The urge to SAH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the urge is a factor of how difficult the baby is.
Colicky spit up baby? Can't wait to get back to the office.
Easy happy baby? Who wouldn't love to be around that?

Partially true. Another part is most people are not early childhood experts and it’s hard to learn all there is to know about how to engage babies and help them reach their milestones. So even if your child is an easy baby, there is a good reason to hire a nanny or send your baby to daycare (even if you don’t financially need to work) so that an expert can engage your child in ways that maybe you cannot. I’m in a situation where I chose to stay home bc we can afford to and my baby is all smiles and snuggles mostly, but I constantly think about going back to work bc I often think someone else can help my baby more than I can. Right now, I have no clue how to start solids with my baby! Or I’m thinking of hiring a part time nanny to help show me the ropes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the urge is a factor of how difficult the baby is.
Colicky spit up baby? Can't wait to get back to the office.
Easy happy baby? Who wouldn't love to be around that?

Partially true. Another part is most people are not early childhood experts and it’s hard to learn all there is to know about how to engage babies and help them reach their milestones. So even if your child is an easy baby, there is a good reason to hire a nanny or send your baby to daycare (even if you don’t financially need to work) so that an expert can engage your child in ways that maybe you cannot. I’m in a situation where I chose to stay home bc we can afford to and my baby is all smiles and snuggles mostly, but I constantly think about going back to work bc I often think someone else can help my baby more than I can. Right now, I have no clue how to start solids with my baby! Or I’m thinking of hiring a part time nanny to help show me the ropes.

Ok, I have heard this before and it honestly confuses me. It’s pretty easy to get info about early childhood development. A couple books, some strategic googling, make sure your sources are reputable and check anything questionable out with your pediatrician at one of the zillion checkups your kids goes to in the first 2 years of life.

Unsure of how to start solids? Do a little research during naps and chat with your pediatrician. Moms groups are also good for stuff like that.

Women should return to work if that’s what makes the best sense for them, but caring for young children is not some mysterious art only known to full time nannies and daycare workers. They are good at it (well sometimes) because they are experienced. But a loving parent can do as well with some research and effort. To me that was part of the pleasure of being a SAHM— it was a new challenge that enabled me to learn no skills and acquire knowledge. It was more interesting to me than returning to a job where I already knew everything I was going to learn from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the urge is a factor of how difficult the baby is.
Colicky spit up baby? Can't wait to get back to the office.
Easy happy baby? Who wouldn't love to be around that?

Partially true. Another part is most people are not early childhood experts and it’s hard to learn all there is to know about how to engage babies and help them reach their milestones. So even if your child is an easy baby, there is a good reason to hire a nanny or send your baby to daycare (even if you don’t financially need to work) so that an expert can engage your child in ways that maybe you cannot. I’m in a situation where I chose to stay home bc we can afford to and my baby is all smiles and snuggles mostly, but I constantly think about going back to work bc I often think someone else can help my baby more than I can. Right now, I have no clue how to start solids with my baby! Or I’m thinking of hiring a part time nanny to help show me the ropes.

I can't imagine ever thinking a nanny or daycare worker could engage, feed, or care for my baby better than I could. Have some self-confidence woman!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the urge is a factor of how difficult the baby is.
Colicky spit up baby? Can't wait to get back to the office.
Easy happy baby? Who wouldn't love to be around that?

Partially true. Another part is most people are not early childhood experts and it’s hard to learn all there is to know about how to engage babies and help them reach their milestones. So even if your child is an easy baby, there is a good reason to hire a nanny or send your baby to daycare (even if you don’t financially need to work) so that an expert can engage your child in ways that maybe you cannot. I’m in a situation where I chose to stay home bc we can afford to and my baby is all smiles and snuggles mostly, but I constantly think about going back to work bc I often think someone else can help my baby more than I can. Right now, I have no clue how to start solids with my baby! Or I’m thinking of hiring a part time nanny to help show me the ropes.

I can't imagine ever thinking a nanny or daycare worker could engage, feed, or care for my baby better than I could. Have some self-confidence woman!

Yeah, seriously. Somehow people figured this out (with help from older females, usually) for millennia without being “experts in child development.” It’s really not that complex, & there’s plenty of info readily available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always felt like the majority of women who want to SAH hate their jobs or aren’t big earners. I know there are exceptions but that’s how it’s played out in my social circle. I am not at all judging— I think people who want to SAH and can should.

I have been a SAHM for the past seven years. I would agree with you that many SAHMs were not career oriented or didn’t earn much. There are also well educated SAHMs who were professionally successful and married to extremely successful men. I used to earn high six figures. Dh earns seven figures. I have considered going back to work. I am sure I could earn 100 or 200 and perhaps ramp back up. My three kids keep me busy. I spend most of my time trying to enrich my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what nature intended for babies? Be with their loving parents or be with indifferent caretakers and see parents only for a couple of waking hours?

I don't know what nature intended but I do know that I was not interested in letting anybody else except my husband and I care for our children when they were infants and toddlers except for occasionally. These days parents are conditioned to resist those urges though. I do not think it's a good thing.

+1 that mothers are conditioned to resist those urges now.

And it’s even worse in countries with more equality. I have friends in Sweden and they are pretty much forced by society to send their kids to a state run daycare to return to work. They praise the long maternity leave but then when it’s over put their child in institutionalized childcare. They also have their husbands taking long parental leaves but the men are still not as good of a caregiver as the mom. It seems like they are trying as hard as they can to fight the biological urge women have to care for their own children. My female friends there are all very unhappy but can’t figure out why. I know why.

I agree and I've actually said for a long time now that these long paternity leaves are actually counter productive. Its just costing companies more money but ultimately not helping the situation.

Are you kidding me? My DH had a “long” paternity leave at 3 weeks but was still back at work before I was cleared to drive or carry the baby in a car seat after a traumatic birth. I had to have my mom drive us to the pediatrician when my oldest was sick because I literally couldn’t and my DH had no leave left.

He had a longer paternity leave for our younger kid and he was able to bond with that baby much sooner and things went smoothly for all of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what nature intended for babies? Be with their loving parents or be with indifferent caretakers and see parents only for a couple of waking hours?

I don't know what nature intended but I do know that I was not interested in letting anybody else except my husband and I care for our children when they were infants and toddlers except for occasionally. These days parents are conditioned to resist those urges though. I do not think it's a good thing.

+1 that mothers are conditioned to resist those urges now.

And it’s even worse in countries with more equality. I have friends in Sweden and they are pretty much forced by society to send their kids to a state run daycare to return to work. They praise the long maternity leave but then when it’s over put their child in institutionalized childcare. They also have their husbands taking long parental leaves but the men are still not as good of a caregiver as the mom. It seems like they are trying as hard as they can to fight the biological urge women have to care for their own children. My female friends there are all very unhappy but can’t figure out why. I know why.

I agree and I've actually said for a long time now that these long paternity leaves are actually counter productive. Its just costing companies more money but ultimately not helping the situation.

Are you kidding me? My DH had a “long” paternity leave at 3 weeks but was still back at work before I was cleared to drive or carry the baby in a car seat after a traumatic birth. I had to have my mom drive us to the pediatrician when my oldest was sick because I literally couldn’t and my DH had no leave left.

He had a longer paternity leave for our younger kid and he was able to bond with that baby much sooner and things went smoothly for all of us.

You missed the point. The point is that parental leave is only a short term solution. Young kids have to be cared for and many women want to care for their own kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what nature intended for babies? Be with their loving parents or be with indifferent caretakers and see parents only for a couple of waking hours?

I don't know what nature intended but I do know that I was not interested in letting anybody else except my husband and I care for our children when they were infants and toddlers except for occasionally. These days parents are conditioned to resist those urges though. I do not think it's a good thing.

+1 that mothers are conditioned to resist those urges now.

And it’s even worse in countries with more equality. I have friends in Sweden and they are pretty much forced by society to send their kids to a state run daycare to return to work. They praise the long maternity leave but then when it’s over put their child in institutionalized childcare. They also have their husbands taking long parental leaves but the men are still not as good of a caregiver as the mom. It seems like they are trying as hard as they can to fight the biological urge women have to care for their own children. My female friends there are all very unhappy but can’t figure out why. I know why.

I agree and I've actually said for a long time now that these long paternity leaves are actually counter productive. Its just costing companies more money but ultimately not helping the situation.

Are you kidding me? My DH had a “long” paternity leave at 3 weeks but was still back at work before I was cleared to drive or carry the baby in a car seat after a traumatic birth. I had to have my mom drive us to the pediatrician when my oldest was sick because I literally couldn’t and my DH had no leave left.

He had a longer paternity leave for our younger kid and he was able to bond with that baby much sooner and things went smoothly for all of us.

This makes no sense. The appt was for your older child who was sick. Your DH could have taken sick leave (it wasn't a paternity leave issue) or your mom could have taken your older child alone. Why would you take a newborn into the sick room of a peds office anyway??!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the urge is a factor of how difficult the baby is.
Colicky spit up baby? Can't wait to get back to the office.
Easy happy baby? Who wouldn't love to be around that?

Partially true. Another part is most people are not early childhood experts and it’s hard to learn all there is to know about how to engage babies and help them reach their milestones. So even if your child is an easy baby, there is a good reason to hire a nanny or send your baby to daycare (even if you don’t financially need to work) so that an expert can engage your child in ways that maybe you cannot. I’m in a situation where I chose to stay home bc we can afford to and my baby is all smiles and snuggles mostly, but I constantly think about going back to work bc I often think someone else can help my baby more than I can. Right now, I have no clue how to start solids with my baby! Or I’m thinking of hiring a part time nanny to help show me the ropes.

We have a wonderful nanny but I still research a lot of child development stuff. My children’s nanny and I share and discuss ideas with each other (as I do with my DH). I would never rely on someone else to do that for me, though I appreciate our nanny’s insights and they have been valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what nature intended for babies? Be with their loving parents or be with indifferent caretakers and see parents only for a couple of waking hours?

I don't know what nature intended but I do know that I was not interested in letting anybody else except my husband and I care for our children when they were infants and toddlers except for occasionally. These days parents are conditioned to resist those urges though. I do not think it's a good thing.

+1 that mothers are conditioned to resist those urges now.

And it’s even worse in countries with more equality. I have friends in Sweden and they are pretty much forced by society to send their kids to a state run daycare to return to work. They praise the long maternity leave but then when it’s over put their child in institutionalized childcare. They also have their husbands taking long parental leaves but the men are still not as good of a caregiver as the mom. It seems like they are trying as hard as they can to fight the biological urge women have to care for their own children. My female friends there are all very unhappy but can’t figure out why. I know why.

I agree and I've actually said for a long time now that these long paternity leaves are actually counter productive. Its just costing companies more money but ultimately not helping the situation.

Are you kidding me? My DH had a “long” paternity leave at 3 weeks but was still back at work before I was cleared to drive or carry the baby in a car seat after a traumatic birth. I had to have my mom drive us to the pediatrician when my oldest was sick because I literally couldn’t and my DH had no leave left.

He had a longer paternity leave for our younger kid and he was able to bond with that baby much sooner and things went smoothly for all of us.

This makes no sense. The appt was for your older child who was sick. Your DH could have taken sick leave (it wasn't a paternity leave issue) or your mom could have taken your older child alone. Why would you take a newborn into the sick room of a peds office anyway??!

No, the baby (my oldest) was sick and needed to be seen per the doctor’s instructions. I did not have older children at the time. I specified it was my oldest because my husband switched jobs and was able to take a longer leave with our second. And my husband had literally no leave because his “paternity” leave was his entire leave - it wasn’t something special he was entitled to. Yes if it had been an emergency he would have left but he had already gotten a lot of flack for taking so “long”. Same for me- I went back to work with zero leave available to me because I had to clean out my balance before I could take unpaid leave. Yes maternity and paternity leave is not a long term fix but lots of women and men would love more time at home with babies even if they are not in a position to give up their careers entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always felt like the majority of women who want to SAH hate their jobs or aren’t big earners. I know there are exceptions but that’s how it’s played out in my social circle. I am not at all judging— I think people who want to SAH and can should.

+1. And the higher-income ones have workaholic husbands. I simply don’t see many well-educated, ambitious women dropping out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always felt like the majority of women who want to SAH hate their jobs or aren’t big earners. I know there are exceptions but that’s how it’s played out in my social circle. I am not at all judging— I think people who want to SAH and can should.

+1. And the higher-income ones have workaholic husbands. I simply don’t see many well-educated, ambitious women dropping out.

I can’t help feel offended by this comment. I’m well educated. I have never felt as passionate about anything as I do my children. I worked in finance and used to work a ton and earn giant bonuses. To achieve this required great sacrifice. I tried moving laterally and did not enjoy having a job for the sake of having a job. I live in an affluent neighborhood full of SAHMs. The homes in our neighborhood all cost several million and you can’t live here unless you are wealthy. There are politicians, professional athletes, business owners, executives and law partners with stay at home wives. Pretty sure all my neighbors all make seven figures and/or come from family money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always felt like the majority of women who want to SAH hate their jobs or aren’t big earners. I know there are exceptions but that’s how it’s played out in my social circle. I am not at all judging— I think people who want to SAH and can should.

+1. And the higher-income ones have workaholic husbands. I simply don’t see many well-educated, ambitious women dropping out.

When I was in grad school and started working, I could not imagine staying home for kids. I didn’t even like kids. I thought women who stayed home were not good at their jobs or lazy. When I had my baby, I have never felt such overwhelming love. I hated going back to work after my extended maternity leave. I eventually switched jobs to an easy schedule when I had my second. Still didn’t feel like I spent enough time with my children and I literally outsourced out everything possible so I could spend time with my kids. Now I’m at home with three kids and love it. I’m so proud of my kids. I love how often we can travel. Everyday we can do as we choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always felt like the majority of women who want to SAH hate their jobs or aren’t big earners. I know there are exceptions but that’s how it’s played out in my social circle. I am not at all judging— I think people who want to SAH and can should.

+1. And the higher-income ones have workaholic husbands. I simply don’t see many well-educated, ambitious women dropping out.

I can’t help feel offended by this comment. I’m well educated. I have never felt as passionate about anything as I do my children. I worked in finance and used to work a ton and earn giant bonuses. To achieve this required great sacrifice. I tried moving laterally and did not enjoy having a job for the sake of having a job. I live in an affluent neighborhood full of SAHMs. The homes in our neighborhood all cost several million and you can’t live here unless you are wealthy. There are politicians, professional athletes, business owners, executives and law partners with stay at home wives. Pretty sure all my neighbors all make seven figures and/or come from family money.

Kinda proving my point (and PP’s point) here. If your spouse is a workaholic and you hate your job, of course you are going to SAH. If you don’t have those issues but you are well-educated and ambitious, you probably will stay in your career, no matter how wealthy you are. (Like me - I make about a quarter of my husband’s seven-figure income but we both have flexible schedules and enjoy our jobs so we both keep working).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always felt like the majority of women who want to SAH hate their jobs or aren’t big earners. I know there are exceptions but that’s how it’s played out in my social circle. I am not at all judging— I think people who want to SAH and can should.

+1. And the higher-income ones have workaholic husbands. I simply don’t see many well-educated, ambitious women dropping out.

When I was in grad school and started working, I could not imagine staying home for kids. I didn’t even like kids. I thought women who stayed home were not good at their jobs or lazy. When I had my baby, I have never felt such overwhelming love. I hated going back to work after my extended maternity leave. I eventually switched jobs to an easy schedule when I had my second. Still didn’t feel like I spent enough time with my children and I literally outsourced out everything possible so I could spend time with my kids. Now I’m at home with three kids and love it. I’m so proud of my kids. I love how often we can travel. Everyday we can do as we choose.

I guess… if your overwhelming need to be with your kids 24/7 outweighs any career ambition, then it makes sense that you SAH. For many of us, we recognize that kids get a lot from interacting with other caregivers too (husbands, grandparents, nannies) and that it’s good to have a balanced life rather than using kids as a sole fulfillment.