Husbands with SAHMs that prefer they work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The happiest SAHMs are those who were/are prepared to be a WOHM to begin with. Usually, they were the ones who had their ducks in a row, when they did became a SAHM. That means that financial need was not a factor for them to continue to work for pay.

The happiest WOHMs are also those who have a choice to SAH or WOH. Anyone with choice is happier than those with no choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think irony is the right concept here, but let's put that aside. You obviously feel wronged by the fact that someone thinks his/her way of raising kids is better than yours. Seriously though -- why the vitriol? Why the thin skin? If you are so confident in your choices, just agree to disagree.

Seeing your responses though, I can see why you think that you wouldn't be a good primary parent. But the question isn't whether a bitter, angry, irrational person would be better than a professional daycare worker. Clearly, the professional would be better in that circumstance, so kudos to your wise (perhaps self-aware) choice. The question is whether a parent who is dedicated to being the best caregiver they can be would be better than a stranger who does it for a living. Someone earlier in the thread posited that they think the dedicated parent option is superior. That doesn't seem like such an outrageous position to take, and you (and others) just seem defensive. If you prioritized money or whatever else you get out of your job over the child rearing, that's fine, but let's be honest about the tradeoffs.

All of this assumes a choice in the matter, and of course, many don't have the choice for financial reasons.

I'm the poster who works and has "good enough" childcare for my kids, and believes that parent care would have been better. I ought to support you but I don't after this comment because of the bolded part. Your choice of words belies your neutrality because you clearly think that "money or whatever else you get out of your job" could not possibly be more important than childrearing.

I will break it down again: it's not about "money or whatever else you get out of your job." It's the importance to the interests of family AS A WHOLE, not just childcare in isolation.

Once again - I believe I would have done a better job caring for my kids than any of their preschools or nannies. Preschools and nannies have provided them with great care while mine would have been better than great. But the incremental benefit of "better than great" is not large enough to erase the benefit to the family AS A WHOLE derived from my employment. And I won't allow anyone to describe the benefit to the family AS A WHOLE in the clearly derogatory language of "money or whatever else you get out of your job" that you chose.

I didn't mean it derogatorily. A lot of people get personal fulfillment out of their job. Some people feel like they are better in the workforce than at home for any number of reasons. Some people feel like the advantages of the extra money outweigh the benefits of having a parent stay at home without earning money. I think that whatever the reasons, I understand that everyone has to make the choice they think is best for themselves, their families, and society as a whole. I just think that people need to be honest about the tradeoffs. People seem to be offended that others have suggested that there is any tradeoff. I understand that some people may truly feel that way, but I also understand that others do not feel that way. It just seems crazy that folks are getting so defensive.

When you put it like this, I am OK with this. Of course there is a tradeoff. As I mentioned, I think we collectively find it very painful to admit we are doing anything than the absolute possible best for our kids. And it's just not the case that absolute possible best is always possible, and good enough is good enough.

I totally agree. I think we all make decisions short of the absolute very best for our kids because we think the time, money, etc. isn't worth the additional benefit to the kids. There is nothing wrong with that.

But some people say something is a tradeoff... like I see my child less for money. But I don't see that as a tradeoff. I see that as a normal healthy relationship. I don't think it is all that healthy for a child to only have their mother as a caregiver. I am not trading one thing for the other. I think it is healthier for a child to be with people other than me sometimes. I think it is healthier for my children to have an involved father. I think it is healthier for children to grow up and realize they are not the center of the universe and that sometime mom is more important to dad and dad is more important to mom right now so you have a babysitter.

It's not necessarily a trade off but a lifestyle that I believe in, that I planned and executed.

Same her. Very well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think irony is the right concept here, but let's put that aside. You obviously feel wronged by the fact that someone thinks his/her way of raising kids is better than yours. Seriously though -- why the vitriol? Why the thin skin? If you are so confident in your choices, just agree to disagree.

Seeing your responses though, I can see why you think that you wouldn't be a good primary parent. But the question isn't whether a bitter, angry, irrational person would be better than a professional daycare worker. Clearly, the professional would be better in that circumstance, so kudos to your wise (perhaps self-aware) choice. The question is whether a parent who is dedicated to being the best caregiver they can be would be better than a stranger who does it for a living. Someone earlier in the thread posited that they think the dedicated parent option is superior. That doesn't seem like such an outrageous position to take, and you (and others) just seem defensive. If you prioritized money or whatever else you get out of your job over the child rearing, that's fine, but let's be honest about the tradeoffs.

All of this assumes a choice in the matter, and of course, many don't have the choice for financial reasons.

I'm the poster who works and has "good enough" childcare for my kids, and believes that parent care would have been better. I ought to support you but I don't after this comment because of the bolded part. Your choice of words belies your neutrality because you clearly think that "money or whatever else you get out of your job" could not possibly be more important than childrearing.

I will break it down again: it's not about "money or whatever else you get out of your job." It's the importance to the interests of family AS A WHOLE, not just childcare in isolation.

Once again - I believe I would have done a better job caring for my kids than any of their preschools or nannies. Preschools and nannies have provided them with great care while mine would have been better than great. But the incremental benefit of "better than great" is not large enough to erase the benefit to the family AS A WHOLE derived from my employment. And I won't allow anyone to describe the benefit to the family AS A WHOLE in the clearly derogatory language of "money or whatever else you get out of your job" that you chose.

+ ITA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think irony is the right concept here, but let's put that aside. You obviously feel wronged by the fact that someone thinks his/her way of raising kids is better than yours. Seriously though -- why the vitriol? Why the thin skin? If you are so confident in your choices, just agree to disagree.

Seeing your responses though, I can see why you think that you wouldn't be a good primary parent. But the question isn't whether a bitter, angry, irrational person would be better than a professional daycare worker. Clearly, the professional would be better in that circumstance, so kudos to your wise (perhaps self-aware) choice. The question is whether a parent who is dedicated to being the best caregiver they can be would be better than a stranger who does it for a living. Someone earlier in the thread posited that they think the dedicated parent option is superior. That doesn't seem like such an outrageous position to take, and you (and others) just seem defensive. If you prioritized money or whatever else you get out of your job over the child rearing, that's fine, but let's be honest about the tradeoffs.

All of this assumes a choice in the matter, and of course, many don't have the choice for financial reasons.

I'm the poster who works and has "good enough" childcare for my kids, and believes that parent care would have been better. I ought to support you but I don't after this comment because of the bolded part. Your choice of words belies your neutrality because you clearly think that "money or whatever else you get out of your job" could not possibly be more important than childrearing.

I will break it down again: it's not about "money or whatever else you get out of your job." It's the importance to the interests of family AS A WHOLE, not just childcare in isolation.

Once again - I believe I would have done a better job caring for my kids than any of their preschools or nannies. Preschools and nannies have provided them with great care while mine would have been better than great. But the incremental benefit of "better than great" is not large enough to erase the benefit to the family AS A WHOLE derived from my employment. And I won't allow anyone to describe the benefit to the family AS A WHOLE in the clearly derogatory language of "money or whatever else you get out of your job" that you chose.

I didn't mean it derogatorily. A lot of people get personal fulfillment out of their job. Some people feel like they are better in the workforce than at home for any number of reasons. Some people feel like the advantages of the extra money outweigh the benefits of having a parent stay at home without earning money. I think that whatever the reasons, I understand that everyone has to make the choice they think is best for themselves, their families, and society as a whole. I just think that people need to be honest about the tradeoffs. People seem to be offended that others have suggested that there is any tradeoff. I understand that some people may truly feel that way, but I also understand that others do not feel that way. It just seems crazy that folks are getting so defensive.

So long as you admit there are tradeoffs also to having a SAHP, then yes, in every situation and family choice there are tradeoffs.

[Anonymous]

But some people say something is a tradeoff... like I see my child less for money. But I don't see that as a tradeoff. I see that as a normal healthy relationship. I don't think it is all that healthy for a child to only have their mother as a caregiver. I am not trading one thing for the other. I think it is healthier for a child to be with people other than me sometimes. I think it is healthier for my children to have an involved father. I think it is healthier for children to grow up and realize they are not the center of the universe and that sometime mom is more important to dad and dad is more important to mom right now so you have a babysitter.

It's not necessarily a trade off but a lifestyle that I believe in, that I planned and executed.

*applause*

[Anonymous]

I didn't mean it derogatorily. A lot of people get personal fulfillment out of their job. Some people feel like they are better in the workforce than at home for any number of reasons. Some people feel like the advantages of the extra money outweigh the benefits of having a parent stay at home without earning money. I think that whatever the reasons, I understand that everyone has to make the choice they think is best for themselves, their families, and society as a whole. I just think that people need to be honest about the tradeoffs. People seem to be offended that others have suggested that there is any tradeoff. I understand that some people may truly feel that way, but I also understand that others do not feel that way. It just seems crazy that folks are getting so defensive.

Then be honest with yourself and understand that you have tradeoffs as well - and they're not all financial trade offs - there are trade offs to your kid as well. And you made the best choice for your family by having your wife stay home to be with them all the time - but there are socialization and educational trade-offs to your kids. They aren't getting as much diversity, education, and socialization like they would if they were in daycare/preschool. So you own that and I'll own my tradeoffs.

[Anonymous]

So long as you admit there are tradeoffs also to having a SAHP, then yes, in every situation and family choice there are tradeoffs.


^^This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The happiest SAHMs are those who were/are prepared to be a WOHM to begin with. Usually, they were the ones who had their ducks in a row, when they did became a SAHM. That means that financial need was not a factor for them to continue to work for pay.

The happiest WOHMs are also those who have a choice to SAH or WOH. Anyone with choice is happier than those with no choices.

Agreed. This whole SAHM vs. WOHM war happens because there are women on both sides without choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids say what they feel and I care (deeply) how my kids feel. That's why I believe a parent should be home with them and they deserve two loving involved parents. You can't just pretend that all family situations turn out beautifully.

These parents who never see their kids (I'm talking about the double nanny type families) - we can agree to disagree that that is any way to raise children.

I agree that having one parent who never sees his kids but thinks his kids will be ok because the other parent SAH is no way to raise children.

I agree and I think this is a common trap of the SAHM lifestyle.

And hardly seeing your kids is a trap of a dual working family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So long as you admit there are tradeoffs also to having a SAHP, then yes, in every situation and family choice there are tradeoffs.

^^This.

Honest question. Let's say mom had a high powered high earning career and gave it up to SAH. Has her own means. Married for a long time (more than 15 years) and loves being a caregiver/ homemaker/has her own interests like sports and volunteering-

What exactly is the downside?

[Anonymous]

Now that my kids are older (one drives and another one will be soon) DH prefers that I work. College tuition is coming up and my job will pay for our kids to go to the school of their choice without tapping into savings. I'm happy to be back in the workforce. DH has always been supportive of what I wanted to do and I was a SAHM for many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't mean it derogatorily. A lot of people get personal fulfillment out of their job. Some people feel like they are better in the workforce than at home for any number of reasons. Some people feel like the advantages of the extra money outweigh the benefits of having a parent stay at home without earning money. I think that whatever the reasons, I understand that everyone has to make the choice they think is best for themselves, their families, and society as a whole. I just think that people need to be honest about the tradeoffs. People seem to be offended that others have suggested that there is any tradeoff. I understand that some people may truly feel that way, but I also understand that others do not feel that way. It just seems crazy that folks are getting so defensive.

Then be honest with yourself and understand that you have tradeoffs as well - and they're not all financial trade offs - there are trade offs to your kid as well. And you made the best choice for your family by having your wife stay home to be with them all the time - but there are socialization and educational trade-offs to your kids. They aren't getting as much diversity, education, and socialization like they would if they were in daycare/preschool. So you own that and I'll own my tradeoffs.

or possibly better food, better housing, better schooling or specialists (if needed), better college, better extra-curriculars, better retirement (for you and them in the long run). There are a host of reasons that people have dual incomes for. It's not just about the trade off of daycare verses staying home during the infant to preschool years. There are also many reasons for staying home beyond whether or not the parent is a better caregiver than an outside source during the early years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So long as you admit there are tradeoffs also to having a SAHP, then yes, in every situation and family choice there are tradeoffs.

^^This.

Honest question. Let's say mom had a high powered high earning career and gave it up to SAH. Has her own means. Married for a long time (more than 15 years) and loves being a caregiver/ homemaker/has her own interests like sports and volunteering-

What exactly is the downside?

What if dad does morning routine... And the mom is home when the kids get off the bench ... What is the downside?

It's too varied to answer.... If the mom was a pediatric serge on with a specialty that other don't have, the loss would be that children die, new doctors don't learn as well, if her H dies she can't support the family, if her H becomes disabled she can't support the family, she get depressed because she thought she would like it....

Or the world is perfect and nothing goes wrong. Just like a wOH parent, maybe there is no downside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now that my kids are older (one drives and another one will be soon) DH prefers that I work. College tuition is coming up and my job will pay for our kids to go to the school of their choice without tapping into savings. I'm happy to be back in the workforce. DH has always been supportive of what I wanted to do and I was a SAHM for many years.

What do you do now?

Most my friends are working or working more now that kids are in college. Nurses taking extra shifts,teacher tutoring in the evening, lawyers working longer hours, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But some people say something is a tradeoff... like I see my child less for money. But I don't see that as a tradeoff. I see that as a normal healthy relationship. I don't think it is all that healthy for a child to only have their mother as a caregiver. I am not trading one thing for the other. I think it is healthier for a child to be with people other than me sometimes. I think it is healthier for my children to have an involved father. I think it is healthier for children to grow up and realize they are not the center of the universe and that sometime mom is more important to dad and dad is more important to mom right now so you have a babysitter.

It's not necessarily a trade off but a lifestyle that I believe in, that I planned and executed.

*applause*

Agree. There are a few people on the thread begging for folks to agree there is some trade off to having mom work and IN MY FAMILY'S PARTICULAR SITUATION I don't agree that childcare was that trade off. I think my kids greatly benefited from it and like another poster mentioned I am a better mom and my DH a better dad for it. Won't claim that for every family but will for mine.