Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly? I'm too smart to be a stay at home mom. Not saying they're dumb. I'm saying my brain needs far more intellectual stimulation then being at home with kids all day.

I have no dog in this fight- I’ve done both- but this is ridiculous. I’ve know Ivy grads, lawyers with degrees from top 5 law schools, phDs, doctors, and former tenured professors who left the workforce to stay at home and find enough intellectual stimulation. If you are well-educated in child development, it can be really interesting to spend all day with children. Also, I have a son with asd, and the best of his therapists are sharper than tacks. I actually marvel that they had the insight in their youth to find child development an interesting field.

So...they work? Yes?

I am the poster you’re responding to- yes they work outside the home.. with children in a similar manner that engaged and resourceful sahm do. I mean, do you limit your friends to only those who make the same life choices as you do? No wonder this thread became so uncharitable and irrational.

So you're admitting that in order for it to be really interesting to spend all day with children, one needs to be well-educated in child development. So where does that leave lawyers? Artists? Scientists? Maybe anyone other than child therapists? Or do you think everyone who is smart should become well-educated in child development before having children while also tending to their other full-time careers? I mean, do you hear yourself?

We’ll, I do hear myself, but No, I would NOT say that *in order for it to be interesting* you would have to be *formally* educated in child development . I would rather clarify that if you have taken the time to learn about child development it can frame the experience of childcare in a more interesting way. Resourceful people have ways of learning about these things outside formal settings, for example - Amazon has student textbooks to rent… the library has resources… etc…. But also, of course, even people who have no interest in learning about child development can find childcare enjoyable, challenging and stimulating. intelligent people are often (though not always) keen observers of human nature. Children are fascinating and very enjoyable to observe. The ways they learn at different ages is interesting. The way they relate to people and the world around them is interesting. And children can be so different! Their differences create challenges, and learning to pivot around those challenges and come up with solutions is very engaging for some.

If it isn’t for you, and instead you find it wearing, that’s also fine- it doesn’t speak against intelligence or virtue. But my point is that there is no need to insult the intelligence of those who do find it interesting. It’s like a mathematician not finding a literature professor’s work to be interesting, but instead of owning it says that her work is frivolous. It’s just… clearly not true and unnecessarily caddy.

That was never said

Yes it was.
“Honestly? I’m too smart to be a Sahm” - that person is definitely insulting the intelligence of women who stay home

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly? I'm too smart to be a stay at home mom. Not saying they're dumb. I'm saying my brain needs far more intellectual stimulation then being at home with kids all day.

I have no dog in this fight- I’ve done both- but this is ridiculous. I’ve know Ivy grads, lawyers with degrees from top 5 law schools, phDs, doctors, and former tenured professors who left the workforce to stay at home and find enough intellectual stimulation. If you are well-educated in child development, it can be really interesting to spend all day with children. Also, I have a son with asd, and the best of his therapists are sharper than tacks. I actually marvel that they had the insight in their youth to find child development an interesting field.

So...they work? Yes?

I am the poster you’re responding to- yes they work outside the home.. with children in a similar manner that engaged and resourceful sahm do. I mean, do you limit your friends to only those who make the same life choices as you do? No wonder this thread became so uncharitable and irrational.

So you're admitting that in order for it to be really interesting to spend all day with children, one needs to be well-educated in child development. So where does that leave lawyers? Artists? Scientists? Maybe anyone other than child therapists? Or do you think everyone who is smart should become well-educated in child development before having children while also tending to their other full-time careers? I mean, do you hear yourself?

We’ll, I do hear myself, but No, I would NOT say that *in order for it to be interesting* you would have to be *formally* educated in child development . I would rather clarify that if you have taken the time to learn about child development it can frame the experience of childcare in a more interesting way. Resourceful people have ways of learning about these things outside formal settings, for example - Amazon has student textbooks to rent… the library has resources… etc…. But also, of course, even people who have no interest in learning about child development can find childcare enjoyable, challenging and stimulating. intelligent people are often (though not always) keen observers of human nature. Children are fascinating and very enjoyable to observe. The ways they learn at different ages is interesting. The way they relate to people and the world around them is interesting. And children can be so different! Their differences create challenges, and learning to pivot around those challenges and come up with solutions is very engaging for some.

If it isn’t for you, and instead you find it wearing, that’s also fine- it doesn’t speak against intelligence or virtue. But my point is that there is no need to insult the intelligence of those who do find it interesting. It’s like a mathematician not finding a literature professor’s work to be interesting, but instead of owning it says that her work is frivolous. It’s just… clearly not true and unnecessarily caddy.

That was never said

Anonymous wrote:Is OP a troll or just dumb? The reasons mothers work are well understood - and well documented. It’s not rocket science…

If iOP really is unsure of why women work, the studies on the positive aspects of having a working mom are really going to blow their mind.

Show me the studies that show the positive aspects of having a working mom outside of low income and single parent families having a higher family income.

People always mention these studies, but I don’t believe they actually exist.

Is OP a troll or just dumb? The reasons mothers work are well understood - and well documented. It’s not rocket science…

If iOP really is unsure of why women work, the studies on the positive aspects of having a working mom are really going to blow their mind.

I’m an MBA whose become pretty much wholly disillusioned with corporate culture and the American workplace: it’s transparently ableist, sexist, racist, and heteronormative, and rewards bad behavior. I’m pregnant with my third and laying the groundwork to start my own business. I am tired of the grind, the game, and chasing elusive “success” as defined by others.

None of it is real.

Women who went to college and then stayed home did not “Take away” seats from men. They earned their seats, and they prevented low intellect people from going to good college and joining the work force. I think educated women did society a big flavor by pushing out unqualified candidates

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly? I'm too smart to be a stay at home mom. Not saying they're dumb. I'm saying my brain needs far more intellectual stimulation then being at home with kids all day.

I have no dog in this fight- I’ve done both- but this is ridiculous. I’ve know Ivy grads, lawyers with degrees from top 5 law schools, phDs, doctors, and former tenured professors who left the workforce to stay at home and find enough intellectual stimulation. If you are well-educated in child development, it can be really interesting to spend all day with children. Also, I have a son with asd, and the best of his therapists are sharper than tacks. I actually marvel that they had the insight in their youth to find child development an interesting field.

So...they work? Yes?

I am the poster you’re responding to- yes they work outside the home.. with children in a similar manner that engaged and resourceful sahm do. I mean, do you limit your friends to only those who make the same life choices as you do? No wonder this thread became so uncharitable and irrational.

So you're admitting that in order for it to be really interesting to spend all day with children, one needs to be well-educated in child development. So where does that leave lawyers? Artists? Scientists? Maybe anyone other than child therapists? Or do you think everyone who is smart should become well-educated in child development before having children while also tending to their other full-time careers? I mean, do you hear yourself?

We’ll, I do hear myself, but No, I would NOT say that *in order for it to be interesting* you would have to be *formally* educated in child development . I would rather clarify that if you have taken the time to learn about child development it can frame the experience of childcare in a more interesting way. Resourceful people have ways of learning about these things outside formal settings, for example - Amazon has student textbooks to rent… the library has resources… etc…. But also, of course, even people who have no interest in learning about child development can find childcare enjoyable, challenging and stimulating. intelligent people are often (though not always) keen observers of human nature. Children are fascinating and very enjoyable to observe. The ways they learn at different ages is interesting. The way they relate to people and the world around them is interesting. And children can be so different! Their differences create challenges, and learning to pivot around those challenges and come up with solutions is very engaging for some.

If it isn’t for you, and instead you find it wearing, that’s also fine- it doesn’t speak against intelligence or virtue. But my point is that there is no need to insult the intelligence of those who do find it interesting. It’s like a mathematician not finding a literature professor’s work to be interesting, but instead of owning it says that her work is frivolous. It’s just… clearly not true and unnecessarily caddy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly? I'm too smart to be a stay at home mom. Not saying they're dumb. I'm saying my brain needs far more intellectual stimulation then being at home with kids all day.

I have no dog in this fight- I’ve done both- but this is ridiculous. I’ve know Ivy grads, lawyers with degrees from top 5 law schools, phDs, doctors, and former tenured professors who left the workforce to stay at home and find enough intellectual stimulation. If you are well-educated in child development, it can be really interesting to spend all day with children. Also, I have a son with asd, and the best of his therapists are sharper than tacks. I actually marvel that they had the insight in their youth to find child development an interesting field.

So...they work? Yes?

I am the poster you’re responding to- yes they work outside the home.. with children in a similar manner that engaged and resourceful sahm do. I mean, do you limit your friends to only those who make the same life choices as you do? No wonder this thread became so uncharitable and irrational.

So you're admitting that in order for it to be really interesting to spend all day with children, one needs to be well-educated in child development. So where does that leave lawyers? Artists? Scientists? Maybe anyone other than child therapists? Or do you think everyone who is smart should become well-educated in child development before having children while also tending to their other full-time careers? I mean, do you hear yourself?

I do think it's funny that it's mostly toddler mommies having this argument. It's a whole different ballgame when your children start school, ladies.

My kids are in ES and are in school from 9:20 - 4:05. It's typically 4:30 by the time they get home. I work from home from 7:00 - 4:00 (with a little break to get them breakfast and out the door) and I am done working by the time they get home. I probably spend the exact same amount of time with my children as a SAHM with similarly aged children. So why are we arguing?

I mean, if it was socially and legally acceptable to send my child out to work I guess I could stay home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly? I'm too smart to be a stay at home mom. Not saying they're dumb. I'm saying my brain needs far more intellectual stimulation then being at home with kids all day.

I have no dog in this fight- I’ve done both- but this is ridiculous. I’ve know Ivy grads, lawyers with degrees from top 5 law schools, phDs, doctors, and former tenured professors who left the workforce to stay at home and find enough intellectual stimulation. If you are well-educated in child development, it can be really interesting to spend all day with children. Also, I have a son with asd, and the best of his therapists are sharper than tacks. I actually marvel that they had the insight in their youth to find child development an interesting field.

Why did they take up a seat in those competitive top 5 schools to just stay at home then?

I always think this is such an odd line of thinking. I assume that this wasn’t the plan when they started. Maybe they didn’t have their entire lives planned out at 17….

I mean, why do people make a lifetime commitment and take marriage vows only to divorce?

Anonymous wrote:For the same reason my husband is a working dad: roof over our heads, food on the table, clothes on our back. This is true for 99% of people who have jobs, men or women.

+1
DH is the SAHD/substitute teacher. I make a lot more than he ever did and I'm a stable employee. DH's former industry is known for not paying well and high turnover. Plus, I wouldn't survive mentally as a SAHM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly? I'm too smart to be a stay at home mom. Not saying they're dumb. I'm saying my brain needs far more intellectual stimulation then being at home with kids all day.

I have no dog in this fight- I’ve done both- but this is ridiculous. I’ve know Ivy grads, lawyers with degrees from top 5 law schools, phDs, doctors, and former tenured professors who left the workforce to stay at home and find enough intellectual stimulation. If you are well-educated in child development, it can be really interesting to spend all day with children. Also, I have a son with asd, and the best of his therapists are sharper than tacks. I actually marvel that they had the insight in their youth to find child development an interesting field.

Why did they take up a seat in those competitive top 5 schools to just stay at home then?

DP. Maybe they went to school with the intention of staying in the workforce but dropped out once they realized they couldn't cut it. Or they worked for a number of years before starting a family and then quit. Or daddy's trust fund was contingent on them graduating from college/law school/etc.

Right. Also, they didn’t “take” a spot from someone else. They EARNED - all of them before they had children. Adding to the list- the mother had a child with daunting special needs (me), they had infertility issues for a decade and had a baby and wanted to stay home, they followed their high-earning, insanely-educated spouse to a job where they didn’t have interesting professional opportunities. They wanted to homeschool. But it actually doesn’t matter. You’re admitted to competitive programs because of your test scores, the proven ability to work hard, etc. it’s not contingent on you remaining in the work force you’re entire adult life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly? I'm too smart to be a stay at home mom. Not saying they're dumb. I'm saying my brain needs far more intellectual stimulation then being at home with kids all day.

I have no dog in this fight- I’ve done both- but this is ridiculous. I’ve know Ivy grads, lawyers with degrees from top 5 law schools, phDs, doctors, and former tenured professors who left the workforce to stay at home and find enough intellectual stimulation. If you are well-educated in child development, it can be really interesting to spend all day with children. Also, I have a son with asd, and the best of his therapists are sharper than tacks. I actually marvel that they had the insight in their youth to find child development an interesting field.

So...they work? Yes?

I am the poster you’re responding to- yes they work outside the home.. with children in a similar manner that engaged and resourceful sahm do. I mean, do you limit your friends to only those who make the same life choices as you do? No wonder this thread became so uncharitable and irrational.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly? I'm too smart to be a stay at home mom. Not saying they're dumb. I'm saying my brain needs far more intellectual stimulation then being at home with kids all day.

I have no dog in this fight- I’ve done both- but this is ridiculous. I’ve know Ivy grads, lawyers with degrees from top 5 law schools, phDs, doctors, and former tenured professors who left the workforce to stay at home and find enough intellectual stimulation. If you are well-educated in child development, it can be really interesting to spend all day with children. Also, I have a son with asd, and the best of his therapists are sharper than tacks. I actually marvel that they had the insight in their youth to find child development an interesting field.

Why did they take up a seat in those competitive top 5 schools to just stay at home then?

DP. Maybe they went to school with the intention of staying in the workforce but dropped out once they realized they couldn't cut it. Or they worked for a number of years before starting a family and then quit. Or daddy's trust fund was contingent on them graduating from college/law school/etc.