Are you offended when someone says they “didnt want someone else to raise my kids”?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, because it’s true, even if people don’t want to admit that’s what’s happening when children are in full-time daycare. But in polite society we avoid saying things that might hurt someone’s feelings, regardless of whether it’s truthful or not.

But it’s not truthful. My kids went to daycare, and, sure, their daycare teachers, who were all wonderful, provided care during the workday. But my spouse and I made the decisions on how to parent, which included finding great caregivers.

If your children go to daycare for 10-11 (7-6 or 7:30-5:30) hours a day for the first 4-5 years of life and sleep 10-12 hours a night then you are not spending 4-5 hours with them each day 70% of the week. How is this controversial? You are outsourcing a lot of parenting duties to other caregivers. Someone saying that they don’t want to do that is not wrong. And I’m saying this as a full time working parent.

I actually did the math with my neighbor who was a SAHM and I did spend more 1-1 time with my kids than she did.

1st. My H's time counted and I know many of SAHP's who are the 1st to tell you that their H does nothing, works late, travels a lot.
2nd: She did not take into account napping, time in front of TV, time they were in the basement playing and she was futzing around.

I don't think a SAHP should be connected at the hip and I think that independent time is valuable but the reality is she was not spending more 1-1 time with her child than I was.

I think you are mistaken. There's just simply not a chance that you spend more 1-1 time with kids than a SAHP unless the SAHP is outsourcing a ton of childcare. Your kids never play in the basement or nap or watch TV when you're with them? And how much time during the day are the SAHP neighbor's kids doing that? 2 hrs out of a 8+ hour work day...your math isn't mathing.

And there’s the rub. I think because she is home so much she doesn’t even think about doing things with her kids.

I think because I’m not home all day as soon as I get home I want to get outside I take them to the park, Or we go for a hike, We hit a museum, Or walk around the zoo.

in fact when I get home from work the neighbor whose H was sick and she asked me to watch her kids, I immediately pick them up and take them with me to do these things.

The woman who is complaining that she wasn’t chosen to be the caregiver is like sure just send them to my house. They can watch TV or play in the yard while I make dinner or entertain my child in the basement.

Assuming this is all true, your neighbor is n=1. Your neighbor is not representative of the vast majority of SAHP. Nor does your post, however unnecessarily involved, get at the original question of whether it was ok for someone to say they didn’t want their kids raised by strangers.

You go hiking, biking, your kids tube on the lake behind your house every afternoon at 2 pm while you drive the boat before going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and discuss El Greco for six hours. We get it. You’re amazing! Tahoe by day, NYC by afternoon. You never go to Costco. You work 190 hours per week at work and get out by 3 pm to pick up your kid from daycare and play laser tag before you coach soccer and you make $280K!

Pretty much except I work 40 hours and my H the same.

It can work if you want it to.

But if you want to SAH and have a absent h and that works for you because he needs to work 190 hours a week to pick up your slack go for it just stop being so defensive about how other families have figured out how to work and be there for their kids.

DP here. Except the problem with your argument is that lots of families with a SAHM have a Dad who is not absent at all, works a 35 hour week and has tons of flexibility to be at events, coach teams, etc. I know many families like this, including ours.

Glad they figured it out too. They tend to be absent from these discussions because there’s a lot of … its impossible to work my H is big law or surgeon and I could only find hubs that had me out of the house from 6-6.

But I agree the majority of families working or with a SAHP don’t have these crazy situations where one or the other parent isn’t home most of the time.

The idea kids are in daycare 8 or 10 or 12 hours are just horror stories made up to justify not working. Most kids have about 3-4 waking hours in other people’s care until they go to school then it’s about 7 hours whether you work or not, unless you homeschool …Except teen athletes they are gone all day.

So many families have figured it out but I guess someone has to marry surgeons and big law partners. Actually they usually have a few wives throughout their life.

Lady, you’re officially batsh!t crazy. Or a troll. Or both.

Most working people have a schedule that vaguely falls around 9-5:30 plus morning and evening commute. How can you live in this area and apparently not know a single Fed, let alone dual Fed couples?

Feds can work a 6-2:30 schedule while the other parent works 9:30-6.

That means 1 parent does am and the other does afternoons.

Not all feds can do this. If you work with a lot of west coast or Pacific island folks in a national program, you can't get off at 2:30 (my situation). Plenty of offices have core hours starting before 9 and ending after 3. Some jobs require specific shifts (e.g. any law enforcement or customer facing job).

Shift work is perfect. No care or very little care needed.

I didn’t say everyone can do that but many feds do. The vast majority of feds and contractors who work at fed agencies. Also many time IT staff work shortened day and do upgrades after hours.

People who are doing research don’t need to read and write 9-5.

I agree don’t work for DOD.

Our core hours are 10-2.

If this is accurate, you’ll never get promoted or mange anyone. Working four hours a day is ripping off taxpayers and it’s lazy. I’m a fed and there’s no way this would fly at my agency or with me if I was your manager. Whatever you think you’re proving here about childcare you’re not. You’re just making feds look like they take advantage of WFH.

I not only got promoted but I have incentive pay.

no one working 10-2 doing the work day is getting this. This is your personal fantasy because you can’t stand that someone is a SAHP but instead of accepting that you are masquerading as a fed working a 20 hour week getting promoted. I’m sure you’re the head of the FBI. I’m sure you’re doing it all. Whatever you need to hear that you didn’t hear as a kid here you go.

I was just going to comment that I know some feds who probably barely clock in 20 hours. They are the ones who earn 100-150k, barely work and not getting promoted. These friends are always available to hang out or go to their kids appointments, drive them to school, to sports, etc. I don’t think you can compare someone like this to a big law partner, C level executive, surgeon, etc

Yeah. I think it’s fair to say someone working 20 hours a week making $100K is not the same as an NEO or Section 16 employee let alone a surgeon.

100k is like 50k when I graduated from college 20+ years ago so if a 40 something year old is coasting on this salary, that person doesn’t need to work very hard.

I can think of 2 annoying women in my life who could be the pp saying she spends equal time with her kids or they don’t need childcare. They don’t have high earning husbands so husbands also flex. They absolutely do spend a lot of time with kids and not so much time working. One friend wakes up and wiggles her mouse at 6 so she starts work then. Then goes for a run or bikes on her peloton, showers, answers an email, gets kids ready for school, drives kids to school and starts work at 930 but she has already clocked in for 3.5 hours. So someone like pp who does this can spend the same amount of time with kids if kids are in school.

When you have a real job no one tracks when you answer your first email. It’s about your work. And answering an email or emails for 5-20 minutes is not work. It’s ancillary. But you’d only know that if you had a job that required real work.

Yes, her core working hours are also 10-2 with a lunch break in the middle.

I'm not sure people are understanding what "core hours" means. It doesn't mean you only work during those hours. It means you don't flex your schedule during those hours so you reliably overlap with others. E.g. if core hours are 10-2, you could have one person on a 6-2:30 schedule and one person 10-7, and they'd try to meet during the overlap 10-2. You have a full workday, but your personal start and end times have to be before and after the end of core hours.

My core hours are 9-3:30. I start work at 7 or 7:30 and end between 3:30 and 5, with an 8 hour minimum. Do people think I'm only working 6.5 hours?!

[Anonymous]

What’s so strange about this comment is that, once kids are in school, the difference in time spent with working versus stay at home parents may be minimal. My kid gets out of school at 3:30. Three times a week she stays for an activity until 5:30, which is when I get home. If I didn’t work, I would see her 4 more hours/week. Those extra 4 hours are not the difference between me raising my kid and someone else doing it. I’d enjoy 4 more hours with her but I don’t think it’d change her childhood or the way she perceives who is raising her. She goes to aftercare for those 4 hours and she’d probably choose to do that even if I were home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an insensitive thing to say because as women we are all supposed to be empathetic to the fact that no matter what women do regarding work and motherhood someone is going to judge us and we're going to feel guilty.

But also I think people say this sometimes because they are just being honest and it's how they feel. Just like I think women who go back to work actually sometimes do it because they are bored out of their minds at home with babies and want to "use their brains." I also know women who have said that they went back to work because they believe their kids are better off being raised by nannies or caregivers who are "experts" as opposed to a sahm.

All of these things will be hurtful to hear to someone who made a different choice and they are also things people actually think and feel. Women are presented with this impossible choice (if they are fortunate to even have a choice at all which most are not) and there is no answer that will ever be right for everyone so we all do this dance with each other about our choices and we offend each other constantly because there's no way for us to all validate each other and ourselves at the same time unless we all make the same choice.

But we cannot all make the same choice because we are different people with different kids and different professions and different finances and different partners and different resources.

I just try to remember all that whenever I talk to other women about this stuff and when they say things that can be viewed as an insult to my choices. They aren't really talking about me. It's just about them. And that's fine.

But why do we need to be validating our own choices to other people? DH and I made the decisions right for our family (career choices, number of kids, where to live, what schools to send them to, etc.) based on our own personal life circumstances and priorities. I am under no illusion that our choices are the “best ever” or even “better” than what other families have chosen. But I am secure we’ve made decisions that make our family happy.

I can have a conversation with another parent who made different choices than me without needing to justify/explain things in a way that belittle their choices. For instance I have a friend who is a SAHM with a big law DH. When talking to her I 100% understand why it would be logistically a nightmare for her to try to be the primary parent for 3 kids and work since he is gone long hours. Whereas I work FT but my DH also has a super flexible remote job and can help with a lot of the morning routine, shuttling kids around, etc. We can both discuss our lives and the situational decisions we’ve made without making generalized conclusions that our choice is better than the other.

I feel sorry for those who lack the ability to understand their life choices are not necessarily the best choices for others and that we do not need validate ourselves at the expense of putting down others.

This is how most well adjusted people function. The rest don't see how classless they come off putting others down and getting snippy about the decisions of others. I do think there are also genuinely unaware people who are hyper focused on their own reasons (use my brain, raise my kids) that they say it out loud without meaning to imply insult or even that someone else isn't doing that. Honestly, most of us aren't so blatant but likely don't realize all the ways we've insulted others day to day. Still, some people do mean offense and it usually doesn't sting unless you are hearing a chorus of it. Funny enough, I've been hearing one resounding sentiment but from experience on this site, other women get the flip side advised to them by their family so I can understand their defensiveness.

You're almost there. When people talk about their own decisions, they are not putting others down. Others are interpreting other people's statements as if they are reflections upon themselves when other people are just talking about themselves. It is people's insecurity and self-absorption that causes people to be offended by other people's statements about their own situations. People are not classless when they talk about their own situation. People are insecure when they are offended when other people talk about their situation.

It isn't about you.

Huh? That is absolutely not true.

My kids go to private school. I can either state that as a fact, or I can say that we sent them to private school because we wouldn't have sent them to the public schools for which we are zoned. Do you really think both statements are the same? In one I am simply stating what we chose. In another I am not only stating what we chose but also denigrating those who made a different choice.

Saying you don't work because you don't want someone else to raise your kids is clearly saying that you think people who use nannies or daycares don't raise their children.

So the problem isn’t thinking it, it’s just saying it, right? Because the truth is you sent your kids to private for a reason, it’s not like you and your husband did rock paper scissors to decide.

So you won’t SAY that the public schools aren’t good enough for your kids and you feel they’d get a subpar education there (because of course it’s rude to say to the public school parents) but that doesn’t change the fact that you believe it to be true.

[/b]Long story short, either one is mature enough and secure enough to discuss things like private school and childcare honestly, or not.[b] There is far too much thought policing and putting words in others’ mouths going on in this thread, though.

JFC. Sharing your unfiltered thoughts does not make you mature. It makes you socially incompetent.

I have all sorts of beliefs about things I think are better than others, but I don’t need to share these beliefs with the people who made different choices because a) I realize my opinion is not the gospel, b) I understand people are making decisions based upon different opportunities and priorities than me, and c) there is zero benefit to anyone in insulting others’ choices.

I’m convinced some of you on this board don’t actually know how to interact with other people in real life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s so strange about this comment is that, once kids are in school, the difference in time spent with working versus stay at home parents may be minimal. My kid gets out of school at 3:30. Three times a week she stays for an activity until 5:30, which is when I get home. If I didn’t work, I would see her 4 more hours/week. Those extra 4 hours are not the difference between me raising my kid and someone else doing it. I’d enjoy 4 more hours with her but I don’t think it’d change her childhood or the way she perceives who is raising her. She goes to aftercare for those 4 hours and she’d probably choose to do that even if I were home.

I feel like it’s more often said to women with kids who aren’t yet in F/T school. Because, you’re right, it’s not a huge difference in terms of time once they are

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, because it’s true, even if people don’t want to admit that’s what’s happening when children are in full-time daycare. But in polite society we avoid saying things that might hurt someone’s feelings, regardless of whether it’s truthful or not.

But it’s not truthful. My kids went to daycare, and, sure, their daycare teachers, who were all wonderful, provided care during the workday. But my spouse and I made the decisions on how to parent, which included finding great caregivers.

If your children go to daycare for 10-11 (7-6 or 7:30-5:30) hours a day for the first 4-5 years of life and sleep 10-12 hours a night then you are not spending 4-5 hours with them each day 70% of the week. How is this controversial? You are outsourcing a lot of parenting duties to other caregivers. Someone saying that they don’t want to do that is not wrong. And I’m saying this as a full time working parent.

I actually did the math with my neighbor who was a SAHM and I did spend more 1-1 time with my kids than she did.

1st. My H's time counted and I know many of SAHP's who are the 1st to tell you that their H does nothing, works late, travels a lot.
2nd: She did not take into account napping, time in front of TV, time they were in the basement playing and she was futzing around.

I don't think a SAHP should be connected at the hip and I think that independent time is valuable but the reality is she was not spending more 1-1 time with her child than I was.

I think you are mistaken. There's just simply not a chance that you spend more 1-1 time with kids than a SAHP unless the SAHP is outsourcing a ton of childcare. Your kids never play in the basement or nap or watch TV when you're with them? And how much time during the day are the SAHP neighbor's kids doing that? 2 hrs out of a 8+ hour work day...your math isn't mathing.

And there’s the rub. I think because she is home so much she doesn’t even think about doing things with her kids.

I think because I’m not home all day as soon as I get home I want to get outside I take them to the park, Or we go for a hike, We hit a museum, Or walk around the zoo.

in fact when I get home from work the neighbor whose H was sick and she asked me to watch her kids, I immediately pick them up and take them with me to do these things.

The woman who is complaining that she wasn’t chosen to be the caregiver is like sure just send them to my house. They can watch TV or play in the yard while I make dinner or entertain my child in the basement.

Assuming this is all true, your neighbor is n=1. Your neighbor is not representative of the vast majority of SAHP. Nor does your post, however unnecessarily involved, get at the original question of whether it was ok for someone to say they didn’t want their kids raised by strangers.

You go hiking, biking, your kids tube on the lake behind your house every afternoon at 2 pm while you drive the boat before going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and discuss El Greco for six hours. We get it. You’re amazing! Tahoe by day, NYC by afternoon. You never go to Costco. You work 190 hours per week at work and get out by 3 pm to pick up your kid from daycare and play laser tag before you coach soccer and you make $280K!

Pretty much except I work 40 hours and my H the same.

It can work if you want it to.

But if you want to SAH and have a absent h and that works for you because he needs to work 190 hours a week to pick up your slack go for it just stop being so defensive about how other families have figured out how to work and be there for their kids.

DP here. Except the problem with your argument is that lots of families with a SAHM have a Dad who is not absent at all, works a 35 hour week and has tons of flexibility to be at events, coach teams, etc. I know many families like this, including ours.

Glad they figured it out too. They tend to be absent from these discussions because there’s a lot of … its impossible to work my H is big law or surgeon and I could only find hubs that had me out of the house from 6-6.

But I agree the majority of families working or with a SAHP don’t have these crazy situations where one or the other parent isn’t home most of the time.

The idea kids are in daycare 8 or 10 or 12 hours are just horror stories made up to justify not working. Most kids have about 3-4 waking hours in other people’s care until they go to school then it’s about 7 hours whether you work or not, unless you homeschool …Except teen athletes they are gone all day.

So many families have figured it out but I guess someone has to marry surgeons and big law partners. Actually they usually have a few wives throughout their life.

Lady, you’re officially batsh!t crazy. Or a troll. Or both.

Most working people have a schedule that vaguely falls around 9-5:30 plus morning and evening commute. How can you live in this area and apparently not know a single Fed, let alone dual Fed couples?

Feds can work a 6-2:30 schedule while the other parent works 9:30-6.

That means 1 parent does am and the other does afternoons.

Not all feds can do this. If you work with a lot of west coast or Pacific island folks in a national program, you can't get off at 2:30 (my situation). Plenty of offices have core hours starting before 9 and ending after 3. Some jobs require specific shifts (e.g. any law enforcement or customer facing job).

Shift work is perfect. No care or very little care needed.

I didn’t say everyone can do that but many feds do. The vast majority of feds and contractors who work at fed agencies. Also many time IT staff work shortened day and do upgrades after hours.

People who are doing research don’t need to read and write 9-5.

I agree don’t work for DOD.

Our core hours are 10-2.

If this is accurate, you’ll never get promoted or mange anyone. Working four hours a day is ripping off taxpayers and it’s lazy. I’m a fed and there’s no way this would fly at my agency or with me if I was your manager. Whatever you think you’re proving here about childcare you’re not. You’re just making feds look like they take advantage of WFH.

I not only got promoted but I have incentive pay.

no one working 10-2 doing the work day is getting this. This is your personal fantasy because you can’t stand that someone is a SAHP but instead of accepting that you are masquerading as a fed working a 20 hour week getting promoted. I’m sure you’re the head of the FBI. I’m sure you’re doing it all. Whatever you need to hear that you didn’t hear as a kid here you go.

I was just going to comment that I know some feds who probably barely clock in 20 hours. They are the ones who earn 100-150k, barely work and not getting promoted. These friends are always available to hang out or go to their kids appointments, drive them to school, to sports, etc. I don’t think you can compare someone like this to a big law partner, C level executive, surgeon, etc

Yeah. I think it’s fair to say someone working 20 hours a week making $100K is not the same as an NEO or Section 16 employee let alone a surgeon.

100k is like 50k when I graduated from college 20+ years ago so if a 40 something year old is coasting on this salary, that person doesn’t need to work very hard.

I can think of 2 annoying women in my life who could be the pp saying she spends equal time with her kids or they don’t need childcare. They don’t have high earning husbands so husbands also flex. They absolutely do spend a lot of time with kids and not so much time working. One friend wakes up and wiggles her mouse at 6 so she starts work then. Then goes for a run or bikes on her peloton, showers, answers an email, gets kids ready for school, drives kids to school and starts work at 930 but she has already clocked in for 3.5 hours. So someone like pp who does this can spend the same amount of time with kids if kids are in school.

When you have a real job no one tracks when you answer your first email. It’s about your work. And answering an email or emails for 5-20 minutes is not work. It’s ancillary. But you’d only know that if you had a job that required real work.

Yes, her core working hours are also 10-2 with a lunch break in the middle.

I'm not sure people are understanding what "core hours" means. It doesn't mean you only work during those hours. It means you don't flex your schedule during those hours so you reliably overlap with others. E.g. if core hours are 10-2, you could have one person on a 6-2:30 schedule and one person 10-7, and they'd try to meet during the overlap 10-2. You have a full workday, but your personal start and end times have to be before and after the end of core hours.

My core hours are 9-3:30. I start work at 7 or 7:30 and end between 3:30 and 5, with an 8 hour minimum. Do people think I'm only working 6.5 hours?!

Are you related to the person working core hours of 10-2 but staring work at 5 am by waving your mouse on a track pad before going on the peloton for three hours before taking your children to school and then spending the rest of your day observing stay at home moms at the pool and grocery store, among other places? I’m getting lost in your various fantasy worlds. Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote so you can make sure it’s coherent because in this post your work hours have changed. I’m assuming you’re completely dropping the other story about working in finance and having a nanny for three disjointed hours of the day and want to double down on the fed with core hours thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, because it’s true, even if people don’t want to admit that’s what’s happening when children are in full-time daycare. But in polite society we avoid saying things that might hurt someone’s feelings, regardless of whether it’s truthful or not.

But it’s not truthful. My kids went to daycare, and, sure, their daycare teachers, who were all wonderful, provided care during the workday. But my spouse and I made the decisions on how to parent, which included finding great caregivers.

If your children go to daycare for 10-11 (7-6 or 7:30-5:30) hours a day for the first 4-5 years of life and sleep 10-12 hours a night then you are not spending 4-5 hours with them each day 70% of the week. How is this controversial? You are outsourcing a lot of parenting duties to other caregivers. Someone saying that they don’t want to do that is not wrong. And I’m saying this as a full time working parent.

I don’t believe you’re a working parent. My toddler is at preschool 9-4. During which she sleeps 2 hours. So 5 waking hours. She has a parent with her 7-9 and 4-7:30. So 5.5 waking hours. Plus weekends. Plus they close every single federal holiday, spring break, summer break, Christmas break, teacher workdays, and add in illnesses. I’d be shocked if she ever actually goes more than 25-30 hours/week and this is pretty standard for most dual working parent households I know. Plenty of us have 2 spouses with lots of flexibility and WAH. I work 7-3:30 and DH works 9-5:30 (sometimes earlier and he catches up at night if I need help getting a kid to an after school activity).

Also while our kids are at preschool/school I can squeeze in laundry, gym, grocery shopping etc. on breaks so we can prioritize family time during the evenings/weekends.

I really don’t care whether someone chooses to work or not, but I think it’s provincial if you envision most kids of working parents being in daycare for 10-11 hours, 5 days a week. This is not the norm for a single dual income household I know. I’ve thrown my kids birthday parties in the middle of a weekday off school and there’s tons of working parents able to shuttle their kids to laser tag at 2 pm on a Wednesday. Lots of moms and dads hanging out at the playground when school gets let out.

Being a working parent in 2024 means you can earn 6 figures, attend your kid’s school events, chaperone the field trips, and coach 5 pm soccer. Many of the DCUM working parents fall into this category.

First off, I don’t believe you are full time working parent because if your child is in preschool 7 hours a day and you have any sort of commute and do a bunch of errands and work out you during that period you are working a much shorter workday than a full time employee. You’re working part-time.

I’ve only worked in tech and finance, but in those industries it’s really common for people who say they work full time to work a full work day. That’s because you generally get fired if you’re not able to do your work in a timely manner on a regular basis, and anyone who only has 3-4 hours of work each day is not someone who is likely to advance or remain employed in the long term. That generally means that people who I work with either have nannies or decline laser tag invites in the middle of the day when their children are in preschool.

I have three children and I make $365K. I have a very flexible job that allows me to be present for my children a lot and allows me to minimize the number of hours that I’m not with my kids during the day, which is great because even though my husband earns significantly more and has significantly greater upside with comp, he has a far less flexible schedule. And we have an amazing nanny.

Working full time is a trade off. I’m very comfortable with that trade off because we have an amazing nanny and because I really love my work and don’t want to be a stay at home parent. However, I understood and understand the trade offs and I’m not offended when someone tells me that they also understood the trade offs particular to their situation and decided to stay home. Most working parents do not coach soccer at 5 if they have a demanding job. Most working parents use daycare for 10 hours a day (most working parents have commutes and work a standard work day of 8-9 hours so using anything less than 10 hours of childcare would be really hard). Life is full of trade offs: no one can have it all. Deal with it instead of trying to police what people say to you or what people should hypothetically say to you about something you already know.

I commute from my bedroom to my home office. DH handles kids in the am so I can start work early. I am done by 3:30. Laundry gets moved around in between meetings. Gym on my lunch break a couple days per week. Online grocery order for curbside pickup during lunch break. Helps to live in a walkable area so I can get errands done easily. I am almost never in a car and don’t deal with traffic. Too many people give up hours of their lives to the car. It’s totally possible to work FT and not have FT childcare if your spouse is an equal partner and you don’t have a commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone on here think it’s weird this thread has devolved into people saying they are working parents who never use daycare? Like, are all these people not validating that not have g strangers raise your children is better? Have we come full circle. Is the answer that everyone is actually with their child from birth to five and no one uses childcare?

Its weird that 1 person found a way to work a schedule with their spouse so they needed little to no daycare and many people are upset about it.

I work in finance and no one does this. You’re trying to say working parents never use a nanny or childcare and that’s incorrect. You’re posting a ton about your weird low rent schedule that perfectly illustrates that you’re an underachiever and you want everyone to clap for you. This thread is not about your weird core hours.

DP. I actually did this when I worked in finance! DH and I staggered schedules and I did my IC work at night. We had a nanny but she was only with DD for ~3 waking hours (11-1 and 3-4).

You’ve clearly never had a nanny. No nanny would work a schedule of 11-1 and then 3-4. You think a nanny would watch a kid from 11-1 then go home for two hours then come back for one hour. Obviously you’re a fake because no financial initiation would let you work an abridged day to be home with your kid at 1 (hahaha) but no nanny would take a crazy schedule like that either. You’re a pathetic liar.

And this nap schedule is for an infant. What about kids who are no longer napping? My kids dropped their naps before age 3. That is there one afternoon nap.

Ha ha, all of these “high finance” types expressing disbelief about my schedule are quite flattering - I acknowledge that it was a desirable, unicorn life and difficult to replicate!

Yes, I too was in “high finance” (UBS TMT) right out of undergrad. Later shifted to “low finance” so I wouldn’t have to give up my life working 80 hours a week.

When we started trying for kids I intentionally took a more relaxed role with fewer meetings and managerial responsibilities, more individual work so I could stagger hours with DH. Negotiated less in-office time and fewer in-office days and luckily had short commutes.

Our nanny worked ~6 hours a day - her choice so she could spend more time with her own (school-aged) kids. We didn’t need that much childcare so she helped out with household tasks.

It didn’t last forever. When our younger one turned 3, I ramped back up. I could have stayed with that flex schedule but I was getting bored at work and needed new challenges, and I felt my kids had gotten enough of me

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, because it’s true, even if people don’t want to admit that’s what’s happening when children are in full-time daycare. But in polite society we avoid saying things that might hurt someone’s feelings, regardless of whether it’s truthful or not.

But it’s not truthful. My kids went to daycare, and, sure, their daycare teachers, who were all wonderful, provided care during the workday. But my spouse and I made the decisions on how to parent, which included finding great caregivers.

If your children go to daycare for 10-11 (7-6 or 7:30-5:30) hours a day for the first 4-5 years of life and sleep 10-12 hours a night then you are not spending 4-5 hours with them each day 70% of the week. How is this controversial? You are outsourcing a lot of parenting duties to other caregivers. Someone saying that they don’t want to do that is not wrong. And I’m saying this as a full time working parent.

I actually did the math with my neighbor who was a SAHM and I did spend more 1-1 time with my kids than she did.

1st. My H's time counted and I know many of SAHP's who are the 1st to tell you that their H does nothing, works late, travels a lot.
2nd: She did not take into account napping, time in front of TV, time they were in the basement playing and she was futzing around.

I don't think a SAHP should be connected at the hip and I think that independent time is valuable but the reality is she was not spending more 1-1 time with her child than I was.

I think you are mistaken. There's just simply not a chance that you spend more 1-1 time with kids than a SAHP unless the SAHP is outsourcing a ton of childcare. Your kids never play in the basement or nap or watch TV when you're with them? And how much time during the day are the SAHP neighbor's kids doing that? 2 hrs out of a 8+ hour work day...your math isn't mathing.

And there’s the rub. I think because she is home so much she doesn’t even think about doing things with her kids.

I think because I’m not home all day as soon as I get home I want to get outside I take them to the park, Or we go for a hike, We hit a museum, Or walk around the zoo.

in fact when I get home from work the neighbor whose H was sick and she asked me to watch her kids, I immediately pick them up and take them with me to do these things.

The woman who is complaining that she wasn’t chosen to be the caregiver is like sure just send them to my house. They can watch TV or play in the yard while I make dinner or entertain my child in the basement.

Assuming this is all true, your neighbor is n=1. Your neighbor is not representative of the vast majority of SAHP. Nor does your post, however unnecessarily involved, get at the original question of whether it was ok for someone to say they didn’t want their kids raised by strangers.

You go hiking, biking, your kids tube on the lake behind your house every afternoon at 2 pm while you drive the boat before going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and discuss El Greco for six hours. We get it. You’re amazing! Tahoe by day, NYC by afternoon. You never go to Costco. You work 190 hours per week at work and get out by 3 pm to pick up your kid from daycare and play laser tag before you coach soccer and you make $280K!

Pretty much except I work 40 hours and my H the same.

It can work if you want it to.

But if you want to SAH and have a absent h and that works for you because he needs to work 190 hours a week to pick up your slack go for it just stop being so defensive about how other families have figured out how to work and be there for their kids.

DP here. Except the problem with your argument is that lots of families with a SAHM have a Dad who is not absent at all, works a 35 hour week and has tons of flexibility to be at events, coach teams, etc. I know many families like this, including ours.

Glad they figured it out too. They tend to be absent from these discussions because there’s a lot of … its impossible to work my H is big law or surgeon and I could only find hubs that had me out of the house from 6-6.

But I agree the majority of families working or with a SAHP don’t have these crazy situations where one or the other parent isn’t home most of the time.

The idea kids are in daycare 8 or 10 or 12 hours are just horror stories made up to justify not working. Most kids have about 3-4 waking hours in other people’s care until they go to school then it’s about 7 hours whether you work or not, unless you homeschool …Except teen athletes they are gone all day.

So many families have figured it out but I guess someone has to marry surgeons and big law partners. Actually they usually have a few wives throughout their life.

Lady, you’re officially batsh!t crazy. Or a troll. Or both.

Most working people have a schedule that vaguely falls around 9-5:30 plus morning and evening commute. How can you live in this area and apparently not know a single Fed, let alone dual Fed couples?

Feds can work a 6-2:30 schedule while the other parent works 9:30-6.

That means 1 parent does am and the other does afternoons.

Not all feds can do this. If you work with a lot of west coast or Pacific island folks in a national program, you can't get off at 2:30 (my situation). Plenty of offices have core hours starting before 9 and ending after 3. Some jobs require specific shifts (e.g. any law enforcement or customer facing job).

Shift work is perfect. No care or very little care needed.

I didn’t say everyone can do that but many feds do. The vast majority of feds and contractors who work at fed agencies. Also many time IT staff work shortened day and do upgrades after hours.

People who are doing research don’t need to read and write 9-5.

I agree don’t work for DOD.

Our core hours are 10-2.

If this is accurate, you’ll never get promoted or mange anyone. Working four hours a day is ripping off taxpayers and it’s lazy. I’m a fed and there’s no way this would fly at my agency or with me if I was your manager. Whatever you think you’re proving here about childcare you’re not. You’re just making feds look like they take advantage of WFH.

I not only got promoted but I have incentive pay.

no one working 10-2 doing the work day is getting this. This is your personal fantasy because you can’t stand that someone is a SAHP but instead of accepting that you are masquerading as a fed working a 20 hour week getting promoted. I’m sure you’re the head of the FBI. I’m sure you’re doing it all. Whatever you need to hear that you didn’t hear as a kid here you go.

I was just going to comment that I know some feds who probably barely clock in 20 hours. They are the ones who earn 100-150k, barely work and not getting promoted. These friends are always available to hang out or go to their kids appointments, drive them to school, to sports, etc. I don’t think you can compare someone like this to a big law partner, C level executive, surgeon, etc

Yeah. I think it’s fair to say someone working 20 hours a week making $100K is not the same as an NEO or Section 16 employee let alone a surgeon.

100k is like 50k when I graduated from college 20+ years ago so if a 40 something year old is coasting on this salary, that person doesn’t need to work very hard.

I can think of 2 annoying women in my life who could be the pp saying she spends equal time with her kids or they don’t need childcare. They don’t have high earning husbands so husbands also flex. They absolutely do spend a lot of time with kids and not so much time working. One friend wakes up and wiggles her mouse at 6 so she starts work then. Then goes for a run or bikes on her peloton, showers, answers an email, gets kids ready for school, drives kids to school and starts work at 930 but she has already clocked in for 3.5 hours. So someone like pp who does this can spend the same amount of time with kids if kids are in school.

When you have a real job no one tracks when you answer your first email. It’s about your work. And answering an email or emails for 5-20 minutes is not work. It’s ancillary. But you’d only know that if you had a job that required real work.

Yes, her core working hours are also 10-2 with a lunch break in the middle.

I'm not sure people are understanding what "core hours" means. It doesn't mean you only work during those hours. It means you don't flex your schedule during those hours so you reliably overlap with others. E.g. if core hours are 10-2, you could have one person on a 6-2:30 schedule and one person 10-7, and they'd try to meet during the overlap 10-2. You have a full workday, but your personal start and end times have to be before and after the end of core hours.

My core hours are 9-3:30. I start work at 7 or 7:30 and end between 3:30 and 5, with an 8 hour minimum. Do people think I'm only working 6.5 hours?!

Are you related to the person working core hours of 10-2 but staring work at 5 am by waving your mouse on a track pad before going on the peloton for three hours before taking your children to school and then spending the rest of your day observing stay at home moms at the pool and grocery store, among other places? I’m getting lost in your various fantasy worlds. Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote so you can make sure it’s coherent because in this post your work hours have changed. I’m assuming you’re completely dropping the other story about working in finance and having a nanny for three disjointed hours of the day and want to double down on the fed with core hours thing?

Put the vodka down Jan!

There are multiple posters and you’re acting like it’s 1.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, because it’s true, even if people don’t want to admit that’s what’s happening when children are in full-time daycare. But in polite society we avoid saying things that might hurt someone’s feelings, regardless of whether it’s truthful or not.

But it’s not truthful. My kids went to daycare, and, sure, their daycare teachers, who were all wonderful, provided care during the workday. But my spouse and I made the decisions on how to parent, which included finding great caregivers.

If your children go to daycare for 10-11 (7-6 or 7:30-5:30) hours a day for the first 4-5 years of life and sleep 10-12 hours a night then you are not spending 4-5 hours with them each day 70% of the week. How is this controversial? You are outsourcing a lot of parenting duties to other caregivers. Someone saying that they don’t want to do that is not wrong. And I’m saying this as a full time working parent.

I actually did the math with my neighbor who was a SAHM and I did spend more 1-1 time with my kids than she did.

1st. My H's time counted and I know many of SAHP's who are the 1st to tell you that their H does nothing, works late, travels a lot.
2nd: She did not take into account napping, time in front of TV, time they were in the basement playing and she was futzing around.

I don't think a SAHP should be connected at the hip and I think that independent time is valuable but the reality is she was not spending more 1-1 time with her child than I was.

I think you are mistaken. There's just simply not a chance that you spend more 1-1 time with kids than a SAHP unless the SAHP is outsourcing a ton of childcare. Your kids never play in the basement or nap or watch TV when you're with them? And how much time during the day are the SAHP neighbor's kids doing that? 2 hrs out of a 8+ hour work day...your math isn't mathing.

And there’s the rub. I think because she is home so much she doesn’t even think about doing things with her kids.

I think because I’m not home all day as soon as I get home I want to get outside I take them to the park, Or we go for a hike, We hit a museum, Or walk around the zoo.

in fact when I get home from work the neighbor whose H was sick and she asked me to watch her kids, I immediately pick them up and take them with me to do these things.

The woman who is complaining that she wasn’t chosen to be the caregiver is like sure just send them to my house. They can watch TV or play in the yard while I make dinner or entertain my child in the basement.

Assuming this is all true, your neighbor is n=1. Your neighbor is not representative of the vast majority of SAHP. Nor does your post, however unnecessarily involved, get at the original question of whether it was ok for someone to say they didn’t want their kids raised by strangers.

You go hiking, biking, your kids tube on the lake behind your house every afternoon at 2 pm while you drive the boat before going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and discuss El Greco for six hours. We get it. You’re amazing! Tahoe by day, NYC by afternoon. You never go to Costco. You work 190 hours per week at work and get out by 3 pm to pick up your kid from daycare and play laser tag before you coach soccer and you make $280K!

Pretty much except I work 40 hours and my H the same.

It can work if you want it to.

But if you want to SAH and have a absent h and that works for you because he needs to work 190 hours a week to pick up your slack go for it just stop being so defensive about how other families have figured out how to work and be there for their kids.

DP here. Except the problem with your argument is that lots of families with a SAHM have a Dad who is not absent at all, works a 35 hour week and has tons of flexibility to be at events, coach teams, etc. I know many families like this, including ours.

Glad they figured it out too. They tend to be absent from these discussions because there’s a lot of … its impossible to work my H is big law or surgeon and I could only find hubs that had me out of the house from 6-6.

But I agree the majority of families working or with a SAHP don’t have these crazy situations where one or the other parent isn’t home most of the time.

The idea kids are in daycare 8 or 10 or 12 hours are just horror stories made up to justify not working. Most kids have about 3-4 waking hours in other people’s care until they go to school then it’s about 7 hours whether you work or not, unless you homeschool …Except teen athletes they are gone all day.

So many families have figured it out but I guess someone has to marry surgeons and big law partners. Actually they usually have a few wives throughout their life.

Lady, you’re officially batsh!t crazy. Or a troll. Or both.

Most working people have a schedule that vaguely falls around 9-5:30 plus morning and evening commute. How can you live in this area and apparently not know a single Fed, let alone dual Fed couples?

Feds can work a 6-2:30 schedule while the other parent works 9:30-6.

That means 1 parent does am and the other does afternoons.

Not all feds can do this. If you work with a lot of west coast or Pacific island folks in a national program, you can't get off at 2:30 (my situation). Plenty of offices have core hours starting before 9 and ending after 3. Some jobs require specific shifts (e.g. any law enforcement or customer facing job).

Shift work is perfect. No care or very little care needed.

I didn’t say everyone can do that but many feds do. The vast majority of feds and contractors who work at fed agencies. Also many time IT staff work shortened day and do upgrades after hours.

People who are doing research don’t need to read and write 9-5.

I agree don’t work for DOD.

Our core hours are 10-2.

If this is accurate, you’ll never get promoted or mange anyone. Working four hours a day is ripping off taxpayers and it’s lazy. I’m a fed and there’s no way this would fly at my agency or with me if I was your manager. Whatever you think you’re proving here about childcare you’re not. You’re just making feds look like they take advantage of WFH.

I not only got promoted but I have incentive pay.

no one working 10-2 doing the work day is getting this. This is your personal fantasy because you can’t stand that someone is a SAHP but instead of accepting that you are masquerading as a fed working a 20 hour week getting promoted. I’m sure you’re the head of the FBI. I’m sure you’re doing it all. Whatever you need to hear that you didn’t hear as a kid here you go.

I was just going to comment that I know some feds who probably barely clock in 20 hours. They are the ones who earn 100-150k, barely work and not getting promoted. These friends are always available to hang out or go to their kids appointments, drive them to school, to sports, etc. I don’t think you can compare someone like this to a big law partner, C level executive, surgeon, etc

Yeah. I think it’s fair to say someone working 20 hours a week making $100K is not the same as an NEO or Section 16 employee let alone a surgeon.

100k is like 50k when I graduated from college 20+ years ago so if a 40 something year old is coasting on this salary, that person doesn’t need to work very hard.

I can think of 2 annoying women in my life who could be the pp saying she spends equal time with her kids or they don’t need childcare. They don’t have high earning husbands so husbands also flex. They absolutely do spend a lot of time with kids and not so much time working. One friend wakes up and wiggles her mouse at 6 so she starts work then. Then goes for a run or bikes on her peloton, showers, answers an email, gets kids ready for school, drives kids to school and starts work at 930 but she has already clocked in for 3.5 hours. So someone like pp who does this can spend the same amount of time with kids if kids are in school.

When you have a real job no one tracks when you answer your first email. It’s about your work. And answering an email or emails for 5-20 minutes is not work. It’s ancillary. But you’d only know that if you had a job that required real work.

Yes, her core working hours are also 10-2 with a lunch break in the middle.

I'm not sure people are understanding what "core hours" means. It doesn't mean you only work during those hours. It means you don't flex your schedule during those hours so you reliably overlap with others. E.g. if core hours are 10-2, you could have one person on a 6-2:30 schedule and one person 10-7, and they'd try to meet during the overlap 10-2. You have a full workday, but your personal start and end times have to be before and after the end of core hours.

My core hours are 9-3:30. I start work at 7 or 7:30 and end between 3:30 and 5, with an 8 hour minimum. Do people think I'm only working 6.5 hours?!

Are you related to the person working core hours of 10-2 but staring work at 5 am by waving your mouse on a track pad before going on the peloton for three hours before taking your children to school and then spending the rest of your day observing stay at home moms at the pool and grocery store, among other places? I’m getting lost in your various fantasy worlds. Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote so you can make sure it’s coherent because in this post your work hours have changed. I’m assuming you’re completely dropping the other story about working in finance and having a nanny for three disjointed hours of the day and want to double down on the fed with core hours thing?

I’m the one who wrote about knowing people who log in work by wiggling their mouse. This is not one or two people. They literally roll out of bed and log on so they can clock out at 3. I know people who brag they only work 2 real hours per day. I read an article that the younger generation thinks this is the norm. They expect to be able to not get ready for work, work out, eat lunch with friends, walk the dog during the work day while working.

[Anonymous]

It is a huge difference to the kids though to have a more relaxed morning and to be able to come home and rest after school instead of staying in aftercare.

I stopped working when I had my kids, went back part-time when they started school and now that they are in high school I am increasing my hours close to full-time. I have always worked from home and have an intellectually stimulating job.

I realize that I am very lucky and not everyone has the same options as I do. I have no judgment, only sympathy, for those who would prefer to stay home with kids but have to work due to financial reasons.

I will never regret staying home with the kids when they were young. I truly believe that having one lovung and engaged parent stay home is the very best for the children. Those were also some of the best years of my life and I am forever grateful that I had the opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, because it’s true, even if people don’t want to admit that’s what’s happening when children are in full-time daycare. But in polite society we avoid saying things that might hurt someone’s feelings, regardless of whether it’s truthful or not.

But it’s not truthful. My kids went to daycare, and, sure, their daycare teachers, who were all wonderful, provided care during the workday. But my spouse and I made the decisions on how to parent, which included finding great caregivers.

If your children go to daycare for 10-11 (7-6 or 7:30-5:30) hours a day for the first 4-5 years of life and sleep 10-12 hours a night then you are not spending 4-5 hours with them each day 70% of the week. How is this controversial? You are outsourcing a lot of parenting duties to other caregivers. Someone saying that they don’t want to do that is not wrong. And I’m saying this as a full time working parent.

I don’t believe you’re a working parent. My toddler is at preschool 9-4. During which she sleeps 2 hours. So 5 waking hours. She has a parent with her 7-9 and 4-7:30. So 5.5 waking hours. Plus weekends. Plus they close every single federal holiday, spring break, summer break, Christmas break, teacher workdays, and add in illnesses. I’d be shocked if she ever actually goes more than 25-30 hours/week and this is pretty standard for most dual working parent households I know. Plenty of us have 2 spouses with lots of flexibility and WAH. I work 7-3:30 and DH works 9-5:30 (sometimes earlier and he catches up at night if I need help getting a kid to an after school activity).

Also while our kids are at preschool/school I can squeeze in laundry, gym, grocery shopping etc. on breaks so we can prioritize family time during the evenings/weekends.

I really don’t care whether someone chooses to work or not, but I think it’s provincial if you envision most kids of working parents being in daycare for 10-11 hours, 5 days a week. This is not the norm for a single dual income household I know. I’ve thrown my kids birthday parties in the middle of a weekday off school and there’s tons of working parents able to shuttle their kids to laser tag at 2 pm on a Wednesday. Lots of moms and dads hanging out at the playground when school gets let out.

Being a working parent in 2024 means you can earn 6 figures, attend your kid’s school events, chaperone the field trips, and coach 5 pm soccer. Many of the DCUM working parents fall into this category.

First off, I don’t believe you are full time working parent because if your child is in preschool 7 hours a day and you have any sort of commute and do a bunch of errands and work out you during that period you are working a much shorter workday than a full time employee. You’re working part-time.

I’ve only worked in tech and finance, but in those industries it’s really common for people who say they work full time to work a full work day. That’s because you generally get fired if you’re not able to do your work in a timely manner on a regular basis, and anyone who only has 3-4 hours of work each day is not someone who is likely to advance or remain employed in the long term. That generally means that people who I work with either have nannies or decline laser tag invites in the middle of the day when their children are in preschool.

I have three children and I make $365K. I have a very flexible job that allows me to be present for my children a lot and allows me to minimize the number of hours that I’m not with my kids during the day, which is great because even though my husband earns significantly more and has significantly greater upside with comp, he has a far less flexible schedule. And we have an amazing nanny.

Working full time is a trade off. I’m very comfortable with that trade off because we have an amazing nanny and because I really love my work and don’t want to be a stay at home parent. However, I understood and understand the trade offs and I’m not offended when someone tells me that they also understood the trade offs particular to their situation and decided to stay home. Most working parents do not coach soccer at 5 if they have a demanding job. Most working parents use daycare for 10 hours a day (most working parents have commutes and work a standard work day of 8-9 hours so using anything less than 10 hours of childcare would be really hard). Life is full of trade offs: no one can have it all. Deal with it instead of trying to police what people say to you or what people should hypothetically say to you about something you already know.

I commute from my bedroom to my home office. DH handles kids in the am so I can start work early. I am done by 3:30. Laundry gets moved around in between meetings. Gym on my lunch break a couple days per week. Online grocery order for curbside pickup during lunch break. Helps to live in a walkable area so I can get errands done easily. I am almost never in a car and don’t deal with traffic. Too many people give up hours of their lives to the car. It’s totally possible to work FT and not have FT childcare if your spouse is an equal partner and you don’t have a commute.

It doesn’t sound like you’re working 40 hours a week. It also doesn’t sound like your set up is in any way representative of the vast majority of dual working parents who commute into an office and work a normal 8-9 hour day. Your assertion that most people only use 7 hours of childcare each day is incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, because it’s true, even if people don’t want to admit that’s what’s happening when children are in full-time daycare. But in polite society we avoid saying things that might hurt someone’s feelings, regardless of whether it’s truthful or not.

But it’s not truthful. My kids went to daycare, and, sure, their daycare teachers, who were all wonderful, provided care during the workday. But my spouse and I made the decisions on how to parent, which included finding great caregivers.

If your children go to daycare for 10-11 (7-6 or 7:30-5:30) hours a day for the first 4-5 years of life and sleep 10-12 hours a night then you are not spending 4-5 hours with them each day 70% of the week. How is this controversial? You are outsourcing a lot of parenting duties to other caregivers. Someone saying that they don’t want to do that is not wrong. And I’m saying this as a full time working parent.

I don’t believe you’re a working parent. My toddler is at preschool 9-4. During which she sleeps 2 hours. So 5 waking hours. She has a parent with her 7-9 and 4-7:30. So 5.5 waking hours. Plus weekends. Plus they close every single federal holiday, spring break, summer break, Christmas break, teacher workdays, and add in illnesses. I’d be shocked if she ever actually goes more than 25-30 hours/week and this is pretty standard for most dual working parent households I know. Plenty of us have 2 spouses with lots of flexibility and WAH. I work 7-3:30 and DH works 9-5:30 (sometimes earlier and he catches up at night if I need help getting a kid to an after school activity).

Also while our kids are at preschool/school I can squeeze in laundry, gym, grocery shopping etc. on breaks so we can prioritize family time during the evenings/weekends.

I really don’t care whether someone chooses to work or not, but I think it’s provincial if you envision most kids of working parents being in daycare for 10-11 hours, 5 days a week. This is not the norm for a single dual income household I know. I’ve thrown my kids birthday parties in the middle of a weekday off school and there’s tons of working parents able to shuttle their kids to laser tag at 2 pm on a Wednesday. Lots of moms and dads hanging out at the playground when school gets let out.

Being a working parent in 2024 means you can earn 6 figures, attend your kid’s school events, chaperone the field trips, and coach 5 pm soccer. Many of the DCUM working parents fall into this category.

First off, I don’t believe you are full time working parent because if your child is in preschool 7 hours a day and you have any sort of commute and do a bunch of errands and work out you during that period you are working a much shorter workday than a full time employee. You’re working part-time.

I’ve only worked in tech and finance, but in those industries it’s really common for people who say they work full time to work a full work day. That’s because you generally get fired if you’re not able to do your work in a timely manner on a regular basis, and anyone who only has 3-4 hours of work each day is not someone who is likely to advance or remain employed in the long term. That generally means that people who I work with either have nannies or decline laser tag invites in the middle of the day when their children are in preschool.

I have three children and I make $365K. I have a very flexible job that allows me to be present for my children a lot and allows me to minimize the number of hours that I’m not with my kids during the day, which is great because even though my husband earns significantly more and has significantly greater upside with comp, he has a far less flexible schedule. And we have an amazing nanny.

Working full time is a trade off. I’m very comfortable with that trade off because we have an amazing nanny and because I really love my work and don’t want to be a stay at home parent. However, I understood and understand the trade offs and I’m not offended when someone tells me that they also understood the trade offs particular to their situation and decided to stay home. Most working parents do not coach soccer at 5 if they have a demanding job. Most working parents use daycare for 10 hours a day (most working parents have commutes and work a standard work day of 8-9 hours so using anything less than 10 hours of childcare would be really hard). Life is full of trade offs: no one can have it all. Deal with it instead of trying to police what people say to you or what people should hypothetically say to you about something you already know.

I commute from my bedroom to my home office. DH handles kids in the am so I can start work early. I am done by 3:30. Laundry gets moved around in between meetings. Gym on my lunch break a couple days per week. Online grocery order for curbside pickup during lunch break. Helps to live in a walkable area so I can get errands done easily. I am almost never in a car and don’t deal with traffic. Too many people give up hours of their lives to the car. It’s totally possible to work FT and not have FT childcare if your spouse is an equal partner and you don’t have a commute.

It doesn’t sound like you’re working 40 hours a week. It also doesn’t sound like your set up is in any way representative of the vast majority of dual working parents who commute into an office and work a normal 8-9 hour day. Your assertion that most people only use 7 hours of childcare each day is incorrect.

This lady sounds like she works 5 hours per day and also has a husband who does not have a demanding job.

[Anonymous]

I do not like incomplete statements that does not tell the whole truth.

In the context of highly educated UMC women in DMV who choose to SAH the complete statement would be - We are financially well off, we have a solid marriage, we are very well educated, we are priviledged in many ways, we have outsourced many domestic chores and my being home to raise kids is valued immensely by my DH. WE also didn't want someone else to raise our kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only say that in response to people who constantly think they’re the only ones who are busy and imply my life is so relaxing compared to theirs because they work.

But also, it’s the truth. I don’t work because I wanted to raise my kids. PhD scientist here so don’t worry about my brain, it’s doing just fine.

It's rude, sure. But surely you don't actually believe you are using your intellectual capabilities to the same degree that you would be/were prior to staying home with kids? I know that I felt very unchallenged in many areas, mostly intellectual, and completely overwhelmed in others.

How were you unchallenged? I think people exaggerate how much their jobs are intellectually challenging. Most people specialize in one certain area, are trained, are experienced after awhile and then it is just routine.

When you don’t work you have plenty of time to read the news in detail every day including what’s happening around the world. You get to bring your child to events involving science or the arts or baseball. There’s really no excuse to feel “very unchallenged” as you put it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a huge difference to the kids though to have a more relaxed morning and to be able to come home and rest after school instead of staying in aftercare.

I stopped working when I had my kids, went back part-time when they started school and now that they are in high school I am increasing my hours close to full-time. I have always worked from home and have an intellectually stimulating job.

I realize that I am very lucky and not everyone has the same options as I do. I have no judgment, only sympathy, for those who would prefer to stay home with kids but have to work due to financial reasons.

I will never regret staying home with the kids when they were young. I truly believe that having one lovung and engaged parent stay home is the very best for the children. Those were also some of the best years of my life and I am forever grateful that I had the opportunity.

Our aftercare was so much fun at our school that SAHMs also sent their kids 2-3 days a week because it was one big playdate and they felt left out.

I think it’s good to have 2 engaged parents and we need to start making dads part of the equation.