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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

The most neglected kids I observe are young toddlers with newborn and infant siblings. If those parents truly cared about child development they would have waited til their first kid was 5 before having more.

Anecdotally, I agree 100%. I grew up in a religious community where many families had 6-10, and those kids were neglected. Their clothes never fit, their hair was messy, they didn't get proper dental care, the older ones had to provide childcare for the younger ones rather than focus on school, they didn't get to do any extracurricular activities unless their church put them on, and there was no money for them for college or anything (though they typically found a way to fund their mission trip).

[Anonymous]

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.

She wanted to stay home and live a more middle class life. He wanted a more materialistic life and overruled her wishes. F him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

The most neglected kids I observe are young toddlers with newborn and infant siblings. If those parents truly cared about child development they would have waited til their first kid was 5 before having more.

Please point me to the studies that show that spacing out your child by more than five years leads to better outcomes.

Old article from New York Times

“Children born about two years apart, Dr. Kidwell points out, are likely to have the most intense competition for parental attention throughout their lives.

''A spacing of about five years is apparently optimal,'' Dr. Kidwell said. ''It frees the parent from having to meet the demands and pressures of two children close together in age, thus allowing parents and children more time in one-to-one interaction for a more supportive and relaxed relationship.''

Mine are six years apart. I wanted it that way but I can see why someone would choose another way. No one choice works for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Growing up in Ukraine optimal spacing was 6 years - they used to say have another one when the first one starts school.

[Anonymous]

I have 3 kids. First two are 2 years apart, then a 3rd 5 years later. I love that I could do everything together with the older two. We read books together at night before bed, they could do similar activities on vacation, we all played games together, went to the playgrounds together, rode bikes together (they both learned to ride bikes at about the same time).

My 3rd can’t do much of anything and she’s 3 now. She can’t read the same books that the older ones and I are still reading. The 3 really can’t play together like the older two do. I have wished dozens of times that she was only 2 years younger.

3 kids spaced 5 years apart each sounds like hell. Zero economies of scale and you’re always having to do things individually with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Growing up in Ukraine optimal spacing was 6 years - they used to say have another one when the first one starts school.

The only people I know who do that are SAHMs who want to get another 5 years of staying home and their spouses didn’t agree on them staying home forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The crazy thing is that people of young kids get all worked up about this and then you go through the teen and young adult years and you see that SAHM v WOHM is basically irrelevant compared to other familial issues. Go on with yourselves, getting all excited about this, but it’s a waste of energy.

- parent of young adults.

I believe this. But what is better for the moms? This is a personal choice. Some moms would rather work than be home with small children, and others (like me) are completely strung out managing the stress of my job + raising small kids + and managing a house.

I’m a working mom who respects both stay at home moms and working moms. I think there is value in a stay at home parent if you can swing it, but there is more value in having two mentally stable parents - for some people that will mean two working parents and for others it will mean one parent who stays home.

It’s going to vary and it’s really personal. It’s also impossible to predict the trajectory of your life. At a certain point, people are making educated guesses as to what will be best.

My kids are young adults now and the wide variety of outcomes I see is simply not correlated much to SAH or WOH. This is also reflected in studies, that show that things like parental education, alcoholism, drug addiction, violence in families, home ownership, peers, divorce, etc matter a lot more. Also, although it’s grim to talk and think about it, parental death. I know too many families with a dead parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

The most neglected kids I observe are young toddlers with newborn and infant siblings. If those parents truly cared about child development they would have waited til their first kid was 5 before having more.

Please point me to the studies that show that spacing out your child by more than five years leads to better outcomes.

Old article from New York Times

“Children born about two years apart, Dr. Kidwell points out, are likely to have the most intense competition for parental attention throughout their lives.

''A spacing of about five years is apparently optimal,'' Dr. Kidwell said. ''It frees the parent from having to meet the demands and pressures of two children close together in age, thus allowing parents and children more time in one-to-one interaction for a more supportive and relaxed relationship.''

Mine are six years apart. I wanted it that way but I can see why someone would choose another way. No one choice works for everyone.

My husband and his only sibling are five years apart and have nothing to do with each other. It’s like they were raised in different households. His parents are smug about having waited for the older one to be self sufficient to have another baby but I think it was actually quite counterproductive long term. They were also both helicoptered to a detrimental degree and I had to undo a lot of that when dh and I got serious. spacing and # of kids is an entirely separate topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre kids I worked 10-12 hr days (so 50-60 hrs a week). There was no option for part time or a more flexible schedule in my field. If there had been that option, I would have continued working. I’d be fine w my kids being in daycare or with a nanny for 5-7 hrs a day but not for 10-12. So I quit my job to be a SAHM.

The problems are: 1) with so many jobs requiring so many hours and so little time off; 2) childcare being incredibly expensive. If the US prioritized families, women, children, there would be more high level jobs with flexible work schedules and the option for family-friendly part time hours and daycare would be much more affordable so more families could afford for both parents to continue working and send kids to daycare.

The way things are in reality is not set up to support families at all and it’s a hindrance to women’s advancement because many women, like myself, don’t have a choice to do both: work and have enough time with kids.

In many other countries SAHPs are practically unheard of because work schedules are more reasonable and workers get much more time off than we do in the US so SAHP isn’t really a thing because work-life balance is already good so more people keep working after having kids.

+1. My relatives in Sweden, both male and female work 9-3. School hours. Then they’re home with their kids in the afternoons. The kids’ summer break is only about 6 weeks long and 4 of those weeks the parents have off work to for annual leave. It’s like this throughout a lot of Europe. A set up that actually supports families and encourages parents to continue working after having kids. Oh and also daycare is heavily subsidized there to make it actually affordable for all again which encourages parents of young kids to continue working.

This. I am always shocked when I read our European work contacts/contracts with workers councils (all for office based work for a F100 locations in Spain, Italy, and France). At various points during pregnancy women’s workdays get progressively shorter, summer hours are shorter, working hours are shorter, parental leave is much better, etc). The reality is that it’s hard to be a parent everywhere, but it’s really hard to be a parent of young children in the US. I have a good friend who is a professor of epidemiology at a university in the UK and she says that she won’t come back to the US until she’s done having children and they’re older. So far she’s taken a year off with each of her two children (2 out of the last 4.5 years) and is considering having a third. So in the UK she’s just normal but on DCUM she would be a Christian Nationalist tradwife.

Not sure the European approach is much better. You’re limited significantly in your career and a woman is expected to take years off her career for a low wage paid by the government.

Many ambitious people would not want a life where they only work 9-3 with limited upward mobility.

It’s true the Swedish lifestyle is great if you don’t want to work and don’t mind living a very basic existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre kids I worked 10-12 hr days (so 50-60 hrs a week). There was no option for part time or a more flexible schedule in my field. If there had been that option, I would have continued working. I’d be fine w my kids being in daycare or with a nanny for 5-7 hrs a day but not for 10-12. So I quit my job to be a SAHM.

The problems are: 1) with so many jobs requiring so many hours and so little time off; 2) childcare being incredibly expensive. If the US prioritized families, women, children, there would be more high level jobs with flexible work schedules and the option for family-friendly part time hours and daycare would be much more affordable so more families could afford for both parents to continue working and send kids to daycare.

The way things are in reality is not set up to support families at all and it’s a hindrance to women’s advancement because many women, like myself, don’t have a choice to do both: work and have enough time with kids.

In many other countries SAHPs are practically unheard of because work schedules are more reasonable and workers get much more time off than we do in the US so SAHP isn’t really a thing because work-life balance is already good so more people keep working after having kids.

+1. My relatives in Sweden, both male and female work 9-3. School hours. Then they’re home with their kids in the afternoons. The kids’ summer break is only about 6 weeks long and 4 of those weeks the parents have off work to for annual leave. It’s like this throughout a lot of Europe. A set up that actually supports families and encourages parents to continue working after having kids. Oh and also daycare is heavily subsidized there to make it actually affordable for all again which encourages parents of young kids to continue working.

This. I am always shocked when I read our European work contacts/contracts with workers councils (all for office based work for a F100 locations in Spain, Italy, and France). At various points during pregnancy women’s workdays get progressively shorter, summer hours are shorter, working hours are shorter, parental leave is much better, etc). The reality is that it’s hard to be a parent everywhere, but it’s really hard to be a parent of young children in the US. I have a good friend who is a professor of epidemiology at a university in the UK and she says that she won’t come back to the US until she’s done having children and they’re older. So far she’s taken a year off with each of her two children (2 out of the last 4.5 years) and is considering having a third. So in the UK she’s just normal but on DCUM she would be a Christian Nationalist tradwife.

Not sure the European approach is much better. You’re limited significantly in your career and a woman is expected to take years off her career for a low wage paid by the government.

Many ambitious people would not want a life where they only work 9-3 with limited upward mobility.

It’s true the Swedish lifestyle is great if you don’t want to work and don’t mind living a very basic existence.

That's just not true, based on who I know in other countries, like a woman (older generation) who is literally the president of a University, but had 3 children and stayed home for 2 years with each of them, bc that is typical. Or my cousin who is a doctor in the UK who took 13 months off for each child.

You actually can have it all. Just not in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these self righteous wohm’s would rather concoct convenient narratives rather than believe that many of us sahm’s are feminists, are not remotely religious or “trad”, are not wealthy and will go back to work.

We just understand child development (something most posters don’t seem to even consider) and know that daycare 0-2 is not good for children. That matters more to me and most women I know than any political or social project. And in children with social needs and the desire for parental care is magnified.

My wish for young women is that someone will be honest with them about which careers allow part-time, about how to save so you can always take unpaid leave in addition to mat leave if you have access to it, about how that wedding money is better earmarked for a nanny and about how many women simply change their minds about daycare when they actually have a vulnerable infant in their arms. No one talks about it—it’s taboo in pre-professional environments.

For example I know several physician moms who work one or two shifts a week during the early years. How helpful it would be for young women to know this is even possible!

lol.. hypocrisy alert.

The most neglected kids I observe are young toddlers with newborn and infant siblings. If those parents truly cared about child development they would have waited til their first kid was 5 before having more.

Please point me to the studies that show that spacing out your child by more than five years leads to better outcomes.

Old article from New York Times

“Children born about two years apart, Dr. Kidwell points out, are likely to have the most intense competition for parental attention throughout their lives.

''A spacing of about five years is apparently optimal,'' Dr. Kidwell said. ''It frees the parent from having to meet the demands and pressures of two children close together in age, thus allowing parents and children more time in one-to-one interaction for a more supportive and relaxed relationship.''

Mine are six years apart. I wanted it that way but I can see why someone would choose another way. No one choice works for everyone.

On the other side, those two kid are less likely to play together and form closer bonds.

DH's sibling right above him is 6 years older than he. He didn't get close to his siblings until he was like 18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 3 kids. First two are 2 years apart, then a 3rd 5 years later. I love that I could do everything together with the older two. We read books together at night before bed, they could do similar activities on vacation, we all played games together, went to the playgrounds together, rode bikes together (they both learned to ride bikes at about the same time).

My 3rd can’t do much of anything and she’s 3 now. She can’t read the same books that the older ones and I are still reading. The 3 really can’t play together like the older two do. I have wished dozens of times that she was only 2 years younger.

3 kids spaced 5 years apart each sounds like hell. Zero economies of scale and you’re always having to do things individually with them.

Yea, based on all these posts, you should just have one child, stay home for 5 years (being bored for some women), then attempt to crawl back into the workforce.

[Anonymous]

Too many sahm in a neighborhood is like Desperate Housewives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many sahm in a neighborhood is like Desperate Housewives.

Mine is full of part time working moms and wahms. I think the FT wohms and sahms are more discreet and less gossip/drama prone. It may be due to the greater amount of PT and wahms, but there are not many exceptions either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre kids I worked 10-12 hr days (so 50-60 hrs a week). There was no option for part time or a more flexible schedule in my field. If there had been that option, I would have continued working. I’d be fine w my kids being in daycare or with a nanny for 5-7 hrs a day but not for 10-12. So I quit my job to be a SAHM.

The problems are: 1) with so many jobs requiring so many hours and so little time off; 2) childcare being incredibly expensive. If the US prioritized families, women, children, there would be more high level jobs with flexible work schedules and the option for family-friendly part time hours and daycare would be much more affordable so more families could afford for both parents to continue working and send kids to daycare.

The way things are in reality is not set up to support families at all and it’s a hindrance to women’s advancement because many women, like myself, don’t have a choice to do both: work and have enough time with kids.

In many other countries SAHPs are practically unheard of because work schedules are more reasonable and workers get much more time off than we do in the US so SAHP isn’t really a thing because work-life balance is already good so more people keep working after having kids.

+1. My relatives in Sweden, both male and female work 9-3. School hours. Then they’re home with their kids in the afternoons. The kids’ summer break is only about 6 weeks long and 4 of those weeks the parents have off work to for annual leave. It’s like this throughout a lot of Europe. A set up that actually supports families and encourages parents to continue working after having kids. Oh and also daycare is heavily subsidized there to make it actually affordable for all again which encourages parents of young kids to continue working.

This. I am always shocked when I read our European work contacts/contracts with workers councils (all for office based work for a F100 locations in Spain, Italy, and France). At various points during pregnancy women’s workdays get progressively shorter, summer hours are shorter, working hours are shorter, parental leave is much better, etc). The reality is that it’s hard to be a parent everywhere, but it’s really hard to be a parent of young children in the US. I have a good friend who is a professor of epidemiology at a university in the UK and she says that she won’t come back to the US until she’s done having children and they’re older. So far she’s taken a year off with each of her two children (2 out of the last 4.5 years) and is considering having a third. So in the UK she’s just normal but on DCUM she would be a Christian Nationalist tradwife.

Not sure the European approach is much better. You’re limited significantly in your career and a woman is expected to take years off her career for a low wage paid by the government.

Many ambitious people would not want a life where they only work 9-3 with limited upward mobility.

It’s true the Swedish lifestyle is great if you don’t want to work and don’t mind living a very basic existence.

LOL

The Swedes’ “basic existence” blows your “ambitious” hamster wheel lifestyle out of the water.