your child might rebel against you..

my old boss is a OB/GYN and own the practice with her husband. They were hardly home and had a fulltime Nanny.

Her oldest son stole her car from the parking lot to head to a friend's house, stole money, smoked weed , ran away from home..

Her youngest daughter began to chat with an older man and exchanged photos . The nanny caught her and immediately called the office to speak to my boss because she wanted to call the police.

It was a sad situation these kids needed their parents but their jobs are so demanding. its such a hard balance

It comes down to trying to settle for the kids you have little time left before they head off to live their lives..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

Then the statement does not address you. Why do you think it address you. It addresses OP and her H. Why do you think this is about you?

Do you think OP's H does not need to be home with his kids, ever?

Ok, NP here. Your nitpicking is getting annoying so go away. We all get what the PP was saying. I'm sorry you don't. But, move along now and reread. See if you can make sens of it.

If you have a H that makes tons of money and works 20 hours a week, this thread is not about you.

We are talking about 2 parents that don't have time for their kids. The answer is NOT that 1 person should make time.

If BOTH parents don't have time for their kids the answer is NOT that ONE of them needs to make time. The answer is that BOTH of them need to make time.

RIght you live in the magical land where people in high achieving careers can just go in and say "I'd like to cut back on the old hours." and still be able to afford living here, and still be able to send their kids to college or private school (which is totally necessary if you live in DC) and put away for retirement and emergencies. Sometimes the best option is to make one career the driver and the other parent scales back and focuses more on family life. Not everyone can have the "ideal" scenario where they get to work jobs that pay well, that are challenging and rewarding and end at 5 and also have off for all the school holidays and never require travel so they can be some instagram family that eats breakfast together and dinner every night. Lighten up.

I did not say everybody can. Military obviously have a higher calling and they can't always be there.

Most do not work those crazy hours and can cut back if they want.

Almost 1/2 this thread is women claiming their H are home every single solitary night bonding with their kids.

NP. And the fact that you don't believe this only speaks volumes about your own situation. Plenty of dads are home every night at reasonable hours, even when there is a SAHM. At some point, you're going to have to deal with that fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

Then the statement does not address you. Why do you think it address you. It addresses OP and her H. Why do you think this is about you?

Do you think OP's H does not need to be home with his kids, ever?

Ok, NP here. Your nitpicking is getting annoying so go away. We all get what the PP was saying. I'm sorry you don't. But, move along now and reread. See if you can make sens of it.

If you have a H that makes tons of money and works 20 hours a week, this thread is not about you.

We are talking about 2 parents that don't have time for their kids. The answer is NOT that 1 person should make time.

If BOTH parents don't have time for their kids the answer is NOT that ONE of them needs to make time. The answer is that BOTH of them need to make time.

RIght you live in the magical land where people in high achieving careers can just go in and say "I'd like to cut back on the old hours." and still be able to afford living here, and still be able to send their kids to college or private school (which is totally necessary if you live in DC) and put away for retirement and emergencies. Sometimes the best option is to make one career the driver and the other parent scales back and focuses more on family life. Not everyone can have the "ideal" scenario where they get to work jobs that pay well, that are challenging and rewarding and end at 5 and also have off for all the school holidays and never require travel so they can be some instagram family that eats breakfast together and dinner every night. Lighten up.

I did not say everybody can. Military obviously have a higher calling and they can't always be there.

Most do not work those crazy hours and can cut back if they want.

Almost 1/2 this thread is women claiming their H are home every single solitary night bonding with their kids.

How do you know these husbands aren't bonding with the kids and then maybe working later? I'm a SAHM, my husband isn't around much on weeknights but my kids aren't either. He makes all the events and back to school nights. We have a lot of time on the weekends to do things together partially because I take care of the errands and administrative stuff during the week. That's the trade off we made. Others prefer a different arrangement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

Then the statement does not address you. Why do you think it address you. It addresses OP and her H. Why do you think this is about you?

Do you think OP's H does not need to be home with his kids, ever?

Ok, NP here. Your nitpicking is getting annoying so go away. We all get what the PP was saying. I'm sorry you don't. But, move along now and reread. See if you can make sens of it.

If you have a H that makes tons of money and works 20 hours a week, this thread is not about you.

We are talking about 2 parents that don't have time for their kids. The answer is NOT that 1 person should make time.

If BOTH parents don't have time for their kids the answer is NOT that ONE of them needs to make time. The answer is that BOTH of them need to make time.

RIght you live in the magical land where people in high achieving careers can just go in and say "I'd like to cut back on the old hours." and still be able to afford living here, and still be able to send their kids to college or private school (which is totally necessary if you live in DC) and put away for retirement and emergencies. Sometimes the best option is to make one career the driver and the other parent scales back and focuses more on family life. Not everyone can have the "ideal" scenario where they get to work jobs that pay well, that are challenging and rewarding and end at 5 and also have off for all the school holidays and never require travel so they can be some instagram family that eats breakfast together and dinner every night. Lighten up.

I did not say everybody can. Military obviously have a higher calling and they can't always be there.

Most do not work those crazy hours and can cut back if they want.

Almost 1/2 this thread is women claiming their H are home every single solitary night bonding with their kids.

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer mom here. I would give up your hard rule about not working weekends. Instead, be more flexible. Sometimes it is better to work for a few hours on Sunday night than on Tuesday night. Depends on what is happening with the kid and what is happening with work. Are you a partner? Can you delegate more to associates?

+100. My DH and I are both attorneys. I work in-house at a big company, which I suspect is less demanding than at a law firm. I find that the weekends are my most productive time. My kids do not mind if I work 4-5 hours on a weekend. That way, I am available on the weeknights, which is pretty important for homework etc (as they are 13 and 15 years old, and the homework has kicked in.) Also, I found that my DH even seems to prefer his alone time with the kids when I work 4-5 hours on a weekend. Give it a try!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

Then the statement does not address you. Why do you think it address you. It addresses OP and her H. Why do you think this is about you?

Do you think OP's H does not need to be home with his kids, ever?

Ok, NP here. Your nitpicking is getting annoying so go away. We all get what the PP was saying. I'm sorry you don't. But, move along now and reread. See if you can make sens of it.

If you have a H that makes tons of money and works 20 hours a week, this thread is not about you.

We are talking about 2 parents that don't have time for their kids. The answer is NOT that 1 person should make time.

If BOTH parents don't have time for their kids the answer is NOT that ONE of them needs to make time. The answer is that BOTH of them need to make time.

RIght you live in the magical land where people in high achieving careers can just go in and say "I'd like to cut back on the old hours." and still be able to afford living here, and still be able to send their kids to college or private school (which is totally necessary if you live in DC) and put away for retirement and emergencies. Sometimes the best option is to make one career the driver and the other parent scales back and focuses more on family life. Not everyone can have the "ideal" scenario where they get to work jobs that pay well, that are challenging and rewarding and end at 5 and also have off for all the school holidays and never require travel so they can be some instagram family that eats breakfast together and dinner every night. Lighten up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Which is to say, I would describe my H as working long hours and being a big earner, and I SAH, but he is not working until 12-1 am on weekdays!!!! He is present with the family in the evenings and on weekends, and he can do so because he spends ALL work hours focused solely on work (when there aren't school events, which he has never missed) because I handle everything else.

Then the statement does not address you. Why do you think it address you. It addresses OP and her H. Why do you think this is about you?

Do you think OP's H does not need to be home with his kids, ever?

Ok, NP here. Your nitpicking is getting annoying so go away. We all get what the PP was saying. I'm sorry you don't. But, move along now and reread. See if you can make sens of it.

If you have a H that makes tons of money and works 20 hours a week, this thread is not about you.

We are talking about 2 parents that don't have time for their kids. The answer is NOT that 1 person should make time.

If BOTH parents don't have time for their kids the answer is NOT that ONE of them needs to make time. The answer is that BOTH of them need to make time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here- I didn't disappear, I was getting school stuff ready for my youngest. I really try not to say no, and if my husband can take her he will, but he does travel(attorney as well) several times a month, and when he is gone, it's hard for me to load everyone in the car at 7pm to take her target. I truly try and spend as much one-on-one time with her as I can, I already have my youngest in daycare until 6:30 just so I can take her to her dance lessons. I am stretched thin and she flips out when I tell her no and starts going on and on how she never gets to do anything.

Sorry, I have ZERO sympathy for you. You could easily live off of one attorney's salary and if one of you didn't want to stay home FT for a few years, than one of you could work PT. A traveling Dad and a Mom that works until midnight? I feel sorry for your kids. Your daughter is right. Wake up. They are only young for a small window of your life and you are missing it.

Ok, here's the deal. You gotta get over the mom guilt. You husband doesn't feel badly that he isn't taking her to Target. She needs to recognize that you are not a taxi service and she's old enough to have her act together and make sure that she lets you know what she needs in advance. Just about every teen at some point says "You never let me do anything." or "You are never here" whatever. Hyperbole is their currency and I'm sure she knows that you feel badly that you aren't doing as much for her as some of the SAHMS do. So what. Not everyone can or wants to be a SAHM. There are perks to having a SAHM, but there are also drawbacks - they have a harder time getting away with things and I'll never arrange an internship for them.

This is the life you have. You are allowed to be a whole and actualized person. You love them, they are more than adequately provided for and that is enough. Believe you me, somewhere there is a child who has a SAHM who is saying "Why don't you work like the other moms? Maybe I could have a car or a phone if you both worked. Its not your money. Its Dad's money." They will get you no matter what you do! Let the guilt go. Own your decisions. Let her know that you and Daddy will have enough money so you won't have to move in with them in your golden years! Do what you know is right for your child and for you and try to take the commentary with a grain of salt. (I'm also the SAHM who said I wouldn't go to Target at 7 at the last minute either. We're not all tending to their every whim)

I've had a long career in multiple fields. I've definitely encountered the high earner/specialist who is home every night by 6. Of course they exist. But they're comparatively rare (although not absolutely rare), and in my experience, it's the case that they aren't managers, but tend to be specialists with an unusual and valued skill. They also often make choices that focus on preserving the specialty rather than expanding skills, because expanding skills often requires an investment of time. In general, I think they're more vulnerable to changes in industry norms, although of course that varies a lot. I have no criticism one way or the other. I think people have been way too judgmental in this thread and on DCUM in general. Mostly I am posting to say that I think the two PPs above who are arguing can both be right: there are high earners who leave every night by 6, but the PP who says you can't have your cake and eat it too is also right. Jumping to dramatic conclusions one way or the other is a bit silly; we do not have enough information to judge one way or the other.

Anonymous wrote:OP here- I didn't disappear, I was getting school stuff ready for my youngest. I really try not to say no, and if my husband can take her he will, but he does travel(attorney as well) several times a month, and when he is gone, it's hard for me to load everyone in the car at 7pm to take her target. I truly try and spend as much one-on-one time with her as I can, I already have my youngest in daycare until 6:30 just so I can take her to her dance lessons. I am stretched thin and she flips out when I tell her no and starts going on and on how she never gets to do anything.

Sorry, I have ZERO sympathy for you. You could easily live off of one attorney's salary and if one of you didn't want to stay home FT for a few years, than one of you could work PT. A traveling Dad and a Mom that works until midnight? I feel sorry for your kids. Your daughter is right. Wake up. They are only young for a small window of your life and you are missing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I have to shake my head when I hear posters (always only here in DCUM-land) who make sweeping assumptions that SAHPs *must* have a WOHP who is never home due to a high-powered career w/travel, long hours, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth among people I know and in my own family. Yes, usually the WOHP parent is a high-earner, but with lots of seniority/high-level/flexibility to come home whenever and/or make their own hours. I think there's a lot of jealousy (yes, I said it) among women who criticize SAHMs. They simply can't - and won't - believe that these SAHMs have spouses who are extremely involved in their kids' lives because they're home early every day.

My DH comes home early and is very involved and it comes at the expense of his working at a higher level at work. He does earn a fine salary but he does worry that when there are cut backs and layoffs they'll zero in on him. It's a regular worry these days. You can't actually have your cake and eat it too , there are trade offs.

This isn't our experience at all. Wishful thinking, perhaps?

And your experience isn't mine. Yet, you keep asserting that you are certain how other people's lives work. Funny how that works.

Um... you do realize there are multiple posters on this thread, right? I never "asserted" that I was certain how other people's lives work. You did that when you claimed, "You can't actually have your cake and eat it too, there are trade offs" (if you're the poster who wrote that). Perhaps there are trade offs for you and your husband. But you're really projecting when you claim everyone else has your issues and situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I have to shake my head when I hear posters (always only here in DCUM-land) who make sweeping assumptions that SAHPs *must* have a WOHP who is never home due to a high-powered career w/travel, long hours, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth among people I know and in my own family. Yes, usually the WOHP parent is a high-earner, but with lots of seniority/high-level/flexibility to come home whenever and/or make their own hours. I think there's a lot of jealousy (yes, I said it) among women who criticize SAHMs. They simply can't - and won't - believe that these SAHMs have spouses who are extremely involved in their kids' lives because they're home early every day.

My DH comes home early and is very involved and it comes at the expense of his working at a higher level at work. He does earn a fine salary but he does worry that when there are cut backs and layoffs they'll zero in on him. It's a regular worry these days. You can't actually have your cake and eat it too , there are trade offs.

Not always. Just because this is your husband's situation, doesn't mean it applies to everyone.

Most people ag high level jobs put in long hours. You might be satisfied with what your spouse is making or with his/her career, but if you talk to them you find out what they are giving up to be more involved in the family. Just because you are ignorant of something doesn't mean it's not happening. Go talk to your spouse.

DP. I'm truly sorry that because this is *your* spouse's situation, you feel the need to project that this applies to everyone else too. Guess what? My husband has risen to the top of his field, is home 99% of the time by 6pm - at the latest - and is extremely involved in our kids' lives. He hasn't "given up" anything. It seems you may be the ignorant one, if you can't accept that not all (or even most) families are like yours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I have to shake my head when I hear posters (always only here in DCUM-land) who make sweeping assumptions that SAHPs *must* have a WOHP who is never home due to a high-powered career w/travel, long hours, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth among people I know and in my own family. Yes, usually the WOHP parent is a high-earner, but with lots of seniority/high-level/flexibility to come home whenever and/or make their own hours. I think there's a lot of jealousy (yes, I said it) among women who criticize SAHMs. They simply can't - and won't - believe that these SAHMs have spouses who are extremely involved in their kids' lives because they're home early every day.

My DH comes home early and is very involved and it comes at the expense of his working at a higher level at work. He does earn a fine salary but he does worry that when there are cut backs and layoffs they'll zero in on him. It's a regular worry these days. You can't actually have your cake and eat it too , there are trade offs.

This isn't our experience at all. Wishful thinking, perhaps?

And your experience isn't mine. Yet, you keep asserting that you are certain how other people's lives work. Funny how that works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I have to shake my head when I hear posters (always only here in DCUM-land) who make sweeping assumptions that SAHPs *must* have a WOHP who is never home due to a high-powered career w/travel, long hours, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth among people I know and in my own family. Yes, usually the WOHP parent is a high-earner, but with lots of seniority/high-level/flexibility to come home whenever and/or make their own hours. I think there's a lot of jealousy (yes, I said it) among women who criticize SAHMs. They simply can't - and won't - believe that these SAHMs have spouses who are extremely involved in their kids' lives because they're home early every day.

My DH comes home early and is very involved and it comes at the expense of his working at a higher level at work. He does earn a fine salary but he does worry that when there are cut backs and layoffs they'll zero in on him. It's a regular worry these days. You can't actually have your cake and eat it too , there are trade offs.

This isn't our experience at all. Wishful thinking, perhaps?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP here. Regarding your last sentence - again: many SAHPs have spouses who are home early every night and spend tons of time with their kids. It's pretty much a DCUM myth that all SAHPs have spouses working late hours every night.

I agree that most SAHPs have fathers that come home early and are with their kids every night.

I also agree that most WOHP have two parents that come home early and both are fully engaged with their kids.

All I am saying is that kids don't need 1 parent they need 2, when possible. It's not a good model to say, well I stay at home so it's okay my H never sees the kids, I can fulfill all their every need.

When people give OP advise to cut back or SAH so their kids have 1 parent I disagree, I think OP and her H need to cut back... kids need 2 parents.

Not sure why that is a controversial statement but it has obviously hit a nerve with some posters and I doubt it is posters who truly believe their H is fully engaged, its parents that realize they have condoned their H being absent for money and believe their being present is enough.

Please show me where anyone is saying the bolded in this discussion, because the straw man is getting old. There is a difference between saying only one parent needs to available in a given evening to go to Target, and saying that kids only need to have a connection with one parent.

You have to go back to the post that stated their H worked long hours and traveled a lot and that they only solution was to SAH.

That is where I stated "that is not a good model for boys or girls". It would be best if both men and women could be fully engaged in their kids lives.

Pick one...

1. A father that works long hours and travels a lot is fully engaged with their kid's life and OP is fine and need not change anything.

2. OP needs to scale back, so does her H (so do all parents that can't fully engage with their child even if 1 parent is there).

This poster might be shocked to discover that there are plenty of families with a SAHP / "big" earner set up in which both parents are really extremely involved and present in the children's lives.

Some people simply think that if you have one thing (money, for example) it must come at some horrible cost. The fact is, there are people in this world who are rich, or beautiful, or brilliant, and are also lovely individuals, happily married, wonderful parents, etc.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. I have to shake my head when I hear posters (always only here in DCUM-land) who make sweeping assumptions that SAHPs *must* have a WOHP who is never home due to a high-powered career w/travel, long hours, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth among people I know and in my own family. Yes, usually the WOHP parent is a high-earner, but with lots of seniority/high-level/flexibility to come home whenever and/or make their own hours. I think there's a lot of jealousy (yes, I said it) among women who criticize SAHMs. They simply can't - and won't - believe that these SAHMs have spouses who are extremely involved in their kids' lives because they're home early every day.

My DH comes home early and is very involved and it comes at the expense of his working at a higher level at work. He does earn a fine salary but he does worry that when there are cut backs and layoffs they'll zero in on him. It's a regular worry these days. You can't actually have your cake and eat it too , there are trade offs.

Not always. Just because this is your husband's situation, doesn't mean it applies to everyone.

Most people ag high level jobs put in long hours. You might be satisfied with what your spouse is making or with his/her career, but if you talk to them you find out what they are giving up to be more involved in the family. Just because you are ignorant of something doesn't mean it's not happening. Go talk to your spouse.