Yup, I am judging

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously the mom in question is a single mother, so we should cut her some slack!

Nope, she's married (according to the OP's previous Post of Judgment). But everybody knows that fathers have nothing to do with raising children, so what he does is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

I would judge her too if I were in your shoes OP.

She sounds very selfish to me.

Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to get this out.

Someone I know is pregnant with her FOURTH child. No problem except she NEVER spends any time with her kids. She works FT, has a live in nanny. After work, she jogs every day and spends no time with those poor kids. I would be rushing home to be with my kids. I am always sad for her kids.

Even where there is rain, snow, storms--the nanny still have to walk ALL the kids to school. Even though mom's car is home, she never drives them. Cant the mom get up a few minutes earlier and drive the kids? I cant imagine being like that.

Why would someone want another kids if they don't even spend time with the ones they have?

English not your first language? Nanny did anybody ask you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to get this out.

Someone I know is pregnant with her FOURTH child. No problem except she NEVER spends any time with her kids. She works FT, has a live in nanny. After work, she jogs every day and spends no time with those poor kids. I would be rushing home to be with my kids. I am always sad for her kids.

Even where there is rain, snow, storms--the nanny still have to walk ALL the kids to school. Even though mom's car is home, she never drives them. Cant the mom get up a few minutes earlier and drive the kids? I cant imagine being like that.

Why would someone want another kids if they don't even spend time with the ones they have?

English not your first language? Nanny did anybody ask you.

Correct, Chipotle Lady is an immigrant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would judge her too if I were in your shoes OP.

She sounds very selfish to me.

Sheesh.

She is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would judge her too if I were in your shoes OP.

She sounds very selfish to me.

Sheesh.

She is.

And you know this because she doesn't mother the way you mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In fact, for about 90 percent of the population, it wasn't like that pre WWII. Most women either worked or had so much work to do in the home (b/c of no appliances), that they didn't spend a lot of time with their kids. And likely when they did, they were exhausted.

And when they were wealthy enough to not have to work and have servants do everything around the house, their kids were taken care of by nannies and governesses, lol.

Exactly! I'm so glad PPs brought these points up. A) women weren't always full time childcare providers as many people assume and B) those who were wealthy enough hired governesses. My father was essentially raised by a governess who lived with him and his two younger sisters until they were 13 and went to boarding school. My dad told me that as young children they were see their parents three times a day - after breakfast, during lunch, and after dinner. This was the norm for families of the era (pre WWII) and quite common.

We have this vision of mothers of previous generations as fully and entirely dedicated to child care. It's not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In fact, for about 90 percent of the population, it wasn't like that pre WWII. Most women either worked or had so much work to do in the home (b/c of no appliances), that they didn't spend a lot of time with their kids. And likely when they did, they were exhausted.

And when they were wealthy enough to not have to work and have servants do everything around the house, their kids were taken care of by nannies and governesses, lol.

Exactly! I'm so glad PPs brought these points up. A) women weren't always full time childcare providers as many people assume and B) those who were wealthy enough hired governesses. My father was essentially raised by a governess who lived with him and his two younger sisters until they were 13 and went to boarding school. My dad told me that as young children they were see their parents three times a day - after breakfast, during lunch, and after dinner. This was the norm for families of the era (pre WWII) and quite common.

We have this vision of mothers of previous generations as fully and entirely dedicated to child care. It's not the case.

Which families was this the norm for? My grand-parents were, respectively, factory workers and small business owners. My parents certainly were not raised by nannies nor did they go to boarding school. My mother's mother was a divorced single mother with two kids and she worked a in a textile mill. My mother talked about her extended family and all her aunts, uncles and cousins whom were around to help each other in her working class neighborhood, mostly Polish, Italian and French-Canadian. My father's mother was a SAHM. I think you have no idea what was statistically the norm for the majority of American families before WWII, nor how liberating that war was for a wide swath of the American population.

[Anonymous]

Mothers who worked in textile mills were also full-time child care providers. Nor were mothers who were domestic servants.

[Anonymous]

To 13:50 - so you rarely see the mom outside playing with her kids???

Um, kids who grew up in the 1970s and 80s parents didn't play outside with us either. Parents don't have to entertain their kids...kids should play with other kids.

I have four kids, and they play outside with each other and with the neighborhood kids. Based on 13:50's comments, I guess this means my nosy neighbors think I have mental problems.

Um, whatever.

[Anonymous]

Lots of kids grow up with parents who don't spend much time with them. Most of those kids once they reach adulthood though turn out fine and can credit other adults in their lives (teachers, coaches, grandparent, aunt, neighbor) who were there for them and made time for them in ways their parents didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My SIL had 4 kids and worked full time. Her husband had his own business. Both spent very little time with their kids. Kids grew up kissing the ground they walked on.

We spent every minute with our kids. Involved in every aspect of their lives. Kids grew up, hate us.

Kids don't love your SIL and her DH. They are neurotically eager for their love and care.
Your kids don't hate you. They grew up and got a life of their own, as they should, and will repay the love to their own kids.

[Anonymous]

I would judge, too.
But then, at least the kids have each other. I doubt it she would be an engaged mom with just one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of kids grow up with parents who don't spend much time with them. Most of those kids once they reach adulthood though turn out fine and can credit other adults in their lives (teachers, coaches, grandparent, aunt, neighbor) who were there for them and made time for them in ways their parents didn't.

Keep in mind that this report of the woman spending no time with her kids is coming from a nosy neighbor who actually has no idea how this family operates, or how they spend their time together, outside of what little information she can glean through her binoculars.

This whole thread is just an offshoot of the SAHM vs. WOHM thing. Again. And guess what? People who are gainfully employed can be fantastic parents even if they get home at 6:00 and also work out afterwards.

[Anonymous]

I like you CL. I want to be friends with you.