Husbands with SAHMs that prefer they work

[Anonymous]

I believe women should have control of their own money. I don't care if they earned it, inherited it, won it, married it or found it. Know how to invest your money and know how to grow it. Your decisions to work or stay at home - it will all depend on your kid's / family's needs. These needs change all the time. If you have the money, you can decide to hire a nanny, pay for daycare, hire a mother's helper, outsource cooking or cleaning, start your own business, stay at home, homeschool, hire tutors...

Do what works for you. Once you give birth - your instincts are to take care of your family. You should decide what this entails, not some internet strangers. And if you have your own money, you use it to ease things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So lots of holes in your thinking. First, you pretend to know all about daycare - there are some great, high quality centers and home daycares in this area - but you know nothing, NOTHING about them because the random drop off daycare your non-working wife drops them off at so she can grab her mani-pedi doesn't count. You can't talk about the merits of having a SAHM and be an expert on daycare. Sor.

Also, you conveniently leave out how much it sucks for your kids and you that are a paycheck while your wife "raises" them. Again, can't have it both ways. If working parents are having their kids raised by the lowly daycare staff and nannies who take care of them during working hours then you can't be raising your kids if you work. Many parents who both work actually stagger stuff so they both see the kids a lot - my husband goes in at 9 after kids get on the bus and I'm home by 6 when I don't WFH 2x a week. I'm betting you've never stayed home with a sick kid, gone to a dr. appointment with your kid, or volunteered for a field trip? My husband does and did all the time and you can really see it in his relationship with our kids.

Also, we used high quality daycare at my husband's work for a few years, then switched to a nanny. Our nanny was "uneducated" but she is the kindest, most patient, hardest working woman I know and my kids benefited greatly from her love and experience. She also taught them fluent Spanish. There are so many advantages to having others help raise your kids.

You also have no idea how your wife will feel about all this in 10, 15 years when the kids don't need her as much and she has been out of the workforce for over a decade. Maybe it will work out, maybe it won't, but your smugness about it all is not really appropriate at this time.

If your current situation is working for your family, that's swell. But to act like it would be perfect for every family or you just can't fathom why others make different choices, is just silly and makes you look foolish.

Look, I work and will always work because my income is critical to our family. But I do think you're being unnecessarily defensive with the guy by going on the attack. I don't think he's telling you how to do things; he's telling you what worked for him.

My kids have been in daycare and nannycare all their life. Do I think they had great childcare? yes, absolutely. Do I think that I would have provided it better? Absolutely. I love them more than any daycare worker could, and I know more and am more educated than any of their childcare workers. That doesn't mean their teachers have been uneducated, or didn't love them. It just means I love them more, and would have done better. It would have been perfect with me, but that's impossible. So we are going for good, which means high-quality preschools. Good is fine. Good is good. It doesn't hurt my feelings to say excellent is better than good but excellent isn't always possible. We'll live, kids are fine. Again, I don't doubt that your kid had great childcare. But to deny that care given by loving, educated mothers is not the gold standard is..sort of silly. And I know why people bristle at this; we hate the idea that we are giving the kids anything other than the very best. But that's the reality. We, well most of us, cannot achieve the best. We drive acceptable cars, we have acceptable jobs, we live in acceptable houses, there's always more perfect out there. We have it good. Good is fine. It's not as good as perfect or excellent, but that's OK, really.

You really didn't get my post. He (and I don't think this was a dude, sorry, this was an unappreciated SAHM), ONLY listed the pros of their situation, without considering the other aspects. I don't agree that moms need to be with their kids all day every day in the early years, or that is better. Fine if you think that, but not everyone does. If I did I would have quit work in a heartbeat but I think my staying in the workforce outweighed any of those advantages, and that is my point. Every action has a reaction and I don't think having a SAH parent for years is the optimum. I just don't. I think it work just fine, and I support women who make the choice (and men) but I don't think it is optimal. It does work better for some families, if the working parent works crazy, inflexible hours and the SAH parent really, really didn't want to work, for example. But I won't agree it is optimal for every family.

Our daycare workers were mainly young childless women with tons of energy and patience - most moms are not going to have endless patience for their own kids. Agree that it is best for mom not to rush off to work at 2 and 4 and 6 weeks which is a reality for some, but I don't think that is who we are talking about on this thread.

I am not asking you say it's right for every family. What's right for the family is the sum of many factors, and quality of childcare is just one of them. It doesn't outweigh every single thing. I mean, I work, don't I? Quite apart from that, I believe that, in isolation from all other factors, the quality of childcare provided by a loving, educated mother is better than any daycare, nanny or preschool, no matter how good. I also think there is no reason for you to beat up on that guy because he thinks that way. For you, staying in the workforce outweighed this advantage. For me, it did too, and that's why I work. I'm OK with my kid getting an 8 quality of care instead of 10, because 8 is still pretty good. That doesn't, though, make 10 equal to 8, I don't think.

No SAHM is giving her kids a 10. SAHMs are human, not grown on another planet. Your argument makes no sense because you can't isolate the other factors. Kids aren't raised in a vacuum and I, and actually most, think that two working parents are best. I say that because 80% of SAHMS can't afford to work. The opt-out revolution was shown to be a myth: when given the choice, the majority of high-earning, highly educated couples choose to have both parents work in some capacity and outsource childcare for some amount of time.

I think that the ideal situation is to have both parents working reasonable hours and contributing to the running of the household and child-raising. And many others agree. Not everyone does, or not everyone can achieve this as some career paths aren't amendable to reasonable hours. That is okay, but IMO not ideal.

I think kids benefit from seeing both parents work, and I think dads step in more when mom works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No SAHM is giving her kids a 10. SAHMs are human, not grown on another planet. Your argument makes no sense because you can't isolate the other factors. Kids aren't raised in a vacuum and I, and actually most, think that two working parents are best. I say that because 80% of SAHMS can't afford to work. The opt-out revolution was shown to be a myth: when given the choice, the majority of high-earning, highly educated couples choose to have both parents work in some capacity and outsource childcare for some amount of time.

I think that the ideal situation is to have both parents working reasonable hours and contributing to the running of the household and child-raising. And many others agree. Not everyone does, or not everyone can achieve this as some career paths aren't amendable to reasonable hours. That is okay, but IMO not ideal.

I think kids benefit from seeing both parents work, and I think dads step in more when mom works.

Daycare workers are human too, so whatever flaws a mother have, they'll have them too. They don't grow them on other planets either. So if a mother isn't giving a 10, then a daycare worker isn't giving an 8 either. You cannot convince me that daycare workers care for children better than mothers. They are good, they can be great. But not better than moms. I didn't mean that 10 is perfect. I used that number to illustrate the notion that the mother's care is better than anyone else's. Someone else can still give pretty good care.

Of course you can isolate the other factors.

I don't think either of us really knows what "most" think. You know what most of your friends think.

Of course kids benefit from seeing all kinds of stuff. All kinds of scenarios have all kinds of benefits. Whether this benefit outweighs the parent at home is a matter of preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I'm sure kids are appreciative of having a parent dedicated to the home and their needs. But my kids are proud of having a mom who is accomplished outside of the home and are happy to have a nice home jointly run by mom and dad. Whatever works for your family!

+1

I hear kids at preschool all of the time asking their nannies or caregivers "why can't mommy pick me up?" or "why does mommy have to work?" or the worst, when another child asked me "why don't I have a mom on the field trip?" Kids notice these things. Whether is affects them long term or not, we won't really ever know.

and older kids say "why don't you work" "what do you do all day" "why are you so lazy" "your not using your education" "how hard is it to make a healthy dinner" "ugh Larla's mom is on the field trip today AGAIN" "Hey, Larla, mommy's at school today, maybe she will sit with you at lunch" "Hey Larla, glad your mom did your science project for you looks great"

kids say all kinds of stupid things.

It's when adults like you say them that you seem so pathetic.

My husband and I were both raised by SAHP and have nothing but the utmost respect for who and what they are and how they have contributed to our lives.

Seeing my mom raise 3 kids and volunteer the last word I ever thought was "lazy".

You have preschoolers, so you have no experience with teens. This is what they say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is how I look at my situation:

My wife stays at home -- we've got three young kids (the oldest just started school). And man, it is GREAT, and I'm thankful she's willing to do it. I couldn't. It is constant attention to schedules and activities and the hearts and minds of the little ones. She cooks healthy food, keeps the house reasonably clean, does the laundry, pays the bills, and keeps up the social connections.

I'm thankful that the raising of the kids is not in the hands of some minimum wage preschool workers or uneducated nanny. I'm thankful she is constantly teaching the kids about the world, about morals, about important concepts that will make them more successful and happy teens and adults. I'm thankful that because she does all she does during the day, we have time to connect as a couple when I'm home from work. We have a great marriage and a peaceful, happy, intellectual family. When I hear and read about the hustle of two working parents, it sounds soul crushing. Why would any resent that?

Here is what I don't understand.

1st... the question was for parents with kids in school
2nd... you are thankful the kids are raised by your wife not somebody else... less educated... what about teachers, teachers aids, etc... is that okay or is she going to homeschool. I have never seen a local daycare without workers that have years of experience or a college education.
3rd... what if the house was not clean, she did not cook and she had depression... then what would you do?
4th... i get that you don't want to have any responsibilities at home, that makes it easy on you, if she wanted to go back would you take on 1/2 the household duties or would you say... go for it but it is up to you to take care of these things since you are not interested
5th... how many hours a day do you see your kids, what time do you get home and what time do they go to bed... does bonding with them disinterest you? Do you think an hour here or there is enough?

1. no, that was not the quest

2. I think kids needs change over time, but I do believe that in the early years, kids spend too much time at school. But no, we aren't home schooling.

3. Get her the help she needs.

4. I wouldn't expect that she'd do all the household work in addition to working full time. That's crazy.

5. I don't see my kids that much -- about an hour or two in the morning and an hour or two at night, depending on the day. I'd like to spend more time with them during the week, but it's just not possible with a full time work schedule. I'm thankful that they have more time with their mom.

1. Sorry, got threads confused.
2. Your kids will not go to preschool? No homeschooling?.... so you are okay with other people with lesser education levels than your family raising your kids once they turn 5 but not before? You are okay that at 5 they get their morals from somebody that has a low level education from a 3rd tier state school?
3. Easier said than done, but that is a nice thought.
4. That is nice, you would fully support doing 1/2 the work and working full time. BTW it is not the crazy. Millions of people do it.
5. I don't think anybody in our family would be happy hardly being a part of their children's family. It will make divorce easier if it every happens, what's the difference... you might actually see your kids more in a divorce situation.

1. no problem

2. They do not go to preschool anymore because it is a waste of time (and money, frankly). But as I said, I would love if early elementary school years had shorter days, but that just isn't the case anymore. (It was when I was a kid.) I'm not thrilled about it, but at least I feel like my kids got a good foundation. And at least they are at home with a parent before and after school.

3. I'm sure it is easier said than done. Depression is certainly hard on a whole family. I've seen it play out, and count myself as lucky we don't have any serious issues like that.

4. I meant that it is crazy that someone would expect a spouse who works full time to also do everything at home. I realize that many do it.

5. Not sure I follow

For #5... Your children are essentially being raised by a single parent. I don't think anybody I know thinks it's ideal. I have many friends that are single parents and their kids are awesome but few think it is ideal choice.

If you got divorced you would be court ordered to see your kids more than you do now, that is odd.

[Anonymous]

Didn't read past page two.

My SAHM was wonderful and they divorced when we all headed off to college. She got the raw end of the deal. Even if you get half of everything and alimony, the money will run out eventually if you aren't marketable in the workforce, you'll never maintain your previous lifestyle into retirement without serious grit, which means working up to a level of income after a significant 7-10+ years out of the workforce.

Let's just be honest here. Parents divorced 20 years ago and dealing with bankrupt Mom now. My story. My Mom didn't have grit. It's not uncommon. She is wonderful but never worked after the SAHM gig in any capacity to maintain her lifestyle. She's childlike in many ways. It's really hard to reinvent yourself after 20+ years as SAHM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No SAHM is giving her kids a 10. SAHMs are human, not grown on another planet. Your argument makes no sense because you can't isolate the other factors. Kids aren't raised in a vacuum and I, and actually most, think that two working parents are best. I say that because 80% of SAHMS can't afford to work. The opt-out revolution was shown to be a myth: when given the choice, the majority of high-earning, highly educated couples choose to have both parents work in some capacity and outsource childcare for some amount of time.

I think that the ideal situation is to have both parents working reasonable hours and contributing to the running of the household and child-raising. And many others agree. Not everyone does, or not everyone can achieve this as some career paths aren't amendable to reasonable hours. That is okay, but IMO not ideal.

I think kids benefit from seeing both parents work, and I think dads step in more when mom works.

Daycare workers are human too, so whatever flaws a mother have, they'll have them too. They don't grow them on other planets either. So if a mother isn't giving a 10, then a daycare worker isn't giving an 8 either. You cannot convince me that daycare workers care for children better than mothers. They are good, they can be great. But not better than moms. I didn't mean that 10 is perfect. I used that number to illustrate the notion that the mother's care is better than anyone else's. Someone else can still give pretty good care.

Of course you can isolate the other factors.

I don't think either of us really knows what "most" think. You know what most of your friends think.

Of course kids benefit from seeing all kinds of stuff. All kinds of scenarios have all kinds of benefits. Whether this benefit outweighs the parent at home is a matter of preference.

You've missed my point, but perhaps you are deliberately trying to be obtuse. I wasn't implying that a daycare worker or nanny is a 10, but that when mom is on all the time she can't be at a 10, whereas sometimes when you are taking care of someone who isn't your kid, and it's your job for 9 hours a day, there are benefits to that.

Look, parental-child attachment is critical, but kids whose parents work still get that. I was fortunate to have long maternity leaves (which I advocate for more women to have as I think typical policies in this country are a joke) and we are able to maximize time with the kids through WFH policies that cut down on commutes, flex hours, etc. But no, I don't think when they are 8, 12, 16, 20, and so on, anyone will be able to tell they had high quality daycare/nanny as part of their childhood vs. a FT SAHM.

I think the research shows that as well. So if it works for a family to have a SAH parent, I'm all for it. And I do agree with the man or woman who was repeatedly posting that those parents should be appreciated for the sacrifices they make. Just as working parents should. But I don't agree that having a SAHP is the ideal, or that kids with SAHPs get a 10 while kids of working parents get an 8.

[Anonymous]

The positive here, I'm PP. Mom was adamant that all us girls took a different path working either full or part time with kids. She knew she made a mistake.

No one plans for divorce. It usually devastates the SAHM financially the longer she's been out of the workforce.

[Anonymous]

Back again, the real issue for me is that the SAH parent sacrifice is not remunerated in a divorce. The SAH future earnings will suffer forever even as the WOHs complain over giving half today.

You can't just waltz back into the workforce after a long absence. Add ageism and sexism to the mix. Along with confidence and fear, it's not easy.

[Anonymous]

I'm a SAHM to two and have days where I miss working. That being said, my salary would've basically covered childcare and bumped DH and I up to the next tax bracket. Despite there being wonderful nannies and day cares in DC, I've been blessed to experience first steps, words, etc. I think I would regret missing these precious years if DH and I had decided to both work.

[Anonymous]

My favorite is …. walking the dogs mid morning and in the afternoon and seeing all the "care givers" pushing your little bundles of joy around in their overpriced strollers (which I am sure you work SO hard for) … wait for it … just wait for it … and each and everyone of these "care givers" are always, without fail, on their cell phones and not engaging with YOUR child. You think you child is getting such incredible attention, after all you are paying for it, right? The gentlemen was right, there is NO substitute for a SAHM or SAHD, for the undivided love and attention your child will receive. As usual in this area and on this board, the WORKING women are full of low self esteem and excuses, why don't you check your "care givers" cell phone records to see how much undivided time precious is getting … I think you would be shocked, I know I am every time and everyday I see this in my neighborhood, so sad parents don't want more for their children …. so sad …..

[Anonymous]

Let's boil the ocean down here. Leaving the workforce to care for your kids is great. We all agree. A parent is a better caregiver than anyone else. No one will ever care for my precious snowflake better than me or DH. No argument.

Fast forward 20 years. Unplanned divorce. WOHs better off financially long term than SAHs. Fact.

Let's just also consider greater humanity here. Women should contribute to society in more ways than raising kids. Raise kids and be independent just like men. Men also need to step up in parenting. My snowflake's first word was "Bye Felicia" according to the nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My favorite is …. walking the dogs mid morning and in the afternoon and seeing all the "care givers" pushing your little bundles of joy around in their overpriced strollers (which I am sure you work SO hard for) … wait for it … just wait for it … and each and everyone of these "care givers" are always, without fail, on their cell phones and not engaging with YOUR child. You think you child is getting such incredible attention, after all you are paying for it, right? The gentlemen was right, there is NO substitute for a SAHM or SAHD, for the undivided love and attention your child will receive. As usual in this area and on this board, the WORKING women are full of low self esteem and excuses, why don't you check your "care givers" cell phone records to see how much undivided time precious is getting … I think you would be shocked, I know I am every time and everyday I see this in my neighborhood, so sad parents don't want more for their children …. so sad …..

You think stay at home parents are never on their cell phones?

[Anonymous]

I feel like a lot of you posting here have really young kids. My kids are older and I am around a lot of older kids/teens. What I think is that people vastly overvalue SAH vs WOH. I think all things considered, it's a pretty minor factor. I see kids of both SAH and WOH excelling (and I mean in all ways, including emotionally). I also see the opposite.

Things that seem to matter way more than SAH or WOH, as far as I can tell: mental health of family members, family stability, alcoholism, anger issues, marital strife, financial strain, addiction issues. These things transcend WOH or SAH status. SAH/WOH might impact one or the other (like OP who resents his wife) but it's incidental to the real problem.

Those of you who are insistent that one way is best, like the husband posting here, or the WOHMs who talk about SAHMs being bad examples, you sound sort of desperately controlling to me. You are frantically scrabbling for SAH or WOH like it's some sort of magic charm that will make your kids the best. It's just not like that. There aren't magic charms in life and things are really complex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No SAHM is giving her kids a 10. SAHMs are human, not grown on another planet. Your argument makes no sense because you can't isolate the other factors. Kids aren't raised in a vacuum and I, and actually most, think that two working parents are best. I say that because 80% of SAHMS can't afford to work. The opt-out revolution was shown to be a myth: when given the choice, the majority of high-earning, highly educated couples choose to have both parents work in some capacity and outsource childcare for some amount of time.

I think that the ideal situation is to have both parents working reasonable hours and contributing to the running of the household and child-raising. And many others agree. Not everyone does, or not everyone can achieve this as some career paths aren't amendable to reasonable hours. That is okay, but IMO not ideal.

I think kids benefit from seeing both parents work, and I think dads step in more when mom works.

Daycare workers are human too, so whatever flaws a mother have, they'll have them too. They don't grow them on other planets either. So if a mother isn't giving a 10, then a daycare worker isn't giving an 8 either. You cannot convince me that daycare workers care for children better than mothers. They are good, they can be great. But not better than moms. I didn't mean that 10 is perfect. I used that number to illustrate the notion that the mother's care is better than anyone else's. Someone else can still give pretty good care.

Of course you can isolate the other factors.

I don't think either of us really knows what "most" think. You know what most of your friends think.

Of course kids benefit from seeing all kinds of stuff. All kinds of scenarios have all kinds of benefits. Whether this benefit outweighs the parent at home is a matter of preference.

You've missed my point, but perhaps you are deliberately trying to be obtuse. I wasn't implying that a daycare worker or nanny is a 10, but that when mom is on all the time she can't be at a 10, whereas sometimes when you are taking care of someone who isn't your kid, and it's your job for 9 hours a day, there are benefits to that.

Look, parental-child attachment is critical, but kids whose parents work still get that. I was fortunate to have long maternity leaves (which I advocate for more women to have as I think typical policies in this country are a joke) and we are able to maximize time with the kids through WFH policies that cut down on commutes, flex hours, etc. But no, I don't think when they are 8, 12, 16, 20, and so on, anyone will be able to tell they had high quality daycare/nanny as part of their childhood vs. a FT SAHM.

I think the research shows that as well. So if it works for a family to have a SAH parent, I'm all for it. And I do agree with the man or woman who was repeatedly posting that those parents should be appreciated for the sacrifices they make. Just as working parents should. But I don't agree that having a SAHP is the ideal, or that kids with SAHPs get a 10 while kids of working parents get an 8.

Well yes, clearly, if I don't happen to fall on my knees in slackjawed amazement and unadulterated agreement with your piercing wit, I must be deliberately obtuse.

One helluva ego you got there.