Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are just used to a rich lifestyle of having someone else do all the work at home and your husband is getting annoyed. He does work himself all day and so the idea that you can't look after the kids and need to outsource childcare despite being at home is frustrating.

99% of parents at home with their kids don't have nannies or night nurses to provide the child care while they come and go as they please.

I think this is a difference in values more than anything. You say your husband works 10-12 hours a day and that work is the financial income you live off of but you don't seem to really want to contribute anything back to the household. You want a carefree life of leisure while others are paid to do all the work. I doubt you cook or clean or do much around the house either - likely that is all outsourced as well.

Are you much younger than your DH? Did you see marrying him and his money as a golden ticket to a life of no work?

Since you don't want to look after the kids, you should get a job and use that money to pay the childcare costs.

Please explain why you think someone who's legitimately rich should live as if they're poor.

Not everyone, including Ops DH thinks that being rich means you outsourced your SAHM role. It isn't only the poors who raise their own kids. Your idea that rich means you outsource everything isn't the case. OPs DH hasn't outsourced his work - he still has to go and work hard and make this money they have to be rich. It isn't an inheritance and trust fund where he also just plays all day with no responsibilities. I get that OP didn't want this baby and therefore is resentful that she might have to provide some childcare but that is where OP and DH are not on the same page. He sees her as also being a contributing member of the household and having responsibilities despite the money he earns while working all the time. Op sees her role was just to birth the children and then step away and hire people to do the rest. There are many rich people who still work and have responsibilities and raise their own kids and contribute either financially or through work at home - your view that only the poors do this is strange.

I don't disagree with your analysis of the situation--in fact, it's right on--but I just have to point out that referring to people as "the poors" is really distasteful and detracts from the otherwise sensible and thoughtful nature of your post.

You are right and it isn't a way I would ever refer to people. I was referring back (kind of sarcastically) to the post I quoted of someone talking about living like the rich vs the poor. However I can see that that point may have been lost and it just looks distasteful.

Thank you for the nice reply! I wasn’t expecting that. Maybe I’ve been on DCUM too long, I didn’t pick up on the sarcasm. Sadly, there are a lot of people who actually think of certain people as “the poors”.

Anonymous wrote:Confused why people are saying 24/7 childcare is equivalent of hiring "a" baby nurse. To have 24/7 care, you are hiring a minimum of three people, and even that would require you to have people working long hours. If you split it evenly 3 ways, you'd have 3 people working 56 hours a week each. I'm shocked that doesn't seem nuts to more people on here for 2 kids. You are talking about literally hiring three full-time nannies. Who besides maybe royalty and the insanely wealthy (i.e. do not need to work ever) does this for a SAHM?

You need more than 3 - each nanny can't work 7 days a week for 3 months. So you really need four nannies. The fourth fills in for the one who has days / evenings/ nights off.

This is a funny thread.

Confused why people are saying 24/7 childcare is equivalent of hiring "a" baby nurse. To have 24/7 care, you are hiring a minimum of three people, and even that would require you to have people working long hours. If you split it evenly 3 ways, you'd have 3 people working 56 hours a week each. I'm shocked that doesn't seem nuts to more people on here for 2 kids. You are talking about literally hiring three full-time nannies. Who besides maybe royalty and the insanely wealthy (i.e. do not need to work ever) does this for a SAHM?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have four under 8 and a full time job and I never felt the need to hire 24/7 baby nurse. I am sorry, that is just absurd. I did have help when I went back to work, but not 24/7. If you are a SAHM, you got this...and I am with your husband.

Of course you didn't, you are at work during the day and not in the house with an active toddler and a newborn all day. I swear, women are so cruel here.

I work from home, so I am home with my kids all day, along with our wonderful nanny who makes sure they are occupied during my calls/meetings with clients, etc. I alone make more than her husband and my husband is a surgeon, so we have tons of options. All I said is a 24/7 baby nurse is absurd, even if you are rich. I know a lot of rich people raising kids and 5 out of 10 barely know their children because someone else is raising them....that is just not the way I roll.

I'm just curious, what kind of job allows you to work from home and pays more than $775K a year??

President of Trollandia

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have four under 8 and a full time job and I never felt the need to hire 24/7 baby nurse. I am sorry, that is just absurd. I did have help when I went back to work, but not 24/7. If you are a SAHM, you got this...and I am with your husband.

Of course you didn't, you are at work during the day and not in the house with an active toddler and a newborn all day. I swear, women are so cruel here.

I work from home, so I am home with my kids all day, along with our wonderful nanny who makes sure they are occupied during my calls/meetings with clients, etc. I alone make more than her husband and my husband is a surgeon, so we have tons of options. All I said is a 24/7 baby nurse is absurd, even if you are rich. I know a lot of rich people raising kids and 5 out of 10 barely know their children because someone else is raising them....that is just not the way I roll.

I'm just curious, what kind of job allows you to work from home and pays more than $775K a year??

Writing fairy tales on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have four under 8 and a full time job and I never felt the need to hire 24/7 baby nurse. I am sorry, that is just absurd. I did have help when I went back to work, but not 24/7. If you are a SAHM, you got this...and I am with your husband.

Of course you didn't, you are at work during the day and not in the house with an active toddler and a newborn all day. I swear, women are so cruel here.

I work from home, so I am home with my kids all day, along with our wonderful nanny who makes sure they are occupied during my calls/meetings with clients, etc. I alone make more than her husband and my husband is a surgeon, so we have tons of options. All I said is a 24/7 baby nurse is absurd, even if you are rich. I know a lot of rich people raising kids and 5 out of 10 barely know their children because someone else is raising them....that is just not the way I roll.

I'm just curious, what kind of job allows you to work from home and pays more than $775K a year??

NP here.

OP, I'm a SAHM mom of two kids who are teens now. I did not have enough help and I'm sympathetic to your situation. IMO a Dad (who works outside the home) is not enough help.

1) If you need a C-section, yes hire someone. This is because it's major surgery with major incision, and no one gets that because everyone's distracted with the baby. Your toddler will want you to pick him/her up. All the time. At one point I started to bleed and I know I've ripped some muscle or something because I'm weirdly crooked on one side now.

2) The best advice I ever received is to get a housekeeper, not a nanny. Then you can attend to your kids. I got that advice too late but here you go, in timely fashion!

3) If you cosleep with your infant you will not be 1/2 as tired. Don't put the baby in another room. Lots of research on this--if the baby is with you, they root and then nurse and it's over; nobody really wakes up. But in another room, they root, then get upset, and by the time you hear them they are in full wail mode and cannot settle back down, and your adrenaline is going and you are both totally awake. Horrible over time.

4) I think you should hire 24/7 for the first week or two. By then, you'll have the hang of it and will know what you need.

Personally, after that, I don't think you need a lot of help, if you have a housekeeper.

But babies were never meant to be solely with their moms; they were to be passed around to grandparents, aunts, uncles, close friends, other moms, etc. Moms need adult interaction and breaks; not to go solo just until dad comes home. It's not a good set up. So I think your instincts are right, but you may be going into overkill so I can see why your DH would balk.

You should put your older kid in preschool or daycare now and leave them in when the baby comes. It's not possible for you to keep your older child's routine as-is without completely neglecting your infant. Things are going to change, so why not take this opportunity to help your older child transition into a new phase of life. It's good for your kid to be with other kids and to bond with other caregivers. We have the means for whatever arrangement we want (HHI same as yours, though we both WOH) yet remain a committed daycare family because our kids thrive in a social environment, including our decidedly more reserved second child.

If your older kid is out of the house for a good part of the day, it will be significantly easier to manage both when they are both home, so you may find that you don't really need the extra daytime help.

The night nurse thing is so personal. Some people cannot function without good sleep, and if you're one of those then a night nurse makes sense. For me, I was never even able to give feedings over to my husband because I couldn't sleep when the baby was awake. I just couldn't. I still can't and my kids are 2 and 5. I managed by continuing to sleep in cycles with the baby until I got enough rest to be functional. This was possible with #2 because my husband took the toddler to daycare in the morning so at most I would get up and help her get dressed and out the door before going back to bed. Sounds like a night nurse worked for you with #1 so I don't see why your DH would give you a hard time about getting at least the same amount of help with your second as you had the first time.

I'm expecting #3 now and plan to keep my (then) 3 yo in daycare during my leave. My (then) 6 yo will be on summer break and I may keep her home for stretches, but I will definitely have her in some camps and activities so neither of us loses our minds. Good luck with whatever you do OP. I hope your little boy is an easy chill baby like my second was. Though if he is, you might find yourself in my situation in a few years...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have four under 8 and a full time job and I never felt the need to hire 24/7 baby nurse. I am sorry, that is just absurd. I did have help when I went back to work, but not 24/7. If you are a SAHM, you got this...and I am with your husband.

Of course you didn't, you are at work during the day and not in the house with an active toddler and a newborn all day. I swear, women are so cruel here.

I work from home, so I am home with my kids all day, along with our wonderful nanny who makes sure they are occupied during my calls/meetings with clients, etc. I alone make more than her husband and my husband is a surgeon, so we have tons of options. All I said is a 24/7 baby nurse is absurd, even if you are rich. I know a lot of rich people raising kids and 5 out of 10 barely know their children because someone else is raising them....that is just not the way I roll.

If your kids are under eight, some of them are in school. You have a nanny.

So, no, you are not "home with your kids all day". You are home with some of them some of the time during which the nanny cares for them. Enough with the martyrdom and the shaming.

+1 In a thread full of mommy shaming, PP stands out. Full-time nanny and school-aged kids, and calling OP absurd for wanting help with a newborn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have four under 8 and a full time job and I never felt the need to hire 24/7 baby nurse. I am sorry, that is just absurd. I did have help when I went back to work, but not 24/7. If you are a SAHM, you got this...and I am with your husband.

Of course you didn't, you are at work during the day and not in the house with an active toddler and a newborn all day. I swear, women are so cruel here.

I work from home, so I am home with my kids all day, along with our wonderful nanny who makes sure they are occupied during my calls/meetings with clients, etc. I alone make more than her husband and my husband is a surgeon, so we have tons of options. All I said is a 24/7 baby nurse is absurd, even if you are rich. I know a lot of rich people raising kids and 5 out of 10 barely know their children because someone else is raising them....that is just not the way I roll.

If your kids are under eight, some of them are in school. You have a nanny.

So, no, you are not "home with your kids all day". You are home with some of them some of the time during which the nanny cares for them. Enough with the martyrdom and the shaming.

I don’t know if this sort of thing is available in the US, but in some Asian countries you can hire a combo nanny-housekeeper and decide how you want them to spend their time. Because so you really just want someone taking care of the baby all day? Or someone to help with cooking/cleaning and occasionally do stuff with toddler so you can spend time with baby?

Also your DH sounds like a total jerk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have four under 8 and a full time job and I never felt the need to hire 24/7 baby nurse. I am sorry, that is just absurd. I did have help when I went back to work, but not 24/7. If you are a SAHM, you got this...and I am with your husband.

Of course you didn't, you are at work during the day and not in the house with an active toddler and a newborn all day. I swear, women are so cruel here.

+1
And jealous harpies.

More like, "I suffered and made it through, so you should suffer too!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need more help with cleaning. I’m a night nurse and do not do any type of cleaning- not even bottles. Unless you hire a doula, you will be doing cleaning, making meals and laundry while I spend time with your newborn.

I had multiple different night nurses help me out on a temporary basis when my twins were born and they all washed baby bottles. I don’t even know how you could argue that that’s not part of the job. You’re taking care of baby’s needs, and one of those needs is eating.

I’m in Los Angeles and all families have full time housekeepers, so no that’s not my job.

Do you also refuse to change diapers because you might get your hands dirty?

I mean not cleaning bottles is a little extreme but I think it's an excellent point that if your goal is to free up time for you to spend with baby, hire someone who is willing to do any and all housework. Even doulas won't do everything.