Are you offended when someone says they “didnt want someone else to raise my kids”?

[Anonymous]

Absolutely this!! It’s not a debate in reasonable societies.

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that this thread is almost 20 pages long and no one has mentioned that a lot of the SAHP situations people are mentioning here (staying home for 1-3 years when kids are very young) are really just extended parental leaves and that in countries with better parental leave policies and a culture of people actually using leave there is no debate between SAHPs and working parents of babies or very young toddlers because you are not considered a SAHP just because you stayed home with your baby. Everyone stays home with babies (including men in some countries). It's normal to take extended leave from work with kids and then return to jobs when they are old enough to go to a preschool-like environment where they are walking and talking and interacting.

Like the US is one of the only countries in the world where mothers of 8 months old babies are going toe-to-toe over whether you should be a SAHP or a working mom at that age. In sane places it would be irrelevant which lifestyle you chose -- either way your baby would be home with either you or your spouse during that year.

I guess we have to pretend that actually it's normal or even good for babies to spend the first year of life in daycares or with paid caregivers because we live in a place that is insane and not family friendly? I genuinely don't want anyone to feel bad for going back to work. But come on. The rest of the world knows that babies are better off with their families during that first year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that this thread is almost 20 pages long and no one has mentioned that a lot of the SAHP situations people are mentioning here (staying home for 1-3 years when kids are very young) are really just extended parental leaves and that in countries with better parental leave policies and a culture of people actually using leave there is no debate between SAHPs and working parents of babies or very young toddlers because you are not considered a SAHP just because you stayed home with your baby. Everyone stays home with babies (including men in some countries). It's normal to take extended leave from work with kids and then return to jobs when they are old enough to go to a preschool-like environment where they are walking and talking and interacting.

Like the US is one of the only countries in the world where mothers of 8 months old babies are going toe-to-toe over whether you should be a SAHP or a working mom at that age. In sane places it would be irrelevant which lifestyle you chose -- either way your baby would be home with either you or your spouse during that year.

I guess we have to pretend that actually it's normal or even good for babies to spend the first year of life in daycares or with paid caregivers because we live in a place that is insane and not family friendly? I genuinely don't want anyone to feel bad for going back to work. But come on. The rest of the world knows that babies are better off with their families during that first year.

And in those countries, aside from the quota of women leaders, women's careers have a very low ceiling.

There are trade-off but they are often unacknowledged in discussions centered on bashing American parental/maternal support.

[Anonymous]

There are high profile women all over Europe and NZ.

It’s so sad to view child welfare as a threat to careerism, capitalism, low taxes and the American cult of the individual. What is that high salary ceiling worth if your kid is in daycare for 9 hours a day (sleeping 12) from 3 months old? That’s when they’re wired. You can’t just undo it all when you retire and suddenly have time for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I were 2 I’d much rather go to Target with a parent (feeling safe, calm and hopefully chatting a bit and absorbing content knowledge while also learning to tolerate silence) than in a typical daycare.

Few toddlers thrive when corralled from one activity to the next on someone else’s schedule while hoping another kid doesn’t bite them.

I wish my 2 year old would rather be in Target with me 😂 being able to do that might have helped me enjoy staying home more. Unfortunately I don’t have that kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that this thread is almost 20 pages long and no one has mentioned that a lot of the SAHP situations people are mentioning here (staying home for 1-3 years when kids are very young) are really just extended parental leaves and that in countries with better parental leave policies and a culture of people actually using leave there is no debate between SAHPs and working parents of babies or very young toddlers because you are not considered a SAHP just because you stayed home with your baby. Everyone stays home with babies (including men in some countries). It's normal to take extended leave from work with kids and then return to jobs when they are old enough to go to a preschool-like environment where they are walking and talking and interacting.

Like the US is one of the only countries in the world where mothers of 8 months old babies are going toe-to-toe over whether you should be a SAHP or a working mom at that age. In sane places it would be irrelevant which lifestyle you chose -- either way your baby would be home with either you or your spouse during that year.

I guess we have to pretend that actually it's normal or even good for babies to spend the first year of life in daycares or with paid caregivers because we live in a place that is insane and not family friendly? I genuinely don't want anyone to feel bad for going back to work. But come on. The rest of the world knows that babies are better off with their families during that first year.

Very interesting point. Now imagine that same woman has 3-4 kids (granted, not that common in Europe) so she is out of the workforce for 9 plus years and you can understand many American SAHMs.

Is the question rude? Well, I think it but would never say it to a working mom. So I guess yes but also a fair position for a woman to take.

I have teens now but I’ve been desperate for positive influences for my challenging son. I absolutely think people like his teacher, coach or church youth leader are helping me raise him. And I’m grateful for it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Point being that when you work from home and have young kids, you are less efficient at work so something that may take 2 hours can get stretched to 5.

Not if they are napping.

Are you kidding? Kids do not nap all the time. Do you only have one kid? Give it a rest.

I actually used to cuddle with my toddler when she napped. When she was a baby, I napped when she napped.

Kids are mostly at school during their childhood and when they aren't they nap... a lot.

No I didn't nap during the day do you have narcolepsy?

I don't work when the kids are awake. I work when they are asleep or I engage with them, or they are at school or preschool or playdates.

Yes I have more than 1 kid but I don't have 3 under 5 that would make it hard.

No one with a reasonably demanding full time job is providing full time childcare and parenting young children at the same time. You can’t do both at the same time well. Remember? This was proven again and again to many of us during the pandemic.

It’s already been proven by showing schedules that for an infant, They are with nanny for maybe 3 to 4 waking hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Point being that when you work from home and have young kids, you are less efficient at work so something that may take 2 hours can get stretched to 5.

Not if they are napping.

Are you kidding? Kids do not nap all the time. Do you only have one kid? Give it a rest.

I actually used to cuddle with my toddler when she napped. When she was a baby, I napped when she napped.

Kids are mostly at school during their childhood and when they aren't they nap... a lot.

No I didn't nap during the day do you have narcolepsy?

I don't work when the kids are awake. I work when they are asleep or I engage with them, or they are at school or preschool or playdates.

Yes I have more than 1 kid but I don't have 3 under 5 that would make it hard.

No one with a reasonably demanding full time job is providing full time childcare and parenting young children at the same time. You can’t do both at the same time well. Remember? This was proven again and again to many of us during the pandemic.

It’s already been proven by showing schedules that for an infant, They are with nanny for maybe 3 to 4 waking hours.

Children don’t stay infants for long

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that this thread is almost 20 pages long and no one has mentioned that a lot of the SAHP situations people are mentioning here (staying home for 1-3 years when kids are very young) are really just extended parental leaves and that in countries with better parental leave policies and a culture of people actually using leave there is no debate between SAHPs and working parents of babies or very young toddlers because you are not considered a SAHP just because you stayed home with your baby. Everyone stays home with babies (including men in some countries). It's normal to take extended leave from work with kids and then return to jobs when they are old enough to go to a preschool-like environment where they are walking and talking and interacting.

Like the US is one of the only countries in the world where mothers of 8 months old babies are going toe-to-toe over whether you should be a SAHP or a working mom at that age. In sane places it would be irrelevant which lifestyle you chose -- either way your baby would be home with either you or your spouse during that year.

I guess we have to pretend that actually it's normal or even good for babies to spend the first year of life in daycares or with paid caregivers because we live in a place that is insane and not family friendly? I genuinely don't want anyone to feel bad for going back to work. But come on. The rest of the world knows that babies are better off with their families during that first year.

And in those countries, aside from the quota of women leaders, women's careers have a very low ceiling.

There are trade-off but they are often unacknowledged in discussions centered on bashing American parental/maternal support.

Show me the stats about how women in countries with strong parental leave policies do worse in their careers than in the US?

Also it's not "America bashing" to criticize the US for the lack of parental and maternal support. We are so out of step with the rest of the world on this issue that there is no real debate here. Is your argument that the American "system" in which families get virtually NO leave or support during a child's first year of life is somehow beneficial for women? That makes no sense. You can argue that family leave systems don't fix sexism and that's true -- they don't. But they do fix the problem of what to do with babies for the first year of their life by simply making it financially feasible for families to do the most obvious thing and just stay home with them. It requires a bit of cultural and economic flexibility to accommodate but it's such an obvious answer to this issue that almost every other country in the world offers mandatory parental leave and most offer much longer leave than is standard in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No but I do assume that person is kind of an idiot.

Yes, definitely. It is a mark of stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of two teens here with two observations:

1) my kids friends are all really great, smart, well mannered, kind kids. I couldn’t tell you which ones had SAHMs and which ones had WOHMs if I didn’t know their parents (I know many but not all and it’s a mix of both working and non working parents - they all raised awesome kids).


2) this concept of raising your own children is a relatively new phenomenon. Ever heard of the term “it takes a village”? I also have seen some studies that say that working parents now spend significantly more time with their children than stay at home moms did 20-30 years ago. Probably because there isn’t really a village anymore.

Interesting how everyone is just passing by and ignoring this post. As a mom of older ES kids, I agree - all of my children's friends are wonderful kids. Some of them have SAHMs, some of them have two working parents. They're all great kids. If it makes you ladies feel better to put down working moms and tell us we're ruining our children forever, then fine, go ahead, but my kids have turned out great so far, even with a mom who sent them to daycare.

I agree that there are great kids of working parents and great kids of stay at home parents. But the topic isn't about outcomes/how the kids turn out in the end as a result of who raises them. The topic is about who IS actually raising the kids and, although I'd never say this to anyone and think it's totally rude to do so, you can't really argue that parents who both work and whose kids either go to daycare or have a nanny or a grandparent or whoever take care of them are being 100% raised by their parents. They hardly even see their parents. They spend most of their time w/ someone other than their parents. It's just not possible that their parents are the main ones raising them.

Except every parent with kids in school or preschool do this and you are saying only the SAH person is raising their Child, even though the working parent sees the child just as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a reason for why one spouse chose not to work or works from home/at a flexible part time job? Or is this an acceptable turn of phrase?

It's an absolutely valid statement. Many of my friends didn't want their children to be raised by strangers, some had the privilege to do it themselves or get family to support while others had to send them to daycare or leave them with nannies.

It might be shocking to the SAHP crew, but have you ever considered it’s actually developmentally superior for a few hours of the day for the child not to be attached to the parent at the hip?

is 8+ hours a day "a few" to you? Most young kids sleep at least 10-12 hours a day. If you are working for 8 hours and they are sleeping for 12, you are simply not spending much time with them.

Considering they sleep 4 of those 8 hours we are down to 4 hours. You think 4 hours is not “a few”?

Mine slept for 9, 9-6. A parent was with them in the am and another parent was with them from 4-9.

So yea we missed 3-4 hours of their waking time. I think that’s no big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Somehow we don't say that to parents when their kids are in elementary school, but apparently using childcare before K is abandoning your kids. OK.

I don't get offended per se, but I know that means I'm talking to someone who's either judging me as an absent mom, or is just so tone deaf that she (in my experience women only say this to other women) didn't even think about the other person in the conversation. So it does impact my opinion of them a little.

Same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have childfree, sahm and wohm friends. If we say, "I did x because I didn't want Y," we assume it is a personal, individual decision and not meant to cast judgement on anyone who did Y who can hear the statement. It's not always about you, people.

I grow my hair long because I don’t want to look like a bull dike.

Does that working in your scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of two teens here with two observations:

1) my kids friends are all really great, smart, well mannered, kind kids. I couldn’t tell you which ones had SAHMs and which ones had WOHMs if I didn’t know their parents (I know many but not all and it’s a mix of both working and non working parents - they all raised awesome kids).


2) this concept of raising your own children is a relatively new phenomenon. Ever heard of the term “it takes a village”? I also have seen some studies that say that working parents now spend significantly more time with their children than stay at home moms did 20-30 years ago. Probably because there isn’t really a village anymore.

Interesting how everyone is just passing by and ignoring this post. As a mom of older ES kids, I agree - all of my children's friends are wonderful kids. Some of them have SAHMs, some of them have two working parents. They're all great kids. If it makes you ladies feel better to put down working moms and tell us we're ruining our children forever, then fine, go ahead, but my kids have turned out great so far, even with a mom who sent them to daycare.

I agree that there are great kids of working parents and great kids of stay at home parents. But the topic isn't about outcomes/how the kids turn out in the end as a result of who raises them. The topic is about who IS actually raising the kids and, although I'd never say this to anyone and think it's totally rude to do so, you can't really argue that parents who both work and whose kids either go to daycare or have a nanny or a grandparent or whoever take care of them are being 100% raised by their parents. They hardly even see their parents. They spend most of their time w/ someone other than their parents. It's just not possible that their parents are the main ones raising them.

Except every parent with kids in school or preschool do this and you are saying only the SAH person is raising their Child, even though the working parent sees the child just as much.

This thread is largely about kids who are not yet school age.

Though also lots of preschools are not full time so are not meant to be full time childcare -- my child attended a half day preschool starting at age 2.5 which was great and helped her get ready for kindergarten. It was 3 hours a day.

And even once you have school age kids... my kid is off today and tomorrow and monday. He's been sick 4 days in the last month due to RSV and a bad cold going around his school. 10 weeks off in summer. Winter break (2 weeks) and spring break (1 week). Random PD days throughout the year. And the kicker -- school ends at 2:30pm.

Even once kids are in school SAHP see their kids a lot more than full time working parents. And I say that as a working parent. You can't deny facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a reason for why one spouse chose not to work or works from home/at a flexible part time job? Or is this an acceptable turn of phrase?

It's an absolutely valid statement. Many of my friends didn't want their children to be raised by strangers, some had the privilege to do it themselves or get family to support while others had to send them to daycare or leave them with nannies.

It might be shocking to the SAHP crew, but have you ever considered it’s actually developmentally superior for a few hours of the day for the child not to be attached to the parent at the hip?

SAH doesn't mean the kid is attached at the hip, just like going to child care doesn't mean neglect.

I agree, which is why I don't think SAHP spend that much 1-1 time with kids, definitely not more than working parents.

Of course SAHPs spend more 1-1 time with their kids than working parents. How would someone who isn't with their kids 40+ hours a week spend the same amount of time with their kids as someone who is staying home with their kids and not working?

Because of those 40 hours 20 are sleeping, of the other 5 are with the dad who does morning routine. So that is 15 hours a week, 3 hours a day .

NBD.