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:It’s not rocket science. What would a child want if he or she could choose? It doesn’t mean the alternative is horrible. But no child would choose separation at 3 months or even 12 months. The problem is kids have no lobby, no voice.

My child would choose to eat ice cream for every meal. So I should do that too?

Poor analogy. Ice cream every meal is unhealthy. Having a loving, caring SAHM is not.

It’s not a poor analogy at all. Who cares what a kid would advocate for if they had a voice? And if you think it’s a bad analogy, you’re also saying it doesn’t matter what the kid wants (the kid definitely wants ice cream). The parent is making the decision in the end… you said kids have no voice and no one to lobby “for them” as if it mattered?

And, please, show me convincing outcomes based evidence that a “loving, caring, SAHM” is superior to not staying at home.

I'm the PP above this, but not the PP above that. I didn't say that a loving caring SAHM is superior to not staying home. But if a woman desires it, and a child desires it, and its possible for the family, I don't know why any family would not choose it if they could. I'm very thankful that it worked out for us, and for that my husband will have my eternal gratitude.

How the F does a 6 month old desire a SAHP vs a working parent? Seriously. How deluded are you that you think there’s some complex cost/benefit analysis being done by a newborn?

I guess yours never cried when you left?

DP but no. We had an amazing nanny whom our kids loved. They never cried when we left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who are secure in their choices don't need to argue with people defending those choices.

This goes for both sides.

But this thread is about a statement that clearly puts down the working parents side.

I guess but does it put them down enough to get this worked up over it if you are otherwise totally happy and secure in your life choices?

If someone says to me "I prefer to provide my own medical care because I don't trust doctors" I guess I might see that as a judgment of me for going to the doctor. But since I'm extremely happy with my choice to go to doctors and doing my own medical care sounds like a bad idea for me personally I wouldn't be offended by this.

I think if people are getting this worked up over this comment it is at least partially because they worry it might be true.

I never sent my kids to daycare but I still think a lot of the posters on here are rude. The doctor example is inane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not rocket science. What would a child want if he or she could choose? It doesn’t mean the alternative is horrible. But no child would choose separation at 3 months or even 12 months. The problem is kids have no lobby, no voice.

My child would choose to eat ice cream for every meal. So I should do that too?

Poor analogy. Ice cream every meal is unhealthy. Having a loving, caring SAHM is not.

It’s not a poor analogy at all. Who cares what a kid would advocate for if they had a voice? And if you think it’s a bad analogy, you’re also saying it doesn’t matter what the kid wants (the kid definitely wants ice cream). The parent is making the decision in the end… you said kids have no voice and no one to lobby “for them” as if it mattered?

And, please, show me convincing outcomes based evidence that a “loving, caring, SAHM” is superior to not staying at home.

I'm the PP above this, but not the PP above that. I didn't say that a loving caring SAHM is superior to not staying home. But if a woman desires it, and a child desires it, and its possible for the family, I don't know why any family would not choose it if they could. I'm very thankful that it worked out for us, and for that my husband will have my eternal gratitude.

How the F does a 6 month old desire a SAHP vs a working parent? Seriously. How deluded are you that you think there’s some complex cost/benefit analysis being done by a newborn?

I'm a working parent and this is a weird comment to me. My kid has definitely always preferred me or my DH over daycare. It was one of the reasons I decided to switch to a nanny share -- DD was able to develop a stronger bond with the nanny than she could with the daycare workers and that made her clearly happier to be there than in the daycare.

Got it. Your kid “preferred” you or your husband to a third party and to remedy this, you enlisted a… third party? Maybe the problem was the daycare you went to?

No. I'm saying it was self-evident to me that at that age kids need to bond fairly closely with their caregivers and that a daycare environment made this harder because it was not the same person all day. This was a daycare I'd happily send an older child too but it just seemed obvious to my DH and I that drop off would go better if our DD was going to someone who they had a more secure bond with than one of 4 daycare workers who worked with infants in a daycare. When we switched to a nanny DD fairly quickly came to recognize our great nanny as a loving and caring caregiver and was totally comfortable going to her in the morning.

Thus it's fairly intuitive to me that she also would have preferred to stay with DH or I rather than got the daycare. While a nanny (or grandparent or au pair) can become like a parent stand in I don't think a daycare worker can (maybe in a very small daycare with only a few kids and just a couple workers?).

It just seems weird to say an infant can't express a preference in caregiver or that if they did it doesn't matter. If your infant was crying the entire time they were at daycare would you be like "whatever I've decided this is what is best for you" or would you take that to mean that something about the situation was not meeting your child's needs and make a different choice? I don't know a single working parent who wouldn't change care providers in that situation.

The privilege with which you speak is shocking. Do you see that?

[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:

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.

You didn’t explain anything. You “answered” my question about a 40 hour per week job by vaguely pointing “over there” where some guys work 60 hours! Not relevant.

My husband works the *exact same* 40 hour per week job now that he did before I quit. He is actually able to be MORE involved with the kids because I get all those pesky chores done during the week so he can just work, then come home and be 100% on as Dad.

And let me guess, he earns seven figures?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

???

Is this a flex? Like my kids wouldn’t survive the Hunger Games but your kids have been out there training with their crossbows since they were babies? Okay, I concede. You win.

But yeah, my kids couldn’t hack it in aftercare (whatever the he!! that’s even supposed to mean) so I… took them out of aftercare.

If kids are thriving in aftercare then that’s wonderful, but not all aftercare is the same and not all kids are the same. I would think that’s obvious.

Sigh. I said my kids never went to aftercare. Your statement above said there is a huge difference for kids who go to aftercare and those who don’t. You have no support for your statement other than your sample size of one. Your kids didn’t like aftercare. You’re lucky you had a choice not to send them. That doesn’t make aftercare bad. If you want to speaking about your experiences, then do so. But stop extrapolating them to make bigger statements about others. It just makes you sound stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, I was significantly more open to SAHP for my next child until reading this thread. The train of thought that leads one to believe that it’s an absolute truth that SAHP is superior to daycare is so twisted and unfounded that it’s been a real awakening to me that it’s not a perspective I subscribe to at all. Imagine thinking the only way to do something well, is to be the only one doing it. I alone can fix it!! The arrogance, self-centered ness, and unfounded confidence for people who have experience doing this, 0, 1, or at best 2 times in their lives? They think this experience puts them as better than anything else? Wow!!

It’s funny because we moved to an area that a lot of posters on here love to put down. But we have excellent early childhood education from 0-12 years old. Apparently, all that big city living that you value so much comes with some drawbacks when it comes to finding quality child care?

There are so many ways to do things correctly! Just because you picked something that works for you, doesn’t make it “best” or the “only”way or even better. It’s just the way you picked.

Unless you’re going to be able to produce a large population study showing kids who were the product of a SAHM have lower incidence of mental health, higher performers athletically, academically, and professionally, lower incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, and lower rates of committing crimes than kids who didn’t, I’m not interested in your theories.

It’s just a choice. Stop being so damned insecure about it.

Lady, if you don’t want to stay home with your next kid then don’t. If you do want to stay home, the stay home.

Stop expecting all the other women of the world to do your thinking for you. Talk about insecure, JFC.

*whoooooosh*

Whoosh nothing. Dummy said she was open to staying home before she read this thread, but has now decided every single SAHM on the planet is some combination of stupid/AH so now she’s maybe NOT going to stay home (probably stomped her foot, too) because she doesn’t want to be associated with the arrogant train of thought that might lead a woman to think she is the most qualified person to take care of the baby she grew in her own body.

Basically, this lady’s post was an incoherent, rambling, scattershot mess. I don’t know how to approximate that sound, but it’s not something on target going over my head…

She also thinks a 3 month old needs to be in an education center and that is better for their development than being at home with a loving caregiver they can develop a secure attachment to, and fewer people while their immune system develops. This is someone who knows nothing about child development. There are a few of those on this thread.

Actually I think it’s better for kids to be attached to more than 1 adult.

Their dad … their mom … and they can spend a few hours away from them both without disrupting that attachment which helps them NOT have attachment anxiety.

It’s better than 1 caregiver.

Having an infant crying in a crib in daycare is not what I would call ideal.

We had mom, dad, grandparents and a nanny.

[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:

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.

You didn’t explain anything. You “answered” my question about a 40 hour per week job by vaguely pointing “over there” where some guys work 60 hours! Not relevant.

My husband works the *exact same* 40 hour per week job now that he did before I quit. He is actually able to be MORE involved with the kids because I get all those pesky chores done during the week so he can just work, then come home and be 100% on as Dad.

And let me guess, he earns seven figures?

Nope! Doesn’t even earn 150. Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, I was significantly more open to SAHP for my next child until reading this thread. The train of thought that leads one to believe that it’s an absolute truth that SAHP is superior to daycare is so twisted and unfounded that it’s been a real awakening to me that it’s not a perspective I subscribe to at all. Imagine thinking the only way to do something well, is to be the only one doing it. I alone can fix it!! The arrogance, self-centered ness, and unfounded confidence for people who have experience doing this, 0, 1, or at best 2 times in their lives? They think this experience puts them as better than anything else? Wow!!

It’s funny because we moved to an area that a lot of posters on here love to put down. But we have excellent early childhood education from 0-12 years old. Apparently, all that big city living that you value so much comes with some drawbacks when it comes to finding quality child care?

There are so many ways to do things correctly! Just because you picked something that works for you, doesn’t make it “best” or the “only”way or even better. It’s just the way you picked.

Unless you’re going to be able to produce a large population study showing kids who were the product of a SAHM have lower incidence of mental health, higher performers athletically, academically, and professionally, lower incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, and lower rates of committing crimes than kids who didn’t, I’m not interested in your theories.

It’s just a choice. Stop being so damned insecure about it.

Lady, if you don’t want to stay home with your next kid then don’t. If you do want to stay home, the stay home.

Stop expecting all the other women of the world to do your thinking for you. Talk about insecure, JFC.

*whoooooosh*

Whoosh nothing. Dummy said she was open to staying home before she read this thread, but has now decided every single SAHM on the planet is some combination of stupid/AH so now she’s maybe NOT going to stay home (probably stomped her foot, too) because she doesn’t want to be associated with the arrogant train of thought that might lead a woman to think she is the most qualified person to take care of the baby she grew in her own body.

Basically, this lady’s post was an incoherent, rambling, scattershot mess. I don’t know how to approximate that sound, but it’s not something on target going over my head…

She also thinks a 3 month old needs to be in an education center and that is better for their development than being at home with a loving caregiver they can develop a secure attachment to, and fewer people while their immune system develops. This is someone who knows nothing about child development. There are a few of those on this thread.

Actually I think it’s better for kids to be attached to more than 1 adult.

Their dad … their mom … and they can spend a few hours away from them both without disrupting that attachment which helps them NOT have attachment anxiety.

It’s better than 1 caregiver.

Having an infant crying in a crib in daycare is not what I would call ideal.

We had mom, dad, grandparents and a nanny.

Good new a daycare or a nanny is literally there just to care for the child so there is not "crying in the crib" for a period of time.

But mom is showing, cleaning, caring for other children, etc and when baby cries they need to let the baby cry because they are busy.

Also, mom's CIO and daycare doesn't so your imaginary scenario where babies are crying at day care or with their nanny is just that fantasy and the idea grandma is there every time you shower is just fantasy.

[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:

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.

You didn’t explain anything. You “answered” my question about a 40 hour per week job by vaguely pointing “over there” where some guys work 60 hours! Not relevant.

My husband works the *exact same* 40 hour per week job now that he did before I quit. He is actually able to be MORE involved with the kids because I get all those pesky chores done during the week so he can just work, then come home and be 100% on as Dad.

And let me guess, he earns seven figures?

Nope! Doesn’t even earn 150. Thanks for playing.

That's awesome and he's there in the morning helping with breakfast and he is home when the kids get home from school and helping with snack time and home work and bedtime routine. That's amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

???

Is this a flex? Like my kids wouldn’t survive the Hunger Games but your kids have been out there training with their crossbows since they were babies? Okay, I concede. You win.

But yeah, my kids couldn’t hack it in aftercare (whatever the he!! that’s even supposed to mean) so I… took them out of aftercare.

If kids are thriving in aftercare then that’s wonderful, but not all aftercare is the same and not all kids are the same. I would think that’s obvious.

Sigh. I said my kids never went to aftercare. Your statement above said there is a huge difference for kids who go to aftercare and those who don’t. You have no support for your statement other than your sample size of one. Your kids didn’t like aftercare. You’re lucky you had a choice not to send them. That doesn’t make aftercare bad. If you want to speaking about your experiences, then do so. But stop extrapolating them to make bigger statements about others. It just makes you sound stupid.

Sigh.

First that wasn’t my statement (which is why I responded to your post by saying “she’s not doing that” rather than “I’m not doing that”)

Second, this was the PP’s statement:

“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.”

She is OBVIOUSLY talking about a huge difference to the kids in terms of their enjoyment of their lives RIGHT NOW. Wouldn’t YOU prefer a more relaxed morning? Wouldn’t YOU prefer to sleep in a bit before heading to your job? Wouldn’t YOU prefer to come home and relax after a long day at work?

She said NOTHING about aftercare leading to “group homes” or even unfavorable or worse outcomes for kids overall. YOU did that. Because you lack reading comprehension.

[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:

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.

You didn’t explain anything. You “answered” my question about a 40 hour per week job by vaguely pointing “over there” where some guys work 60 hours! Not relevant.

My husband works the *exact same* 40 hour per week job now that he did before I quit. He is actually able to be MORE involved with the kids because I get all those pesky chores done during the week so he can just work, then come home and be 100% on as Dad.

And let me guess, he earns seven figures?

Nope! Doesn’t even earn 150. Thanks for playing.

That's awesome and he's there in the morning helping with breakfast and he is home when the kids get home from school and helping with snack time and home work and bedtime routine. That's amazing.

Yes he helps with breakfast, homework, and bedtime. No he isn’t there when they get home from school not helping out at snack time. Because he’s at work. Just like he was when I was ALSO at work during those times.

I honestly don’t care who works and who doesn’t. I’m sure you’re great at your job, your marriage is wonderful, and your children are thriving. Why would I assume otherwise?

Yet you seem desperate to twist my situation into somehow being bad. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, I was significantly more open to SAHP for my next child until reading this thread. The train of thought that leads one to believe that it’s an absolute truth that SAHP is superior to daycare is so twisted and unfounded that it’s been a real awakening to me that it’s not a perspective I subscribe to at all. Imagine thinking the only way to do something well, is to be the only one doing it. I alone can fix it!! The arrogance, self-centered ness, and unfounded confidence for people who have experience doing this, 0, 1, or at best 2 times in their lives? They think this experience puts them as better than anything else? Wow!!

It’s funny because we moved to an area that a lot of posters on here love to put down. But we have excellent early childhood education from 0-12 years old. Apparently, all that big city living that you value so much comes with some drawbacks when it comes to finding quality child care?

There are so many ways to do things correctly! Just because you picked something that works for you, doesn’t make it “best” or the “only”way or even better. It’s just the way you picked.

Unless you’re going to be able to produce a large population study showing kids who were the product of a SAHM have lower incidence of mental health, higher performers athletically, academically, and professionally, lower incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, and lower rates of committing crimes than kids who didn’t, I’m not interested in your theories.

It’s just a choice. Stop being so damned insecure about it.

Lady, if you don’t want to stay home with your next kid then don’t. If you do want to stay home, the stay home.

Stop expecting all the other women of the world to do your thinking for you. Talk about insecure, JFC.

*whoooooosh*

Whoosh nothing. Dummy said she was open to staying home before she read this thread, but has now decided every single SAHM on the planet is some combination of stupid/AH so now she’s maybe NOT going to stay home (probably stomped her foot, too) because she doesn’t want to be associated with the arrogant train of thought that might lead a woman to think she is the most qualified person to take care of the baby she grew in her own body.

Basically, this lady’s post was an incoherent, rambling, scattershot mess. I don’t know how to approximate that sound, but it’s not something on target going over my head…

She also thinks a 3 month old needs to be in an education center and that is better for their development than being at home with a loving caregiver they can develop a secure attachment to, and fewer people while their immune system develops. This is someone who knows nothing about child development. There are a few of those on this thread.

Actually I think it’s better for kids to be attached to more than 1 adult.

Their dad … their mom … and they can spend a few hours away from them both without disrupting that attachment which helps them NOT have attachment anxiety.

It’s better than 1 caregiver.

Having an infant crying in a crib in daycare is not what I would call ideal.

We had mom, dad, grandparents and a nanny.

Good new a daycare or a nanny is literally there just to care for the child so there is not "crying in the crib" for a period of time.

But mom is showing, cleaning, caring for other children, etc and when baby cries they need to let the baby cry because they are busy.

Also, mom's CIO and daycare doesn't so your imaginary scenario where babies are crying at day care or with their nanny is just that fantasy and the idea grandma is there every time you shower is just fantasy.

I don’t believe in CIO. I coslept with all 3 of my kids. My kids are all spoiled with cuddling as babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, I was significantly more open to SAHP for my next child until reading this thread. The train of thought that leads one to believe that it’s an absolute truth that SAHP is superior to daycare is so twisted and unfounded that it’s been a real awakening to me that it’s not a perspective I subscribe to at all. Imagine thinking the only way to do something well, is to be the only one doing it. I alone can fix it!! The arrogance, self-centered ness, and unfounded confidence for people who have experience doing this, 0, 1, or at best 2 times in their lives? They think this experience puts them as better than anything else? Wow!!

It’s funny because we moved to an area that a lot of posters on here love to put down. But we have excellent early childhood education from 0-12 years old. Apparently, all that big city living that you value so much comes with some drawbacks when it comes to finding quality child care?

There are so many ways to do things correctly! Just because you picked something that works for you, doesn’t make it “best” or the “only”way or even better. It’s just the way you picked.

Unless you’re going to be able to produce a large population study showing kids who were the product of a SAHM have lower incidence of mental health, higher performers athletically, academically, and professionally, lower incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, and lower rates of committing crimes than kids who didn’t, I’m not interested in your theories.

It’s just a choice. Stop being so damned insecure about it.

Lady, if you don’t want to stay home with your next kid then don’t. If you do want to stay home, the stay home.

Stop expecting all the other women of the world to do your thinking for you. Talk about insecure, JFC.

*whoooooosh*

Whoosh nothing. Dummy said she was open to staying home before she read this thread, but has now decided every single SAHM on the planet is some combination of stupid/AH so now she’s maybe NOT going to stay home (probably stomped her foot, too) because she doesn’t want to be associated with the arrogant train of thought that might lead a woman to think she is the most qualified person to take care of the baby she grew in her own body.

Basically, this lady’s post was an incoherent, rambling, scattershot mess. I don’t know how to approximate that sound, but it’s not something on target going over my head…

She also thinks a 3 month old needs to be in an education center and that is better for their development than being at home with a loving caregiver they can develop a secure attachment to, and fewer people while their immune system develops. This is someone who knows nothing about child development. There are a few of those on this thread.

Actually I think it’s better for kids to be attached to more than 1 adult.

Their dad … their mom … and they can spend a few hours away from them both without disrupting that attachment which helps them NOT have attachment anxiety.

It’s better than 1 caregiver.

Having an infant crying in a crib in daycare is not what I would call ideal.

We had mom, dad, grandparents and a nanny.

Good new a daycare or a nanny is literally there just to care for the child so there is not "crying in the crib" for a period of time.

But mom is showing, cleaning, caring for other children, etc and when baby cries they need to let the baby cry because they are busy.

Also, mom's CIO and daycare doesn't so your imaginary scenario where babies are crying at day care or with their nanny is just that fantasy and the idea grandma is there every time you shower is just fantasy.

I don’t believe in CIO. I coslept with all 3 of my kids. My kids are all spoiled with cuddling as babies.

Great so they never cried once as a child when you were busy... way to go super mom. :shock:

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [b]He's been sick 4 days in the last month[/b] due to RSV and a bad cold going around his school. [b]10 weeks off in summer. Winter break (2 weeks) and spring break (1 week)[/b]. Random PD days throughout the year. And the kicker -- [b]school ends at 2:30pm[/b].

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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?[/quote]

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
[/quote]

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.)[/quote]

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.[/quote]

You didn’t explain anything. You “answered” my question about a 40 hour per week job by vaguely pointing “over there” where some guys work 60 hours! Not relevant.

My husband works the *exact same* 40 hour per week job now that he did before I quit. He is actually able to be MORE involved with the kids because I get all those pesky chores done during the week so he can just work, then come home and be 100% on as Dad.[/quote]

And let me guess, he earns seven figures?[/quote]

Nope! Doesn’t even earn 150. Thanks for playing.[/quote]

That's awesome and he's there in the morning helping with breakfast and he is home when the kids get home from school and helping with snack time and home work and bedtime routine. That's amazing.[/quote]

Yes he helps with breakfast, homework, and bedtime. No he isn’t there when they get home from school not helping out at snack time. Because he’s at work. Just like he was when I was ALSO at work during those times.

I honestly don’t care who works and who doesn’t. I’m sure you’re great at your job, your marriage is wonderful, and your children are thriving. Why would I assume otherwise?

Yet you seem desperate to twist my situation into somehow being bad. Why is that?[/quote]

I'm confused.

You: I don't work so I can raise my kids
Me: So your husband doesn't raise your kids
You: Of course he does, I do all the chores so he can spend every moment with his kids
Me: So you spend lots of your day doing chores not with your kids
You: No ... hmmm
Me: So your H is gone 40 hours a week but he raises his kids but moms who work don't unless they are your husband.
You: Why are you twisting my words.

It's not me twisting your words it's you twisting logic.

My H is with my infant from wake up to 9am...
nanny at 9-11 (nap time)
Nanny 11-1 (2 hours)
nanny 1-3 (nap time)
Me home at 3:30

But you are raising your kids and I'm not because my nanny is with my infant for 2 waking hours?

It's great that you want to cook and clean and run errands and fit some "raising of your children" inbetween the cracks, that's great.

But your logic that you had to fully quit a job to do that is illogical.
If you said, I just didn't want to work i'd rather be in my home while my kids are napping, i'd rather not have my H ve involved so much that he cooks meals and feeds the baby and does doctors appointment because I want to do that... great... that's all good, I support your decision.

But my H wants to do volunteering at school and feeding the baby and doctors appointment and sick days and all the stuff.

But your logic that you and your H is are fully raising your infant/children and I'm not because my H is fully engaged in morning routine and a nanny cares for the infant 2 hours of waking time ... it's just not logical.

[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:

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.

You didn’t explain anything. You “answered” my question about a 40 hour per week job by vaguely pointing “over there” where some guys work 60 hours! Not relevant.

My husband works the *exact same* 40 hour per week job now that he did before I quit. He is actually able to be MORE involved with the kids because I get all those pesky chores done during the week so he can just work, then come home and be 100% on as Dad.

And let me guess, he earns seven figures?

Nope! Doesn’t even earn 150. Thanks for playing.

That's awesome and he's there in the morning helping with breakfast and he is home when the kids get home from school and helping with snack time and home work and bedtime routine. That's amazing.

Yes he helps with breakfast, homework, and bedtime. No he isn’t there when they get home from school not helping out at snack time. Because he’s at work. Just like he was when I was ALSO at work during those times.

I honestly don’t care who works and who doesn’t. I’m sure you’re great at your job, your marriage is wonderful, and your children are thriving. Why would I assume otherwise?

Yet you seem desperate to twist my situation into somehow being bad. Why is that?

Nobody said it was bad, they just said it's not better and you are no more rasing your kids than other are.

I'm confused.

You: I don't work so I can raise my kids
Me: So your husband doesn't raise your kids
You: Of course he does, I do all the chores so he can spend every moment with his kids
Me: So you spend lots of your day doing chores not with your kids
You: No ... hmmm
Me: So your H is gone 40 hours a week but he raises his kids but moms who work don't unless they are your husband.
You: Why are you twisting my words.

It's not me twisting your words it's you having twisted logic.

My H is with my infant from wake up to 9am...
nanny at 9-11 (nap time)
Nanny 11-1 (2 hours)
nanny 1-3 (nap time)
Me home at 3:30

But you are raising your kids and I'm not because my nanny is with my infant for 2 waking hours?

It's great that you want to cook and clean and run errands and fit some "raising of your children" inbetween the cracks, that's great.

But your logic that you had to fully quit a job to do that is illogical.
If you said, I just didn't want to work i'd rather be in my home while my kids are napping, i'd rather not have my H ve involved so much that he cooks meals and feeds the baby and does doctors appointment because I want to do that... great... that's all good, I support your decision.

But my H wants to do volunteering at school and feeding the baby and doctors appointment and sick days and all the stuff.

But your logic that you and your H is are fully raising your infant/children and I'm not because my H is fully engaged in morning routine and a nanny cares for the infant 2 hours of waking time ... it's just not logical.