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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oof. Well, glad your set up works for you guys. Many people don't want to live on under $150K in the DC area.

[Anonymous]

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 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.

I’m the pp. My babies weren’t big criers. I don’t know if it was because I was lucky or we held them a lot. I worked when I had my first but my mom watched my baby. He was constantly held and loved his swing and stroller. He was a really good baby. When I had my second, older child went to preschool and I had a FT nanny and I worked part time. My second child was also a really good baby and just fell asleep anywhere, probably because he was often on the go. We have so many pictures of him sleeping in family photos. I stayed home with my third and she rarely cried. I napped with her or was right next to her and when she woke up, she made noise or cried slightly and I would pick her up immediately.

[Anonymous]

Pp again. When my second was 2, I sent him to daycare. It has been a decade and i still remember how awful I felt dropping him off sobbing. He would cry hysterically until he fell asleep. Eventually he adjusted and he is now a popular, smart, athletic, happy and well adjusted child. He is the least emotional and sensitive of my three children. I sometimes wonder if his daycare days made him this way.

[Anonymous]

Pp again. My kids weren’t criers except my second when he went to daycare. I forgot about that.

[Anonymous]

Just wanted to add that now that my older kids are teens, I can’t tell which kids had working or SAHM parents when they were young. If we could have afforded to, I absolutely would have stayed home back then with my second. I had student loans, we just bought a new house and I had to work. Dh’s income increased significantly so I was able to stay home with my third.

I knew SAHM who had difficult babies. Several friends used to cry because their colic babies were so hard. Some of these difficult babies are now difficult teens.

[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:

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.

It’s also not logical to act like SAHMs are fitting “raising of children” in between naps. I mean good grief. You started off logical but then went way off in the other direction. News flash: long sleeping infants are a fraction in time of the experience of moms, working or not.

[Anonymous]

Its funny that PP thinks all or even most infants sleep 4 hours a day. Neither of my kids ever took a 2 hour nap as babies. More like 45 minutes. Once they become toddlers and consolidated to 1 nap a day it was about 2 hours but not much more. They did sleep 7-7 at night though.

[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:

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.

It’s also not logical to act like SAHMs are fitting “raising of children” in between naps. I mean good grief. You started off logical but then went way off in the other direction. News flash: long sleeping infants are a fraction in time of the experience of moms, working or not.

When are SAHM's "raising children" if it is NOT during waking hours?

It's also not logical to say you are "raising your child" while they nap or while they are at school or while they are doing their sports practice.
It's also not logical to say you are "raising your child" while they are independently playing or while you are cooking and cleaning and doing other things (and btw I don't think you should be hoovering over your child so that is a good thing)

At 3 they are in preschool 9-1 and nap from 1-2:30 and i'm home 3:30-4 so I'm going to quit working for 1 hour a day? That is also not logical
At 5 they are in school all day
By middle school they are in school all day, practice in the afternoon, then homework (which could use some parenting- depending on the child)

The reality is the # of hours you are "raising your children" is way less than you like to use to justify not working (not sure why you need to justify - to be clear - do your thing girl).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its funny that PP thinks all or even most infants sleep 4 hours a day. Neither of my kids ever took a 2 hour nap as babies. More like 45 minutes. Once they become toddlers and consolidated to 1 nap a day it was about 2 hours but not much more. They did sleep 7-7 at night though.

Your infant too 1 45 minute nap a day. Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wanted to add that now that my older kids are teens, I can’t tell which kids had working or SAHM parents when they were young. If we could have afforded to, I absolutely would have stayed home back then with my second. I had student loans, we just bought a new house and I had to work. Dh’s income increased significantly so I was able to stay home with my third.

I knew SAHM who had difficult babies. Several friends used to cry because their colic babies were so hard. Some of these difficult babies are now difficult teens.

I agree that it doesn't affect personality much. I don't see a correlation with separation anxiety either as one PP tried to imply. Maybe you're all cherry picking your anecdata but I see complete opposite results in my experience.
Seriously, think about the kids who cried at first day of school or sleepaway camp and which kids went in happily looking forward to the experience. Moreover, which kids try to miss more school. You might expect one but it doesn't line up with reality.

[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:

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.

It’s also not logical to act like SAHMs are fitting “raising of children” in between naps. I mean good grief. You started off logical but then went way off in the other direction. News flash: long sleeping infants are a fraction in time of the experience of moms, working or not.

When are SAHM's "raising children" if it is NOT during waking hours?

It's also not logical to say you are "raising your child" while they nap or while they are at school or while they are doing their sports practice.
It's also not logical to say you are "raising your child" while they are independently playing or while you are cooking and cleaning and doing other things (and btw I don't think you should be hoovering over your child so that is a good thing)

At 3 they are in preschool 9-1 and nap from 1-2:30 and i'm home 3:30-4 so I'm going to quit working for 1 hour a day? That is also not logical
At 5 they are in school all day
By middle school they are in school all day, practice in the afternoon, then homework (which could use some parenting- depending on the child)

The reality is the # of hours you are "raising your children" is way less than you like to use to justify not working (not sure why you need to justify - to be clear - do your thing girl).

Are you daft? Acting like the brief period a SAHM mom’s being is in charge of an infant is reflective of the overall experience of a SAHM is ridiculous. I don’t need to justify nothing, “girl.” I’m just commenting on your illogical post.

What’s with some working moms suggesting other women need to justify their life choices like you’re some sort of all powerful judge? I see it a lot on this board. No one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its funny that PP thinks all or even most infants sleep 4 hours a day. Neither of my kids ever took a 2 hour nap as babies. More like 45 minutes. Once they become toddlers and consolidated to 1 nap a day it was about 2 hours but not much more. They did sleep 7-7 at night though.

That PP also seems to only have one kid. Lost cause - some people are so desperate to think their life is exactly like everyone else’s that they can’t make logical posts.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]

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. [/quote]

I can tell you why you’re confused. It’s because you don’t understand how anonymous internet message boards work. You don’t understand how a 60+ page thread can have side-topics.

See, I never said I quit work to raise my kids. I also never said that I HAD to quit my job to do chores. I’m also not the OP of this massive thread. I was merely pushing back against the idea posited at some point many pages ago that in order to have a SAHM a dad obviously must not see his kids as much as he would if mom was also working. Because that’s just a stupid assumption.

Hopefully this helps you read more carefully in the future!

[Anonymous]

If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its funny that PP thinks all or even most infants sleep 4 hours a day. Neither of my kids ever took a 2 hour nap as babies. More like 45 minutes. Once they become toddlers and consolidated to 1 nap a day it was about 2 hours but not much more. They did sleep 7-7 at night though.

Your infant too 1 45 minute nap a day. Hmmm.

No. 2-3. But never more than 45 minutes at a time. And it never cumulated more than 2 hours, let alone 4. It works for your narrative that your nanny is supervising 4 hours of nap time that you are not missing with your child.