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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

It should not be said but can you concede that there might be an instance of it not being meant as an insult. The speaker may be reflecting on raising as spending time with while not intending to imply others are not raising their kids.
One person is equating it to spending time with, playing games, running errands more than if they didn't stay home.
One person is latching onto the insult and using it to twist the knife so you'll feel bad. They are being defensive or just mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

It should not be said but can you concede that there might be an instance of it not being meant as an insult. The speaker may be reflecting on raising as spending time with while not intending to imply others are not raising their kids.
One person is equating it to spending time with, playing games, running errands more than if they didn't stay home.
One person is latching onto the insult and using it to twist the knife so you'll feel bad. They are being defensive or just mean.

No. Basic communication 101 and I find it harder to explain this to 20 somethings new to the workforce and those who just don't ever work outside in the real world ... you have a responsibility when you speak to know your audience, own the intention, own the impact.

That is just the basics of communication that is taught when you are an intern at a job.

If you want to communicate and say I just want to spend time with my children, then say that.

The statement actually says "if I don't stay home I won't be raising my children"... that is literally what the statement is saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the main reasons I was grateful to sahm is that I could encourage much more risk from a young age. If I were a nanny I would never feel comfortable allowing so much intense climbing, exploring out of my sight, etc. It always made me nervous but I think it’s one of the best things I did and I wish I’d had that as a kid so I could be more confident in my body.

The nannies I knew were caring and committed but their charges weren’t allowed to play with sticks, jump from rocks or even go into the sandbox half the time. Most were borderline hypochondriacs and passed that to the kids. I can only imagine the level of control in a daycare setting with high ratios. It’s not good for kids when the constant message is “be careful” and everything is padded for your protection.

I would never say this to a wohm friend since it’s rude and there’s no point. But there are many areas like this where a sahp can make a difference.

Interesting take. I’m a SAHM and I find kids with nannies often take more risks (at the playground at least) because the nannies often aren’t paying close attention.

Yes. SAHMs are always attentive to the children but nannies aren't.

SAHM gave a ton of tasks to do besides care for their child and are distracted by all of that. Nannies only watch the children… less distracted.

But yes Nannies are more trained and helicopter less to allow kids to learn from
Play.

Nannies aren’t trained unless you’re paying at least 80k a year plus benefits. All I ever see is 20 year old foreigners or older women taken care of the kids. There are no Mary Poppins.

[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.

+1000

I'm a working mom who would love to SAHM, but we can't afford it. And by that I mean my income helps pay for our mortgage, groceries, and health insurance, not OMG if I quit we'd have to stop traveling to Eurpoe every summer and drive Toyotas and pull the kids out of their travel sports.

I had no idea I'd feel this way until I actually became a mother, so "willing and able to be the sole provider" wasn't something I filtered for while dating. Yes, I wish I had more time to spend with my children, even though I still consider myself (and my working spouse) to be raising them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the main reasons I was grateful to sahm is that I could encourage much more risk from a young age. If I were a nanny I would never feel comfortable allowing so much intense climbing, exploring out of my sight, etc. It always made me nervous but I think it’s one of the best things I did and I wish I’d had that as a kid so I could be more confident in my body.

The nannies I knew were caring and committed but their charges weren’t allowed to play with sticks, jump from rocks or even go into the sandbox half the time. Most were borderline hypochondriacs and passed that to the kids. I can only imagine the level of control in a daycare setting with high ratios. It’s not good for kids when the constant message is “be careful” and everything is padded for your protection.

I would never say this to a wohm friend since it’s rude and there’s no point. But there are many areas like this where a sahp can make a difference.

Interesting take. I’m a SAHM and I find kids with nannies often take more risks (at the playground at least) because the nannies often aren’t paying close attention.

Yes. SAHMs are always attentive to the children but nannies aren't.

SAHM gave a ton of tasks to do besides care for their child and are distracted by all of that. Nannies only watch the children… less distracted.

But yes Nannies are more trained and helicopter less to allow kids to learn from
Play.

Nannies aren’t trained unless you’re paying at least 80k a year plus benefits. All I ever see is 20 year old foreigners or older women taken care of the kids. There are no Mary Poppins.

60% of mothers are NOT educated.

I don't know any new mothers who had "training"... most nannies have more experience than a new mother. So should new mothers not care for their own babies, do you want a training requirement for SAHM's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Gross. I'm way more turned on by an active dad than one who "provides" whatever that means.

[Anonymous]

I don’t care about a nanny’s training. I care if she’s present, healthy, rested, and emotionally regulated. And that’s asking a lot of someone who usually has a long commute, immigrant relatives to support, etc. it’s very expensive to find a great nanny AND pay her fairly.

I will be guiding my own children (male and female) to take as much mat leave as possible, even sabbaticals, etc. Do anything to get each child to age 1 without daycare if possible. And then do the enormous legwork to split an amazing nanny in a share. Unless I’m able bodied enough to care for them myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

It should not be said but can you concede that there might be an instance of it not being meant as an insult. The speaker may be reflecting on raising as spending time with while not intending to imply others are not raising their kids.
One person is equating it to spending time with, playing games, running errands more than if they didn't stay home.
One person is latching onto the insult and using it to twist the knife so you'll feel bad. They are being defensive or just mean.

No. Basic communication 101 and I find it harder to explain this to 20 somethings new to the workforce and those who just don't ever work outside in the real world ... you have a responsibility when you speak to know your audience, own the intention, own the impact.

That is just the basics of communication that is taught when you are an intern at a job.

If you want to communicate and say I just want to spend time with my children, then say that.

The statement actually says "if I don't stay home I won't be raising my children"... that is literally what the statement is saying.

Surely, you can find an equivalent statement you've made without meaning to imply that just because you like something it negates another way.

[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.

+1. So many out of touch people screaming about how they are their fed spouses are representative of every couple. That’s like someone in Silicon Valley saying that everyone should just sell their stock so thru can afford a down payment. Do people think there is a childcare crisis because no one else has figured out how to work flexible hours at home that magically don’t overlap with fed spouse’s hours and allow for children to only be in childcare for a few hours a day?

Most people who try something like this in corporate America get fired. I worked with someone during the pandemic who insisted for two years he would get proper childcare while continuing to tag team childcare with his spouse. He was fired, because it was clear after two years that he didn’t have any intention of getting childcare. I’m sure that he and his wife and his child all suffered needlessly under the stress of multitasking childcare and work.

[Anonymous]

Most sahm who aren’t wealthy (still the majority) would openly admit they wished job reentry was easier or that both parents had European style leave options.

The problem is that most wohm will not admit anything is wrong because doing so suggests their own child was in a less-than-ideal setup. They need to give an inch and admit that these choices we’re left with are bad for children and for most mothers!

There is no reason why a typical professional woman shouldn’t be able to take a year off (keeping current with occasional shifts if necessary) each kid and re-enter. None. Same for dads. But it will take bridging this enormous gap and working together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Gross. I'm way more turned on by an active dad than one who "provides" whatever that means.

DP
There's a key for every lock

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you honestly believe the only way to have equality with men is by working? You sound very narrow minded.

How do we achieve equality with men then? A PP above was saying that education was key to equality with men—so education is a way to have equal opportunities with men but working isn’t?

Women are not equal to men. Women cannot expect to have the same wages and same promotions if they don’t put in the same hours and work as men. This is almost impossible to do as the prime career development ages overlap with fertility and time of having young children. I’m not saying women cannot have careers or they should stay home. I think it was a huge disservice to girls in my generation to say we are equal.

Exactly. You are saying what the tradwives on this thread won’t admit. A woman’s place is her home, a way of life that tracks perfectly with the Christian nationalist agenda that is now on the rise.

I’m a SAHM and the furthest you can get from a tradwife, and not Christian or nationalist or conservative. I don’t think you’ll win many over by calling names like that.

I’m a SAHM and a feminist. There are many others like me.

So what are you doing to promote women's equality?

[Anonymous]

As the PP with young adult kids here, some of you are just way too smug. Life humbles most people. I’ve seen some stuff now, as has anyone who has a good group of friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I haven't seen discussed here is that sometimes there is just no need for both spouses to work. Sometimes there is a very high earner and it's like- why would you both work? How much materially do you really need in this world?

It's one thing if someone doesn't want to leave a career that is their passion, but why work outside the home of you weigh the pros and cons and feel your kids would benefit from a SAHM/D/P? It's just math to some of us.

Because many people would rather have two people working 40-hour weeks than one person working 80-hour weeks because they believe both parents should raise their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care about a nanny’s training. I care if she’s present, healthy, rested, and emotionally regulated. And that’s asking a lot of someone who usually has a long commute, immigrant relatives to support, etc. it’s very expensive to find a great nanny AND pay her fairly.

I will be guiding my own children (male and female) to take as much mat leave as possible, even sabbaticals, etc. Do anything to get each child to age 1 without daycare if possible. And then do the enormous legwork to split an amazing nanny in a share. Unless I’m able bodied enough to care for them myself.

Maybe you shouldnt meddle in your adult children’s lives so much - especially when you dont have a valid point. There really isnt a problem with a high quality daycare. And if it’s a low quality day care kids shouldn’t be there at any age