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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Point being that when you work from home and have young kids, you are less efficient at work so something that may take 2 hours can get stretched to 5.

Not if they are napping.

Are you kidding? Kids do not nap all the time. Do you only have one kid? Give it a rest.

I actually used to cuddle with my toddler when she napped. When she was a baby, I napped when she napped.

Kids are mostly at school during their childhood and when they aren't they nap... a lot.

No I didn't nap during the day do you have narcolepsy?

I don't work when the kids are awake. I work when they are asleep or I engage with them, or they are at school or preschool or playdates.

Yes I have more than 1 kid but I don't have 3 under 5 that would make it hard.

No one with a reasonably demanding full time job is providing full time childcare and parenting young children at the same time. You can’t do both at the same time well. Remember? This was proven again and again to many of us during the pandemic.

It’s already been proven by showing schedules that for an infant, They are with nanny for maybe 3 to 4 waking hours.

Children don’t stay infants for long

And that schedules also been shared. The children were with their father in the morning, Went to preschool, Took a nap, And was with a caregiver less than two hours in the afternoon before mom got home.

That's your schedule. That's not a universal or even remotely common schedule for majority of kids of working parents, majority of whom are in daycare for 8+ hours a day.

I don't know anyone who had kids in daycare 8+ hours a day.

For starters, most of us had nannies or au pairs. The ones who used daycare had one parent drop off and one parent pick up and flexed their schedules so that one parent went in earlier (and did not drop off the kids) and then got off earlier (and did pick up the kids) whereas the other parent went in later (and dropped the kids off) and came home later (and did not pick up the kids). I'm thinking of all the parents I know from working at DOJ, a Big 4 accounting firm, a Big Law firm, and private practice, plus the parents I know now that my kids are at school and all my friends from high school and college that I am still friends with. I truly can't think of any except one whose husband was military and she was a lawyer and acted a single mom because he was deployed a lot who had kids in daycare for 8 or more hours a day. Yes, that is my sample size, and yes, my friends are largely UMC and so of course that skews the results, but stop making up statistics. You cannot support your claim that the majority of children are in daycare for 8+ hours a day.

Probably? This is the WHOLE reason you don't know anyone who has kids in daycare 8+ hours a day. The majority of the country is not UMC families. Most people have to actually work 8-9 hours a day. Therefore their kids need to be in someone else's care for 8+ hours a day. You have no idea how most people live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom went back to work full time when I was less than two months old. My dad also worked full time. I had a combinations of nannies and then preschool before starting elementary school. It would never occur to me to say that I was raised by anyone besides my parents.

That's a pretty rude attitude toward child care providers.

and teachers... clearly your children are being "raised" by teachers.

They are. It’s why schools are so important.

So you are not raising your children after all.

Not alone, no, and none of us are. It’s good to realize that so we fully appreciate the people around us molding the next generation of young people. As parents we do our best, but are NOT the sole influencers, nor should that be the goal.

That’s not the definition of “raise”.

My neighbor isn’t raising my child simply because they had a play date there once.

[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!

Are you a child development expert?

Oh c’mon. You don’t have to be a child development expert to know that it is better for an infant to be cared for one-on-one by their mother than put into a group daycare. Pp is right on target, and we as a society would be better off if we acknowledged this fact and recognized that women can exit and re-enter the work force as their children grow and their family needs change.

I mean, I dunno, but you don’t have to be a mushroom expert to know that wild mushroom is definitely edible… but it sure as shit helps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Point being that when you work from home and have young kids, you are less efficient at work so something that may take 2 hours can get stretched to 5.

Not if they are napping.

Are you kidding? Kids do not nap all the time. Do you only have one kid? Give it a rest.

I actually used to cuddle with my toddler when she napped. When she was a baby, I napped when she napped.

Kids are mostly at school during their childhood and when they aren't they nap... a lot.

No I didn't nap during the day do you have narcolepsy?

I don't work when the kids are awake. I work when they are asleep or I engage with them, or they are at school or preschool or playdates.

Yes I have more than 1 kid but I don't have 3 under 5 that would make it hard.

No one with a reasonably demanding full time job is providing full time childcare and parenting young children at the same time. You can’t do both at the same time well. Remember? This was proven again and again to many of us during the pandemic.

It’s already been proven by showing schedules that for an infant, They are with nanny for maybe 3 to 4 waking hours.

Children don’t stay infants for long

And that schedules also been shared. The children were with their father in the morning, Went to preschool, Took a nap, And was with a caregiver less than two hours in the afternoon before mom got home.

That's your schedule. That's not a universal or even remotely common schedule for majority of kids of working parents, majority of whom are in daycare for 8+ hours a day.

I don't know anyone who had kids in daycare 8+ hours a day.

For starters, most of us had nannies or au pairs. The ones who used daycare had one parent drop off and one parent pick up and flexed their schedules so that one parent went in earlier (and did not drop off the kids) and then got off earlier (and did pick up the kids) whereas the other parent went in later (and dropped the kids off) and came home later (and did not pick up the kids). I'm thinking of all the parents I know from working at DOJ, a Big 4 accounting firm, a Big Law firm, and private practice, plus the parents I know now that my kids are at school and all my friends from high school and college that I am still friends with. I truly can't think of any except one whose husband was military and she was a lawyer and acted a single mom because he was deployed a lot who had kids in daycare for 8 or more hours a day. Yes, that is my sample size, and yes, my friends are largely UMC and so of course that skews the results, but stop making up statistics. You cannot support your claim that the majority of children are in daycare for 8+ hours a day.

Probably? This is the WHOLE reason you don't know anyone who has kids in daycare 8+ hours a day. The majority of the country is not UMC families. Most people have to actually work 8-9 hours a day. Therefore their kids need to be in someone else's care for 8+ hours a day. You have no idea how most people live.

Nope.

On average kids are in daycare 27 hours a week.

https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/documents/seccyd_06.pdf

[Anonymous]

This might be based in nothing, but my gut tells me my kid’s high school teachers are going to be more influential than their daycare teachers. There are times in life when kids are seeking influence.

[Anonymous]

My child started at daycare full time around 14 months. It would have been around 6-8 months if not for Covid.

We have the money to hire a nanny. We could have made a sacrifice and given up a career. We have plenty of money and options to have made different choices, but why?

No one on this thread has put up convincing arguments as to why having kids in small groups at daycare under the age of 2 is detrimental. A lot of talk about how much brain development happens before the age of 2 but nothing convincing that being doted on and pampered for 2 years is superior than being part of a group situation at daycare. It was a great experience for the child and it was good for us.

You can put my child’s developmental milestones up against anyone else’s and you’d be hard pressed to see any detriment from going to daycare “too early”.

This mentality that there’s absolutely no other way to parent other than taking off work for 2+ years or getting a nanny is nuts. Maybe it’s the only way *you* can figure it out, but other methods work for other people.

[Anonymous]

Please I beg of you:

Could we stop talking about staying home versus working as a "choice" that all wome make?

It's not except for a tiny sliver of very privileged women who truly can work or stay home with no financial or personal repercussions either way. For everyone else the scales tend to be heavily weighted one way or another and even when you get to pick there are major trade-offs because you don't have the resources to mitigate the downsides.

THIS is why it's rude to say things that pass judgment on what other women do. Because for most women it's not truly a choice. The majority of us are constrained by economics and earning potential and childcare availability and the nature of our marriages and the support systems we have in place (and not you cannot just "choose" to have a great support system -- some people have supportive families and communities and others don't due to circumstance not choice).

So yes please be sensitive when you talk about this issue because a lot of women are doing the very best they can with the options available to them (which are not limitless) and no one needs to be shamed or shaded for working OR staying home.

If women could just have empathy towards each other we would all be so much better off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please I beg of you:

Could we stop talking about staying home versus working as a "choice" that all wome make?

It's not except for a tiny sliver of very privileged women who truly can work or stay home with no financial or personal repercussions either way. For everyone else the scales tend to be heavily weighted one way or another and even when you get to pick there are major trade-offs because you don't have the resources to mitigate the downsides.

THIS is why it's rude to say things that pass judgment on what other women do. Because for most women it's not truly a choice. The majority of us are constrained by economics and earning potential and childcare availability and the nature of our marriages and the support systems we have in place (and not you cannot just "choose" to have a great support system -- some people have supportive families and communities and others don't due to circumstance not choice).

So yes please be sensitive when you talk about this issue because a lot of women are doing the very best they can with the options available to them (which are not limitless) and no one needs to be shamed or shaded for working OR staying home.

If women could just have empathy towards each other we would all be so much better off.

And let’s stop pretending most SAHM are employable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child started at daycare full time around 14 months. It would have been around 6-8 months if not for Covid.

We have the money to hire a nanny. We could have made a sacrifice and given up a career. We have plenty of money and options to have made different choices, but why?

No one on this thread has put up convincing arguments as to why having kids in small groups at daycare under the age of 2 is detrimental. A lot of talk about how much brain development happens before the age of 2 but nothing convincing that being doted on and pampered for 2 years is superior than being part of a group situation at daycare. It was a great experience for the child and it was good for us.

You can put my child’s developmental milestones up against anyone else’s and you’d be hard pressed to see any detriment from going to daycare “too early”.

This mentality that there’s absolutely no other way to parent other than taking off work for 2+ years or getting a nanny is nuts. Maybe it’s the only way *you* can figure it out, but other methods work for other people.

Except most of the concerns about group care involve its impact on infants (or babies up to 12 months) and your child was not in daycare as an infant. So you actually don't know.

In fact one of the reasons it can be hard to find an infant spot in a daycare is due to the generally accepted wisdom (based on evidence) that babies need to have very low child-to-caregiver ratios -- because most jurisdications require low ratios for infants they will generally have very few spots available (and usually don't make money off these spots even though they cost more than the ones for older kids -- it's a loss leader that gets families into the daycare and can also keep families with older siblings at the daycare).

And one of the problems with daycares for infants is that even when they meet the requirements for ratios for infants this is generally only on paper and it's harder to know how it will go on any given day. They'll technically have the staff for these ratios but often infants will be camped in cribs or play pens or strapped into infant seats while caregivers are largely focused on the mobile children. And yes this has a major impact on developmental milestones because ask any pediatrician whether it's a good idea to keep your baby in a crib or strapped in a chair all day. They will emphasize the importance of face time with their caregiver for social-emotional development and of tummy time and freedom of movement to develop gross motor skills.

Anyway a baby can do fine in a daycare if they receive the ideal care there but the issue is that a lot of parents don't trust daycares to actually provide this when no one is looking. Since your child didn't actually attend daycare until 14 months (and most people agree that by a year and a half group settings are not harmful and can even be beneficial to kids -- even SAHPs will often put kids that age in playgroups or preschool in order to help them socialize and acclimate to other kids and caregivers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please I beg of you:

Could we stop talking about staying home versus working as a "choice" that all wome make?

It's not except for a tiny sliver of very privileged women who truly can work or stay home with no financial or personal repercussions either way. For everyone else the scales tend to be heavily weighted one way or another and even when you get to pick there are major trade-offs because you don't have the resources to mitigate the downsides.

THIS is why it's rude to say things that pass judgment on what other women do. Because for most women it's not truly a choice. The majority of us are constrained by economics and earning potential and childcare availability and the nature of our marriages and the support systems we have in place (and not you cannot just "choose" to have a great support system -- some people have supportive families and communities and others don't due to circumstance not choice).

So yes please be sensitive when you talk about this issue because a lot of women are doing the very best they can with the options available to them (which are not limitless) and no one needs to be shamed or shaded for working OR staying home.

If women could just have empathy towards each other we would all be so much better off.

And let’s stop pretending most SAHM are employable.

In the DC area? Are you serious? Of course most are employable— graduate degrees, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please I beg of you:

Could we stop talking about staying home versus working as a "choice" that all wome make?

It's not except for a tiny sliver of very privileged women who truly can work or stay home with no financial or personal repercussions either way. For everyone else the scales tend to be heavily weighted one way or another and even when you get to pick there are major trade-offs because you don't have the resources to mitigate the downsides.

THIS is why it's rude to say things that pass judgment on what other women do. Because for most women it's not truly a choice. The majority of us are constrained by economics and earning potential and childcare availability and the nature of our marriages and the support systems we have in place (and not you cannot just "choose" to have a great support system -- some people have supportive families and communities and others don't due to circumstance not choice).

So yes please be sensitive when you talk about this issue because a lot of women are doing the very best they can with the options available to them (which are not limitless) and no one needs to be shamed or shaded for working OR staying home.

If women could just have empathy towards each other we would all be so much better off.

And let’s stop pretending most SAHM are employable.

Thank you for proving my point for me. Who does this comment help?

And guess what? There probably are people who are better stay at home parents than they are paid workers. Why is this a bad thing? Caring for children is important work (whoever takes care of your kids while you work is pretty important to you right?) so if someone decides they can be more useful by staying home with their kids than going to a job with a paycheck then why would you oppose that?

There are also plenty of women who decide to stay home for a few years because the economics of incomes in their field and the cost of childcare where they live just doesn't add up. Now you might ask yourself "well why don't more men do this?" Excellent question! There are several reasons including:

- men make more money than women on average and thus it is less likely to make sense for a man to stay home and care for kids

- people like you stigmatize staying home to care for children by making fun of women who do it and men are even more sensitive to the loss of social status that would come from choosing to stay home with their children so they won't do it because people [LIKE YOU] will think less on them

But you don't understand that fixing the above is way more important than running around making fun of sahms if you care about womens rights and equality. Tell me again who is dumbe -- you or the sahms?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]This might be based in nothing, but my gut tells me my kid’s high school teachers are going to be more influential than their daycare teachers. There are times in life when kids are seeking influence. [/quote]
Possibly or maybe they'll be just as forgettable. I don't think there is much of a formula beyond someone really caring and taking interest in you.

I had a workaholic wohm who still cannot chill in retirement she took later than most. She loved/loves money and she loves being productive. I had nannies at a very young age and then went latch key by second grade. I remember my nannies and they got me through those "learning explosion" years but my parents, especially my mom, raised me and had such a strong influence (even if it's just to be the contradictory daughter) on me that no nanny, teacher or friend could ever compete. Kids pick up their parents values and love (or lack of in other cases) no matter how many hours a day they spend together. Your parents are there on days off, holidays and they are the one you go to when you need big help. My mom raised me no less than I as a sahm am raising my kids. I see the same in my wohm friends who get involved every bit they can despite working more hours than most. I think it's just one of many variables that can add up to a benefit or drawback depending on the combo. There were some negatives but no more than have come up while I've been a sahm. Everyone has problems come up from time to time, it doesn't discount everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child started at daycare full time around 14 months. It would have been around 6-8 months if not for Covid.

We have the money to hire a nanny. We could have made a sacrifice and given up a career. We have plenty of money and options to have made different choices, but why?

No one on this thread has put up convincing arguments as to why having kids in small groups at daycare under the age of 2 is detrimental. A lot of talk about how much brain development happens before the age of 2 but nothing convincing that being doted on and pampered for 2 years is superior than being part of a group situation at daycare. It was a great experience for the child and it was good for us.

You can put my child’s developmental milestones up against anyone else’s and you’d be hard pressed to see any detriment from going to daycare “too early”.

This mentality that there’s absolutely no other way to parent other than taking off work for 2+ years or getting a nanny is nuts. Maybe it’s the only way *you* can figure it out, but other methods work for other people.

Except most of the concerns about group care involve its impact on infants (or babies up to 12 months) and your child was not in daycare as an infant. So you actually don't know.

In fact one of the reasons it can be hard to find an infant spot in a daycare is due to the generally accepted wisdom (based on evidence) that babies need to have very low child-to-caregiver ratios -- because most jurisdications require low ratios for infants they will generally have very few spots available (and usually don't make money off these spots even though they cost more than the ones for older kids -- it's a loss leader that gets families into the daycare and can also keep families with older siblings at the daycare).

And one of the problems with daycares for infants is that even when they meet the requirements for ratios for infants this is generally only on paper and it's harder to know how it will go on any given day. They'll technically have the staff for these ratios but often infants will be camped in cribs or play pens or strapped into infant seats while caregivers are largely focused on the mobile children. And yes this has a major impact on developmental milestones because ask any pediatrician whether it's a good idea to keep your baby in a crib or strapped in a chair all day. They will emphasize the importance of face time with their caregiver for social-emotional development and of tummy time and freedom of movement to develop gross motor skills.

Anyway a baby can do fine in a daycare if they receive the ideal care there but the issue is that a lot of parents don't trust daycares to actually provide this when no one is looking. Since your child didn't actually attend daycare until 14 months (and most people agree that by a year and a half group settings are not harmful and can even be beneficial to kids -- even SAHPs will often put kids that age in playgroups or preschool in order to help them socialize and acclimate to other kids and caregivers).

Got it. So you don’t think parents aren’t inherently bad if they send their kids to daycare under the age of 2. So my comments weren’t directed at you.

I’d send a 6 month old to daycare with no hesitation.


I think these parents who are hyperventilating about it sound insane.

[Anonymous]

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.

Um, that's exactly what it implies. Otherwise you wouldn't have to stay at home in order to raise your kids...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please I beg of you:

Could we stop talking about staying home versus working as a "choice" that all wome make?

It's not except for a tiny sliver of very privileged women who truly can work or stay home with no financial or personal repercussions either way. For everyone else the scales tend to be heavily weighted one way or another and even when you get to pick there are major trade-offs because you don't have the resources to mitigate the downsides.

THIS is why it's rude to say things that pass judgment on what other women do. Because for most women it's not truly a choice. The majority of us are constrained by economics and earning potential and childcare availability and the nature of our marriages and the support systems we have in place (and not you cannot just "choose" to have a great support system -- some people have supportive families and communities and others don't due to circumstance not choice).

So yes please be sensitive when you talk about this issue because a lot of women are doing the very best they can with the options available to them (which are not limitless) and no one needs to be shamed or shaded for working OR staying home.

If women could just have empathy towards each other we would all be so much better off.

And let’s stop pretending most SAHM are employable.

Thank you for proving my point for me. Who does this comment help?

And guess what? There probably are people who are better stay at home parents than they are paid workers. Why is this a bad thing? Caring for children is important work (whoever takes care of your kids while you work is pretty important to you right?) so if someone decides they can be more useful by staying home with their kids than going to a job with a paycheck then why would you oppose that?

There are also plenty of women who decide to stay home for a few years because the economics of incomes in their field and the cost of childcare where they live just doesn't add up. Now you might ask yourself "well why don't more men do this?" Excellent question! There are several reasons including:

- men make more money than women on average and thus it is less likely to make sense for a man to stay home and care for kids

- people like you stigmatize staying home to care for children by making fun of women who do it and men are even more sensitive to the loss of social status that would come from choosing to stay home with their children so they won't do it because people [LIKE YOU] will think less on them

But you don't understand that fixing the above is way more important than running around making fun of sahms if you care about womens rights and equality. Tell me again who is dumbe -- you or the sahms?

I didn't say it was a bad thing but I guess you have been socialized to assume the statement "SAHM's who are not employable" are "bad", so I'd check that if I were you.

I didn't stigmatize being unemployable, I think it's important to understand that is a thing and we need to show support for that. Also about 25% of people with disabilities are employed, which means 75% are not. We need to work on that as a community.

Also you have a 10% chance your spouse will become disabled.

People like you forget that dads are part of the equation and being unemployable is a fact of some people's lives and I never mentioned IQ but you clearly imagine all unemployed people are stupid. You might want to check that too.

You also want to stigmatize men wanting to be a part of the equation... you are like go to work even if it means working 60 hours a week or 3 jobs it's cool if you never see your kids.