Reply to Strategy for having multiple children as an older lower energy FTM

Forum Index » General Parenting Discussion

Reply to "Strategy for having multiple children as an older lower energy FTM"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I haven’t read the whole thread but I actually recommend NOT giving up your career and staying home. Round-the-clock care of little kids is just more energy draining than work plus having an excellent nanny. We were not wealthy and I couldn’t afford to stay home anyway. But I could tell, even on days when I had to drag myself to the office and was missing my kids badly, that, energy-wise, I had it easier than my SAHM friends. You just get more mental and physical breaks when you work. [/quote]

+1[/quote]

+2. If you have money, throw it at the problem. Night nurse for the baby stage. Nanny for when you work.

Also, coming from a mom who thought I'd have 2 and has 1 by choice: Really examine why you want multiple kids and if you don't have specific, concrete reasons, consider the benefits of only one.[/quote]

I don’t disagree, but I also really want to challenge the “throw money at the problem” mindset of parenting. And I say this as a working parent who has no problem with daycare and aftercare. Kids, particularly older kids, really do best with their parents. If you plan your family around “needing” morning, evening, and weekend help for years past the toddler stage, then kindly, you’re planning on too many kids and a lifestyle that’s not in anyone’s best interest. [/quote]

DP and I agree with this post - though I think it applies to all stages of parenting, not just past the toddler stage.  I'm all for childcare during working hours (and work FT myself), but relying on night nurses, weekend nannies, etc., with very young kids isn't in the best interest of kids, either.  I genuinely don't understand the purpose of having children if you plan to outsource 90%+ of their care, at any point in their childhoods.  Seriously - why?[/quote]

PP. To be clear, I don't believe round-the-clock outsourcing is good; was just saying that if there's an isolated stage that stresses you as a parent and that's the ONLY thing keeping you from expanding the family, it might make sense to gather (or hire) a village of support. I hate the baby stage but if my mom lived next door I might consider having another kid. Sounds like nighttime sleep deprivation is a big factor for OP and that's a temporary problem that can be addressed with spending some money.

Also I'm DCUM-poor and never had a night nanny -- just a good sleeper and occasional Grandma help.[/quote]

I understand, as the PP you're replying to.  I'm all for hiring reasonable amounts of help and share your concerns.  There does seem to be a belief on DCUM that infants and little kids don't "need" their parents, and I'm not sure where that comes from.  I mean, newborns can recognize their mothers by scent.  Again, we used daycare, we've had babysitters and I am NOT a martyr by any stretch.  I just think the whole "babies don't notice if you're around" is BS.

And yes, older kids do need available parents, but I think the village approach is useful then, too, with trusted adults such as teachers, coaches, scout leaders, etc.  Kids need their parents all the way through, ultimately.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics