Husbands with SAHMs that prefer they work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But nothing, literally nothing on your list is necessarily mutually exclusive with a SAHP. Not every husband with a homemaker wife works crazy hours or isn't involved wit his children. Children don't have to grow up feeling like a center of the universe if their mother stays home. It's not like men with SAHMs never go out to dinner with their wives. It's not like an educated, intelligent SAHM would keep her child locked up in a room where he can only see her. They go out, do things, travel, see stuff. What makes you think exposure to diversity of experiences and people and other kids is only possible in a daycare or preschool setting? You are setting up a false dichotomy where there isn't one.

It's not SAHM vs WOHM... I chose my lifestyle because I like it and I don't think I gave anything up. I think it is the best way to raise a child. I am sure Some SAHA thing their way is the best. Some people like being doctor others like being lawyers (psyche nobody actually likes being a lawyer).

Going out and seeing a person at the store is not the same to me as having a relationship with an aupair. Being sick of my child by 3 pm and watching the clock until my H gets home is not my preference for how I want to live my life.

It was a choice not one that was thrst upon me. I think being in a school setting starting at 3 is a positive. I think having an aupair that was available to babysit for datenight every other weekend was a plus. I didn't feel being home was a plus because my H was there in the morning, then my child slept, then the aupair had him for 3 hours then he slept, then I was home. Seemed like a waste to throw a career away for 3 hours a day. I had 3-9 ... 6 hours a day. I don't feel like there was any trade off, it was all positive.

Once the kids were in preschool, H did morning drop off 3 days, I worked at home 2 days... So I could do the drop off, aupair did lunch (1 hour), nap(2hours)... Moms home. So I missed lunch... And a 2 hour nap, big deal.

I volunteered, did field trips, dad did field trips... Not missing much.

You really think having an Au pair is a good thing? Oh man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So sad this thread didn't end when this dose of sanity and reasonableness was dropped in.

Yep. My kids and their friends (now in middle school) have now and had in the past of mix of WAHM, WOHM, SAHM, SAHD, part-time, full-time, in the US, out of the US. They are all generally good kids and doing well in school with their individual strengths and weaknesses.

During the first 5 yrs I was a SAHM who also worked freelanced occasionally. This was not about what was best for my kids. I knew they'd do well with either a SAHP or a WOHP since we could afford high quality childcare. The choice was about what was best for me and DH! I *wanted* to be spending my time focusing on my kids. I'd watched enough coworkers doing the two-working-parent juggle and it looked exhausting *for me*. It worked for them but wasn't what I preferred. DH valued having a SAHP too and was willing to do that if I didn't want to but he works in a technical field that evolves quickly so a break for him could be death to his career. I, however, work in a field with a lot of freelance opportunities, know a number of people who took a few years off and then came back, had a strong network, and made it a priority to stay connected professionally because I knew SAHM wasn't my long-term plan. I LOVED my SAHM years but am now happy to be a WOHM. If I'd hated being a SAHP then I'd have gone back to work sooner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm in IT. I posted earlier on this thread. I have been able to take some periods of time off to SAHM- and it's worked out well for us. I had my first child when I was 31 so I was able to get a solid amount of experience in my field before having children and I've been able to re-enter the workforce, work part-time, etc.

I do think the best of both worlds is working part-time. You have an income, you keep your career on track, life raising children is less hectic and you get to spend more time with the family and on yourself. It's too bad that more employers don't offer this. 25-32 working hours is ideal. It's amazing what you can get done in a condensed week, no one even realizes that I'm part time (except my boss). My advice to those who are overwhelmed and torn between the WOHM and SAHM route is that you ask your employer to let you work fewer hours, if you are good at what you do, they might give you that option. Obviously you take a pay cut, but it's worth it if you are still making enough for your household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But nothing, literally nothing on your list is necessarily mutually exclusive with a SAHP. Not every husband with a homemaker wife works crazy hours or isn't involved wit his children. Children don't have to grow up feeling like a center of the universe if their mother stays home. It's not like men with SAHMs never go out to dinner with their wives. It's not like an educated, intelligent SAHM would keep her child locked up in a room where he can only see her. They go out, do things, travel, see stuff. What makes you think exposure to diversity of experiences and people and other kids is only possible in a daycare or preschool setting? You are setting up a false dichotomy where there isn't one.

It's not SAHM vs WOHM... I chose my lifestyle because I like it and I don't think I gave anything up. I think it is the best way to raise a child. I am sure Some SAHA thing their way is the best. Some people like being doctor others like being lawyers (psyche nobody actually likes being a lawyer).

Going out and seeing a person at the store is not the same to me as having a relationship with an aupair. Being sick of my child by 3 pm and watching the clock until my H gets home is not my preference for how I want to live my life.

It was a choice not one that was thrst upon me. I think being in a school setting starting at 3 is a positive. I think having an aupair that was available to babysit for datenight every other weekend was a plus. I didn't feel being home was a plus because my H was there in the morning, then my child slept, then the aupair had him for 3 hours then he slept, then I was home. Seemed like a waste to throw a career away for 3 hours a day. I had 3-9 ... 6 hours a day. I don't feel like there was any trade off, it was all positive.

Once the kids were in preschool, H did morning drop off 3 days, I worked at home 2 days... So I could do the drop off, aupair did lunch (1 hour), nap(2hours)... Moms home. So I missed lunch... And a 2 hour nap, big deal.

I volunteered, did field trips, dad did field trips... Not missing much.

You really think having an Au pair is a good thing? Oh man.

Yes. And we are still friends and we visited one in Argentina. They were awesome. You think that is bad? Oh man. All the aupairs I knew had college educations and it was basically a Gap Year. One lives in Croatia and was able to get a great job in her country since she had experience traveling to the US.

[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.

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.

I'm in IT. I posted earlier on this thread. I have been able to take some periods of time off to SAHM- and it's worked out well for us. I had my first child when I was 31 so I was able to get a solid amount of experience in my field before having children and I've been able to re-enter the workforce, work part-time, etc.

I do think the best of both worlds is working part-time. You have an income, you keep your career on track, life raising children is less hectic and you get to spend more time with the family and on yourself. It's too bad that more employers don't offer this. 25-32 working hours is ideal. It's amazing what you can get done in a condensed week, no one even realizes that I'm part time (except my boss). My advice to those who are overwhelmed and torn between the WOHM and SAHM route is that you ask your employer to let you work fewer hours, if you are good at what you do, they might give you that option. Obviously you take a pay cut, but it's worth it if you are still making enough for your household.

I work in IT also, I worked 3 days a week for 1 year after each were born. It was nice. I would call in if there was an important meeting on the other days. We had an aupair. I agree there are not many options and often people are afraid to ask.

[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.

And there are benefits to both parents being forced to be somewhat involved in the childrens' day to day lives as well. For some people, their marriages function better when spouses can back each other up - when one is in a stressful work period, the other steps up at home and vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you define "hardly seeing"? I don't think seeing your kids 3 or 4 hours a week day is a small amount of time. Also not true once the kids are in school full time for some families. My kids were with a parent before and after school, and also on snow days and school holidays, because we could both WAH or work at night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The single earner in a single earner family probably sees the kids less than either parent in a dual WOH home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The single earner in a single earner family probably sees the kids less than either parent in a dual WOH home.

[citation needed]

[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?

For me? It would strain my marriage, because my husband would resent me for being able to SAH while he had to work full time. I want my kids to see that both genders can have careers and parent. And lastly and most importantly, I wouldn't be happy because I want to you. For you? Probably none of these apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How do you define "hardly seeing"? I don't think seeing your kids 3 or 4 hours a week day is a small amount of time. Also not true once the kids are in school full time for some families. My kids were with a parent before and after school, and also on snow days and school holidays, because we could both WAH or work at night.

I think the debate here has mostly focused on kids before school age. 3 hours a day out of 11 or 12 is not that much when it is both parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

With 2 working you can have less demanding jobs (except for the power couples) so they both can be home early, take off for field trips, take the kids to doctor. That is what I see, 2 very flexible jobs and lots of time for both parents to see the kids.

Yes, I read so many stories of unhurried, relaxed and flexible work positions for moms and dads (BECAUSE their spouse works) on here. And of course they all split household duties, homemade meals and restful weekends with their equal powered spouse!

Except- we don't read that.

So the mom should give up paid work to make everyone else in the family's lives more relaxed? The heck with that. I don't exist just to fulfill others' lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The single earner in a single earner family probably sees the kids less than either parent in a dual WOH home.

[citation needed]

Please do provide a citation that a SAH mom sees her kids more than a WOH mom. I don't find that to be true with the moms I know but I would love to see a citation that shows that.

Kids in basement playing on the XBox or watching TV does not count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

With 2 working you can have less demanding jobs (except for the power couples) so they both can be home early, take off for field trips, take the kids to doctor. That is what I see, 2 very flexible jobs and lots of time for both parents to see the kids.

Yes, I read so many stories of unhurried, relaxed and flexible work positions for moms and dads (BECAUSE their spouse works) on here. And of course they all split household duties, homemade meals and restful weekends with their equal powered spouse!

Except- we don't read that.

So the mom should give up paid work to make everyone else in the family's lives more relaxed? The heck with that. I don't exist just to fulfill others' lives.

You don't butter your kids bread, bring them drinks on demand, do their laundry (just like their dads), clean up the dishes after them, run endless errands so they have the perfect colored pipecleaners for their school project, clean their rooms, etc..... Bad MOM!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The single earner in a single earner family probably sees the kids less than either parent in a dual WOH home.

[citation needed]

Happy to provide a citation once "hardly seeing" is defined, as is the one size fits all "dual working family."