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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope

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

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

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

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

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

And also, yea, I have no problem not being my 5-year-old's primary care giver. It's called human development. I also have no problem sending my future 18-year-old off to college even though i would never send her as a 7-year-old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my good Lord. The idea being that before they’re old enough to go to school children should be coddled by their mother 24/7. Then the minute they go to kindergarten, somehow the teacher does NOT become a primary caregiver? Even though a nanny watching them the week before would have been?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my good Lord. The idea being that before they’re old enough to go to school children should be coddled by their mother 24/7. Then the minute they go to kindergarten, somehow the teacher does NOT become a primary caregiver? Even though a nanny watching them the week before would have been?

I did not say "SHOULD" ("should be coddled by their mother"). We can all agree infants need almost constant care by a 1-1 provider, right? Or at most 2-1? All I am saying is I want to be that person. And yes, if your infant is with a nanny or at daycare for most of their waking hours, then that person is their primary caregiver. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that! If you are happy with that arrangement and your child is too, then great! By 5 years old, a child does NOT need that kind of attention. What problem do you have with the idea that children's needs and independence change from the course of 0 to 5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my good Lord. The idea being that before they’re old enough to go to school children should be coddled by their mother 24/7. Then the minute they go to kindergarten, somehow the teacher does NOT become a primary caregiver? Even though a nanny watching them the week before would have been?

I did not say "SHOULD" ("should be coddled by their mother"). We can all agree infants need almost constant care by a 1-1 provider, right? Or at most 2-1? All I am saying is I want to be that person. And yes, if your infant is with a nanny or at daycare for most of their waking hours, then that person is their primary caregiver. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that! If you are happy with that arrangement and your child is too, then great! By 5 years old, a child does NOT need that kind of attention. What problem do you have with the idea that children's needs and independence change from the course of 0 to 5?

Do you or do you not consider a child’s teacher to be their primary caregiver?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my good Lord. The idea being that before they’re old enough to go to school children should be coddled by their mother 24/7. Then the minute they go to kindergarten, somehow the teacher does NOT become a primary caregiver? Even though a nanny watching them the week before would have been?

I did not say "SHOULD" ("should be coddled by their mother"). We can all agree infants need almost constant care by a 1-1 provider, right? Or at most 2-1? All I am saying is I want to be that person. And yes, if your infant is with a nanny or at daycare for most of their waking hours, then that person is their primary caregiver. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that! If you are happy with that arrangement and your child is too, then great! By 5 years old, a child does NOT need that kind of attention. What problem do you have with the idea that children's needs and independence change from the course of 0 to 5?

Your false dichotomy is ridiculous. First of all, you're ignoring the fact that most WOHM with enough credentials do not work the schedule you've dreamed up and work from home often. I spent 2-3 days a week full time with my kids while they were infants working part time. I know a lot of moms who worked from 6-2. I know others who always worked at home and did all feedings and nights. Most of the moms I know do nights, when the kids are also awake. Most also work from home at least one day a week. So, your whole premise that moms that work aren't primary care givers falls apart under the standards you have set. Even if you were entirely correct, just by virtue of being the "primary caregiver" on the nights/weekends/holidays/sick days/doctor visits, moms of infants who work a rigid schedule outside the home would still be the "primary care giver" in terms of hours spent with the child. Also, I would like to know what on earth you think of fathers. What, pray, are they? Like third tier?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my good Lord. The idea being that before they’re old enough to go to school children should be coddled by their mother 24/7. Then the minute they go to kindergarten, somehow the teacher does NOT become a primary caregiver? Even though a nanny watching them the week before would have been?

I did not say "SHOULD" ("should be coddled by their mother"). We can all agree infants need almost constant care by a 1-1 provider, right? Or at most 2-1? All I am saying is I want to be that person. And yes, if your infant is with a nanny or at daycare for most of their waking hours, then that person is their primary caregiver. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that! If you are happy with that arrangement and your child is too, then great! By 5 years old, a child does NOT need that kind of attention. What problem do you have with the idea that children's needs and independence change from the course of 0 to 5?

DP. No, you are incorrect. My DH and I both work and we also are our childrens' primary caretakers. Period. They know who their mother is and who their father is and there is no confusion on their part. The people at daycare were also caretakers, but not the primary ones. Their grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins have been part-time caretakers. Their teachers and staff at their school are now also caretakers, but they are not their primary caretakers.

A lot of life happens outside of "9 to 5" as you call it, *especially* for infants. The caretakers at daycare never nursed my babies in the middle of the night. When my children were or are now sick, they did not care for them. I did. Everyday, we have breakfast together. Every night, my family eats dinner together, and we discuss our days. Every night, we spend time as a family, whether doing homework, playing games, reading. I tuck them in. Tons of meaningful conversations have happened in all sorts of contexts, including in the car and especially in those moments before sleep. Those other caretakers did not buy food to feed my children or clothes to clothe them. None of the other caretakers know the whole, wonderful stories of our children like my husband and me. My children do not know or love anyone else as much as they love us, their parents. We are their primary caregivers, whether you choose to admit or not.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you 16:36. Parents are the primary caregivers if they live with the children, regardless of whether or not they also WOH.

I worked for 20 years and then stayed at home with my one child, now 17. I believe feminism is all about CHOICE.

Some women will choose to work and some will choose to stay at home. Choice.

Scares me that feminism is not more clearly supported by all.

[Anonymous]

I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my good Lord. The idea being that before they’re old enough to go to school children should be coddled by their mother 24/7. Then the minute they go to kindergarten, somehow the teacher does NOT become a primary caregiver? Even though a nanny watching them the week before would have been?

I did not say "SHOULD" ("should be coddled by their mother"). We can all agree infants need almost constant care by a 1-1 provider, right? Or at most 2-1? All I am saying is I want to be that person. And yes, if your infant is with a nanny or at daycare for most of their waking hours, then that person is their primary caregiver. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that! If you are happy with that arrangement and your child is too, then great! By 5 years old, a child does NOT need that kind of attention. What problem do you have with the idea that children's needs and independence change from the course of 0 to 5?

Do you or do you not consider a child’s teacher to be their primary caregiver?

I would say that once your child is in school you are sharing caretaking responsibilities with the school. Either you're watching your child during a given hour of the day or you're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my good Lord. The idea being that before they’re old enough to go to school children should be coddled by their mother 24/7. Then the minute they go to kindergarten, somehow the teacher does NOT become a primary caregiver? Even though a nanny watching them the week before would have been?

I did not say "SHOULD" ("should be coddled by their mother"). We can all agree infants need almost constant care by a 1-1 provider, right? Or at most 2-1? All I am saying is I want to be that person. And yes, if your infant is with a nanny or at daycare for most of their waking hours, then that person is their primary caregiver. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that! If you are happy with that arrangement and your child is too, then great! By 5 years old, a child does NOT need that kind of attention. What problem do you have with the idea that children's needs and independence change from the course of 0 to 5?

Your false dichotomy is ridiculous. First of all, you're ignoring the fact that most WOHM with enough credentials do not work the schedule you've dreamed up and work from home often. I spent 2-3 days a week full time with my kids while they were infants working part time. I know a lot of moms who worked from 6-2. I know others who always worked at home and did all feedings and nights. Most of the moms I know do nights, when the kids are also awake. Most also work from home at least one day a week. So, your whole premise that moms that work aren't primary care givers falls apart under the standards you have set. Even if you were entirely correct, just by virtue of being the "primary caregiver" on the nights/weekends/holidays/sick days/doctor visits, moms of infants who work a rigid schedule outside the home would still be the "primary care giver" in terms of hours spent with the child. Also, I would like to know what on earth you think of fathers. What, pray, are they? Like third tier?

If you're talking about working part time and working flexible hours, then obviously I'm not talking about you. I'm really simply talking in terms of hours spent actively taking care of a child during their waking hours.

[Anonymous]

I'm the mom from hell, when my kids were younger I was a sahm and put the kids in preschool! Now you can all focus your hate over here. I've gotten lost these last few pages as to who is saying what but everyone is so angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my good Lord. The idea being that before they’re old enough to go to school children should be coddled by their mother 24/7. Then the minute they go to kindergarten, somehow the teacher does NOT become a primary caregiver? Even though a nanny watching them the week before would have been?

I did not say "SHOULD" ("should be coddled by their mother"). We can all agree infants need almost constant care by a 1-1 provider, right? Or at most 2-1? All I am saying is I want to be that person. And yes, if your infant is with a nanny or at daycare for most of their waking hours, then that person is their primary caregiver. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that! If you are happy with that arrangement and your child is too, then great! By 5 years old, a child does NOT need that kind of attention. What problem do you have with the idea that children's needs and independence change from the course of 0 to 5?

DP. No, you are incorrect. My DH and I both work and we also are our childrens' primary caretakers. Period. They know who their mother is and who their father is and there is no confusion on their part. The people at daycare were also caretakers, but not the primary ones. Their grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins have been part-time caretakers. Their teachers and staff at their school are now also caretakers, but they are not their primary caretakers.

A lot of life happens outside of "9 to 5" as you call it, *especially* for infants. The caretakers at daycare never nursed my babies in the middle of the night. When my children were or are now sick, they did not care for them. I did. Everyday, we have breakfast together. Every night, my family eats dinner together, and we discuss our days. Every night, we spend time as a family, whether doing homework, playing games, reading. I tuck them in. Tons of meaningful conversations have happened in all sorts of contexts, including in the car and especially in those moments before sleep. Those other caretakers did not buy food to feed my children or clothes to clothe them. None of the other caretakers know the whole, wonderful stories of our children like my husband and me. My children do not know or love anyone else as much as they love us, their parents. We are their primary caregivers, whether you choose to admit or not.

If that all works for you, then fine! I'm not talking about love, who buys food, clothes, etc etc etc. I'm saying the person that spends the most time with the child during their waking hours. I want that person to be me, particularly during infancy and early toddlerhood, because that's how I FEEL. Not because it's better in any way or superior to anyone else's arrangement. I'm sorry, but spending time with my infant during the day is way more different (and more fun...) than spending time with her at nighttime, and I PERSONALLY don't want to miss that time. If you don't mind missing that time and your child has great care during that time, then fine! Good for you! Am I not allowed to feel differently from you....? The whole way this started was me saying i want to be the one with my child during infancy/toddlerhood instead of a nanny or daycare. I did not say it was better than working outside the home or that a parent who doesn't feel this way is bad or that a child who goes to daycare or has a nanny is worse off. And then a bunch of working moms told me I was silly for feeling this way and replied with illogical arguments about a 3-month-old in daycare being the same as a 5-year-old in kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if you're SAHM or WOH mom. I do care when I get SAHM tell me 'I would NEVER let anyone care for my child'. That is nice for you since you have a supportive spouse who makes significant amount of money to allow you to have the luxury to stay home. Comments like these upsets me. Don't you think all moms would like to have the luxury to have options but not all are fortunate. Idon't identify myself through my career. I could care less. I only work for my paycheck to support my family and provide a certain quality of life for them. My goal is to earn and save significantly so I can retire early.

I sah and we are far from rich. I knew My dh and I both wanted me to care for our children and not have them in someone else's care. We waited, planned, saved and lived off of one income for years before having kids. We'll never be rich, but we have the family life we want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my good Lord. The idea being that before they’re old enough to go to school children should be coddled by their mother 24/7. Then the minute they go to kindergarten, somehow the teacher does NOT become a primary caregiver? Even though a nanny watching them the week before would have been?

I did not say "SHOULD" ("should be coddled by their mother"). We can all agree infants need almost constant care by a 1-1 provider, right? Or at most 2-1? All I am saying is I want to be that person. And yes, if your infant is with a nanny or at daycare for most of their waking hours, then that person is their primary caregiver. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that! If you are happy with that arrangement and your child is too, then great! By 5 years old, a child does NOT need that kind of attention. What problem do you have with the idea that children's needs and independence change from the course of 0 to 5?

DP. No, you are incorrect. My DH and I both work and we also are our childrens' primary caretakers. Period. They know who their mother is and who their father is and there is no confusion on their part. The people at daycare were also caretakers, but not the primary ones. Their grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins have been part-time caretakers. Their teachers and staff at their school are now also caretakers, but they are not their primary caretakers.

A lot of life happens outside of "9 to 5" as you call it, *especially* for infants. The caretakers at daycare never nursed my babies in the middle of the night. When my children were or are now sick, they did not care for them. I did. Everyday, we have breakfast together. Every night, my family eats dinner together, and we discuss our days. Every night, we spend time as a family, whether doing homework, playing games, reading. I tuck them in. Tons of meaningful conversations have happened in all sorts of contexts, including in the car and especially in those moments before sleep. Those other caretakers did not buy food to feed my children or clothes to clothe them. None of the other caretakers know the whole, wonderful stories of our children like my husband and me. My children do not know or love anyone else as much as they love us, their parents. We are their primary caregivers, whether you choose to admit or not.

If that all works for you, then fine! I'm not talking about love, who buys food, clothes, etc etc etc. I'm saying the person that spends the most time with the child during their waking hours. I want that person to be me, particularly during infancy and early toddlerhood, because that's how I FEEL. Not because it's better in any way or superior to anyone else's arrangement. I'm sorry, but spending time with my infant during the day is way more different (and more fun...) than spending time with her at nighttime, and I PERSONALLY don't want to miss that time. If you don't mind missing that time and your child has great care during that time, then fine! Good for you! Am I not allowed to feel differently from you....? The whole way this started was me saying i want to be the one with my child during infancy/toddlerhood instead of a nanny or daycare. I did not say it was better than working outside the home or that a parent who doesn't feel this way is bad or that a child who goes to daycare or has a nanny is worse off. And then a bunch of working moms told me I was silly for feeling this way and replied with illogical arguments about a 3-month-old in daycare being the same as a 5-year-old in kindergarten.

You aren't silly for wanting to be with your baby, you are silly for thinking that you know what is best...for everyone. Stop dancing. The judgment is all over your posts. You are not a "you do you" person. Implicit in your statements is the idea that any mom who doesn't stay with her baby 24/7 is not doing what is best for her baby.

I am curious how old your baby is. Are you a sleep-deprived new mom? And We all do spend time with our baby nonstop in the first weeks to months of life, depending on our maternity leave.