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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's just a bonkers inflammatory way to phrase your own choices. I honestly don't care and have been both, but you don't start out with this phrasing unless you're looking to pick a fight.

I agree. Thems fighting words. And same, I’ve been both sahm and working mom, it wouldn’t offend me but I’d assume someone is trying to instigate or offend.

To be it’s more about a person’s lack of EQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp again. More than working status, I do think the education standards of the mother matter greatly. DH and I both attended top colleges and our kids expect and also want to attend a top school. I see a huge difference in kids whose parents went to an ivy or other top school and guiding their kids. An uneducated or SAHM who was never professionally successful is different than your Harvard law educated SAHM married to a big law partner.

People keep trying to claim most SAHMs fit this profile, but they do not. Successful and ambitious women want to keep being successful and ambitious. Sure, they may take a break for 4-5 years while the kids are little, if they don’t have a spouse or grandparents to share the childcare load, but it’s a sacrifice and they go back as soon as the youngest hits K. They don’t want to live that lifestyle forever.

The long-term SAHMs I know (in McLean, Arlington, Vienna, and two private schools) were average in terms of education and career but lucky enough to marry rich. Or they do fit the profile above but are dealing with medical or SN issues in themselves or their children.

Pp here. I’m Harvard educated and a SAHM. I know many former lawyers married who stay home. Most people I hang out with are former lawyers. I also know several doctors who are credentialed and work a few shifts a year but basically a SAHM. Maybe it is because I’m a well educated SAHM that I hang out with other well educated SAHMs or very part time working moms. We all have a high earning spouses. I would estimate the husbands all earn seven figures.

“Harvard educated”. Is that supposed to be impressive?

Also how does a doctor work a few “shifts” a year? What specialty? Any doctor that only works a handful of hours a year isn’t a doctor I want to encounter. But let me guess, also Harvard educated?

You can work shifts for ER and anesthesia. You can also work locum tenens.

I also know lawyers who work pro bono or PT doing immigration or family law for little or a loss of money. They are basically SAHMs because this work is essentially volunteer work.

Pro bono work does not mean less hours, just no money. If they only do it occasionally it will take more hours to research for any changes in laws or regulations. Getting back up to speed on the subject. A contested guardianship in family law could be very lengthy with court hours you can’t control. These aren’t areas that you can dabble in. There are other areas that could be occasional part time but not immigration or family law. You sure about this?

When my child was in preschool, there were a lot of lawyer moms. I would estimate more than half the moms at the school were lawyers or former lawyers. Several did not work. Not all these people are my close friends where I take a survey of the hours they work. Were they on extended 1-2 year maternity leave and continued doing some work to keep their foot in the door? Maybe. The one woman I’m thinking of volunteered at a domestic shelter and helped out illegal women. She considered herself a SAHM. I hung out with her frequently and she did this volunteer work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always hate the SAHM and WOHM debates because in my circles living in multiple places, I've had a good mix of friends. I've also been both a SAHM (7 years) and a WOHM (now divorced). For me the big debate is whether people are judgmental v nonjudgmental and if they can handle the fact that people are free to make choices that best suit their families.

Saying that someone isn't raising their kids because they have a job isn't true, and is rude to boot.

You are twisting the words. If someone said they stay home because they didn’t want someone else to raise their kids, that doesn’t mean a person with a job isn’t raising their kids. I can’t imagine a scenario where someone would so rudely say that to a working mother because it is rude to say. I say this as a sahm who used to be a working mom and will probably one day again be a working mom.

So what *exactly* do they mean? Why should we reach beyond what they are actually saying to come up with some nicer, gentler explanation?

I have never said those words so I can’t tell you “exactly” what they mean.

I stayed home expecting to only take a break. I thought I would eventually go back to work and I probably will in some capacity. I have 3 kids with a fairly large age gap so I have a kid in high school, middle school and early elementary. I’m finding that my non driving teens require a lot of parenting and driving. I have written this before, not sure on this thread, but I find that the teens need you more than my youngest child. If it were just my elementary child, I probably would be back at work by now. I find my middle school child the most needy currently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if I "had" to work or "chose" to work. We could have made it on DH's income but he does not want me to stay home because he wants an UMC lifestyle instead of a MC one, which I would have been fine with.

It doesn’t sound like you had a choice. I would have told him to make more money if he wanted a certain lifestyle. If a mother really feels it’s important to be at home for her children then a middle class lifestyle would be fine. Probably better than fine because there would be more like minded mothers to meet and less materialistic people around you.

Yes, a woman’s place is in the home. If he wants more money it’s his job as a leader of the home and provider to go get it. I don’t understand why you stood for this and let him bully you into a job.

I get you’re being sarcastic but the reality is more women than men would prefer to stay home and women have babies. You can claim that it shouldn’t be this way, but the vast majority of women are uninterested in a man who can’t provide for them. It’s biology.

Guarantee you that the PP had a terrible sex life and is or was unhappy. There’s nothing that kills a sex life for a woman like a man who can’t provide and allow a woman to stay home to watch her own kids.

So why should women go to college or grad school? If a 15 year old girl who wanted to be a lawyer and also have a family came to you for advice, would you tell her what you really believe, that women should be at home with their kids and be provided for by their husbands?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if I "had" to work or "chose" to work. We could have made it on DH's income but he does not want me to stay home because he wants an UMC lifestyle instead of a MC one, which I would have been fine with.

It doesn’t sound like you had a choice. I would have told him to make more money if he wanted a certain lifestyle. If a mother really feels it’s important to be at home for her children then a middle class lifestyle would be fine. Probably better than fine because there would be more like minded mothers to meet and less materialistic people around you.

Yes, a woman’s place is in the home. If he wants more money it’s his job as a leader of the home and provider to go get it. I don’t understand why you stood for this and let him bully you into a job.

I get you’re being sarcastic but the reality is more women than men would prefer to stay home and women have babies. You can claim that it shouldn’t be this way, but the vast majority of women are uninterested in a man who can’t provide for them. It’s biology.

Guarantee you that the PP had a terrible sex life and is or was unhappy. There’s nothing that kills a sex life for a woman like a man who can’t provide and allow a woman to stay home to watch her own kids.

So why should women go to college or grad school? If a 15 year old girl who wanted to be a lawyer and also have a family came to you for advice, would you tell her what you really believe, that women should be at home with their kids and be provided for by their husbands?

If she wanted to take some time off to be with her kids, I would fully support her. If she wanted to get a nanny, I would also support her.

[Anonymous]

I am 10000% offended by this and it’s also not true.
We have had several Nannies over the years and none of them ‘raised my kids’. My kids don’t even remember most of their names at this point and I need to remind them.
It’s just a lie that women who hated working tell themselves to justify doing nothing

[Anonymous]

I always think of women who need to stay home with kids as just not having spouse who can afford to get her at least some help

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always think of women who need to stay home with kids as just not having spouse who can afford to get her at least some help

Wouldn’t it be the opposite?

You have to get help so you can work. That doesn’t make sense. You can’t work and not have childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if I "had" to work or "chose" to work. We could have made it on DH's income but he does not want me to stay home because he wants an UMC lifestyle instead of a MC one, which I would have been fine with.

It doesn’t sound like you had a choice. I would have told him to make more money if he wanted a certain lifestyle. If a mother really feels it’s important to be at home for her children then a middle class lifestyle would be fine. Probably better than fine because there would be more like minded mothers to meet and less materialistic people around you.

Yes, a woman’s place is in the home. If he wants more money it’s his job as a leader of the home and provider to go get it. I don’t understand why you stood for this and let him bully you into a job.

I get you’re being sarcastic but the reality is more women than men would prefer to stay home and women have babies. You can claim that it shouldn’t be this way, but the vast majority of women are uninterested in a man who can’t provide for them. It’s biology.

Guarantee you that the PP had a terrible sex life and is or was unhappy. There’s nothing that kills a sex life for a woman like a man who can’t provide and allow a woman to stay home to watch her own kids.

So why should women go to college or grad school? If a 15 year old girl who wanted to be a lawyer and also have a family came to you for advice, would you tell her what you really believe, that women should be at home with their kids and be provided for by their husbands?

Because there’s no guarantee in life that you’re going to get married and have kids. I knew this when I was 21. I was at a top university, and pursued a career where I could make decent money and support myself. I fully wanted and intended to get married and have kids, but not pursuing an education would have been putting the cart before the horse.

Additionally, I did not have kids until I was 29. I worked for 8 years out of college. I actually still work at 35, but if we could afford our lifestyle on DH’s income alone, I would probably choose to be home with my kids, focusing on parenting well instead of feeling like I’m constantly dropping the ball either with my family, work, or taking care of the house.

I hate the argument of “why should women bother getting an education at all?” if they choose to stay home with their kids. The answer is because they should have the same opportunities as men. And you can’t possibly know at 18 if and when you’re going to have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if I "had" to work or "chose" to work. We could have made it on DH's income but he does not want me to stay home because he wants an UMC lifestyle instead of a MC one, which I would have been fine with.

It doesn’t sound like you had a choice. I would have told him to make more money if he wanted a certain lifestyle. If a mother really feels it’s important to be at home for her children then a middle class lifestyle would be fine. Probably better than fine because there would be more like minded mothers to meet and less materialistic people around you.

Yes, a woman’s place is in the home. If he wants more money it’s his job as a leader of the home and provider to go get it. I don’t understand why you stood for this and let him bully you into a job.

I get you’re being sarcastic but the reality is more women than men would prefer to stay home and women have babies. You can claim that it shouldn’t be this way, but the vast majority of women are uninterested in a man who can’t provide for them. It’s biology.

Guarantee you that the PP had a terrible sex life and is or was unhappy. There’s nothing that kills a sex life for a woman like a man who can’t provide and allow a woman to stay home to watch her own kids.

So why should women go to college or grad school? If a 15 year old girl who wanted to be a lawyer and also have a family came to you for advice, would you tell her what you really believe, that women should be at home with their kids and be provided for by their husbands?

Because there’s no guarantee in life that you’re going to get married and have kids. I knew this when I was 21. I was at a top university, and pursued a career where I could make decent money and support myself. I fully wanted and intended to get married and have kids, but not pursuing an education would have been putting the cart before the horse.

Additionally, I did not have kids until I was 29. I worked for 8 years out of college. I actually still work at 35, but if we could afford our lifestyle on DH’s income alone, I would probably choose to be home with my kids, focusing on parenting well instead of feeling like I’m constantly dropping the ball either with my family, work, or taking care of the house.

I hate the argument of “why should women bother getting an education at all?” if they choose to stay home with their kids. The answer is because they should have the same opportunities as men. And you can’t possibly know at 18 if and when you’re going to have children.

The prevalence of tradwives sets back equality. Why? Because people are influenced. A woman who decides to give up her career is not operating in a vacuum. Her choices are hers of course (cue the “I made the best decision for my family” tradwives—yes, I’m talking about systems, not your initial choice which no one cares about) but they influence society. And the more women opt out of the workforce (which Christian nationalists want to see happen) the harder it becomes for ambitious working women to thrive.

[Anonymous]

So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if I "had" to work or "chose" to work. We could have made it on DH's income but he does not want me to stay home because he wants an UMC lifestyle instead of a MC one, which I would have been fine with.

It doesn’t sound like you had a choice. I would have told him to make more money if he wanted a certain lifestyle. If a mother really feels it’s important to be at home for her children then a middle class lifestyle would be fine. Probably better than fine because there would be more like minded mothers to meet and less materialistic people around you.

Yes, a woman’s place is in the home. If he wants more money it’s his job as a leader of the home and provider to go get it. I don’t understand why you stood for this and let him bully you into a job.

I get you’re being sarcastic but the reality is more women than men would prefer to stay home and women have babies. You can claim that it shouldn’t be this way, but the vast majority of women are uninterested in a man who can’t provide for them. It’s biology.

Guarantee you that the PP had a terrible sex life and is or was unhappy. There’s nothing that kills a sex life for a woman like a man who can’t provide and allow a woman to stay home to watch her own kids.

So why should women go to college or grad school? If a 15 year old girl who wanted to be a lawyer and also have a family came to you for advice, would you tell her what you really believe, that women should be at home with their kids and be provided for by their husbands?

Because there’s no guarantee in life that you’re going to get married and have kids. I knew this when I was 21. I was at a top university, and pursued a career where I could make decent money and support myself. I fully wanted and intended to get married and have kids, but not pursuing an education would have been putting the cart before the horse.

Additionally, I did not have kids until I was 29. I worked for 8 years out of college. I actually still work at 35, but if we could afford our lifestyle on DH’s income alone, I would probably choose to be home with my kids, focusing on parenting well instead of feeling like I’m constantly dropping the ball either with my family, work, or taking care of the house.

I hate the argument of “why should women bother getting an education at all?” if they choose to stay home with their kids. The answer is because they should have the same opportunities as men. And you can’t possibly know at 18 if and when you’re going to have children.

The prevalence of tradwives sets back equality. Why? Because people are influenced. A woman who decides to give up her career is not operating in a vacuum. Her choices are hers of course (cue the “I made the best decision for my family” tradwives—yes, I’m talking about systems, not your initial choice which no one cares about) but they influence society. And the more women opt out of the workforce (which Christian nationalists want to see happen) the harder it becomes for ambitious working women to thrive.

Labeling sahms “trad wives” is judgmental. The reality is that a lot of parents - mostly women - want to be home with their kids instead of balancing both a career and kids. You can call it whatever you want, but the reality is that a) women have a somewhat limited range of years to have kids b) raising kids is a full time job whether your outsource it or not c) most men aren’t doing 50% of the child rearing, mental load or house management even if their wives DO work and d) there are plenty of jobs for ambitious women.

Women shouldn’t be forced to burn the candle on both ends so women who WANT to work have more women in the workplace for “ambitious” people like you. I say this as a full time working mother and a democrat who despises Trump.

And by the way, it’s insane that people like you eschew having a parent at home present to raise their children like they’re some waste of time. Like what are you even preaching? The comeback to “why bother getting an education?” comment from people like you should be “why do YOU bother having kids if they’re not worthy of your time?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

To me true freedom would be doing what you want to do with your time. I want to stay home with my kids. They only have one childhood and it goes by quickly. I don’t want to miss it while working. Staying home with them is much more valuable to me than working. I can work again when my kids are grown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if I "had" to work or "chose" to work. We could have made it on DH's income but he does not want me to stay home because he wants an UMC lifestyle instead of a MC one, which I would have been fine with.

It doesn’t sound like you had a choice. I would have told him to make more money if he wanted a certain lifestyle. If a mother really feels it’s important to be at home for her children then a middle class lifestyle would be fine. Probably better than fine because there would be more like minded mothers to meet and less materialistic people around you.

Yes, a woman’s place is in the home. If he wants more money it’s his job as a leader of the home and provider to go get it. I don’t understand why you stood for this and let him bully you into a job.

I get you’re being sarcastic but the reality is more women than men would prefer to stay home and women have babies. You can claim that it shouldn’t be this way, but the vast majority of women are uninterested in a man who can’t provide for them. It’s biology.

Guarantee you that the PP had a terrible sex life and is or was unhappy. There’s nothing that kills a sex life for a woman like a man who can’t provide and allow a woman to stay home to watch her own kids.

So why should women go to college or grad school? If a 15 year old girl who wanted to be a lawyer and also have a family came to you for advice, would you tell her what you really believe, that women should be at home with their kids and be provided for by their husbands?

Because there’s no guarantee in life that you’re going to get married and have kids. I knew this when I was 21. I was at a top university, and pursued a career where I could make decent money and support myself. I fully wanted and intended to get married and have kids, but not pursuing an education would have been putting the cart before the horse.

Additionally, I did not have kids until I was 29. I worked for 8 years out of college. I actually still work at 35, but if we could afford our lifestyle on DH’s income alone, I would probably choose to be home with my kids, focusing on parenting well instead of feeling like I’m constantly dropping the ball either with my family, work, or taking care of the house.

I hate the argument of “why should women bother getting an education at all?” if they choose to stay home with their kids. The answer is because they should have the same opportunities as men. And you can’t possibly know at 18 if and when you’re going to have children.

The prevalence of tradwives sets back equality. Why? Because people are influenced. A woman who decides to give up her career is not operating in a vacuum. Her choices are hers of course (cue the “I made the best decision for my family” tradwives—yes, I’m talking about systems, not your initial choice which no one cares about) but they influence society. And the more women opt out of the workforce (which Christian nationalists want to see happen) the harder it becomes for ambitious working women to thrive.

Labeling sahms “trad wives” is judgmental. The reality is that a lot of parents - mostly women - want to be home with their kids instead of balancing both a career and kids. You can call it whatever you want, but the reality is that a) women have a somewhat limited range of years to have kids b) raising kids is a full time job whether your outsource it or not c) most men aren’t doing 50% of the child rearing, mental load or house management even if their wives DO work and d) there are plenty of jobs for ambitious women.

Women shouldn’t be forced to burn the candle on both ends so women who WANT to work have more women in the workplace for “ambitious” people like you. I say this as a full time working mother and a democrat who despises Trump.

And by the way, it’s insane that people like you eschew having a parent at home present to raise their children like they’re some waste of time. Like what are you even preaching? The comeback to “why bother getting an education?” comment from people like you should be “why do YOU bother having kids if they’re not worthy of your time?”

Who said anything about “forcing” women? I was talking about system-level changes and the way they affect women’s rights. I was going to reply to your comment but someone with your level of critical thinking isn’t worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to every sahm on this thread (the new term for you is tradwives), congrats. You are fulfilling the vision of postliberal Christian nationalists like JD Vance and setting back women’s advancement. If you don’t care about equality with men then own that, and model to young girls that a woman belongs at home. But for those of who care about women’s rights, this anti-working woman trend discourse is troubling.

To me true freedom would be doing what you want to do with your time. I want to stay home with my kids. They only have one childhood and it goes by quickly. I don’t want to miss it while working. Staying home with them is much more valuable to me than working. I can work again when my kids are grown.

Did anyone mention freedom? Are you living under occupation and striving for freedom? No wonder one of the working mom PPs mentioned how working keeps you sharp and able to make good arguments. I was talking about women’s rights and the gains that Christian nationalists will make with tradwives like you writing anti-working women diatribes online.