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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not an acceptable turn of phrase.

But I am not offended because it shows the low character of the speaker. Just as if they had said they work FT because “I wanted to use my brain”

I mean, its rude. But there's also an element of truth to it.

I know that's a taboo opinion (albeit a more popular opinion that most want to admit).

Kids are meant to be with their parents during those formative years. Not outsourced.

I know one women who brags how she paid people to potty train her kids. WTF did she even have kids for

When I meet new people I'm going to ask them if they are offended when someone says they didn't want someone else to raise their kids because it has become clear to me that the way people respond to this question is quite indicative of whether or not I would want to spend time with them. It's like an easy friend filter.

[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.

.

Or the Swedish / Norway / Iceland / Netherlands lifestyle that is laid back and stress free. Much less violence and rage than the US, low crime rates, much less working 10 -12 hour days to afford a house, Free college tuition for their citizens. Elementary school starts at 7 years old.,before that play only, and they still have a top rated education system. English classes are taught right from the start with many students starting a third language by 6th grade.

Always named the happiest and most satisfied countries in the world for whatever that’s worth. If that’s basic it sounds kind of appealing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it rude to say I didn't want to be a SAHP because I wanted my kids to be raise in a stimulating environment instead of spending their days watching tv and running errands to Costco.

You're just talking about how YOU would be as a SAHP, not how all or most SAHPs are. Maybe your best if you were to SAH would be to turn on TV and take kids to Costco but that certainly doesn't describe the SAHPs I know.

I was a sahm for a couple years and actually there were some days that were mostly running errands to places like Target. This isn't really the point though. I didn't feel the need to fill my days with "enrichment activities" because the reason I stayed home was simply to spend time with my DD and and enjoy that time together. No I did not teach her to speak french or do pirouettes and she still has normal kid issues like picky eating or sometimes being shy at the playground or whatever. I didn't stay home with her to optimize her as a person. It wasn't to play the long game on college apps.

I just really loved hanging out with her and I though it would be great for both of us and our relationship if we got a couple years of togetherness. So yes I took her grocery shopping and to Target and to get oil changed. I also took her to the park and to museums. I also hung out at home with her. Yes I sometimes let her watch TV while I made dinner or just took a break and no it was not exclusively high minded educational programming. I limited screen time but still used it sometimes.

She's a really great kid. She is actually a whiz at school though I don't think that has much to do with me being a sahm for a time -- I think she's just a bright kid who likes school and that would have happened regardless. She's also on the shy side and slow to warm and I also think that was fairly inevitable too -- it's just her personality and she was like that as a baby too. I'd take her to mommy and me stuff and she'd hang back from the other babies and play on her own. I don't think you can fundamentally alter a child's nature by staying home or putting them in childcare.

But we have a great relationship. She trusts me and we communicate really well. She feels really loved and accepted and safe at home. I think you can give a kid this without staying home but staying home is how I gave my kid this. No regrets. I also personally really enjoyed it. If I had hated it then I would have just gone back to work and found another way to build our relationship and trust.

This isn't rocket science. I don't judge anyone else for their choices. I think it's weird how some of you are talking about being a sahm though -- as though all sahms are either aggressively optimizing childhood 24-7 or they are uneducated dullards planting kids in front of the TV. I don't know anyone who fits either of those descriptions and they feel like weird fantasies you are projecting because of your own issues and feelings about motherhood.

Ah, you wanted so badly to have a "you do you" post and yet you still reek of judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an insensitive thing to say because as women we are all supposed to be empathetic to the fact that no matter what women do regarding work and motherhood someone is going to judge us and we're going to feel guilty.

But also I think people say this sometimes because they are just being honest and it's how they feel. Just like I think women who go back to work actually sometimes do it because they are bored out of their minds at home with babies and want to "use their brains." I also know women who have said that they went back to work because they believe their kids are better off being raised by nannies or caregivers who are "experts" as opposed to a sahm.

All of these things will be hurtful to hear to someone who made a different choice and they are also things people actually think and feel. Women are presented with this impossible choice (if they are fortunate to even have a choice at all which most are not) and there is no answer that will ever be right for everyone so we all do this dance with each other about our choices and we offend each other constantly because there's no way for us to all validate each other and ourselves at the same time unless we all make the same choice.

But we cannot all make the same choice because we are different people with different kids and different professions and different finances and different partners and different resources.

I just try to remember all that whenever I talk to other women about this stuff and when they say things that can be viewed as an insult to my choices. They aren't really talking about me. It's just about them. And that's fine.

But why do we need to be validating our own choices to other people? DH and I made the decisions right for our family (career choices, number of kids, where to live, what schools to send them to, etc.) based on our own personal life circumstances and priorities. I am under no illusion that our choices are the “best ever” or even “better” than what other families have chosen. But I am secure we’ve made decisions that make our family happy.

I can have a conversation with another parent who made different choices than me without needing to justify/explain things in a way that belittle their choices. For instance I have a friend who is a SAHM with a big law DH. When talking to her I 100% understand why it would be logistically a nightmare for her to try to be the primary parent for 3 kids and work since he is gone long hours. Whereas I work FT but my DH also has a super flexible remote job and can help with a lot of the morning routine, shuttling kids around, etc. We can both discuss our lives and the situational decisions we’ve made without making generalized conclusions that our choice is better than the other.

I feel sorry for those who lack the ability to understand their life choices are not necessarily the best choices for others and that we do not need validate ourselves at the expense of putting down others.

This is how most well adjusted people function. The rest don't see how classless they come off putting others down and getting snippy about the decisions of others. I do think there are also genuinely unaware people who are hyper focused on their own reasons (use my brain, raise my kids) that they say it out loud without meaning to imply insult or even that someone else isn't doing that. Honestly, most of us aren't so blatant but likely don't realize all the ways we've insulted others day to day. Still, some people do mean offense and it usually doesn't sting unless you are hearing a chorus of it. Funny enough, I've been hearing one resounding sentiment but from experience on this site, other women get the flip side advised to them by their family so I can understand their defensiveness.

You're almost there. When people talk about their own decisions, they are not putting others down. Others are interpreting other people's statements as if they are reflections upon themselves when other people are just talking about themselves. It is people's insecurity and self-absorption that causes people to be offended by other people's statements about their own situations. People are not classless when they talk about their own situation. People are insecure when they are offended when other people talk about their situation.

It isn't about you.

Huh? That is absolutely not true.

My kids go to private school. I can either state that as a fact, or I can say that we sent them to private school because we wouldn't have sent them to the public schools for which we are zoned. Do you really think both statements are the same? In one I am simply stating what we chose. In another I am not only stating what we chose but also denigrating those who made a different choice.

Saying you don't work because you don't want someone else to raise your kids is clearly saying that you think people who use nannies or daycares don't raise their children.

So the problem isn’t thinking it, it’s just saying it, right? Because the truth is you sent your kids to private for a reason, it’s not like you and your husband did rock paper scissors to decide.

So you won’t SAY that the public schools aren’t good enough for your kids and you feel they’d get a subpar education there (because of course it’s rude to say to the public school parents) but that doesn’t change the fact that you believe it to be true.

Long story short, either one is mature enough and secure enough to discuss things like private school and childcare honestly, or not. There is far too much thought policing and putting words in others’ mouths going on in this thread, though.

I was responding to a PP who said when people talk about their own choices they are not putting others down, they're just talking about themselves. And I said BS, you can definitely say things about your own choices in a way that is putting others down at the same time, whether you mean to or not.

I do agree with their point about insecure people being more easily offended, but I disagree with the notion that stating your choice can't be simultaneously a condemnation of someone who made the opposite choice, such as saying something like "I didn't want someone else to raise my kids." That statement is ignorant at best, offensive at worst, and anyone who would say it is an a$$ and there's no way around that.

It is silly to even frame these things as a choice because it's not a choice for everyone. Which is why it's so tone deaf and absurd to say stuff like this.

We have some family friends who are much wealthier than we are and their kid is going to private school. I don't judge them for this -- if we had their money our kid would also be going to private school. Alas we are not and our kid is in public school as this is our only feasible option. The wife in this couple often says negative things about public schools. It is rude. Of course I assume she thinks private schools are superior to public -- that is why they chose private. I would likely agree with her! But we don't have the choice of private and it is rude to insult the school our kid does attend (sometimes right in front of our kid) without thinking for a second "wait is this a useful or interesting thing to say in this setting." It's not and instead tends to stifle conversation because my DH and I just feel tired when we hear this stuff. The husband is aware his wife is being a tool and he works hard to smooth it over but it's still annoying.

And that's also how I'd feel if a SAHP went out of their way to explain to me that they stayed home because they didn't want "someone else raising [their] kid." There are many ways to talk about why you chose to stay home that don't denigrate another family using childcare (which might be by choice and might be out of necessity and likely is to some degree a mix of both).

So I don't think it's about insecurity. It's about having different opportunities and a lot of people's choices being curtailed by finances and other resources. Pretending like we're all exactly the same and just making different "choices" is incredibly naive.

The thread should end here because this is a perfect post. No snark, you articulated it perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not a study of outcomes at all. It’s one “doctor”’s opinion. I want evidence like better outcomes in terms of education level, income, health, anything that compares different groups of adults based on their childhood spacing.

There’s been plenty of studies that show only children have higher IQs than other children but what does it matter. If a family has two children in two years and the mother is overwhelmed it’s bad. If the family handles it beautifully then it’s good.

Two years apart worked well for my sister. Six years apart worked well for me. Everyone do what’s best for them.

I have a large gap with my brother. I’m envious of the siblings super close together in age who hang out in the same friend groups, have babies together, etc.

I am the middle of five kids and yes the middle child stereotypes are true. My oldest sister is 7 years older than me and we have two children born two months apart. My younger sister and I have two children born 1 month apart. My youngest sister 7 years younger than me waited a long time to have kids so her kids are much younger. Age didn’t matter as soon as we were adults. We all know each other’s friends. All my friends are not the same age, why should my siblings have to be? .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

.

Or the Swedish / Norway / Iceland / Netherlands lifestyle that is laid back and stress free. Much less violence and rage than the US, low crime rates, much less working 10 -12 hour days to afford a house, Free college tuition for their citizens. Elementary school starts at 7 years old.,before that play only, and they still have a top rated education system. English classes are taught right from the start with many students starting a third language by 6th grade.

Always named the happiest and most satisfied countries in the world for whatever that’s worth. If that’s basic it sounds kind of appealing.

I guess. I only know a handful of families who live in Scandinavian countries and they seem especially miserable. Do you know anyone personally?

It’s fascinating you say working less to afford a house because housing debt is much much higher in those countries. It’s obscene compared to the US. Have you actually done any research on that? Because to suggest housing costs are less stressful in Norway or Sweden is comical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

.

Or the Swedish / Norway / Iceland / Netherlands lifestyle that is laid back and stress free. Much less violence and rage than the US, low crime rates, much less working 10 -12 hour days to afford a house, Free college tuition for their citizens. Elementary school starts at 7 years old.,before that play only, and they still have a top rated education system. English classes are taught right from the start with many students starting a third language by 6th grade.

Always named the happiest and most satisfied countries in the world for whatever that’s worth. If that’s basic it sounds kind of appealing.

I’ll rebuke these:

1. Crime rates are also low in mostly white suburban areas of the US that look similar so Scandinavian countries.

2. Housing costs are much higher in Scandinavia and they don’t have fixed rate mortgages. It’s a huge problem over there right now and multiple people I know are financially stressed. You’d be shocked if you knew how much mortgage debt they have over there.

3. Maybe college tuition is free but your choices are very limited and you could have a very similar type of education here at an in-state school. Are you aware of any world renowned colleges and universities in Scandinavia? Are you familiar with the admissions process there? My guess is you’re not. If their educational system is so great then why are their economies so limited?

4. It’s funny you say elementary school starts at age 7. Moms are encouraged (forced?) to take long parental leaves and multiple women I know have had issues with childcare. You’re expected to work fewer hours / mostly PT when you have young kids. For some women, this is fine, but it doesn’t exactly help you compete with men in the workplace. Some elementary schools don’t even have aftercare which is shocking to me! One of my friends was excited her son’s school got aftercare and my flyover country elementary school had this in 1996.

5. Top rated educational system… I’m sure the educational system is fine. But Scandinavian countries aren’t exactly known for innovation and bringing products and ideas to the world stage. Yes, I’m sure some sort of study shows it’s the best place ever to start a business. However, from my personal experience people there are rather unmotivated and their economies reflect this. If you’re a driven, ambitious person you’ll be bored there and very frustrated too. Norway in particular has benefited from oil and gas, but it has limited the rest of its economy.

Really the biggest issue I see for my Scandinavian friends is the inability to outsource. They can’t afford cleaners, a nanny, babysitters, meal delivery services in a way my American friends with similar types of jobs can. It makes their life more difficult as parents. You can argue well they get off work at 3 PM, but I don’t want my husband and me to have to leave work at 3 to clean our house and pick up my kids from daycare. Sorry not sorry.

[Anonymous]

tangents about scandinavia are missing the point. it's rude to say this to someone and intended purely as an insult. anyone who says this is an ahole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:tangents about scandinavia are missing the point. it's rude to say this to someone and intended purely as an insult. anyone who says this is an ahole.

I agree that it’s rude to say it, but picture someone being in the position to need to answer a question about why they are staying home with their kids. I think making people answer that question is asking for a rude answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

.

Or the Swedish / Norway / Iceland / Netherlands lifestyle that is laid back and stress free. Much less violence and rage than the US, low crime rates, much less working 10 -12 hour days to afford a house, Free college tuition for their citizens. Elementary school starts at 7 years old.,before that play only, and they still have a top rated education system. English classes are taught right from the start with many students starting a third language by 6th grade.

Always named the happiest and most satisfied countries in the world for whatever that’s worth. If that’s basic it sounds kind of appealing.

I’ll rebuke these:

1. Crime rates are also low in mostly white suburban areas of the US that look similar so Scandinavian countries.

2. Housing costs are much higher in Scandinavia and they don’t have fixed rate mortgages. It’s a huge problem over there right now and multiple people I know are financially stressed. You’d be shocked if you knew how much mortgage debt they have over there.

3. Maybe college tuition is free but your choices are very limited and you could have a very similar type of education here at an in-state school. Are you aware of any world renowned colleges and universities in Scandinavia? Are you familiar with the admissions process there? My guess is you’re not. If their educational system is so great then why are their economies so limited?

4. It’s funny you say elementary school starts at age 7. Moms are encouraged (forced?) to take long parental leaves and multiple women I know have had issues with childcare. You’re expected to work fewer hours / mostly PT when you have young kids. For some women, this is fine, but it doesn’t exactly help you compete with men in the workplace. Some elementary schools don’t even have aftercare which is shocking to me! One of my friends was excited her son’s school got aftercare and my flyover country elementary school had this in 1996.

5. Top rated educational system… I’m sure the educational system is fine. But Scandinavian countries aren’t exactly known for innovation and bringing products and ideas to the world stage. Yes, I’m sure some sort of study shows it’s the best place ever to start a business. However, from my personal experience people there are rather unmotivated and their economies reflect this. If you’re a driven, ambitious person you’ll be bored there and very frustrated too. Norway in particular has benefited from oil and gas, but it has limited the rest of its economy.

Really the biggest issue I see for my Scandinavian friends is the inability to outsource. They can’t afford cleaners, a nanny, babysitters, meal delivery services in a way my American friends with similar types of jobs can. It makes their life more difficult as parents. You can argue well they get off work at 3 PM, but I don’t want my husband and me to have to leave work at 3 to clean our house and pick up my kids from daycare. Sorry not sorry.

Jesus Christ. You are completely talking out of your @$$ with this post. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the Nordic countries or you wouldn’t be spouting off such ill-informed nonsense.

Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.

[Anonymous]

Wow. A lot of pages of responses and replies pertaining to working mothers’ inability to comprehend than they are not truly “raising their kids” FULL-TIME.

Listen, gals, you all just need to embrace who you are. Some of you make Martha Stewart look like a McDonalds cook. That’s fantastic!!!

On the other hand, some of you make good money in a professional job, but you suck at being “domestic”. HOPEFULLY you channel some of that money back to your Cub Scout pack or PTO or whatever. That’s fantastic too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. A lot of pages of responses and replies pertaining to working mothers’ inability to comprehend than they are not truly “raising their kids” FULL-TIME.

Listen, gals, you all just need to embrace who you are. Some of you make Martha Stewart look like a McDonalds cook. That’s fantastic!!!

On the other hand, some of you make good money in a professional job, but you suck at being “domestic”. HOPEFULLY you channel some of that money back to your Cub Scout pack or PTO or whatever. That’s fantastic too!

I make a McDonalds cook look like Martha Stewart

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

.

Or the Swedish / Norway / Iceland / Netherlands lifestyle that is laid back and stress free. Much less violence and rage than the US, low crime rates, much less working 10 -12 hour days to afford a house, Free college tuition for their citizens. Elementary school starts at 7 years old.,before that play only, and they still have a top rated education system. English classes are taught right from the start with many students starting a third language by 6th grade.

Always named the happiest and most satisfied countries in the world for whatever that’s worth. If that’s basic it sounds kind of appealing.

I’ll rebuke these:

1. Crime rates are also low in mostly white suburban areas of the US that look similar so Scandinavian countries.

2. Housing costs are much higher in Scandinavia and they don’t have fixed rate mortgages. It’s a huge problem over there right now and multiple people I know are financially stressed. You’d be shocked if you knew how much mortgage debt they have over there.

3. Maybe college tuition is free but your choices are very limited and you could have a very similar type of education here at an in-state school. Are you aware of any world renowned colleges and universities in Scandinavia? Are you familiar with the admissions process there? My guess is you’re not. If their educational system is so great then why are their economies so limited?

4. It’s funny you say elementary school starts at age 7. Moms are encouraged (forced?) to take long parental leaves and multiple women I know have had issues with childcare. You’re expected to work fewer hours / mostly PT when you have young kids. For some women, this is fine, but it doesn’t exactly help you compete with men in the workplace. Some elementary schools don’t even have aftercare which is shocking to me! One of my friends was excited her son’s school got aftercare and my flyover country elementary school had this in 1996.

5. Top rated educational system… I’m sure the educational system is fine. But Scandinavian countries aren’t exactly known for innovation and bringing products and ideas to the world stage. Yes, I’m sure some sort of study shows it’s the best place ever to start a business. However, from my personal experience people there are rather unmotivated and their economies reflect this. If you’re a driven, ambitious person you’ll be bored there and very frustrated too. Norway in particular has benefited from oil and gas, but it has limited the rest of its economy.

Really the biggest issue I see for my Scandinavian friends is the inability to outsource. They can’t afford cleaners, a nanny, babysitters, meal delivery services in a way my American friends with similar types of jobs can. It makes their life more difficult as parents. You can argue well they get off work at 3 PM, but I don’t want my husband and me to have to leave work at 3 to clean our house and pick up my kids from daycare. Sorry not sorry.

I can tell you are basing your opinion on people you know who are just like you. A very narrow view.

They have the most stable working democracies in the world.

And you’re ok with only half of the US having low crime rates? The Nordic countries don’t have the obscene wealth gap that the United States has so they don’t have cities full of poor people crammed into projects. Every country has crime, only a handful have so many gun owners.

These countries manage to have social welfare and capitalism both work for them. And I don’t understand how you can write “they aren’t exactly known for their innovation”. YES they are. They are always listed among the top ten most innovative countries in the world.

They lead the way with infrastructure, especially Finland. I’m always jealous of the transportation systems in Europe. Why has America failed to link our states by trains already?

Being small countries they depends exporting goods. Most know IKEA. Spotify was started in Sweden along with H&M, Volvo, Lego and many others.

Nokia from Finland and Ericsson from Sweden were two of the first mobile phone makers in the world. Ericsson was popular in the US for corporate phone systems.

I can’t believe people think their economies are limited. The Nordic countries economies are the envy of the world.

Your reply is a typical ignorant American reply. Most of it wrong and putting importance in house cleaners and food delivery.


Here’s the link on most innovative countries. And the US is right up there with these tiny countries.


https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/innovation-technology-wipo-countries-ranking/#:~:text=1%3A%20Switzerland%3A%20Retains%20its%20top,and%20a%20conducive%20regulatory%20environment.

[Anonymous]

Meet me at the bar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of two teens here with two observations:

1) my kids friends are all really great, smart, well mannered, kind kids. I couldn’t tell you which ones had SAHMs and which ones had WOHMs if I didn’t know their parents (I know many but not all and it’s a mix of both working and non working parents - they all raised awesome kids).


2) this concept of raising your own children is a relatively new phenomenon. Ever heard of the term “it takes a village”? I also have seen some studies that say that working parents now spend significantly more time with their children than stay at home moms did 20-30 years ago. Probably because there isn’t really a village anymore.

Interesting how everyone is just passing by and ignoring this post. As a mom of older ES kids, I agree - all of my children's friends are wonderful kids. Some of them have SAHMs, some of them have two working parents. They're all great kids. If it makes you ladies feel better to put down working moms and tell us we're ruining our children forever, then fine, go ahead, but my kids have turned out great so far, even with a mom who sent them to daycare.

I agree that there are great kids of working parents and great kids of stay at home parents. But the topic isn't about outcomes/how the kids turn out in the end as a result of who raises them. The topic is about who IS actually raising the kids and, although I'd never say this to anyone and think it's totally rude to do so, you can't really argue that parents who both work and whose kids either go to daycare or have a nanny or a grandparent or whoever take care of them are being 100% raised by their parents. They hardly even see their parents. They spend most of their time w/ someone other than their parents. It's just not possible that their parents are the main ones raising them.

Except every parent with kids in school or preschool do this and you are saying only the SAH person is raising their Child, even though the working parent sees the child just as much.

This.

Those of you saying you raise your kids are conveniently leaving out that your spouses don't. But you don't want to say that...