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: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 thread is largely about kids who are not yet school age.

Though also lots of preschools are not full time so are not meant to be full time childcare -- my child attended a half day preschool starting at age 2.5 which was great and helped her get ready for kindergarten. It was 3 hours a day.

And even once you have school age kids... my kid is off today and tomorrow and monday. He's been sick 4 days in the last month due to RSV and a bad cold going around his school. 10 weeks off in summer. Winter break (2 weeks) and spring break (1 week). Random PD days throughout the year. And the kicker -- school ends at 2:30pm.

Even once kids are in school SAHP see their kids a lot more than full time working parents. And I say that as a working parent. You can't deny facts.

This is why many people can't just get a job once their child is school age. It's cheaper and less stress to just have one parent on-call for all the p.i.t.a. kid related issues, especially if the other parent is a high earner. If we both worked, we have literally nobody to cover all the days when kids aren't in school and need care at home. I don't care who looks down on it. Half the families at my school have a SAHP because they have the same problem. Preschool is so few hours during the week we skipped it for all the children and just taught them to read and write and do math at home before they started K, also saved a lot of money there.

Before I had kids and was working, I didn't really feel I was doing anything all that important. So many of these jobs that people think are high status will be replaced by automation and AI. Might as well raise your kids and let the status obsessed folks do their thing.

And yet tons of working parents have figured out how to work and be able to care for their kids on sick days, etc. Sorry you couldn't, but that doesn't mean others can't.

Tons of parents have figured out how to care for their kids without needing two incomes. Sorry you couldn’t, but that doesn’t mean others can’t.

Some of us want our kids to be raised by both parents. Sorry all your husband can do is make money.

Please explain your logic.

If I work 40 hours per week and my husband works 40 hours per week, then we are both raising the kids, right? But according to you, if I work 0 hours per week and my husband works 40 hours per week, then he is no longer raising the kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

The fact that you're a SAHM doesn't make you well-suited for the job. Unless you got your masters in Mothering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Surely you can understand that what's being said here is not the same thing as "I like Mexican food," which doesn't mean that Chinese food is bad.

Saying you're staying home to raise your children is saying that parents who don't stay home don't raise their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I said the exact opposite of the bolded actually. Also just an FYI: I'm a working mom with a partner who works a flex schedule specifically so he can be a more active dad and have better work life balance generally so maybe check YOUR assumptions.

Calling people "unemployable" and then claiming you didn't mean it as an insult is rich. In fact most disabled people ARE employable it's just that they face incredible discrimination in the workforce.

If someone can perform the job of sahp then they are employable in my book because that job actually requires a lot of useful skills that would make you successful at a range of jobs. All I said was that some people might be *better* at being a sahp than doing whatever they might do for money. That doesn't mean they are "unemployable" it means that for a specific individual staying home with kids might be the perfect fit and going to a job while paying someone else to watch their kids and take care of their house is not the most efficient or appropriate use of everyone's time and money.

I didn’t call them disabled because most disabled people are employable.

Some people are unemployable… that is a fact.

You attached emotions to that fact.

No one knows what point you are trying to make because you have yet to clearly articulate it. No one is "emotional" -- they just think your comments are dumb.

If you have a point try actually making it instead of just saying inflammatory things and then getting condescending when people argue with them.

Well you should know that your H or yourself may end up unemployable so plan for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Surely you can understand that what's being said here is not the same thing as "I like Mexican food," which doesn't mean that Chinese food is bad.

Saying you're staying home to raise your children is saying that parents who don't stay home don't raise their children.

The fact that stay at home “by choice” (but I’m actually a Harvard educated doctor) parents have lower ability to recognize logical fallacies shouldnt surprise you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I said the exact opposite of the bolded actually. Also just an FYI: I'm a working mom with a partner who works a flex schedule specifically so he can be a more active dad and have better work life balance generally so maybe check YOUR assumptions.

Calling people "unemployable" and then claiming you didn't mean it as an insult is rich. In fact most disabled people ARE employable it's just that they face incredible discrimination in the workforce.

If someone can perform the job of sahp then they are employable in my book because that job actually requires a lot of useful skills that would make you successful at a range of jobs. All I said was that some people might be *better* at being a sahp than doing whatever they might do for money. That doesn't mean they are "unemployable" it means that for a specific individual staying home with kids might be the perfect fit and going to a job while paying someone else to watch their kids and take care of their house is not the most efficient or appropriate use of everyone's time and money.

I didn’t call them disabled because most disabled people are employable.

Some people are unemployable… that is a fact.

You attached emotions to that fact.

No one knows what point you are trying to make because you have yet to clearly articulate it. No one is "emotional" -- they just think your comments are dumb.

If you have a point try actually making it instead of just saying inflammatory things and then getting condescending when people argue with them.

Well you should know that your H or yourself may end up unemployable so plan for that.

10% of the population doesnt have a disability during the ages normally associated with parenting a 0-18 year old.

13% of the population overall is disabled and that includes people born with a disability and the elderly.

Look, its really not necessary to continue to prove over and over that your brain got a bit squishy after becoming a SAHM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a huge difference to the kids though to have a more relaxed morning and to be able to come home and rest after school instead of staying in aftercare.

I stopped working when I had my kids, went back part-time when they started school and now that they are in high school I am increasing my hours close to full-time. I have always worked from home and have an intellectually stimulating job.

I realize that I am very lucky and not everyone has the same options as I do. I have no judgment, only sympathy, for those who would prefer to stay home with kids but have to work due to financial reasons.

I will never regret staying home with the kids when they were young. I truly believe that having one lovung and engaged parent stay home is the very best for the children. Those were also some of the best years of my life and I am forever grateful that I had the opportunity.

My husband and I both work full-time and our kids have never done aftercare, they come home right after school because one or both of us is home. Good for you and your set up, but stop acting like either kids who do aftercare are going to end up in group homes or that many working parents don't have their kids in aftercare.

First of all: she’s not doing that.

Second: you don’t get to say this AFTER making sure to point out that YOUR kids have NEVER done aftercare. Hypocrite.

My point is that I have no dog in the aftercare fight because I've never used it so I'm not sensitive/offended.

Saying there's a HUGE difference in kids who do aftercare and those that don't is ridiculous at best and disgusting at worst. But go ahead and call people names when you don't understand. It really helps get your point across.

You’re rolling your eyes at me pointing out that you white knight aftercare after making sure to point out that your precious angels have never been in aftercare. Just admit that you’re a virtue signaling hypocrite. Or as the kids these days like to say, “take the L”.

(And my kids have actually been in aftercare and outcomes aside, it sucked and stressed them out. So like the poster whose post you completely misinterpreted, I went part time so my kids wouldn’t have to deal with that nonsense. But I speak from actual experience, not from my ivory tower.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 thread is largely about kids who are not yet school age.

Though also lots of preschools are not full time so are not meant to be full time childcare -- my child attended a half day preschool starting at age 2.5 which was great and helped her get ready for kindergarten. It was 3 hours a day.

And even once you have school age kids... my kid is off today and tomorrow and monday. He's been sick 4 days in the last month due to RSV and a bad cold going around his school. 10 weeks off in summer. Winter break (2 weeks) and spring break (1 week). Random PD days throughout the year. And the kicker -- school ends at 2:30pm.

Even once kids are in school SAHP see their kids a lot more than full time working parents. And I say that as a working parent. You can't deny facts.

This is why many people can't just get a job once their child is school age. It's cheaper and less stress to just have one parent on-call for all the p.i.t.a. kid related issues, especially if the other parent is a high earner. If we both worked, we have literally nobody to cover all the days when kids aren't in school and need care at home. I don't care who looks down on it. Half the families at my school have a SAHP because they have the same problem. Preschool is so few hours during the week we skipped it for all the children and just taught them to read and write and do math at home before they started K, also saved a lot of money there.

Before I had kids and was working, I didn't really feel I was doing anything all that important. So many of these jobs that people think are high status will be replaced by automation and AI. Might as well raise your kids and let the status obsessed folks do their thing.

And yet tons of working parents have figured out how to work and be able to care for their kids on sick days, etc. Sorry you couldn't, but that doesn't mean others can't.

Tons of parents have figured out how to care for their kids without needing two incomes. Sorry you couldn’t, but that doesn’t mean others can’t.

Some of us want our kids to be raised by both parents. Sorry all your husband can do is make money.

Please explain your logic.

If I work 40 hours per week and my husband works 40 hours per week, then we are both raising the kids, right? But according to you, if I work 0 hours per week and my husband works 40 hours per week, then he is no longer raising the kids?

Go to the relationship forum and talk to the women there whose h’s work too much, work 60 hours a week, get home after bedtime, work weekends, travel, are gone 10-12 hours a day are never home, never help, don’t know the teachers names, etc.

They can explain it to you.

Not according to me, according to OP anybody who works isn’t raising their kids. My H and I stagger our schedule and we both are raising our children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you think the majority of people posting on this board are "in touch" with middle America? Give me a break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 thread is largely about kids who are not yet school age.

Though also lots of preschools are not full time so are not meant to be full time childcare -- my child attended a half day preschool starting at age 2.5 which was great and helped her get ready for kindergarten. It was 3 hours a day.

And even once you have school age kids... my kid is off today and tomorrow and monday. He's been sick 4 days in the last month due to RSV and a bad cold going around his school. 10 weeks off in summer. Winter break (2 weeks) and spring break (1 week). Random PD days throughout the year. And the kicker -- school ends at 2:30pm.

Even once kids are in school SAHP see their kids a lot more than full time working parents. And I say that as a working parent. You can't deny facts.

This is why many people can't just get a job once their child is school age. It's cheaper and less stress to just have one parent on-call for all the p.i.t.a. kid related issues, especially if the other parent is a high earner. If we both worked, we have literally nobody to cover all the days when kids aren't in school and need care at home. I don't care who looks down on it. Half the families at my school have a SAHP because they have the same problem. Preschool is so few hours during the week we skipped it for all the children and just taught them to read and write and do math at home before they started K, also saved a lot of money there.

Before I had kids and was working, I didn't really feel I was doing anything all that important. So many of these jobs that people think are high status will be replaced by automation and AI. Might as well raise your kids and let the status obsessed folks do their thing.

And yet tons of working parents have figured out how to work and be able to care for their kids on sick days, etc. Sorry you couldn't, but that doesn't mean others can't.

Tons of parents have figured out how to care for their kids without needing two incomes. Sorry you couldn’t, but that doesn’t mean others can’t.

Some of us want our kids to be raised by both parents. Sorry all your husband can do is make money.

Please explain your logic.

If I work 40 hours per week and my husband works 40 hours per week, then we are both raising the kids, right? But according to you, if I work 0 hours per week and my husband works 40 hours per week, then he is no longer raising the kids?

Go to the relationship forum and talk to the women there whose h’s work too much, work 60 hours a week, get home after bedtime, work weekends, travel, are gone 10-12 hours a day are never home, never help, don’t know the teachers names, etc.

They can explain it to you.

Not according to me, according to OP anybody who works isn’t raising their kids. My H and I stagger our schedule and we both are raising our children

So… you’ve got nothing. Color me shocked.

(Also, are all of the women complaining about workaholic husbands SAHMs? In THIS area? You’re conflating two separate issues.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I said the exact opposite of the bolded actually. Also just an FYI: I'm a working mom with a partner who works a flex schedule specifically so he can be a more active dad and have better work life balance generally so maybe check YOUR assumptions.

Calling people "unemployable" and then claiming you didn't mean it as an insult is rich. In fact most disabled people ARE employable it's just that they face incredible discrimination in the workforce.

If someone can perform the job of sahp then they are employable in my book because that job actually requires a lot of useful skills that would make you successful at a range of jobs. All I said was that some people might be *better* at being a sahp than doing whatever they might do for money. That doesn't mean they are "unemployable" it means that for a specific individual staying home with kids might be the perfect fit and going to a job while paying someone else to watch their kids and take care of their house is not the most efficient or appropriate use of everyone's time and money.

I didn’t call them disabled because most disabled people are employable.

Some people are unemployable… that is a fact.

You attached emotions to that fact.

No one knows what point you are trying to make because you have yet to clearly articulate it. No one is "emotional" -- they just think your comments are dumb.

If you have a point try actually making it instead of just saying inflammatory things and then getting condescending when people argue with them.

Well you should know that your H or yourself may end up unemployable so plan for that.

10% of the population doesnt have a disability during the ages normally associated with parenting a 0-18 year old.

13% of the population overall is disabled and that includes people born with a disability and the elderly.

Look, its really not necessary to continue to prove over and over that your brain got a bit squishy after becoming a SAHM.

You are daft.

8% have parents who are dead.

Most don’t just die one day they are sick/disabled/die
10% disabled is low that doesn’t even count drug addicted and alcoholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 thread is largely about kids who are not yet school age.

Though also lots of preschools are not full time so are not meant to be full time childcare -- my child attended a half day preschool starting at age 2.5 which was great and helped her get ready for kindergarten. It was 3 hours a day.

And even once you have school age kids... my kid is off today and tomorrow and monday. He's been sick 4 days in the last month due to RSV and a bad cold going around his school. 10 weeks off in summer. Winter break (2 weeks) and spring break (1 week). Random PD days throughout the year. And the kicker -- school ends at 2:30pm.

Even once kids are in school SAHP see their kids a lot more than full time working parents. And I say that as a working parent. You can't deny facts.

This is why many people can't just get a job once their child is school age. It's cheaper and less stress to just have one parent on-call for all the p.i.t.a. kid related issues, especially if the other parent is a high earner. If we both worked, we have literally nobody to cover all the days when kids aren't in school and need care at home. I don't care who looks down on it. Half the families at my school have a SAHP because they have the same problem. Preschool is so few hours during the week we skipped it for all the children and just taught them to read and write and do math at home before they started K, also saved a lot of money there.

Before I had kids and was working, I didn't really feel I was doing anything all that important. So many of these jobs that people think are high status will be replaced by automation and AI. Might as well raise your kids and let the status obsessed folks do their thing.

And yet tons of working parents have figured out how to work and be able to care for their kids on sick days, etc. Sorry you couldn't, but that doesn't mean others can't.

Tons of parents have figured out how to care for their kids without needing two incomes. Sorry you couldn’t, but that doesn’t mean others can’t.

Some of us want our kids to be raised by both parents. Sorry all your husband can do is make money.

Please explain your logic.

If I work 40 hours per week and my husband works 40 hours per week, then we are both raising the kids, right? But according to you, if I work 0 hours per week and my husband works 40 hours per week, then he is no longer raising the kids?

Go to the relationship forum and talk to the women there whose h’s work too much, work 60 hours a week, get home after bedtime, work weekends, travel, are gone 10-12 hours a day are never home, never help, don’t know the teachers names, etc.

They can explain it to you.

Not according to me, according to OP anybody who works isn’t raising their kids. My H and I stagger our schedule and we both are raising our children

So… you’ve got nothing. Color me shocked.

(Also, are all of the women complaining about workaholic husbands SAHMs? In THIS area? You’re conflating two separate issues.)

So I explained it and you still don’t get it.

Not shocked.

I still think the best thing for kids is to have a dad who is heavily involved in their care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Surely you can understand that what's being said here is not the same thing as "I like Mexican food," which doesn't mean that Chinese food is bad.

Saying you're staying home to raise your children is saying that parents who don't stay home don't raise their children.

The fact that stay at home “by choice” (but I’m actually a Harvard educated doctor) parents have lower ability to recognize logical fallacies shouldnt surprise you.

Fair enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a huge difference to the kids though to have a more relaxed morning and to be able to come home and rest after school instead of staying in aftercare.

I stopped working when I had my kids, went back part-time when they started school and now that they are in high school I am increasing my hours close to full-time. I have always worked from home and have an intellectually stimulating job.

I realize that I am very lucky and not everyone has the same options as I do. I have no judgment, only sympathy, for those who would prefer to stay home with kids but have to work due to financial reasons.

I will never regret staying home with the kids when they were young. I truly believe that having one lovung and engaged parent stay home is the very best for the children. Those were also some of the best years of my life and I am forever grateful that I had the opportunity.

My husband and I both work full-time and our kids have never done aftercare, they come home right after school because one or both of us is home. Good for you and your set up, but stop acting like either kids who do aftercare are going to end up in group homes or that many working parents don't have their kids in aftercare.

First of all: she’s not doing that.

Second: you don’t get to say this AFTER making sure to point out that YOUR kids have NEVER done aftercare. Hypocrite.

My point is that I have no dog in the aftercare fight because I've never used it so I'm not sensitive/offended.

Saying there's a HUGE difference in kids who do aftercare and those that don't is ridiculous at best and disgusting at worst. But go ahead and call people names when you don't understand. It really helps get your point across.

You’re rolling your eyes at me pointing out that you white knight aftercare after making sure to point out that your precious angels have never been in aftercare. Just admit that you’re a virtue signaling hypocrite. Or as the kids these days like to say, “take the L”.

(And my kids have actually been in aftercare and outcomes aside, it sucked and stressed them out. So like the poster whose post you completely misinterpreted, I went part time so my kids wouldn’t have to deal with that nonsense. But I speak from actual experience, not from my ivory tower.)

It is truly impossible to have a conversation with people like you.

Sorry your kids couldn't hack it in aftercare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I said the exact opposite of the bolded actually. Also just an FYI: I'm a working mom with a partner who works a flex schedule specifically so he can be a more active dad and have better work life balance generally so maybe check YOUR assumptions.

Calling people "unemployable" and then claiming you didn't mean it as an insult is rich. In fact most disabled people ARE employable it's just that they face incredible discrimination in the workforce.

If someone can perform the job of sahp then they are employable in my book because that job actually requires a lot of useful skills that would make you successful at a range of jobs. All I said was that some people might be *better* at being a sahp than doing whatever they might do for money. That doesn't mean they are "unemployable" it means that for a specific individual staying home with kids might be the perfect fit and going to a job while paying someone else to watch their kids and take care of their house is not the most efficient or appropriate use of everyone's time and money.

I didn’t call them disabled because most disabled people are employable.

Some people are unemployable… that is a fact.

You attached emotions to that fact.

No one knows what point you are trying to make because you have yet to clearly articulate it. No one is "emotional" -- they just think your comments are dumb.

If you have a point try actually making it instead of just saying inflammatory things and then getting condescending when people argue with them.

Well you should know that your H or yourself may end up unemployable so plan for that.

10% of the population doesnt have a disability during the ages normally associated with parenting a 0-18 year old.

13% of the population overall is disabled and that includes people born with a disability and the elderly.

Look, its really not necessary to continue to prove over and over that your brain got a bit squishy after becoming a SAHM.

You are daft.

8% have parents who are dead.

Most don’t just die one day they are sick/disabled/die
10% disabled is low that doesn’t even count drug addicted and alcoholics.

I’m the daft one? Yet you said anyone had a 10% chance of becoming disabled during parenthood. It’s just not fücking true.

And, 8% of kids don’t have a parent who have died. 8% of kids lose a parent OR sibling before they’re 18.