Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are these parents are who drop everything to run to Target at night because their middle schooler didn't plan ahead and now needs something last minute?

Are you the same parents who predict OP is screwing up her kids "by working too much"?

Seems to me a 12 year old is more than old enough to understand -- and experience -- the consequences of her own choices and actions.

If she fails to plan and leaves things to the last minute, she is out of luck. Let her go in to school the next day and work it out with the teacher. Next time she'll likely plan and communicate more appropriately about what she needs and when.

By the way, my 9 year old gets this completely.

She's in fourth grade, and she knows it's her responsibility to write assignments in her planner and share them with us when she needs help (like supplies from Target). Nothing is ever last minute because she stays on top of it. In part because she learned long ago that she's responsible for her actions -- not me, and not DH.

Our role is to love her, listen to her, support her, experience life with her etc. Not to be at her beck and call, and not to bail her out with "emergency" Target runs at night because she forgot that she needs poster board or god knows what else for the following morning.

Everyone agrees no one needs to be at her beck and call. But to love her, listen to her, support her and experience life with her, the parent actually has to be there. That is what OPs daughter is really saying. She needs a parent present in her life to e experiencing life with her. She needs someone who has te time to listen and support her. All those things take time and if you work to 12 or 1 am, you have no time

Exactly. It's clear there are some posters who want to insist the only problem here is that OP's daughter asked for supplies at the last minute and should have planned ahead. That's the LEAST of OP's issues. The actual problem is that neither OP nor her husband are around - ever. And when they are home, they are immersed in work. The daughter has learned that she can't rely on her parents, she can't ask to go out to dinner as a family, and she can't ask them to take her to friends' houses. Why? Because both parents have *chosen* work over parenting. And that's the crux of the matter. Not some stupid poster board run.

I think this thread makes clear that some people feel their only responsibility as parents is to provide food/clothing/shelter. Emotional engagement isn't something they take seriously. Other people view parenting differently.

Agreed. I've never come across so many callous parents IRL as I have on DCUM. It astounds me that some think of having a child as just something to cross off their to-do list and once the child is here, they're placed on the back burner, behind everything else. I honestly wish people had to be vetted and apply for licenses before being able to have children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

But you're essentially saying that the parent who cuts back is the one responsible for meeting the emotional needs of a preteen. In that sort of set-up, how is the WOHP any different than OP in this situation?

You can't claim that your WOHP husband who works very long hours is a great dad but at the same time say OP is a terrible mom for working the same long hours. I, by the way, don't think we know anywhere near enough to judge OP's fitness as a parent, or that of anybody else in this thread, so I am not saying OP is bad parent or your husband is a bad parent. I am just saying that people are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids want to feel loved, it is that simple. Think about how many wives are posting(yes, it is almost always women posting here) about DH working too much, spending too much with ILS, never being there for them, and a 12 year old is supposed to be all rational and understand that mom can't spend some time with her, when many grown ups feel resentful in the same situation? And yes, 12 year old will be disorganized and forget to pan a week ahead, that is how most teens are. OP, your DD wants you, she wants to spend time with you, and all the rest is just her lashing out in the only way she knows.

Sometimes I think that most people on this board do not remember what it was like to be a child. When I was a tween, feeling loved wasn't my main concern. I knew I was loved, but I didn't much care. I had all sorts of miserable tangled emotions running through me as a result of the hormonal shifts of puberty, and my mom made a very convenient outlet / focus / punching bag for all of my angst. She was a wonderful mother – it did not make a wet of a difference to me. I was in raged – and I knew I could reach at her because she was one of the only people in the world who had to put up with me – and nothing she could've changed would have me be less angry at her.

OP, if you feel like you're not giving your children enough time with you, that is one thing. But I'm not convinced from the small amount of information that you've given us that you are necessarily doing anything so wrong as to account for your child's anger at you. Some of us were just angry kids. On the bright side, for all that I gave my mother hell, I voluntarily spend as much time as possible with her nowadays, because she is awesome.

Not everyone had the same experience as a teenager that you did. I wasn't always peaches and cream for my mom, but I wasn't perpetually enraged and definitely didn't treat my mother the way you've suggested you did.

Ugh, sorry for typos, was dictating into my phone. Hopefully you can make sense of the above despite the errors.

Anonymous wrote:Kids want to feel loved, it is that simple. Think about how many wives are posting(yes, it is almost always women posting here) about DH working too much, spending too much with ILS, never being there for them, and a 12 year old is supposed to be all rational and understand that mom can't spend some time with her, when many grown ups feel resentful in the same situation? And yes, 12 year old will be disorganized and forget to pan a week ahead, that is how most teens are. OP, your DD wants you, she wants to spend time with you, and all the rest is just her lashing out in the only way she knows.

Sometimes I think that most people on this board do not remember what it was like to be a child. When I was a tween, feeling loved wasn't my main concern. I knew I was loved, but I didn't much care. I had all sorts of miserable tangled emotions running through me as a result of the hormonal shifts of puberty, and my mom made a very convenient outlet / focus / punching bag for all of my angst. She was a wonderful mother – it did not make a wet of a difference to me. I was in raged – and I knew I could reach at her because she was one of the only people in the world who had to put up with me – and nothing she could've changed would have me be less angry at her.

OP, if you feel like you're not giving your children enough time with you, that is one thing. But I'm not convinced from the small amount of information that you've given us that you are necessarily doing anything so wrong as to account for your child's anger at you. Some of us were just angry kids. On the bright side, for all that I gave my mother hell, I voluntarily spend as much time as possible with her nowadays, because she is awesome.

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

I agree with everything except the last part.

Both parents need to cut back a little and raise their kids. Children deserve 2 parents.

They obviously have enough money to take care is the obligation that are not child related... Cooking, cleaning, fixing the car.

If a SAHP does all those thing to free up time for the father.... And the father is "fully engaged"... Then OP and her H could, in theory, hire someone to do all those chores... So they can both be fully engaged.

I personally disagree that H in this situation are fully engaged.... So really they both need to cut back.

Also, SAHP with a H working tons need to figure out how to either spend less or make money so their H have time to emotionalky support their kids.

I think this thread makes clear that some people feel their only responsibility as parents is to provide food/clothing/shelter. Emotional engagement isn't something they take seriously. Other people view parenting differently.

I agree.

I also find it sad for our children's future that men are basically on the outside providing funds with little to no interaction with their kids. Women think they can fulfill their children's whole emotional needs.

We have whole generation of children being raised without dads even when they live in the home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

NP here and I don't agree. I believe a two parent household can work together as a team, to balance out the emotional needs a preteen has in a way that can overcome the long hours or travel obligations of one of the parents. 17:35 explained it very well above. This is not about OP's hours - it's about the work schedule of BOTH of the parents in this household.

I don't think one parent needs to be a SAH parent, but I do think at least one parent needs to cut back on the workload and be realistic about the obligations raising three children requires.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

As one of the posters pretty involved in that strain of the debate (and the poster who was attacked as a hypocrite there), I want to clarify something about my views on this. Parenting is a multi-dimensional thing. There is the bonding side of it, whether you're spending time with your children in a way that is meaningful to you both and that deepens your connection. This is something that both parents need to be available to do with their kids so that the kids have the opportunity to form emotional bonds with each parent. It needs regular/consistent engagement, but doesn't fall apart if there are days here and there when the parent-child engagement is more of a quick conversation over a meal (or a phone call if the parent is traveling or working particularly late). A parent who works longer hours during the week can make up for a lot of that by being an engaged parent throughout the weekend, even if some of it is by doing errands together and chatting while you're in the car. The key there is that the parent is engaged during those times, and isn't spending all of that "together" time running through their to-do list in their head, putting the kids in front of a screen so they can clean up the kitchen, and then checking their email all through dinner. I have no idea how OP operates in this regard.

Then there is the side of it that's whether your children feel they can trust and rely upon their parents to be there for them on a day-to-day basis for basics needs. This is more along the lines of will there be meals prepared, will the permission slip get signed, will the poster board be purchased (leaving aside the issue of how much notice should be given of the need for poster board), i.e., can the child trust that their needs will be met. When parents are married/cohabitating, they can act more as a unit on this one rather than both people needing to be there for every need. You only need one parent to cook dinner, sign the permission slip or buy poster board, so for this aspect of parenting, it's okay if only one parent is there while the other is working, as long as the kids can trust that someone will be there to get it done. Especially because the deeper emotional bonding described above generally does not occur (at least not in a healthy way) if the foundational trust that needs will be met doesn't exist. The bonding can happen regardless of which parent has done more of meeting the basic needs; just because dad went to Target doesn't mean mom won't be able to form a bond with her child (and vice versa).

Yes, OP should set reasonable limits and doesn't need to jump on a moment's notice because her daughter wants to get poster board for her project, but there also needs to be some expectation that these things will happen eventually in a reliable way. "Larla, I can't take you to Target tonight for poster board but I will put in on the calendar for Wednesday night, which will still give you plenty of time to finish your project." If OP and her husband are doing this and then following through, their kids will develop that trust in their parents to meet their needs, regardless of which parent takes them to buy the poster board this week. If OP (and/or her husband) is instead telling her daughter "tomorrow," but then says the same thing the next night and the night after that, or won't commit to a day at all and just says she'll get to it when she can, her daughter is going to have a harder time trusting that her needs are going to be met. Only OP knows how this goes in her own household, but based on her posts throughout the thread, I suspect there's a fair amount of the latter going on. Otherwise this would just be about a whiny kid with unreasonable expectations and not a bunch of whining from OP about how she's stretched too thin and just can't do it. As for how this all affects OP's bond with her daughter, there's not enough here to say that for sure. But the fact that OP's posts suggest the foundational trust may be shaky is a red flag that the deeper bonding isn't happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

PP above. I don't think that having tasks to do over the weekend means a parent can't bond with kids. Frankly the idea that a parent needs to have totally task-free hours in order to bond with a child seems very out of touch to me. Personally, I think kids should absolutely see their working parent doing tasks around the house, and should be participating in those chores themselves as they get older. I have many fond memories of running errands on the weekend with my dad and helping him with chores. Bonding doesn't mean just free time.

Your position only makes sense if you believe that children cannot bond with parents who are doing household work... which raises the question of how they bond with the SAHP who is doing that work during the week. I don't have much of an opinion on long hours or no long hours, as I stated, but I do think the idea that a child can't bond with a parent who is doing household tasks is ridiculous.

I think the point stands: you cannot simultaneously say OP doesn't have a good bond with her kids because of her long hours, and yet claim your WOHP spouse who works equally long hours has a good bond with your own children. It's completely inconsistent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Yes, but you don't respond to the point the immediate PP made (as several others have). Having one SAHP means the person who is working long hours does not need to also grocery shop, go the dry cleaner, fold the laundry, take the car or the oil change, unload the dishwasher, pay the bills, manage the investments etc. The fact that SAHP gets that stuff done during the week (perhaps while the kids are in school GASP) means the partner working long hours can instead spend the time he or she would commit to those task spending with their kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.

Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.

What planet are you on?

Umm... exactly who has said that? I've read posts from PPs saying both parents need to be engaged and available. Some PPs have pointed out that having a SAHP enables that parent to not only be engaged and available all day, but also gets errands and chores out of the way so that when the WOHP gets home, s/he only has to sit down and relax with the kids. See? Both parents engaged and available. No one is advocating that the WOHP work until all hours and never see their kids. Having a SAHP allows *both* parents to focus on their kids in the evenings and on weekends. This is not hard to understand.

NP here. I think that poster didn't make her point very well, but I see her point. Trying to state it more clearly: If you are saying that OP can't have a good bond with her kids because she works very long hours, you cannot simultaneously claim that the WOHP who works very long hours in a SAH/WOH relationship has a good bond with his or her kids, because that WOHP also works long hours. That is logically inconsistent.

The point isn't is that the SAHP is available. That is beside the point. There have been posters here who claim that their WOHP has a fantastic bond with their kids while simultaneously working very long hours. The issue is the bond of the WOHP not the SAHP, and it's a question of the hours that WOHP works.

I actually don't agree with the underlying assumption: I think that bonding with kids can happen with parents who work long hours. I mean, I know families where one parent was away for months at a time who seem to have great relationships, so I think this hour-counting premise is a little silly. It seems like a bunch of privileged navel-gazing to me. However, the people who are talking about how they have a very long working hour WOHP who is fantastically bonded to their kids while at the same time simultaneously criticizing OP's long working hours and claiming she can't be bonded to her kids are being very inconsistent. No matter what the SAHP does at home, if you believe that time present with the children is the basis of a bond, then both OP and the long-working WOHP should fall into that category.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I'm shocked at all the comments which blame the mom for working. How the hell are they suppose to support 3 kids if they don't work and you have no right to judge how many kids they have. I feel like kids of this age and this "class" are a bit too entitled. When my child tells me they need something last minute I tell them no. Learn to plan ahead, I'm not your maid or your nanny. Even if I do have the time I refuse to do anything last minute and I don't like to buy them stuff even though I do tend to give in. I grew up poor and I never saw my mom because she worked constantly to put me through private school. I never questioned why she had to work or asked her for anything other than what was necessary.. and most times not even that. I knew we just didn't have the money. To be honest, my kids piss me off sometimes with everything that they have. They don't know how good they have it and they are not grateful when you give them everything they ask for.

Thr majority of us support 3 kids without having children that have tp beg us to have a family meal and without keepingboir kids in daycare until 630pm. These kids dont need more money and dont need to wven go to target. They need parents who love them and dont treat them like an accessory.

The OP and her husband suck and their kids know it, we know it. I hope with their mountain of money, they are saving for thearapy.

And another thing, i bet when these kids grow up they will have absolutely no attachment to their parents. The OP will grow old all alone, comforted only by their bank account.

I don't have an opinion on OP (we don't know enough about her life, IMO), but I see this threat about growing old alone thrown at parents who don't act the way other parents think they should all the time. Have you spent time in nursing homes or spent a lot of time doing elder care? The homes are filled with the parents of children who grew up with the traditional SAHM/WOHP family structure. This idea that raising your kids in one particular structure means that you will or won't be alone is nonsense. Using one particular family structure doesn't guarantee attachment.

Op you need to get your values in line. This is horrible and very sad. There is nothing more important in life than parenting your children, if you make the choice to have them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are these parents are who drop everything to run to Target at night because their middle schooler didn't plan ahead and now needs something last minute?

Are you the same parents who predict OP is screwing up her kids "by working too much"?

Seems to me a 12 year old is more than old enough to understand -- and experience -- the consequences of her own choices and actions.

If she fails to plan and leaves things to the last minute, she is out of luck. Let her go in to school the next day and work it out with the teacher. Next time she'll likely plan and communicate more appropriately about what she needs and when.

By the way, my 9 year old gets this completely.

She's in fourth grade, and she knows it's her responsibility to write assignments in her planner and share them with us when she needs help (like supplies from Target). Nothing is ever last minute because she stays on top of it. In part because she learned long ago that she's responsible for her actions -- not me, and not DH.

Our role is to love her, listen to her, support her, experience life with her etc. Not to be at her beck and call, and not to bail her out with "emergency" Target runs at night because she forgot that she needs poster board or god knows what else for the following morning.

Everyone agrees no one needs to be at her beck and call. But to love her, listen to her, support her and experience life with her, the parent actually has to be there. That is what OPs daughter is really saying. She needs a parent present in her life to e experiencing life with her. She needs someone who has te time to listen and support her. All those things take time and if you work to 12 or 1 am, you have no time

Exactly. It's clear there are some posters who want to insist the only problem here is that OP's daughter asked for supplies at the last minute and should have planned ahead. That's the LEAST of OP's issues. The actual problem is that neither OP nor her husband are around - ever. And when they are home, they are immersed in work. The daughter has learned that she can't rely on her parents, she can't ask to go out to dinner as a family, and she can't ask them to take her to friends' houses. Why? Because both parents have *chosen* work over parenting. And that's the crux of the matter. Not some stupid poster board run.

I think this thread makes clear that some people feel their only responsibility as parents is to provide food/clothing/shelter. Emotional engagement isn't something they take seriously. Other people view parenting differently.