SAHMs that never return to workforce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why humans have this need to seek validity for their choices? Why can’t your choice can be right for you and next person’s choice be right for him? Why we all have to sing one tune?

Because it is falsely presented as a choice. For most people, it isn't.

Fair enough but why the urge to take it away from one’s who have it? Human misery needs to spread until all are miserable?

Because people are pushing the narrative that was pushed on them. That goes for both the SAH crowd and the WOH crowd. There is less choice than people want to believe, so they carry on.

This is very true. I was pushed by my family to work and they are horrified years later that I'm not working. Their entire identities are based off their jobs (or former jobs for those retired). My mom was pushed to work by her mom as they were able to give my mom opportunities that my grandmother never had. The difference is my mom had my grandmothers help every time we got sick, every school holiday and summers when there wasn't camp. My mom has never once offered to babysit or help, nor would on the rare occasion when asked, so its a very different situation.

I think its great that people have choices and that women have choices. I raise my son's to give their wives the choice and to support them no matter what their wife's choice is and that we will support both of them, especially if they both work. The nice thing about me not working is being available to help my kids and their spouses so they also get that choice.

Well, in contrast to your experience, I had people tell me that I should have aborted my son rather than let him spend 9 hours in a relatively good daycare where he had the same teacher for all 5 years of his attendance. My mother told me that I might as well drop him off at a 'Romanian orphanage'. Yes, my mother actually said that. No, she isn't Romanian. I had 5 weeks paid leave and 1 week unpaid, that's all. So, it goes both ways. I don't really care what people do, but when you put it out there and claim 'freedom and choice' it gets damn tiresome. Especially the noone can care for a baby but the one that birthed it poster.

5 weeks paid leave is really good. Your mom commenting is not most people. My mom commented the opposite insisting I work. I only had paid maternity leave because I didn't take leave for years and saved it. Supervisor wouldn't let me take any of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not returned to the workplace because I like hanging out with my kids and DH.

Basically, currently I live a calm and chilled lifestyle. I think going back to work will be like punishment for me. Even the thought of it makes me want to cry, because I don't even like getting up in the morning. Thank You, Jesus!

Ok maybe thank your husband. Thank society too for pushing him to work so that you don't have to.

I think he likes to work though and also get up early in the morning.

Thank you patriarchal society for telling men that they must be providers!

Thank you DH, for appreciating me for having your kids, breastfeeding them, raising them etc...things other women also do for their families but are not given credit for.

On behalf of the patriarchy, you are welcome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why importance of biological bond between a mother and a baby has to be undermined to validate adoption or daycare. Just because it’s not optimal, doesn’t mean it’s subpar.

There is also an equal bond between a father and child. And, that of parents through adoption. Biology has nothing to do with bonding, nor does giving birth. Day care is a separate issue.

Really? DH and I were so enamored by our biological kids - their cuteness, their personalities, their intelligence, their very existance - that both of us working outside the home and leaving them with someone else was not an option. If they were less cute, less intelligent, less pleasant, and less related to us by genetic, maybe I would have been ok leaving them in daycare or formula feeding them. For me, the very thought of leaving them to get back to work would make me want to weep. DH was also super protective of them and wanted the best for them. He did not trust anyone with them except me and my mom. DH and I, paid for all sorts of outsourcing, so that my kids were either with me, DH or my mom - at all times. Of course, all of this was possible because we also were ok financially and could afford to be single income family.

If they were not our biological kids, I wonder if we would feel that kind of bonding with our kids? Yes, nurture makes a difference, but we also could see nature and genetics reflected in the way our kids were. Our parents (ILs and my parents), pitched in and helped to raise the grandkids also because of the genetics. They could see their own kids and their own traits in their grandkids. I wonder if that urge to look after the baby with such tenderness, love, responsiblity and care would have happened to the degree that it did if they were adopted grandkids? Of course, they would have been involved and been loving grandparents, but I am sure that the very same feelings would not have been there knowing that these grandkids were the same bloodline.

Don't ever adopt! Ever!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why importance of biological bond between a mother and a baby has to be undermined to validate adoption or daycare. Just because it’s not optimal, doesn’t mean it’s subpar.

There is also an equal bond between a father and child. And, that of parents through adoption. Biology has nothing to do with bonding, nor does giving birth. Day care is a separate issue.

Really? DH and I were so enamored by our biological kids - their cuteness, their personalities, their intelligence, their very existance - that both of us working outside the home and leaving them with someone else was not an option. If they were less cute, less intelligent, less pleasant, and less related to us by genetic, maybe I would have been ok leaving them in daycare or formula feeding them. For me, the very thought of leaving them to get back to work would make me want to weep. DH was also super protective of them and wanted the best for them. He did not trust anyone with them except me and my mom. DH and I, paid for all sorts of outsourcing, so that my kids were either with me, DH or my mom - at all times. Of course, all of this was possible because we also were ok financially and could afford to be single income family.

If they were not our biological kids, I wonder if we would feel that kind of bonding with our kids? Yes, nurture makes a difference, but we also could see nature and genetics reflected in the way our kids were. Our parents (ILs and my parents), pitched in and helped to raise the grandkids also because of the genetics. They could see their own kids and their own traits in their grandkids. I wonder if that urge to look after the baby with such tenderness, love, responsiblity and care would have happened to the degree that it did if they were adopted grandkids? Of course, they would have been involved and been loving grandparents, but I am sure that the very same feelings would not have been there knowing that these grandkids were the same bloodline.

This has to be a troll. All the worst mommy war tropes all in one post! Shove off, trolly-loser lady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why importance of biological bond between a mother and a baby has to be undermined to validate adoption or daycare. Just because it’s not optimal, doesn’t mean it’s subpar.

There is also an equal bond between a father and child. And, that of parents through adoption. Biology has nothing to do with bonding, nor does giving birth. Day care is a separate issue.

Really? DH and I were so enamored by our biological kids - their cuteness, their personalities, their intelligence, their very existance - that both of us working outside the home and leaving them with someone else was not an option. If they were less cute, less intelligent, less pleasant, and less related to us by genetic, maybe I would have been ok leaving them in daycare or formula feeding them. For me, the very thought of leaving them to get back to work would make me want to weep. DH was also super protective of them and wanted the best for them. He did not trust anyone with them except me and my mom. DH and I, paid for all sorts of outsourcing, so that my kids were either with me, DH or my mom - at all times. Of course, all of this was possible because we also were ok financially and could afford to be single income family.

If they were not our biological kids, I wonder if we would feel that kind of bonding with our kids? Yes, nurture makes a difference, but we also could see nature and genetics reflected in the way our kids were. Our parents (ILs and my parents), pitched in and helped to raise the grandkids also because of the genetics. They could see their own kids and their own traits in their grandkids. I wonder if that urge to look after the baby with such tenderness, love, responsibility and care would have happened to the degree that it did if they were adopted grandkids? Of course, they would have been involved and been loving grandparents, but I am sure that the very same feelings would not have been there knowing that these grandkids were the same bloodline.

Don't ever adopt! Ever!

Is it common for average heterosexual happily married people with their own biological kids to adopt? Unless they are trying to provide a home for some kid due to unfortunate circumstances, or are celebs collecting kids from poor countries - it is not common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why importance of biological bond between a mother and a baby has to be undermined to validate adoption or daycare. Just because it’s not optimal, doesn’t mean it’s subpar.

There is also an equal bond between a father and child. And, that of parents through adoption. Biology has nothing to do with bonding, nor does giving birth. Day care is a separate issue.

Really? DH and I were so enamored by our biological kids - their cuteness, their personalities, their intelligence, their very existance - that both of us working outside the home and leaving them with someone else was not an option. If they were less cute, less intelligent, less pleasant, and less related to us by genetic, maybe I would have been ok leaving them in daycare or formula feeding them. For me, the very thought of leaving them to get back to work would make me want to weep. DH was also super protective of them and wanted the best for them. He did not trust anyone with them except me and my mom. DH and I, paid for all sorts of outsourcing, so that my kids were either with me, DH or my mom - at all times. Of course, all of this was possible because we also were ok financially and could afford to be single income family.

If they were not our biological kids, I wonder if we would feel that kind of bonding with our kids? Yes, nurture makes a difference, but we also could see nature and genetics reflected in the way our kids were. Our parents (ILs and my parents), pitched in and helped to raise the grandkids also because of the genetics. They could see their own kids and their own traits in their grandkids. I wonder if that urge to look after the baby with such tenderness, love, responsibility and care would have happened to the degree that it did if they were adopted grandkids? Of course, they would have been involved and been loving grandparents, but I am sure that the very same feelings would not have been there knowing that these grandkids were the same bloodline.

Don't ever adopt! Ever!

Is it common for average heterosexual happily married people with their own biological kids to adopt? Unless they are trying to provide a home for some kid due to unfortunate circumstances, or are celebs collecting kids from poor countries - it is not common.

Actually it is common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it bother working moms so much that other moms choose to stay home? You are not supporting us financially or in any other way so what difference does it make to you?

I’m a SAHM and I don’t think it really bothers many of them. Maybe a few are jealous and some see that it can have a teeny negative impact on how people perceive women overall (and I can see that too), but the vast majority of people are live-and-let-live types. I know a ton of women who are big law attorneys or something equally demanding/prestigious and almost all of them are either enthusiastic about my choice or think it’s about as important as what I like on my pizza. The one exception is an older women who was a judge and had to push back against the idea that women should stay home to advance in her career, so I get why she’d be frustrated with my choice.

They are in their 40s and looking at working for the next 40 years straight without a break. No husband or spouse to take some of the load off, no back up if they lose their job. If married, they set up their marriage as 50/50 on expenses, so it's basically the same as being a single entity in a partnership. If they lose their job -- which will happen at some point in their early 50s -- their spouse will say, "don't be lazy, go get another job" when a new job might take a year (or more) to find at 50. Why are you not bringing in the same income, we are 50/50, right? No? Goodbye. So they are seeing where they cannot slow down, even though their bodies are beginning to slow down as menopause nears. They look at a SAHM who didn't set up their marriage in the same way and that woman is an easy place to vent their personal vitriol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ yep. I was just waiting for somebody to make the point about adoption and watch these people spin out when they hear the logical conclusion of what they’re saying.

Uhh im not even sure what adoption has to do with all this but…. Are you trying to say that adoption is a first choice, equally-as-good option to bring with your biological parents? I think we can all agree that the ideal scenario for human babies is a biological mom who is mentally/physically/financially able to support their child. Adoptive parents are heroes, and I know the majority sincerely love their children. But come on, there is always something lost in adoption, for both the bio mom and the child. Don’t pretend like it’s somehow ideal for all of us to just trade around babies and it doesn’t matter at all who anyone’s biological parents are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ I think the point about dads not having a huge emotional response to leaving a baby To go to work is irrelevant to the question of who or whether or not one parent should stay home, but I am with you on the idea that it’s awful that not all women have that choice, even if they made reasonable financial sacrifices.

It’s relevant because a bunch of posters are asking the SAHM’s “why doesn’t your husband stay home instead?” as of men and women have equal desires to stay home with their kids, especially 0-5 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why importance of biological bond between a mother and a baby has to be undermined to validate adoption or daycare. Just because it’s not optimal, doesn’t mean it’s subpar.

There is also an equal bond between a father and child. And, that of parents through adoption. Biology has nothing to do with bonding, nor does giving birth. Day care is a separate issue.

Really? DH and I were so enamored by our biological kids - their cuteness, their personalities, their intelligence, their very existance - that both of us working outside the home and leaving them with someone else was not an option. If they were less cute, less intelligent, less pleasant, and less related to us by genetic, maybe I would have been ok leaving them in daycare or formula feeding them. For me, the very thought of leaving them to get back to work would make me want to weep. DH was also super protective of them and wanted the best for them. He did not trust anyone with them except me and my mom. DH and I, paid for all sorts of outsourcing, so that my kids were either with me, DH or my mom - at all times. Of course, all of this was possible because we also were ok financially and could afford to be single income family.

If they were not our biological kids, I wonder if we would feel that kind of bonding with our kids? Yes, nurture makes a difference, but we also could see nature and genetics reflected in the way our kids were. Our parents (ILs and my parents), pitched in and helped to raise the grandkids also because of the genetics. They could see their own kids and their own traits in their grandkids. I wonder if that urge to look after the baby with such tenderness, love, responsibility and care would have happened to the degree that it did if they were adopted grandkids? Of course, they would have been involved and been loving grandparents, but I am sure that the very same feelings would not have been there knowing that these grandkids were the same bloodline.

Don't ever adopt! Ever!

Is it common for average heterosexual happily married people with their own biological kids to adopt? Unless they are trying to provide a home for some kid due to unfortunate circumstances, or are celebs collecting kids from poor countries - it is not common.

Actually it is common.

The numbers say it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why humans have this need to seek validity for their choices? Why can’t your choice can be right for you and next person’s choice be right for him? Why we all have to sing one tune?

Because it is falsely presented as a choice. For most people, it isn't.

Fair enough but why the urge to take it away from one’s who have it? Human misery needs to spread until all are miserable?

Because people are pushing the narrative that was pushed on them. That goes for both the SAH crowd and the WOH crowd. There is less choice than people want to believe, so they carry on.

This is very true. I was pushed by my family to work and they are horrified years later that I'm not working. Their entire identities are based off their jobs (or former jobs for those retired). My mom was pushed to work by her mom as they were able to give my mom opportunities that my grandmother never had. The difference is my mom had my grandmothers help every time we got sick, every school holiday and summers when there wasn't camp. My mom has never once offered to babysit or help, nor would on the rare occasion when asked, so its a very different situation.

I think its great that people have choices and that women have choices. I raise my son's to give their wives the choice and to support them no matter what their wife's choice is and that we will support both of them, especially if they both work. The nice thing about me not working is being available to help my kids and their spouses so they also get that choice.

Well, in contrast to your experience, I had people tell me that I should have aborted my son rather than let him spend 9 hours in a relatively good daycare where he had the same teacher for all 5 years of his attendance. My mother told me that I might as well drop him off at a 'Romanian orphanage'. Yes, my mother actually said that. No, she isn't Romanian. I had 5 weeks paid leave and 1 week unpaid, that's all. So, it goes both ways. I don't really care what people do, but when you put it out there and claim 'freedom and choice' it gets damn tiresome. Especially the noone can care for a baby but the one that birthed it poster.

5 weeks paid leave is really good. Your mom commenting is not most people. My mom commented the opposite insisting I work. I only had paid maternity leave because I didn't take leave for years and saved it. Supervisor wouldn't let me take any of it.

Yeah, the 5 weeks was saved up over 2 years, but, I didn't have enough to get to 6 weeks and they would not let me back until the Dr signed off on it at 6 weeks. I am happy enough to have any paid leave at all, I know a.lot of jobs don't provide any. I have had a lot of those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is fascinating how the work-outside-the-home moms are upset and can't be at peace with other women's decision to stay home while the stay-at-home moms are happy at at peace with their decision.

That says it all, really. I'm laughing. Let's keep this thread going!

I know, right? This thread is a bunch of SAHM’s saying they’re happy at home and it works for their family, and a bunch of WOHM’s trying to convince them they aren’t really happy and it’s a stupid decision to stay home. It’s a lot of one-way judgment….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ yep. I was just waiting for somebody to make the point about adoption and watch these people spin out when they hear the logical conclusion of what they’re saying.

Uhh im not even sure what adoption has to do with all this but…. Are you trying to say that adoption is a first choice, equally-as-good option to bring with your biological parents? I think we can all agree that the ideal scenario for human babies is a biological mom who is mentally/physically/financially able to support their child. Adoptive parents are heroes, and I know the majority sincerely love their children. But come on, there is always something lost in adoption, for both the bio mom and the child. Don’t pretend like it’s somehow ideal for all of us to just trade around babies and it doesn’t matter at all who anyone’s biological parents are.

Adoption is a trauma for both birth mom and child. It may not be apparent at birth/relinquishment, but it is completely normal for there to be ripple effects
through both birth mom and child’s lives. People who do not want to hear this are not prepared to adopt. One of the reasons for open adoptions is to try to mitigate some of this trauma. Adoption is a very complicated situation. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, but it is not the same as building a family in the traditional way. That being said adoptive parents and children can also bond in incredibly strong ways.

-Adoptee who is now also an adoptive mom

[Anonymous]

I think adoption is great, it helps childless parents and parent less children. What I don’t get is wealthy hiring surrogates, why not just adopt a baby who doesn’t have parents, instead of using a human as an incubator then snatching the baby and giving it to a hired nanny to raise. It’s not like people who can afford it have to face hurdles of adoption faced by the common people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ yep. I was just waiting for somebody to make the point about adoption and watch these people spin out when they hear the logical conclusion of what they’re saying.

Uhh im not even sure what adoption has to do with all this but…. Are you trying to say that adoption is a first choice, equally-as-good option to bring with your biological parents? I think we can all agree that the ideal scenario for human babies is a biological mom who is mentally/physically/financially able to support their child. Adoptive parents are heroes, and I know the majority sincerely love their children. But come on, there is always something lost in adoption, for both the bio mom and the child. Don’t pretend like it’s somehow ideal for all of us to just trade around babies and it doesn’t matter at all who anyone’s biological parents are.

No, not at all.