nowadasy---but the solution to that is to make a woman's right to choose legal everywhere and the people who want to keep it illegal don't want to support the kids once born or the parents anyhow).
I agree on abortion rights, of course. But we should absolutely make it more affordable and not only for the rich to have children. I've posted on this forum about Italy for example paying for 5 rounds of IVF because they have such abysmal natality rates. We need children to be born for a healthy society.
Plenty of poor people have kids. They have sex too. In fact, they usually have kids younger and more of them.
And we need those kids too. They will one day contribute to society and perform any number of jobs that we need to keep going. So what's your point?
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Choosing to have kids is your choice. There are people who do not choose that. So why should we all pay for you wanting to have a kid and stay home for more than 12 weeks? If you are an adult, you plan for that accordingly.
I'd much rather see universal healthcare as a thing, as it would literally benefit everyone, than universal maternity leave funded by the government.
Nobody is saying you cannot take the leave, just that you have to pay for your life choices.
If I choose to take 3 months off to care for an elderly parent or aunt or uncle, do I get paid time off? Where do you stop with "it benefits society"? I'd support a law that enables people to get time off each year, for family needs, and keep their job/a job at the company that is similar. But I do not think we should be funding any of that for the employees. It's up to the employer what to provide.
But why should everyone else fund your choice to have a kid? Or to have multiple kids? Do childless people get a sabbatical in place of not having kids?
It’s ultimately better for the economy for people to a) have kids and b) not need to leave the workforce after having kids. Most wealthy nations have universal maternal leave - many of them have it for a year, and also heavily subsidize childcare. A lot of the same nations also have universal healthcare, with private options.
And in most of those countries, you would pay significantly more in taxes than you do in the USA. I get the concept. But I dont' trust our government to enact it well, and I don't believe the govt needs to fund "optional" things, like having kids. I do support Universal Healthcare with private options for those who wish to pay more, and actually think it would cost everyone LESS. People wouldn't wait to take themselves or their kids to the ER when they are sick, costing us thousands for a visit---whereas if they got seen at their doctor or an Urgent care 5 days earlier, they'd have gotten antibiotics and wouldn't be hospitalized with pneumonia or something worse now. So a $120 doc visit would preempt a $10K+ ERisit/hospital stay.
Yeah, it's optional to choose to have kids but once kids are born, it would be better in the long run for all of society, if we chose to support families/children by having more generous parental leave and work schedules that accommodate parents spending more time with their children.
But how much do we need to spend to provide for people for their choices? I get you should have more flexibility, but why does the govt need to pay. encourage companies to allow longer mat leaves, and encourage them allowing more PT work, but it's up to the company if they choose to pay someone FT pay for that leave.
As it is, society already provides for schools (even if you don't have kids), free medical insurance for lower income families for their kids, free preschool if you are low income.
HOW IS IT OPTIONAL????? Please someone tell me how it is optional and possible to have a functioning society without the population continuing to have children.
People will continue having kids, even if the government does not pay for them to have kids and take care of the kids.
It's optional to wait until you are a responsible adult and can afford to support your kid and yourself.
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Ummm...I never stated that. That was different poster.
Both parents can have whatever career aspirations they want. In our household, we felt it was silly to have kids and have BOTH parents wanting to pursue a highly stressful, high travel type of career. We didn't feel it was fair to have kids then have a few full time nannies who would take care of them if/when we both had to travel Sunday to Friday. Or whose jobs would require them rarely to be home until 7/8pm. So we CHOSE to have one pursue the high powered path and the other to focus more on the kids. I don't care if it's the mom or dad or both who pursues that. If you are fine with several weeks per month having neither parent home (they are traveling for work) or neither home until the kids are in bed most nights, then you go for it. We were not fine with that, and didn't have family nearby, so we chose to not do that (but we were on that path prekids. )
We felt that wasn't fair to the kids, so I chose to SAHP. I could have just scaled back to PT, but once I had my first, I wanted to be at home.
And some people think it isn't fair to their kids to be raised by only one parent. To each their own.
They are raised by both parents. One just isn't around quite as much as the one who is there 24/7. Just like a kid who goes to daycare/before care at 7am and isn't picked up from daycare/aftercare until 6:30pm, isn't around their parents during that time.
So kid gets 3-4 waking hours with both parents a day or full time with one parent and 1-2 hours a day with the other. And then most weekends dad is around and involved (plans when they have to do work calls/work around the kid's schedule so they don't miss important events with the kids--games/concerts/recitals/etc)
Oh and the perks of that mean instead of making $300-350k we make $800K+ and don't have to worry about college, our retirement, paying for kid's activities (one did travel ball, other did competitive dance at $20K/year).
You can pick whichever you want. Others will pick accordingly for their family.
Your hypocrisy is so astounding, but I'm hoping you can finally see it 150 pages in.
You say kids with a SAHM and a working dad are raised by both parents. But the OP said that working moms don't raise their kids.
So either you agree that the OP is untrue and offensive or you're a hypocrite. Which one is it?
Not what I'm saying. You are confusing many other Posters with me.
In all situations, the kids are being raised by both parents. I have never stated WOHM don't raise their kids.
Once again, you do what works for you. Stop denigrating other people for their choices.
And stop being jealous that someone has the finances and healthy marriage and ability to choose to stay at home. That's their choice. Just like many women choose to work because they get great joy from their career.
Hint: Both are smart women, both use their brains. So stop with the antics of degrading people.
Ha, I have tons of money and a healthy marriage so I'm not at all jealous of you. And I didn't denigrate anyone. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of all the SAHMs crowing that their husbands raise their kids while simultaneously saying that they stayed home so that someone else didn't raise them. If that's not you, then great, welcome to the land of the reasonable.
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Sounds like he cares more about other peoples children, but sure.
DP but what is wrong with you? If you are this miserable that you have to be vicious to strangers, maybe you should get off the Internet and do something about your life.
Maybe if I hadnt read all the vitriol extolled by these same pps I'd feel similarly. But if they can't take it, they should stop dishing it.
It isn’t vitriol. Some professions are more demanding and require more hours than others. That puts a strain on the other default parent and those wives opt to stay home because they can afford to and it is easier for their families. Not sure why this is so offensive.
It's offensive when those same women tell working women that they don't raise their kids but then those women argue about how their working husbands do raise their kids. Are you really having that hard of a time following along?
Nope, it is just you out here arguing with everyone. That is not what 99.9% are saying
Half of the first page of this thread was people saying that working moms don't raise their kids. But ok.
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Good thing he will make it to superbowl, even if not your kids graduation! Lucky fam!
Why would he not go to my child’s graduation?
Do you think every physician is a bad parent? So odd.
Just the one who hasn't been around for 20 yrs. per your post.
He has only been a parent for 10 so there should be enough time for him to go to our kids’ future graduations.
Yes, he does not attend school events during the school day. I attend all of those. Some dads do come but the majority of attendees are moms. I handle mornings and after school and get the kids to dance, soccer, basketball, etc. He operates late 2-3 times per week. He has dinner with us on the other nights and takes the kids to their activities when he can. DH loves sports. He went to 2 of our kids’ sports games tonight.
Sorry, when is he around? HE doesn't even see the kids in the mornings? Wow.
OMG---you are relentless and beyond ridiculous! ES started at 9:20 for my kids. We were a 2 min drive from school, drop-off started at 9am. Let's see, I had kids who liked to sleep, so they got up at 8:15/8:30 to get to school.
My husband's job was 46 miles from home--so an hour commute (on a good day). He typically left for work by 7:30am at the latest. So yeah, nope, he didn't see the kids in the AM. Same for when they were in Preschool---we left at 8:50 for 9am drop-off.
99% of working parents were not going to see their kid before they leave, unless you mean quality time where you drag the kids out of bed at 6:20am, change their clothing and make them use the bathroom, then put them in the car to drive to daycare, dropping off so you both can get to work for the day. Are you referring to that quality time in the morning?
why do you think most parents aren't seeing their kid before school? the only parents i know who aren't seeing their kid before school are on wall street. Other than that and medical/ postal workers/ bus drivers and early store openers - most ppl have time to see their kid before school.
Can you read? ?!?!?! No, most people don't really "see their kids before school" Most parents are doing the best they can to shuttle the kids out the door to school on time. And even more stress and Time constraints if the parent (mom or dad) is trying to get the kids to before care and make it themselves to a job on time.
Almost all of my friend's kids didn't see their working parent before school. Why? Because the kids were still sleeping when that parent had to leave for work. Nobody wakes a kid up at 6am to have some quality time with a 6 yo---smart parents allow the kid to get some damn sleep.
Then again, maybe you and your friends all have jobs that don't start until 9am+? Or you live next-door to work? Or you don't understand that yes, there ar plenty of jobs where people leave for work at 7am daily (hour commute, gets you there at 8)
The only ones that saw both parents were kids being dragged to daycare/before care at 6:45/7am. Not exactly high quality time with your kids.
i think you are missing the point that the kids of parents who dont see them before school are either the kids of families who are likely not in a position to choose whether or not to work bc they are trying to make ends meet, or the kids of finance people who are making bank.
if you are in a position to choose whether or not to work, you are likely not also the same person who is being dragged out of the house at 5am to do said work.
Well, 95%+ of my friends spouses did not see the kids in the AM, or if they did, it was a very quick hello on the way out the door (and the kids were early risers--some 4 yo do get up at 6am, not all, but some)
Hint: none of my friends worked in Finance, and none were poor/working to make ends meet. All people in a variety of jobs (jobs that require a BS/MS) and making $150-200K. One was an architect---commute to work was almost an hour. Much of the time it was "on the project site", where you cannot just show up at 9am---you have to be there when the construction workers are there.
Many were in Tech. But none were in Wall Street finance like you are thinking.
And then if the 2nd parent went back to work, there was no quality time in the AM. It was rushing and sometimes yelling to get the slow half asleep kid up, ready and out the door to drop off so they could both get to work. I was drop-off for one friend and her kids for 2+ years in ES. Trust me, there was no "quality time" with those kids at that hour---they would rather have been sleeping
You do have trouble reading dont you? Nothing was said about quality time - just that a pps husband didnt even see his kids in the morning. Sounds like all those parents youre talking about DO see their kids. Is it the bestest quality time? Maybe not, but they still see them. So no, your 95% stat is clearly wrong. You keep twisting words to try and make your point, but it's just... incorrect.
Well I guess we value quality time a bit more than just "any time" when everyone is cranky and stressed. So once again, do what works for your family. But don't denigrate people who chose to have a SAHP and one in a higher powered (and most likely higher paying) career path and say the parent working longer hours/traveling for work is not "raising their kids". They are doing what works for them. Just like 2 career (or single parent) households are doing.
So...when a SAHM says she didn't want to/couldn't work because of her husband's career, her choice is what worked for them and that's cool. But if a working mom says she didn't want to have 99% of the childcare responsibility while her husband worked more, that's her choice but it's denigrating SAHMs?
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Ummm...I never stated that. That was different poster.
Both parents can have whatever career aspirations they want. In our household, we felt it was silly to have kids and have BOTH parents wanting to pursue a highly stressful, high travel type of career. We didn't feel it was fair to have kids then have a few full time nannies who would take care of them if/when we both had to travel Sunday to Friday. Or whose jobs would require them rarely to be home until 7/8pm. So we CHOSE to have one pursue the high powered path and the other to focus more on the kids. I don't care if it's the mom or dad or both who pursues that. If you are fine with several weeks per month having neither parent home (they are traveling for work) or neither home until the kids are in bed most nights, then you go for it. We were not fine with that, and didn't have family nearby, so we chose to not do that (but we were on that path prekids. )
We felt that wasn't fair to the kids, so I chose to SAHP. I could have just scaled back to PT, but once I had my first, I wanted to be at home.
And some people think it isn't fair to their kids to be raised by only one parent. To each their own.
They are raised by both parents. One just isn't around quite as much as the one who is there 24/7. Just like a kid who goes to daycare/before care at 7am and isn't picked up from daycare/aftercare until 6:30pm, isn't around their parents during that time.
So kid gets 3-4 waking hours with both parents a day or full time with one parent and 1-2 hours a day with the other. And then most weekends dad is around and involved (plans when they have to do work calls/work around the kid's schedule so they don't miss important events with the kids--games/concerts/recitals/etc)
Oh and the perks of that mean instead of making $300-350k we make $800K+ and don't have to worry about college, our retirement, paying for kid's activities (one did travel ball, other did competitive dance at $20K/year).
You can pick whichever you want. Others will pick accordingly for their family.
Your hypocrisy is so astounding, but I'm hoping you can finally see it 150 pages in.
You say kids with a SAHM and a working dad are raised by both parents. But the OP said that working moms don't raise their kids.
So either you agree that the OP is untrue and offensive or you're a hypocrite. Which one is it?
Not what I'm saying. You are confusing many other Posters with me.
In all situations, the kids are being raised by both parents. I have never stated WOHM don't raise their kids.
Once again, you do what works for you. Stop denigrating other people for their choices.
And stop being jealous that someone has the finances and healthy marriage and ability to choose to stay at home. That's their choice. Just like many women choose to work because they get great joy from their career.
Hint: Both are smart women, both use their brains. So stop with the antics of degrading people.
Lol! Let's not equate those two. We see plenty of SAHMs on here trapped in terrible marriages but they can't leave. Just because you stay home does not mean you have a healthy marriage.
In our UMC/UC neighborhood, the SAHMs seem to be in good marriages, at least when the kids are still young. The MC SAHMs I knew mostly went back to work when kids were school aged.
Most married people seem unhappy in their 50s whether the wife works or not. At that point, kids don’t really need them whether they are teens or out of the house already.
I don’t know trapped SAHMs. These women would get money if they divorced.
So when a poster says that the husbands she knows are very involved, she is told that she has no idea what goes on behind closed doors.
But you say the SAHMs you know seem to be in good marriages and you somehow know that for sure?
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Choosing to have kids is your choice. There are people who do not choose that. So why should we all pay for you wanting to have a kid and stay home for more than 12 weeks? If you are an adult, you plan for that accordingly.
I'd much rather see universal healthcare as a thing, as it would literally benefit everyone, than universal maternity leave funded by the government.
Nobody is saying you cannot take the leave, just that you have to pay for your life choices.
If I choose to take 3 months off to care for an elderly parent or aunt or uncle, do I get paid time off? Where do you stop with "it benefits society"? I'd support a law that enables people to get time off each year, for family needs, and keep their job/a job at the company that is similar. But I do not think we should be funding any of that for the employees. It's up to the employer what to provide.
But why should everyone else fund your choice to have a kid? Or to have multiple kids? Do childless people get a sabbatical in place of not having kids?
It’s ultimately better for the economy for people to a) have kids and b) not need to leave the workforce after having kids. Most wealthy nations have universal maternal leave - many of them have it for a year, and also heavily subsidize childcare. A lot of the same nations also have universal healthcare, with private options.
And in most of those countries, you would pay significantly more in taxes than you do in the USA. I get the concept. But I dont' trust our government to enact it well, and I don't believe the govt needs to fund "optional" things, like having kids. I do support Universal Healthcare with private options for those who wish to pay more, and actually think it would cost everyone LESS. People wouldn't wait to take themselves or their kids to the ER when they are sick, costing us thousands for a visit---whereas if they got seen at their doctor or an Urgent care 5 days earlier, they'd have gotten antibiotics and wouldn't be hospitalized with pneumonia or something worse now. So a $120 doc visit would preempt a $10K+ ERisit/hospital stay.
Yeah, it's optional to choose to have kids but once kids are born, it would be better in the long run for all of society, if we chose to support families/children by having more generous parental leave and work schedules that accommodate parents spending more time with their children.
But how much do we need to spend to provide for people for their choices? I get you should have more flexibility, but why does the govt need to pay. encourage companies to allow longer mat leaves, and encourage them allowing more PT work, but it's up to the company if they choose to pay someone FT pay for that leave.
As it is, society already provides for schools (even if you don't have kids), free medical insurance for lower income families for their kids, free preschool if you are low income.
HOW IS IT OPTIONAL????? Please someone tell me how it is optional and possible to have a functioning society without the population continuing to have children.
People will continue having kids, even if the government does not pay for them to have kids and take care of the kids.
It's optional to wait until you are a responsible adult and can afford to support your kid and yourself.
Oh please. We can do so much more as a society to make sure women have a proper amount of time post birth to take care of their children. Spare me the BS that only the wealthy should get the turn with their kids. You’ve been brainwashed into thinking that having children is a privilege for the wealthy because children are a want and not a need. You will one day benefit from children being born. If we can collectively decide we can pay for social security, then we can decide maternity leave is a must too,
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Good thing he will make it to superbowl, even if not your kids graduation! Lucky fam!
Why would he not go to my child’s graduation?
Do you think every physician is a bad parent? So odd.
Just the one who hasn't been around for 20 yrs. per your post.
He has only been a parent for 10 so there should be enough time for him to go to our kids’ future graduations.
Yes, he does not attend school events during the school day. I attend all of those. Some dads do come but the majority of attendees are moms. I handle mornings and after school and get the kids to dance, soccer, basketball, etc. He operates late 2-3 times per week. He has dinner with us on the other nights and takes the kids to their activities when he can. DH loves sports. He went to 2 of our kids’ sports games tonight.
Sorry, when is he around? HE doesn't even see the kids in the mornings? Wow.
OMG---you are relentless and beyond ridiculous! ES started at 9:20 for my kids. We were a 2 min drive from school, drop-off started at 9am. Let's see, I had kids who liked to sleep, so they got up at 8:15/8:30 to get to school.
My husband's job was 46 miles from home--so an hour commute (on a good day). He typically left for work by 7:30am at the latest. So yeah, nope, he didn't see the kids in the AM. Same for when they were in Preschool---we left at 8:50 for 9am drop-off.
99% of working parents were not going to see their kid before they leave, unless you mean quality time where you drag the kids out of bed at 6:20am, change their clothing and make them use the bathroom, then put them in the car to drive to daycare, dropping off so you both can get to work for the day. Are you referring to that quality time in the morning?
why do you think most parents aren't seeing their kid before school? the only parents i know who aren't seeing their kid before school are on wall street. Other than that and medical/ postal workers/ bus drivers and early store openers - most ppl have time to see their kid before school.
Can you read? ?!?!?! No, most people don't really "see their kids before school" Most parents are doing the best they can to shuttle the kids out the door to school on time. And even more stress and Time constraints if the parent (mom or dad) is trying to get the kids to before care and make it themselves to a job on time.
Almost all of my friend's kids didn't see their working parent before school. Why? Because the kids were still sleeping when that parent had to leave for work. Nobody wakes a kid up at 6am to have some quality time with a 6 yo---smart parents allow the kid to get some damn sleep.
Then again, maybe you and your friends all have jobs that don't start until 9am+? Or you live next-door to work? Or you don't understand that yes, there ar plenty of jobs where people leave for work at 7am daily (hour commute, gets you there at 8)
The only ones that saw both parents were kids being dragged to daycare/before care at 6:45/7am. Not exactly high quality time with your kids.
i think you are missing the point that the kids of parents who dont see them before school are either the kids of families who are likely not in a position to choose whether or not to work bc they are trying to make ends meet, or the kids of finance people who are making bank.
if you are in a position to choose whether or not to work, you are likely not also the same person who is being dragged out of the house at 5am to do said work.
Well, 95%+ of my friends spouses did not see the kids in the AM, or if they did, it was a very quick hello on the way out the door (and the kids were early risers--some 4 yo do get up at 6am, not all, but some)
Hint: none of my friends worked in Finance, and none were poor/working to make ends meet. All people in a variety of jobs (jobs that require a BS/MS) and making $150-200K. One was an architect---commute to work was almost an hour. Much of the time it was "on the project site", where you cannot just show up at 9am---you have to be there when the construction workers are there.
Many were in Tech. But none were in Wall Street finance like you are thinking.
And then if the 2nd parent went back to work, there was no quality time in the AM. It was rushing and sometimes yelling to get the slow half asleep kid up, ready and out the door to drop off so they could both get to work. I was drop-off for one friend and her kids for 2+ years in ES. Trust me, there was no "quality time" with those kids at that hour---they would rather have been sleeping
You do have trouble reading dont you? Nothing was said about quality time - just that a pps husband didnt even see his kids in the morning. Sounds like all those parents youre talking about DO see their kids. Is it the bestest quality time? Maybe not, but they still see them. So no, your 95% stat is clearly wrong. You keep twisting words to try and make your point, but it's just... incorrect.
Well I guess we value quality time a bit more than just "any time" when everyone is cranky and stressed. So once again, do what works for your family. But don't denigrate people who chose to have a SAHP and one in a higher powered (and most likely higher paying) career path and say the parent working longer hours/traveling for work is not "raising their kids". They are doing what works for them. Just like 2 career (or single parent) households are doing.
Sure, people value things differently. But you are purposely twisting words into things that are what YOU want, rather than what the pps have written. I highly doubt a surgeon who comes home at 9pm and kisses the kids when theyre already asleep considers that quality time either.
Going forward, it would be helpful if you replied to the actual topic at hand, instead of pretzeling to make your inaccurate point.
aren't we all glad when our heart stops beating or our leg gets severed in a car crash that there IS a surgeon of any gender willing to miss their kids bedtime to fix us? good LORD the myopathy is grueling on this thread.
Of course, has anyone said otherwise? Just that he cares more about his job (very important, life saving job) than his family. Which is fine.
WOW.
uh - no. You can care about both, you actual psychopath. In fact you can care MORE about your family and still have a demanding job that frequently prevents you putting children to bed. Both can be true. I'm sorry that you are mentally Amish.
Does this only apply if you have a penis? Because this whole thread is about working moms getting told they don't care about their family, they aren't raising their kids, etc etc. What kind of hypocrisy is this?
This whole thread? You’ve probably contributed half the posts denigrating women who stay at home who have done nothing to you. Why are yoj so angry? What is wrong with you?
Definitely not - there are multiple posters on here you know. But interesting that you still won't say that working moms are raising their kids. It does apparently only apply if you have a penis!
The prior PP is correct that this "whole thread" is not an attack on working moms. I'd venture that at most 10% - and that's generous - of the posts have agreed that working moms do not "raise" their kids. A significant percentage of post disagreed, and then the remaining posts were about a whole bunch of other crap.
It's nuts to me that a working mom apparently defending against the statement in the OP would say that a surgeon chose career over their kids and isn't raising their kids. No one has answered my question: if you think this about a dad surgeon, do you also think it's true of a mom surgeon? She chose career over her kids and isn't a real mom?
As a refresher, here's how that conversation went -
OP: Are you offended when someone says they didn't want someone else to raise their kids?
PP: It's not offensive, it's true. I stayed at home because I didn't want the mailman raising my kids. Also, my husband is a surgeon who works 3867 hours a week and makes 10 figures so I didn't have to work. Lucky me!
DP: Hmm, so your husband doesn't raise your kids then?
PP: Of course he does! How dare you suggest otherwise?
DP: Ok, so under that logic doesn't a working mom also raise her kids?
PP: Nope, she doesn't. A man can raise his kids even if he doesn't spend much time with them, but a women can't.
You: [missing the boat]
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Good thing he will make it to superbowl, even if not your kids graduation! Lucky fam!
Why would he not go to my child’s graduation?
Do you think every physician is a bad parent? So odd.
Just the one who hasn't been around for 20 yrs. per your post.
He has only been a parent for 10 so there should be enough time for him to go to our kids’ future graduations.
Yes, he does not attend school events during the school day. I attend all of those. Some dads do come but the majority of attendees are moms. I handle mornings and after school and get the kids to dance, soccer, basketball, etc. He operates late 2-3 times per week. He has dinner with us on the other nights and takes the kids to their activities when he can. DH loves sports. He went to 2 of our kids’ sports games tonight.
Sorry, when is he around? HE doesn't even see the kids in the mornings? Wow.
OMG---you are relentless and beyond ridiculous! ES started at 9:20 for my kids. We were a 2 min drive from school, drop-off started at 9am. Let's see, I had kids who liked to sleep, so they got up at 8:15/8:30 to get to school.
My husband's job was 46 miles from home--so an hour commute (on a good day). He typically left for work by 7:30am at the latest. So yeah, nope, he didn't see the kids in the AM. Same for when they were in Preschool---we left at 8:50 for 9am drop-off.
99% of working parents were not going to see their kid before they leave, unless you mean quality time where you drag the kids out of bed at 6:20am, change their clothing and make them use the bathroom, then put them in the car to drive to daycare, dropping off so you both can get to work for the day. Are you referring to that quality time in the morning?
why do you think most parents aren't seeing their kid before school? the only parents i know who aren't seeing their kid before school are on wall street. Other than that and medical/ postal workers/ bus drivers and early store openers - most ppl have time to see their kid before school.
Can you read? ?!?!?! No, most people don't really "see their kids before school" Most parents are doing the best they can to shuttle the kids out the door to school on time. And even more stress and Time constraints if the parent (mom or dad) is trying to get the kids to before care and make it themselves to a job on time.
Almost all of my friend's kids didn't see their working parent before school. Why? Because the kids were still sleeping when that parent had to leave for work. Nobody wakes a kid up at 6am to have some quality time with a 6 yo---smart parents allow the kid to get some damn sleep.
Then again, maybe you and your friends all have jobs that don't start until 9am+? Or you live next-door to work? Or you don't understand that yes, there ar plenty of jobs where people leave for work at 7am daily (hour commute, gets you there at 8)
The only ones that saw both parents were kids being dragged to daycare/before care at 6:45/7am. Not exactly high quality time with your kids.
i think you are missing the point that the kids of parents who dont see them before school are either the kids of families who are likely not in a position to choose whether or not to work bc they are trying to make ends meet, or the kids of finance people who are making bank.
if you are in a position to choose whether or not to work, you are likely not also the same person who is being dragged out of the house at 5am to do said work.
Well, 95%+ of my friends spouses did not see the kids in the AM, or if they did, it was a very quick hello on the way out the door (and the kids were early risers--some 4 yo do get up at 6am, not all, but some)
Hint: none of my friends worked in Finance, and none were poor/working to make ends meet. All people in a variety of jobs (jobs that require a BS/MS) and making $150-200K. One was an architect---commute to work was almost an hour. Much of the time it was "on the project site", where you cannot just show up at 9am---you have to be there when the construction workers are there.
Many were in Tech. But none were in Wall Street finance like you are thinking.
And then if the 2nd parent went back to work, there was no quality time in the AM. It was rushing and sometimes yelling to get the slow half asleep kid up, ready and out the door to drop off so they could both get to work. I was drop-off for one friend and her kids for 2+ years in ES. Trust me, there was no "quality time" with those kids at that hour---they would rather have been sleeping
You do have trouble reading dont you? Nothing was said about quality time - just that a pps husband didnt even see his kids in the morning. Sounds like all those parents youre talking about DO see their kids. Is it the bestest quality time? Maybe not, but they still see them. So no, your 95% stat is clearly wrong. You keep twisting words to try and make your point, but it's just... incorrect.
Well I guess we value quality time a bit more than just "any time" when everyone is cranky and stressed. So once again, do what works for your family. But don't denigrate people who chose to have a SAHP and one in a higher powered (and most likely higher paying) career path and say the parent working longer hours/traveling for work is not "raising their kids". They are doing what works for them. Just like 2 career (or single parent) households are doing.
Sure, people value things differently. But you are purposely twisting words into things that are what YOU want, rather than what the pps have written. I highly doubt a surgeon who comes home at 9pm and kisses the kids when theyre already asleep considers that quality time either.
Going forward, it would be helpful if you replied to the actual topic at hand, instead of pretzeling to make your inaccurate point.
aren't we all glad when our heart stops beating or our leg gets severed in a car crash that there IS a surgeon of any gender willing to miss their kids bedtime to fix us? good LORD the myopathy is grueling on this thread.
Of course, has anyone said otherwise? Just that he cares more about his job (very important, life saving job) than his family. Which is fine.
WOW.
uh - no. You can care about both, you actual psychopath. In fact you can care MORE about your family and still have a demanding job that frequently prevents you putting children to bed. Both can be true. I'm sorry that you are mentally Amish.
Does this only apply if you have a penis? Because this whole thread is about working moms getting told they don't care about their family, they aren't raising their kids, etc etc. What kind of hypocrisy is this?
This whole thread? You’ve probably contributed half the posts denigrating women who stay at home who have done nothing to you. Why are yoj so angry? What is wrong with you?
Definitely not - there are multiple posters on here you know. But interesting that you still won't say that working moms are raising their kids. It does apparently only apply if you have a penis!
I don’t work for you so I won’t cave to your demands.
It's clear where you stand. Misogyny runs deep.
Like you who thinks female surgeons are the worst bc they dont have fake work from home jobs? Girl power!
Both male and female surgeons are barely around. It's just the truth. another truth, if they are both surgeons, they aren't raising their children. The primary care giver(s) is(are) the one raising your child. I have two teenagers, I spend more time with their peers and in interactions at school/clubs/sports than they do with me. It is developmentally normal for adolescents to spend less and less time with their parents as they prepare to leave the next, it's not developmentally normal for a baby or toddler to spend 50 hours a week at daycare.
You make no sense. So if there is a SAHM married to a surgeon, she is raising the kids but he's not - that's what you're saying, correct? Because you said if they were both surgeons they aren't raising their child, so the same must be true if only one of them is a surgeon - that that parent isn't raising their child.
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Good thing he will make it to superbowl, even if not your kids graduation! Lucky fam!
Why would he not go to my child’s graduation?
Do you think every physician is a bad parent? So odd.
Just the one who hasn't been around for 20 yrs. per your post.
He has only been a parent for 10 so there should be enough time for him to go to our kids’ future graduations.
Yes, he does not attend school events during the school day. I attend all of those. Some dads do come but the majority of attendees are moms. I handle mornings and after school and get the kids to dance, soccer, basketball, etc. He operates late 2-3 times per week. He has dinner with us on the other nights and takes the kids to their activities when he can. DH loves sports. He went to 2 of our kids’ sports games tonight.
Sorry, when is he around? HE doesn't even see the kids in the mornings? Wow.
OMG---you are relentless and beyond ridiculous! ES started at 9:20 for my kids. We were a 2 min drive from school, drop-off started at 9am. Let's see, I had kids who liked to sleep, so they got up at 8:15/8:30 to get to school.
My husband's job was 46 miles from home--so an hour commute (on a good day). He typically left for work by 7:30am at the latest. So yeah, nope, he didn't see the kids in the AM. Same for when they were in Preschool---we left at 8:50 for 9am drop-off.
99% of working parents were not going to see their kid before they leave, unless you mean quality time where you drag the kids out of bed at 6:20am, change their clothing and make them use the bathroom, then put them in the car to drive to daycare, dropping off so you both can get to work for the day. Are you referring to that quality time in the morning?
why do you think most parents aren't seeing their kid before school? the only parents i know who aren't seeing their kid before school are on wall street. Other than that and medical/ postal workers/ bus drivers and early store openers - most ppl have time to see their kid before school.
Can you read? ?!?!?! No, most people don't really "see their kids before school" Most parents are doing the best they can to shuttle the kids out the door to school on time. And even more stress and Time constraints if the parent (mom or dad) is trying to get the kids to before care and make it themselves to a job on time.
Almost all of my friend's kids didn't see their working parent before school. Why? Because the kids were still sleeping when that parent had to leave for work. Nobody wakes a kid up at 6am to have some quality time with a 6 yo---smart parents allow the kid to get some damn sleep.
Then again, maybe you and your friends all have jobs that don't start until 9am+? Or you live next-door to work? Or you don't understand that yes, there ar plenty of jobs where people leave for work at 7am daily (hour commute, gets you there at 8)
The only ones that saw both parents were kids being dragged to daycare/before care at 6:45/7am. Not exactly high quality time with your kids.
i think you are missing the point that the kids of parents who dont see them before school are either the kids of families who are likely not in a position to choose whether or not to work bc they are trying to make ends meet, or the kids of finance people who are making bank.
if you are in a position to choose whether or not to work, you are likely not also the same person who is being dragged out of the house at 5am to do said work.
Well, 95%+ of my friends spouses did not see the kids in the AM, or if they did, it was a very quick hello on the way out the door (and the kids were early risers--some 4 yo do get up at 6am, not all, but some)
Hint: none of my friends worked in Finance, and none were poor/working to make ends meet. All people in a variety of jobs (jobs that require a BS/MS) and making $150-200K. One was an architect---commute to work was almost an hour. Much of the time it was "on the project site", where you cannot just show up at 9am---you have to be there when the construction workers are there.
Many were in Tech. But none were in Wall Street finance like you are thinking.
And then if the 2nd parent went back to work, there was no quality time in the AM. It was rushing and sometimes yelling to get the slow half asleep kid up, ready and out the door to drop off so they could both get to work. I was drop-off for one friend and her kids for 2+ years in ES. Trust me, there was no "quality time" with those kids at that hour---they would rather have been sleeping
You do have trouble reading dont you? Nothing was said about quality time - just that a pps husband didnt even see his kids in the morning. Sounds like all those parents youre talking about DO see their kids. Is it the bestest quality time? Maybe not, but they still see them. So no, your 95% stat is clearly wrong. You keep twisting words to try and make your point, but it's just... incorrect.
Well I guess we value quality time a bit more than just "any time" when everyone is cranky and stressed. So once again, do what works for your family. But don't denigrate people who chose to have a SAHP and one in a higher powered (and most likely higher paying) career path and say the parent working longer hours/traveling for work is not "raising their kids". They are doing what works for them. Just like 2 career (or single parent) households are doing.
Sure, people value things differently. But you are purposely twisting words into things that are what YOU want, rather than what the pps have written. I highly doubt a surgeon who comes home at 9pm and kisses the kids when theyre already asleep considers that quality time either.
Going forward, it would be helpful if you replied to the actual topic at hand, instead of pretzeling to make your inaccurate point.
aren't we all glad when our heart stops beating or our leg gets severed in a car crash that there IS a surgeon of any gender willing to miss their kids bedtime to fix us? good LORD the myopathy is grueling on this thread.
Of course, has anyone said otherwise? Just that he cares more about his job (very important, life saving job) than his family. Which is fine.
WOW.
uh - no. You can care about both, you actual psychopath. In fact you can care MORE about your family and still have a demanding job that frequently prevents you putting children to bed. Both can be true. I'm sorry that you are mentally Amish.
Does this only apply if you have a penis? Because this whole thread is about working moms getting told they don't care about their family, they aren't raising their kids, etc etc. What kind of hypocrisy is this?
This whole thread? You’ve probably contributed half the posts denigrating women who stay at home who have done nothing to you. Why are yoj so angry? What is wrong with you?
Definitely not - there are multiple posters on here you know. But interesting that you still won't say that working moms are raising their kids. It does apparently only apply if you have a penis!
I don’t work for you so I won’t cave to your demands.
It's clear where you stand. Misogyny runs deep.
Like you who thinks female surgeons are the worst bc they dont have fake work from home jobs? Girl power!
Both male and female surgeons are barely around. It's just the truth. another truth, if they are both surgeons, they aren't raising their children. The primary care giver(s) is(are) the one raising your child. I have two teenagers, I spend more time with their peers and in interactions at school/clubs/sports than they do with me. It is developmentally normal for adolescents to spend less and less time with their parents as they prepare to leave the next, it's not developmentally normal for a baby or toddler to spend 50 hours a week at daycare.
But the point is I don’t really care what the surgeons are doing with their children or who is spending time with them raising them. I made decisions that worked for me based on my situation. My son has a friend with 2 surgeon parents. He’s the first kid dropped off at early care and the last kid picked up in the afternoon at the after care. That wouldn’t work for me, but we need surgeons, so it is what it is. I can see what that life is all about but it’s not my life or business. I doubt the surgeons care about my lifestyle either.
Exactly! While we may not choose that for our family, as long as the kid is taken care of (ie not leaving a kid under 10 to fend for themselves---the kid is at daycare and well taken care of and safe) it is the family's choice.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}