“Full time mom”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can say “I take care of my kids full time” as that is a counterpart for “I work full time”. Children need full-time care. That is a fact. That care can be provided by a parent, nanny, daycare, elementary school, karate class, etc.

Btw, “parenting” is not something that needs to happen 24/7.

How about working moms just stop getting so triggered about other women’s choices?

I’m not going to twist myself into pretzels trying to find a way to describe being home with my kids that doesn’t offend you. I’m also not going the self deprecating route and saying “I’m unemployed” just to placate you. Get over yourself.

Most working moms don't want to be working as much as they do. They want to spend more time with their children, and silently resent the fact that there are other moms out there who do.

Yeah most working moms don’t really have a choice to not work, without jeopardizing financial security of their families. My own dad got laid off at 50, never found another job, and my mom went back to work as a dental hygienist despite crippling migraines and arthritis to support us.

Disagree. I could easily quit. We could downsize from our $1.7m close-in home to a modest $1m one a little further out. We could do fewer and less luxe vacations. We could set aside a little less for their future nest eggs. Retirement and college tuition would still be perfectly fine.

I work because I enjoy using my analytical and problem-solving skills, because DH and I have enough seniority and flexibility to spend time with our kids, and because we have enough family and hired help to make everything flow smoothly. Also I don’t want my self-worth to be fully tied to the accomplishments of my children, and I could see that happening if I didn’t have anything outside them to occupy my time.

+1 I could have written this. I choose to work. So do my friends.

Oh, come on, though. Surely both of you PPs realize that your lives are nowhere near the reality for most Americans.

This isn't the point, though. Read the post that was responded to where the PP said most working moms don't want to be working and they silently resent stay at home moms. My data sample is certainly not indicative of most of America, and I never said it was, but acting like all working moms resent stay at home moms is pernicious.

Ok, well I would choose to not work if I could. I've been a working mom my whole parenthood and I didn't marry a high earner (though neither did he :wink so financially I have to work. Also my husband would choose not to work either, but we both like a roof over our heads, food in our stomachs, and clothes on our kids, so...

But, I don't agree either that most working women resent SAHs. I'm sure some do, but most adults realize there are pros and cons to each situation and that we're doing our best in any given moment or situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think WOHMs get triggered because this is not how they can describe themselves.

World: What do you do?
WOHM: I work in an office.
Nanny: I look after the children who are left behind during the day when their moms go to work.
Surrogate: I give birth to other people's children
SAHM: I am a full-time mom
WOHM: NOT FAIR! I AM THAT TOO!! How come the SAHM say that! Waaaaaah!

Your inflammatory post is disgusting. You should honestly be ashamed of yourself.

DP here. I have a nanny. She takes care of the kids left at home while I go to work, DH goes to work, and older kids go to school. It's not inflammatory or disgusting.

I am pretty sure that most people who use the term full time mom mean it as a dig, only because I am pretty sure that it originated with Dr. Laura who uses it all of the time and intends it as a dig. It's fine though. As far as digs go, it's not a particularly painful one. My experience has been similar to a pp earlier on this thread. Once people actually get to know you and your family, they kind of change their tune to something like "all working mom's aren't putting the time in with their kids EXCEPT YOU." And then as kids get older most people assume that all women who occasionally show up at the school in jeans are SAHMs until you specifically tell them otherwise. So, while the judgement still remains, it is often so incorrect that it hardly matters.

I have a nanny, too, but that doesn't mean my kids are "left behind" when I go to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think WOHMs get triggered because this is not how they can describe themselves.

World: What do you do?
WOHM: I work in an office.
Nanny: I look after the children who are left behind during the day when their moms go to work.
Surrogate: I give birth to other people's children
SAHM: I am a full-time mom
WOHM: NOT FAIR! I AM THAT TOO!! How come the SAHM say that! Waaaaaah!

Your inflammatory post is disgusting. You should honestly be ashamed of yourself.

DP here. I have a nanny. She takes care of the kids left at home while I go to work, DH goes to work, and older kids go to school. It's not inflammatory or disgusting.

I am pretty sure that most people who use the term full time mom mean it as a dig, only because I am pretty sure that it originated with Dr. Laura who uses it all of the time and intends it as a dig. It's fine though. As far as digs go, it's not a particularly painful one. My experience has been similar to a pp earlier on this thread. Once people actually get to know you and your family, they kind of change their tune to something like "all working mom's aren't putting the time in with their kids EXCEPT YOU." And then as kids get older most people assume that all women who occasionally show up at the school in jeans are SAHMs until you specifically tell them otherwise. So, while the judgement still remains, it is often so incorrect that it hardly matters.

I have a nanny, too, but that doesn't mean my kids are "left behind" when I go to work.

NP here. Yes, the semantics are important. "Left behind" definitely has a negative connotation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think WOHMs get triggered because this is not how they can describe themselves.

World: What do you do?
WOHM: I work in an office.
Nanny: I look after the children who are left behind during the day when their moms go to work.
Surrogate: I give birth to other people's children
SAHM: I am a full-time mom
WOHM: NOT FAIR! I AM THAT TOO!! How come the SAHM say that! Waaaaaah!

Your inflammatory post is disgusting. You should honestly be ashamed of yourself.

DP here. I have a nanny. She takes care of the kids left at home while I go to work, DH goes to work, and older kids go to school. It's not inflammatory or disgusting.

I am pretty sure that most people who use the term full time mom mean it as a dig, only because I am pretty sure that it originated with Dr. Laura who uses it all of the time and intends it as a dig. It's fine though. As far as digs go, it's not a particularly painful one. My experience has been similar to a pp earlier on this thread. Once people actually get to know you and your family, they kind of change their tune to something like "all working mom's aren't putting the time in with their kids EXCEPT YOU." And then as kids get older most people assume that all women who occasionally show up at the school in jeans are SAHMs until you specifically tell them otherwise. So, while the judgement still remains, it is often so incorrect that it hardly matters.

I have a nanny, too, but that doesn't mean my kids are "left behind" when I go to work.

NP here. Yes, the semantics are important. "Left behind" definitely has a negative connotation.

It doesn’t have a negative connotation unless you think there is something wrong with going to work and leaving your kids. For example, take this sentence: My middle child started kindergarten this year, so my youngest is left behind with me during the day.”
There is nothing negative about it there. I am saying this as a working mom...you have to recognize that your child feels sad that you aren’t home sometimes. And you have to get over it. How much time do you think the kindergartener should be spending thinking about the fact that his brother misses him sometimes? How messed up would it be if they never missed each other? Those emotions don’t mean that we should all homeschool our kids and keep them together all of the time. Sometimes kids are sad for a few minutes. It’s ok.

[Anonymous]

“No child left behind.” If the US DOE used that phrase, it wasn’t describing a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Ha! I thought it meant a parent who's kid lives with them the entire week, compared to say, a divorced couple where the child splits their time 50/50 between their two parents (who would be part-time parents, which sounds pretty great to me).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can say “I take care of my kids full time” as that is a counterpart for “I work full time”. Children need full-time care. That is a fact. That care can be provided by a parent, nanny, daycare, elementary school, karate class, etc.

Btw, “parenting” is not something that needs to happen 24/7.

How about working moms just stop getting so triggered about other women’s choices?

I’m not going to twist myself into pretzels trying to find a way to describe being home with my kids that doesn’t offend you. I’m also not going the self deprecating route and saying “I’m unemployed” just to placate you. Get over yourself.

Most working moms don't want to be working as much as they do. They want to spend more time with their children, and silently resent the fact that there are other moms out there who do.

Yeah most working moms don’t really have a choice to not work, without jeopardizing financial security of their families. My own dad got laid off at 50, never found another job, and my mom went back to work as a dental hygienist despite crippling migraines and arthritis to support us.

Disagree. I could easily quit. We could downsize from our $1.7m close-in home to a modest $1m one a little further out. We could do fewer and less luxe vacations. We could set aside a little less for their future nest eggs. Retirement and college tuition would still be perfectly fine.

I work because I enjoy using my analytical and problem-solving skills, because DH and I have enough seniority and flexibility to spend time with our kids, and because we have enough family and hired help to make everything flow smoothly. Also I don’t want my self-worth to be fully tied to the accomplishments of my children, and I could see that happening if I didn’t have anything outside them to occupy my time.

+1 I could have written this. I choose to work. So do my friends.

Oh, come on, though. Surely both of you PPs realize that your lives are nowhere near the reality for most Americans.

This isn't the point, though. Read the post that was responded to where the PP said most working moms don't want to be working and they silently resent stay at home moms. My data sample is certainly not indicative of most of America, and I never said it was, but acting like all working moms resent stay at home moms is pernicious.

Ok, well I would choose to not work if I could. I've been a working mom my whole parenthood and I didn't marry a high earner (though neither did he :wink so financially I have to work. Also my husband would choose not to work either, but we both like a roof over our heads, food in our stomachs, and clothes on our kids, so...

But, I don't agree either that most working women resent SAHs. I'm sure some do, but most adults realize there are pros and cons to each situation and that we're doing our best in any given moment or situation.

PP here and I wish I could work *less* for sure. 25 hours a week would be awesome (I currently work 40-45). That would give me enough time to catch up on errands and relax! However, there aren’t many part-time jobs in my field, so the choice is to either work or not work. While either would be fine financially, I would hate not working, so I continue to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think WOHMs get triggered because this is not how they can describe themselves.

World: What do you do?
WOHM: I work in an office.
Nanny: I look after the children who are left behind during the day when their moms go to work.
Surrogate: I give birth to other people's children
SAHM: I am a full-time mom
WOHM: NOT FAIR! I AM THAT TOO!! How come the SAHM say that! Waaaaaah!

Your inflammatory post is disgusting. You should honestly be ashamed of yourself.

DP here. I have a nanny. She takes care of the kids left at home while I go to work, DH goes to work, and older kids go to school. It's not inflammatory or disgusting.

I am pretty sure that most people who use the term full time mom mean it as a dig, only because I am pretty sure that it originated with Dr. Laura who uses it all of the time and intends it as a dig. It's fine though. As far as digs go, it's not a particularly painful one. My experience has been similar to a pp earlier on this thread. Once people actually get to know you and your family, they kind of change their tune to something like "all working mom's aren't putting the time in with their kids EXCEPT YOU." And then as kids get older most people assume that all women who occasionally show up at the school in jeans are SAHMs until you specifically tell them otherwise. So, while the judgement still remains, it is often so incorrect that it hardly matters.

I have a nanny, too, but that doesn't mean my kids are "left behind" when I go to work.

NP here. Yes, the semantics are important. "Left behind" definitely has a negative connotation.

It doesn’t have a negative connotation unless you think there is something wrong with going to work and leaving your kids. For example, take this sentence: My middle child started kindergarten this year, so my youngest is left behind with me during the day.”
There is nothing negative about it there. I am saying this as a working mom...you have to recognize that your child feels sad that you aren’t home sometimes. And you have to get over it. How much time do you think the kindergartener should be spending thinking about the fact that his brother misses him sometimes? How messed up would it be if they never missed each other? Those emotions don’t mean that we should all homeschool our kids and keep them together all of the time. Sometimes kids are sad for a few minutes. It’s ok.

You are kind of dense. Think about the sentence you just used as an example. You yourself said the kids would miss each other if not together. So the one that is being left behind now doesn't have his brother and misses him. Of course that's a negative connotation. Beyond that, there is no way a stay at home mom who says a working mom LEAVES HER CHILDREN BEHIND did not mean it in a negative way. I mean, if you think that, then I have a bridge to sell you.