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:

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 know what, actually, I give up. You are all right. You are simultaneously at work during the day AND watching your baby. You miss out on nothing. Happy?

[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 said if a woman who works is not her child's primary caretaker. That is incorrect. Stop with the moving goalposts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Enjoy dependence!

[Anonymous]

We moved away and our finical situation dramatically changed over the past year.
I went from frazzled, over worked, stressed out working away from home mom; to stay at home lady of leisure.
I was envious of families that had more help when I worked, but I didn’t look down on stay at home moms. I was too busy to contemplate their situations.
Now I’m surrounded by a bunch of extremely wealthy stay at home moms.
I can report that they are very unconcerned... with everything. These ladies have zero concerns.
They aren’t thinking about working moms. They aren’t thinking about... well I don’t know what they talk about.
I’ll do an AMA if I eventually infiltrate the herd.

So this is a class issue. Middle class working moms v. Middle class stay at homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We moved away and our finical situation dramatically changed over the past year.
I went from frazzled, over worked, stressed out working away from home mom; to stay at home lady of leisure.
I was envious of families that had more help when I worked, but I didn’t look down on stay at home moms. I was too busy to contemplate their situations.
Now I’m surrounded by a bunch of extremely wealthy stay at home moms.
I can report that they are very unconcerned... with everything. These ladies have zero concerns.
They aren’t thinking about working moms. They aren’t thinking about... well I don’t know what they talk about.
I’ll do an AMA if I eventually infiltrate the herd.

So this is a class issue. Middle class working moms v. Middle class stay at homes.

Your post made me laugh so hard. Infiltrate the herd...

[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:

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 said if a woman who works is not her child's primary caretaker. That is incorrect. Stop with the moving goalposts.

Yea, but I guess I didn't mean it the way people are taking it. I never said anything about love etc. I'm not sure what other term you think I should use for someone who is spending the majority of a child's waking hours with them....?

[Anonymous]

Working mom hair. Look guys. If you ask someone why they want to stay home with their babies or their preschoolers, you're going to get an answer. It may be one that makes you feel judged because it's different than your choices, but stay at home parents feelings and reasons other own

I think most people get this. I do think, however, that there are many working parents who believe their choice is the superior one and project superiority onto stay-at-home parents who do not care.

I have been working since my baby was 4 months old. And I have never once had a stay-at-home parent make me feel bad about my choices because I do not feel bad. I have never found anyone' description of their choices and feelings as"implicit judging" any more than my description of my choices judges theirs.

that's not to say there are not obnoxious stay-at-home parents. And that's not to say there aren't of noxious working parents. Humans are obnoxious. But if you go looking for a fight all the time, you are going to find one

[Anonymous]

^ I really wish I could edit. I know there are a lot of mistakes because I don't have my cheaters on. Please try to look past them and read the gist of what I'm saying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Working mom hair. Look guys. If you ask someone why they want to stay home with their babies or their preschoolers, you're going to get an answer. It may be one that makes you feel judged because it's different than your choices, but stay at home parents feelings and reasons other own

I think most people get this. I do think, however, that there are many working parents who believe their choice is the superior one and project superiority onto stay-at-home parents who do not care.

I have been working since my baby was 4 months old. And I have never once had a stay-at-home parent make me feel bad about my choices because I do not feel bad. I have never found anyone' description of their choices and feelings as"implicit judging" any more than my description of my choices judges theirs.

that's not to say there are not obnoxious stay-at-home parents. And that's not to say there aren't of noxious working parents. Humans are obnoxious. But if you go looking for a fight all the time, you are going to find one

You're good people..

[Anonymous]

This question is designed to foment a mom vs mom discussion. Both WOHM and SAHM can and should be working together to dismantle patriarchy. Patriarchy has conned us into thinking that we should feel defensive about our individual choices. But even if we debate and defend our choices ad nauseam, we will still be paid less at work and undervalued in our homes.

[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:

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 said if a woman who works is not her child's primary caretaker. That is incorrect. Stop with the moving goalposts.

Yea, but I guess I didn't mean it the way people are taking it. I never said anything about love etc. I'm not sure what other term you think I should use for someone who is spending the majority of a child's waking hours with them....?

The fact is that most parents are with their kids for more time than they are in other care, what with weekends and mornings and evenings. Most couples where both work split drop off and pick up, often working it out that their child doesn't have to be in daycare for a full 8 hours or one parent is flexible and they manage it that. So many iterations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't care what people do. I just care how they talk about it. And I've found a lot of SAHMs talk about staying home as if I'm all but dooming my kids to prison by being a working mom.

"Do they even know you?"
"Do you die inside when they cry for the nanny instead of you?"
"You'll never get this time back."

Meh...it's the same on the other foot too though.
"God I would be soooo bored all day!"
"I want my children to see that women are just as important as men in the workplace in today's world."
"My brain would rot if ALL I did was interact with my kids all day long..."

[Anonymous]

How can working moms deny they are putting their own desires ahead of their kids? Especially the ones who don’t need to work.a

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This question is designed to foment a mom vs mom discussion. Both WOHM and SAHM can and should be working together to dismantle patriarchy. Patriarchy has conned us into thinking that we should feel defensive about our individual choices. But even if we debate and defend our choices ad nauseam, we will still be paid less at work and undervalued in our homes.

Pretty sure it wasn't the "Patriarchy" that sent men off to fight wars. The idea of men as oppressors is so absurd. Just because you look back on those times in today's context and view it that way doesn't make it so. I don't think your grandma's grandma thought all men were out to keep her down! "Oh, if only they would LET me earn the money and go off to work 8 hours a day!..."
The division of labor scenario that most men and women had in marriages prior to the 1960s was simply a mutual arrangement that worked FOR ALL OF US...drawbacks and benefits to both sexes.
Until the advent of the birth control pill in the early 60s, we literally had not control over our reproductive cycles so were basically UNABLE to make choices about when we would have children and how many (after deciding to have sex, that is!) So the idea of women making an equal contribution to the workforce was just not workable in any rational way. I actually wonder if one of the great cons of our time has been to convince women that the men had it so amazing that we should want to do what they were doing! Well done, men!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Enjoy dependence!

Hilarious. And did you ever stop to think that he is extremely DEPENDENT upon her as well...to raise their kids into the responsible well-loved humans that they want them to be? I want to say thank you to this PP and her DH for making that thoughtful decision because it is likely that your children will be lovely people. And dependence on one another is not such a terrible concept in a healthy marriage.