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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I admire parents who knock themselves out to spend significant amounts of time with their kids despite both working full time. However, I cringe when I read here about parents who get home from work at 5:30 or later and then put the kids to bed by 7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that he can walk away more easily. But you know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Your premise is fundamentally flawed, because a woman working is not just about her own desires and children having caretakers other than their parents during the day is not harmful to children.

On another note: Do you also believe working men are putting their own desires ahead of their kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that he can walk away more easily. But you know that.

Is that why you work? To keep your husband from leaving easily?

Yeah. It sounds absurd to ask that, right? Well I don't stay at home to make it easy for him to leave. I actually thinks it makes both of us enjoy our marriage and family life together. You know yourself and your husband and the needs of your kid. I sure hope you don't make decisions based on the inevitability of his leaving you. That would be a terribly insecure feeling.

[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.

Is the attorney who doesn't show up to court the primary litigator in your case??? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. And that's the point. There is a reason you hire a nanny or pay for childcare while you go to work. That person would be your child's PRIMARY caretaker--meaning that this person cares for the needs of your child on a full-time basis. Much in the same way that you are paid by your employer for YOUR full-time role doing whatever it is that you do while you are not simultaneously caring for your child. It is a fact. That you are defensive about it is neither here nor there, but it is you who is trying to have both the career AND be defined as your child's primary caretaker. You are not if you are not there.

[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....?

I don't know if you'll be back, PP, but if you do come back, I wanted to ask if you are a new mom. Most new moms feel the way you do, so in love with their baby, whether they intend to go back to work or not. The truth is, I cried every day when I dropped off my baby at her daycare provider for a while when I went back to work. But that pain was mine, not my baby's. She was happy and fine. Happy with me in the morning, happy with her provider during the day, happy with me in the evenings and all weekend. I know that feeling of not wanting to be away from your baby, but that feeling doesn't mean it is bad for the baby when mom and dad work. It means it can be hard for some moms to go back to work, that's all.

You have to understand that your posts come in context with a few other SAHMs on the currently running mom-war threads who are being really judgmental and nasty. Their posts are contain two things: proclamations of pity for the poor working moms who have "no choice" but to work and outright or thinly-veiled contempt for the rest of working moms. Working moms deserve none of their contempt and are not the least bit interested in their pity. Some of what you were saying skirted close to the kinds of things they were saying, so similar intentions may have been inferred.

[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.

Is the attorney who doesn't show up to court the primary litigator in your case??? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. And that's the point. There is a reason you hire a nanny or pay for childcare while you go to work. That person would be your child's PRIMARY caretaker--meaning that this person cares for the needs of your child on a full-time basis. Much in the same way that you are paid by your employer for YOUR full-time role doing whatever it is that you do while you are not simultaneously caring for your child. It is a fact. That you are defensive about it is neither here nor there, but it is you who is trying to have both the career AND be defined as your child's primary caretaker. You are not if you are not there.

Your analogies are not appropriate. A full-time job is 40 hours a week, not 168 hours a week. I am a parent and primary caregiver 24/7, whether I am at work or home and whether my child is with me or at school. A nanny or daycare provider is never a primary caretaker, unless you have one of those old-timey, rich person situations where the nanny lives with the family and truly does ALL of the child care 24/7. That is highly uncommon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that he can walk away more easily. But you know that.

Is that why you work? To keep your husband from leaving easily?

Yeah. It sounds absurd to ask that, right? Well I don't stay at home to make it easy for him to leave. I actually thinks it makes both of us enjoy our marriage and family life together. You know yourself and your husband and the needs of your kid. I sure hope you don't make decisions based on the inevitability of his leaving you. That would be a terribly insecure feeling.

I don't, but I am fortunate. I married a fundamentally good, steady guy. But we all know people and read the threads on here.

[Anonymous]

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

Is the attorney who doesn't show up to court the primary litigator in your case??? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. And that's the point. There is a reason you hire a nanny or pay for childcare while you go to work. That person would be your child's PRIMARY caretaker--meaning that this person cares for the needs of your child on a full-time basis. Much in the same way that you are paid by your employer for YOUR full-time role doing whatever it is that you do while you are not simultaneously caring for your child. It is a fact. That you are defensive about it is neither here nor there, but it is you who is trying to have both the career AND be defined as your child's primary caretaker. You are not if you are not there.

Your analogies are not appropriate. A full-time job is 40 hours a week, not 168 hours a week. I am a parent and primary caregiver 24/7, whether I am at work or home and whether my child is with me or at school. A nanny or daycare provider is never a primary caretaker, unless you have one of those old-timey, rich person situations where the nanny lives with the family and truly does ALL of the child care 24/7. That is highly uncommon.

Kind of why I used the attorney example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that he can walk away more easily. But you know that.

Is that why you work? To keep your husband from leaving easily?

Yeah. It sounds absurd to ask that, right? Well I don't stay at home to make it easy for him to leave. I actually thinks it makes both of us enjoy our marriage and family life together. You know yourself and your husband and the needs of your kid. I sure hope you don't make decisions based on the inevitability of his leaving you. That would be a terribly insecure feeling.

I don't, but I am fortunate. I married a fundamentally good, steady guy. But we all know people and read the threads on here.

Same, PP, Same. So we are both fortunate in that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is that he can walk away more easily. But you know that.

Is that why you work? To keep your husband from leaving easily?

Yeah. It sounds absurd to ask that, right? Well I don't stay at home to make it easy for him to leave. I actually thinks it makes both of us enjoy our marriage and family life together. You know yourself and your husband and the needs of your kid. I sure hope you don't make decisions based on the inevitability of his leaving you. That would be a terribly insecure feeling.

+100
This is exactly what goes through my mind every time the inevitable, "But you're dependent on him! He could leave at any time!" nonsense is trotted out. I would far rather live in a marriage in which both my husband and I are "dependent" on each other, than one in which every hour and every dollar is added up and kept track of. Bean counting - insisting that each spouse do exactly 50% of everything - is not for me. My husband and I are a team, in every sense of the word. Do we do the same things? Nope. And that's what makes it teamwork. We each bring different - and necessary - skills to the table. In the future, those roles might change, depending on family dynamics. But for now, it's exactly as our family should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Is the attorney who doesn't show up to court the primary litigator in your case??? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. And that's the point. There is a reason you hire a nanny or pay for childcare while you go to work. That person would be your child's PRIMARY caretaker--meaning that this person cares for the needs of your child on a full-time basis. Much in the same way that you are paid by your employer for YOUR full-time role doing whatever it is that you do while you are not simultaneously caring for your child. It is a fact. That you are defensive about it is neither here nor there, but it is you who is trying to have both the career AND be defined as your child's primary caretaker. You are not if you are not there.

Your analogies are not appropriate. A full-time job is 40 hours a week, not 168 hours a week. I am a parent and primary caregiver 24/7, whether I am at work or home and whether my child is with me or at school. A nanny or daycare provider is never a primary caretaker, unless you have one of those old-timey, rich person situations where the nanny lives with the family and truly does ALL of the child care 24/7. That is highly uncommon.

Kind of why I used the attorney example.


And...it still makes no sense. Full-time parenting is 24/7/365. Even a full-time job is not.

So, in your mind, to be a primary caregiver, must one never leave the child's side? Do you plan to attend school with them?

[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:

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....?

I don't know if you'll be back, PP, but if you do come back, I wanted to ask if you are a new mom. Most new moms feel the way you do, so in love with their baby, whether they intend to go back to work or not. The truth is, I cried every day when I dropped off my baby at her daycare provider for a while when I went back to work. But that pain was mine, not my baby's. She was happy and fine. Happy with me in the morning, happy with her provider during the day, happy with me in the evenings and all weekend. I know that feeling of not wanting to be away from your baby, but that feeling doesn't mean it is bad for the baby when mom and dad work. It means it can be hard for some moms to go back to work, that's all.

You have to understand that your posts come in context with a few other SAHMs on the currently running mom-war threads who are being really judgmental and nasty. Their posts are contain two things: proclamations of pity for the poor working moms who have "no choice" but to work and outright or thinly-veiled contempt for the rest of working moms. Working moms deserve none of their contempt and are not the least bit interested in their pity. Some of what you were saying skirted close to the kinds of things they were saying, so similar intentions may have been inferred.

I'm the PP. I swear I'm not the "crazy" PP who's posting from her toilet at 3 am... I happen to be up right now because I'm in my third trimester and hungry. Anyway, I totally agree with EVERYTHING you said. And yes, I am a relatively "new" mom, I guess? My daughter is a 2-year-old, and if you'll notice, all my posts clearly differentiate between infants/toddlers/elementary schoolers, etc. Yes, I am talking about the same pull you describe, but I NEVER said anything about babies being happier or better off with their moms instead of a nanny/daycare worker. Other posters may have said that, but not me. In fact, I went out of my way multiple times to say I don't think staying home is better for children or that children are sad at daycare, etc. The issue I personally am having is: poster says anyone who stays at home instead of going back to work is shirking her responsibilities toward women's empowerment; my response: okay, but I feel a deep pull to be with my daughter full-time for longer than a traditional maternity leave, and there's really nothing I can do about that. And then a bunch of working moms jump on me as if I'm threatening their status as parents, saying they don't love their child, etc. AND while jumping on me, they make totally ridiculous arguments about the differences/non-differences between an infant vs a kindergartner, daytime hours vs. nighttime hours, etc., and taking issue with the term "primary caregiver," which I guess is much more loaded than I initially understood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Is the attorney who doesn't show up to court the primary litigator in your case??? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. And that's the point. There is a reason you hire a nanny or pay for childcare while you go to work. That person would be your child's PRIMARY caretaker--meaning that this person cares for the needs of your child on a full-time basis. Much in the same way that you are paid by your employer for YOUR full-time role doing whatever it is that you do while you are not simultaneously caring for your child. It is a fact. That you are defensive about it is neither here nor there, but it is you who is trying to have both the career AND be defined as your child's primary caretaker. You are not if you are not there.

Your analogies are not appropriate. A full-time job is 40 hours a week, not 168 hours a week. I am a parent and primary caregiver 24/7, whether I am at work or home and whether my child is with me or at school. A nanny or daycare provider is never a primary caretaker, unless you have one of those old-timey, rich person situations where the nanny lives with the family and truly does ALL of the child care 24/7. That is highly uncommon.

Kind of why I used the attorney example.


And...it still makes no sense. Full-time parenting is 24/7/365. Even a full-time job is not.

So, in your mind, to be a primary caregiver, must one never leave the child's side? Do you plan to attend school with them?

I'm the PP who initially (and I guess unfortunately) originally used the "primary caregiver" term. (And like I said in another post, I'm not the crazy 3 am poster from my toilet! I'm just up right now because I'm in my third trimester and can't sleep!!). I think we are confusing the terms "parent" and "caregiver." I never intended to imply that working parents do not have ultimate responsibility for their child or are not the most important adult in their child's life. I am talking about childcare hours. Like, actual childcare. I don't know how else to explain it. I'm a stay-at-home mom, but even I am not caregiving "24/7" - when my husband gets home in the evening, I consider myself "off the clock" for a little bit. When my daughter is sleeping at night, I am still responsible for her, but no, I do not consider those hours childcare. When my daughter takes her nap during the day, same thing - yes I'm still responsible for her, but no, I do not consider that time "childcare". If you are at work 40 hours per week and someone is watching your child during that time, that other person is taking care of your child, not you. Okay yes, you might be called in if your child gets sick or has another issue, but otherwise, you are at work and not doing childcare. Can you really argue with that? Again, NONE of this is to say that having another adult provide childcare for your child is wrong or bad for anyone involved!!

[Anonymous]

Jeez 20 pages? I can’t imagine giving a crap about someone’s decision to work or stay at home. You do you. I’ll do me. Let’s just all be kind and that’s what matters in the end.