Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of two teens here with two observations:

1) my kids friends are all really great, smart, well mannered, kind kids. I couldn’t tell you which ones had SAHMs and which ones had WOHMs if I didn’t know their parents (I know many but not all and it’s a mix of both working and non working parents - they all raised awesome kids).


2) this concept of raising your own children is a relatively new phenomenon. Ever heard of the term “it takes a village”? I also have seen some studies that say that working parents now spend significantly more time with their children than stay at home moms did 20-30 years ago. Probably because there isn’t really a village anymore.

Interesting how everyone is just passing by and ignoring this post. As a mom of older ES kids, I agree - all of my children's friends are wonderful kids. Some of them have SAHMs, some of them have two working parents. They're all great kids. If it makes you ladies feel better to put down working moms and tell us we're ruining our children forever, then fine, go ahead, but my kids have turned out great so far, even with a mom who sent them to daycare.

I agree that there are great kids of working parents and great kids of stay at home parents. But the topic isn't about outcomes/how the kids turn out in the end as a result of who raises them. The topic is about who IS actually raising the kids and, although I'd never say this to anyone and think it's totally rude to do so, you can't really argue that parents who both work and whose kids either go to daycare or have a nanny or a grandparent or whoever take care of them are being 100% raised by their parents. They hardly even see their parents. They spend most of their time w/ someone other than their parents. It's just not possible that their parents are the main ones raising them.

Except every parent with kids in school or preschool do this and you are saying only the SAH person is raising their Child, even though the working parent sees the child just as much.

This thread is largely about kids who are not yet school age.

Though also lots of preschools are not full time so are not meant to be full time childcare -- my child attended a half day preschool starting at age 2.5 which was great and helped her get ready for kindergarten. It was 3 hours a day.

And even once you have school age kids... my kid is off today and tomorrow and monday. He's been sick 4 days in the last month due to RSV and a bad cold going around his school. 10 weeks off in summer. Winter break (2 weeks) and spring break (1 week). Random PD days throughout the year. And the kicker -- school ends at 2:30pm.

Even once kids are in school SAHP see their kids a lot more than full time working parents. And I say that as a working parent. You can't deny facts.

He was in school for 3 hours (ours was 4) then he naps for 2 hours in the afternoon, that is 5 of the 8 hours for you (6for me).

So 3 hours (2for me) difference.

The idea is that working moms and sahms have similar hours with their kids is just patently absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a reason for why one spouse chose not to work or works from home/at a flexible part time job? Or is this an acceptable turn of phrase?

It's an absolutely valid statement. Many of my friends didn't want their children to be raised by strangers, some had the privilege to do it themselves or get family to support while others had to send them to daycare or leave them with nannies.

It might be shocking to the SAHP crew, but have you ever considered it’s actually developmentally superior for a few hours of the day for the child not to be attached to the parent at the hip?

SAH doesn't mean the kid is attached at the hip, just like going to child care doesn't mean neglect.

I agree, which is why I don't think SAHP spend that much 1-1 time with kids, definitely not more than working parents.

Of course SAHPs spend more 1-1 time with their kids than working parents. How would someone who isn't with their kids 40+ hours a week spend the same amount of time with their kids as someone who is staying home with their kids and not working?

Because of those 40 hours 20 are sleeping, of the other 5 are with the dad who does morning routine. So that is 15 hours a week, 3 hours a day .

NBD.

Hmmm. This is fascinating math.

1st: morning routine doesn't count to the 40 hours does it? If dad is getting kids up and dressed and breakfasted before he goes and works a 40 hour work week that doesn't come out of the SAHP's time with the kids does it? It comes out of the rest of the time (which is important to remember -- SAHPs aren't nannies an don't just show up on the doorstep at 8am. We'll come back to that.)

2nd: only babies sleep that much. And that's assuming you only have babies and that your kids all have the same sleep schedule. Surprise! Kids are always getting older and they NEVER have the exact same sleep schedule.

3rd: SAHPs don't work a 40 hour work week. No workers rights for unpaid parents remember? No overtime either. When I was a SAHP my DH left for work at 6:30am and came home at 6pm. That's -- count 'em -- 11.5 hours a day or 57.5 hours a week.

4th: SAHPs don't stop working when their partners get home. Their partner worked all day too. So just like working parents they keep parenting even in the evening and on the weekend. In fact SAHPs generally do the vast majority of childcare even when their partners are home because it is more efficient for them to do so. If a SAHP wants to "share the load" outside of their normal working hours then you have to be extremely intentional about it because you are the default parent and will be taking the lead on all the parenting that happens after hours especially the hard stuff like potty training and sleep issues and picky eating.

The idea that SAHPs spend 15 hours a week with their children is stupid. Even I -- someone brainless enough to enjoy caring for children all day and do so on purpose -- have the math and logic skills to see that.

Anonymous wrote:There are, like, 3 posts here from the child’s perspective. This debate should we about their health and comfort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of two teens here with two observations:

1) my kids friends are all really great, smart, well mannered, kind kids. I couldn’t tell you which ones had SAHMs and which ones had WOHMs if I didn’t know their parents (I know many but not all and it’s a mix of both working and non working parents - they all raised awesome kids).


2) this concept of raising your own children is a relatively new phenomenon. Ever heard of the term “it takes a village”? I also have seen some studies that say that working parents now spend significantly more time with their children than stay at home moms did 20-30 years ago. Probably because there isn’t really a village anymore.

Interesting how everyone is just passing by and ignoring this post. As a mom of older ES kids, I agree - all of my children's friends are wonderful kids. Some of them have SAHMs, some of them have two working parents. They're all great kids. If it makes you ladies feel better to put down working moms and tell us we're ruining our children forever, then fine, go ahead, but my kids have turned out great so far, even with a mom who sent them to daycare.

I agree that there are great kids of working parents and great kids of stay at home parents. But the topic isn't about outcomes/how the kids turn out in the end as a result of who raises them. The topic is about who IS actually raising the kids and, although I'd never say this to anyone and think it's totally rude to do so, you can't really argue that parents who both work and whose kids either go to daycare or have a nanny or a grandparent or whoever take care of them are being 100% raised by their parents. They hardly even see their parents. They spend most of their time w/ someone other than their parents. It's just not possible that their parents are the main ones raising them.

Except every parent with kids in school or preschool do this and you are saying only the SAH person is raising their Child, even though the working parent sees the child just as much.

This thread is largely about kids who are not yet school age.

Though also lots of preschools are not full time so are not meant to be full time childcare -- my child attended a half day preschool starting at age 2.5 which was great and helped her get ready for kindergarten. It was 3 hours a day.

And even once you have school age kids... my kid is off today and tomorrow and monday. He's been sick 4 days in the last month due to RSV and a bad cold going around his school. 10 weeks off in summer. Winter break (2 weeks) and spring break (1 week). Random PD days throughout the year. And the kicker -- school ends at 2:30pm.

Even once kids are in school SAHP see their kids a lot more than full time working parents. And I say that as a working parent. You can't deny facts.

He was in school for 3 hours (ours was 4) then he naps for 2 hours in the afternoon, that is 5 of the 8 hours for you (6for me).

So 3 hours (2for me) difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a reason for why one spouse chose not to work or works from home/at a flexible part time job? Or is this an acceptable turn of phrase?

It's an absolutely valid statement. Many of my friends didn't want their children to be raised by strangers, some had the privilege to do it themselves or get family to support while others had to send them to daycare or leave them with nannies.

It might be shocking to the SAHP crew, but have you ever considered it’s actually developmentally superior for a few hours of the day for the child not to be attached to the parent at the hip?

SAH doesn't mean the kid is attached at the hip, just like going to child care doesn't mean neglect.

I agree, which is why I don't think SAHP spend that much 1-1 time with kids, definitely not more than working parents.

Of course SAHPs spend more 1-1 time with their kids than working parents. How would someone who isn't with their kids 40+ hours a week spend the same amount of time with their kids as someone who is staying home with their kids and not working?

Because of those 40 hours 20 are sleeping, of the other 5 are with the dad who does morning routine. So that is 15 hours a week, 3 hours a day .

NBD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that this thread is almost 20 pages long and no one has mentioned that a lot of the SAHP situations people are mentioning here (staying home for 1-3 years when kids are very young) are really just extended parental leaves and that in countries with better parental leave policies and a culture of people actually using leave there is no debate between SAHPs and working parents of babies or very young toddlers because you are not considered a SAHP just because you stayed home with your baby. Everyone stays home with babies (including men in some countries). It's normal to take extended leave from work with kids and then return to jobs when they are old enough to go to a preschool-like environment where they are walking and talking and interacting.

Like the US is one of the only countries in the world where mothers of 8 months old babies are going toe-to-toe over whether you should be a SAHP or a working mom at that age. In sane places it would be irrelevant which lifestyle you chose -- either way your baby would be home with either you or your spouse during that year.

I guess we have to pretend that actually it's normal or even good for babies to spend the first year of life in daycares or with paid caregivers because we live in a place that is insane and not family friendly? I genuinely don't want anyone to feel bad for going back to work. But come on. The rest of the world knows that babies are better off with their families during that first year.

And in those countries, aside from the quota of women leaders, women's careers have a very low ceiling.

There are trade-off but they are often unacknowledged in discussions centered on bashing American parental/maternal support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of two teens here with two observations:

1) my kids friends are all really great, smart, well mannered, kind kids. I couldn’t tell you which ones had SAHMs and which ones had WOHMs if I didn’t know their parents (I know many but not all and it’s a mix of both working and non working parents - they all raised awesome kids).


2) this concept of raising your own children is a relatively new phenomenon. Ever heard of the term “it takes a village”? I also have seen some studies that say that working parents now spend significantly more time with their children than stay at home moms did 20-30 years ago. Probably because there isn’t really a village anymore.

Interesting how everyone is just passing by and ignoring this post. As a mom of older ES kids, I agree - all of my children's friends are wonderful kids. Some of them have SAHMs, some of them have two working parents. They're all great kids. If it makes you ladies feel better to put down working moms and tell us we're ruining our children forever, then fine, go ahead, but my kids have turned out great so far, even with a mom who sent them to daycare.

I agree that there are great kids of working parents and great kids of stay at home parents. But the topic isn't about outcomes/how the kids turn out in the end as a result of who raises them. The topic is about who IS actually raising the kids and, although I'd never say this to anyone and think it's totally rude to do so, you can't really argue that parents who both work and whose kids either go to daycare or have a nanny or a grandparent or whoever take care of them are being 100% raised by their parents. They hardly even see their parents. They spend most of their time w/ someone other than their parents. It's just not possible that their parents are the main ones raising them.

Except every parent with kids in school or preschool do this and you are saying only the SAH person is raising their Child, even though the working parent sees the child just as much.

This thread is largely about kids who are not yet school age.

Though also lots of preschools are not full time so are not meant to be full time childcare -- my child attended a half day preschool starting at age 2.5 which was great and helped her get ready for kindergarten. It was 3 hours a day.

And even once you have school age kids... my kid is off today and tomorrow and monday. He's been sick 4 days in the last month due to RSV and a bad cold going around his school. 10 weeks off in summer. Winter break (2 weeks) and spring break (1 week). Random PD days throughout the year. And the kicker -- school ends at 2:30pm.

Even once kids are in school SAHP see their kids a lot more than full time working parents. And I say that as a working parent. You can't deny facts.

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to me that this thread is almost 20 pages long and no one has mentioned that a lot of the SAHP situations people are mentioning here (staying home for 1-3 years when kids are very young) are really just extended parental leaves and that in countries with better parental leave policies and a culture of people actually using leave there is no debate between SAHPs and working parents of babies or very young toddlers because you are not considered a SAHP just because you stayed home with your baby. Everyone stays home with babies (including men in some countries). It's normal to take extended leave from work with kids and then return to jobs when they are old enough to go to a preschool-like environment where they are walking and talking and interacting.

Like the US is one of the only countries in the world where mothers of 8 months old babies are going toe-to-toe over whether you should be a SAHP or a working mom at that age. In sane places it would be irrelevant which lifestyle you chose -- either way your baby would be home with either you or your spouse during that year.

I guess we have to pretend that actually it's normal or even good for babies to spend the first year of life in daycares or with paid caregivers because we live in a place that is insane and not family friendly? I genuinely don't want anyone to feel bad for going back to work. But come on. The rest of the world knows that babies are better off with their families during that first year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Point being that when you work from home and have young kids, you are less efficient at work so something that may take 2 hours can get stretched to 5.

Not if they are napping.

Are you kidding? Kids do not nap all the time. Do you only have one kid? Give it a rest.

I actually used to cuddle with my toddler when she napped. When she was a baby, I napped when she napped.

Kids are mostly at school during their childhood and when they aren't they nap... a lot.

No I didn't nap during the day do you have narcolepsy?

I don't work when the kids are awake. I work when they are asleep or I engage with them, or they are at school or preschool or playdates.

Yes I have more than 1 kid but I don't have 3 under 5 that would make it hard.

No one with a reasonably demanding full time job is providing full time childcare and parenting young children at the same time. You can’t do both at the same time well. Remember? This was proven again and again to many of us during the pandemic.

It’s already been proven by showing schedules that for an infant, They are with nanny for maybe 3 to 4 waking hours.

Children don’t stay infants for long

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, because it’s true, even if people don’t want to admit that’s what’s happening when children are in full-time daycare. But in polite society we avoid saying things that might hurt someone’s feelings, regardless of whether it’s truthful or not.

But it’s not truthful. My kids went to daycare, and, sure, their daycare teachers, who were all wonderful, provided care during the workday. But my spouse and I made the decisions on how to parent, which included finding great caregivers.

If your children go to daycare for 10-11 (7-6 or 7:30-5:30) hours a day for the first 4-5 years of life and sleep 10-12 hours a night then you are not spending 4-5 hours with them each day 70% of the week. How is this controversial? You are outsourcing a lot of parenting duties to other caregivers. Someone saying that they don’t want to do that is not wrong. And I’m saying this as a full time working parent.

I actually did the math with my neighbor who was a SAHM and I did spend more 1-1 time with my kids than she did.

1st. My H's time counted and I know many of SAHP's who are the 1st to tell you that their H does nothing, works late, travels a lot.
2nd: She did not take into account napping, time in front of TV, time they were in the basement playing and she was futzing around.

I don't think a SAHP should be connected at the hip and I think that independent time is valuable but the reality is she was not spending more 1-1 time with her child than I was.

Whether you are currently working or staying home, I hope you aren't tutoring your DC in math.

Oh did I hurt your feelings to learn I might spend more quality time with my kids than you do?

NP but I can assure you, you do NOT spend more time with your kids than a SAHP. It's impossible. "Quality" time is debatable but in your initial post you didn't say quality time you said 1-1 time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, because it’s true, even if people don’t want to admit that’s what’s happening when children are in full-time daycare. But in polite society we avoid saying things that might hurt someone’s feelings, regardless of whether it’s truthful or not.

But it’s not truthful. My kids went to daycare, and, sure, their daycare teachers, who were all wonderful, provided care during the workday. But my spouse and I made the decisions on how to parent, which included finding great caregivers.

If your children go to daycare for 10-11 (7-6 or 7:30-5:30) hours a day for the first 4-5 years of life and sleep 10-12 hours a night then you are not spending 4-5 hours with them each day 70% of the week. How is this controversial? You are outsourcing a lot of parenting duties to other caregivers. Someone saying that they don’t want to do that is not wrong. And I’m saying this as a full time working parent.

I actually did the math with my neighbor who was a SAHM and I did spend more 1-1 time with my kids than she did.

1st. My H's time counted and I know many of SAHP's who are the 1st to tell you that their H does nothing, works late, travels a lot.
2nd: She did not take into account napping, time in front of TV, time they were in the basement playing and she was futzing around.

I don't think a SAHP should be connected at the hip and I think that independent time is valuable but the reality is she was not spending more 1-1 time with her child than I was.

I think you are mistaken. There's just simply not a chance that you spend more 1-1 time with kids than a SAHP unless the SAHP is outsourcing a ton of childcare. Your kids never play in the basement or nap or watch TV when you're with them? And how much time during the day are the SAHP neighbor's kids doing that? 2 hrs out of a 8+ hour work day...your math isn't mathing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it rude to say I didn't want to be a SAHP because I wanted my kids to be raise in a stimulating environment instead of spending their days watching tv and running errands to Costco.

You're just talking about how YOU would be as a SAHP, not how all or most SAHPs are. Maybe your best if you were to SAH would be to turn on TV and take kids to Costco but that certainly doesn't describe the SAHPs I know.