Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lack ambition. Risk kids follow same route. Attractive and ambitious wife is very important now.

Not true. Most of my very ambitious friends and colleagues had SAHM and they love their moms and their upbringing but doesn't feel they can or need to make similar sacrifices.

My own grandma was SAHM, 3 out of 4 of her daughters had very successful careers, one was a teen bride and mom but her contributions at home saved way more than she could've brought home.

You really think being a teen mom is better than being a working mother? What in the actual F are you teaching your children?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s fairly boring and reductive and reduce anyone to what they are doing for what is the end is probably only like 20% or 30% of their life.

I also think competency is such an underrated thing, so if you are competent and energetic about whatever you’re doing you’re like in the top 5% of people.

Huh? It’s your job that has an end date, aka your retirement. Unless the worst happens and you experience a loss, you are a wife and mother for good.

Well yes and no. This question was if thoughts on “stay at home mothers” which is a description of a specific time in a woman’s life. You’re not a SAHM when you’re 67 and your kids have their own families. It’s a role and identity that has an end date like anything else. Eventually I stopped identifying as a student. One day I could stop identifying as a lawyer bc I am doing other things.

I think it’s reductive to box people in generally….so yeah I find it boring and undermining to lead with assumptions about someone being a SAHM just as much as it is to assign anyone one facet of a person to their entire being.

That actually wasn’t the question though. OP asked “what do you think about women who are content to be just wives and mothers”. It wasn’t about the early years of being a SAHM although some people took the thread in that direction, and it’s not the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s fairly boring and reductive and reduce anyone to what they are doing for what is the end is probably only like 20% or 30% of their life.

I also think competency is such an underrated thing, so if you are competent and energetic about whatever you’re doing you’re like in the top 5% of people.

Huh? It’s your job that has an end date, aka your retirement. Unless the worst happens and you experience a loss, you are a wife and mother for good.

Well yes and no. This question was if thoughts on “stay at home mothers” which is a description of a specific time in a woman’s life. You’re not a SAHM when you’re 67 and your kids have their own families. It’s a role and identity that has an end date like anything else. Eventually I stopped identifying as a student. One day I could stop identifying as a lawyer bc I am doing other things.

I think it’s reductive to box people in generally….so yeah I find it boring and undermining to lead with assumptions about someone being a SAHM just as much as it is to assign anyone one facet of a person to their entire being.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been reading this board for more than ten years, and have always worked, adn needed to work. I was a child prodigy and today am tremendously successful in a field of biomedicine where I both do good and make quite a bit of money.
I have a DH who also makes plenty of money and works hard, but not like big law.
AS my kids finish elementary school I am so, so, tired. I am not doing the best job at either my work, where I increasingly realize my colleagues are childless or empty nesters and fitness nuts. I have a SN child and my other is high needs. I have a fantastic nanny, family in town and a great, helpful DH who does it all, but there is still too much.

I do not know what the answer is and I could not SAH - my nanny is better at most things than me, and we are sending my kids to private to deal with the rest, but..it is too much. So if SAH is working for someone, who am I to judge? (I know this last comment is virtually sacrilege on DCUM, but I told you I was tired!)

The answer is not to have children if you want an important career. You can't do well at both. Chose the career -- and spare the humans you are forcing to sacrifice on your behalf.

What sexist misogynistic bullsh@t. Saying that working mothers should never have children? Wtf is wrong with you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to know what their Plan B is when the kids leave for college or if a divorce happens.

Plan B: For college - enjoy the freedom of not being a cook, housekeeper, laundry, and personal driver. If divorce happens, my spouse knows I'll go after everything but I cannot imagine divorce happening. The bigger concern is death and we have a paid-off house, college fund, savings and I'd get social security. And, life insurance. I could pick up a basic job if I wanted/needed to and be just fine. Believe it or not, some plan for these things. Death worries me more. I hope to die first.

Sounds like my best friend, except it took him 10 years to die. It drained their finances. He was 40 when he got sick. Social security is decades away and not that much when someone only working until 40.

We have good health insurance so thankfully it would only be a drain for a nursing home and I'd never do that to my spouse if I could avoid it. Same with my spouse. We are older so it's not decades away and as a spouse, with kids, you get survivor's benefits. And, I'd get my husband's small pension on top of social security, plus life insurance. And, that's why we made sure to live within our means, save and do things like pay off the house.

My father died young leaving my mother with five kids, two of them adults. She never worked outside the home. When he died she had a paid off house, SS, pension and 100% paid health insurance, now Medicare supplement. Even with inflation she still does ok and won’t let anyone help her financially.

It’s not automatic destitution when a woman is widowed young.

Kids rarely know the whole story.

My partner died last year. Our child gets SSS benefits for years to come.
Our net worth went up greatly in one year because of help of SS and not spending like DP did. I can only imagine how a once married woman was able to make it work with all the money coming in. I'm not even going after the life insurance or touch any other money coming for the child. Some of us can really stretch the dollar.

Exactly kids have no clue how far dollars are being stretched and where their mom is sacrificing

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s fairly boring and reductive and reduce anyone to what they are doing for what is the end is probably only like 20% or 30% of their life.

I also think competency is such an underrated thing, so if you are competent and energetic about whatever you’re doing you’re like in the top 5% of people.

Huh? It’s your job that has an end date, aka your retirement. Unless the worst happens and you experience a loss, you are a wife and mother for good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with it except in two scenarios, both of which I have experienced:

1) Calling yourself CEO of Smith Household on social media, Linkedin or in person
2) Telling moms with childcare you stay home because you don't want someone else raising your children.

I currently stay at home but didn't always and could not agree with you more on #2. It is so offensive.

How so? As a parent, you are responsible for choosing who takes care of your kid 24 hours of a day. Why is it offensive to choose to stay home to be the primary caregiver? Why is it offensive to not want to hand your children over to a stranger for the majority of their waking hours?

There's nothing offensive about choosing to stay home to be the primary caregiver. I do that now. I also respect that some people are not comfortable with daycare, etc. But when you tell someone else who does use childcare that you don't want someone else raising your children, you are implying that they have allowed someone else to raise theirs. That's hurtful, especially for parents who may not have any option but to work. Personally I worked part time, my oldest was in childcare for 24 hours a week. I object to the suggestion that anyone other than me and her dad were raising her. Caring for her, of course. It takes a village, but no one else was her mom.

I think it just depends on your perspective. I work out of the home, and wholly believe that my kids' babysitters and daycare teachers are (at least in part) raising them. Not as their mom or dad, of course, but the kids spend almost as many waking hours at daycare as they do with my husband and I! The teachers play such an outsized role in raising our kids, imparting values, etc.

I have also heard the argument from both parents and nannies/other caregivers that it's better to have a "professional" caregiver because they have experiences and often specialized education in early childhood development. This is a very common attitude among dual income families with nannies or who have very high quality daycare/tutors/private school/etc. And I think if you can afford to hire people with really strong credentials and a lot of experience with kids, and can smooth out the employment aspect of having that kind of staff, it might be true.

But it's also insulting to families who can't afford that kind of care, and have to choose between a lower quality daycare (which is unlikely to have all the value-adds of a nanny or high quality daycare) or a SAHP. A lot of families choose a SAHP because it's a clear improvement over whatever care they can afford on their joint salaries. They may still lose money in the long run by having one parent stay home for at least a few years, but their kids really do benefit from the SAHP when the alternative was a low cost daycare.

Which is why judging people for these choices SUCKS. People come into it with different resources, backgrounds, and options. It's gross to judge someone for working or staying home when you don't even know what the alternative was. I think in a lot of instance, families are absolutely choosing the option that gives their kids the best shot and the best care, and it's so offensive to then be told your choice was bad by someone who had some third option that wasn't even available to you.

I think it’s fairly boring and reductive and reduce anyone to what they are doing for what is the end is probably only like 20% or 30% of their life.

I also think competency is such an underrated thing, so if you are competent and energetic about whatever you’re doing you’re like in the top 5% of people.

Re: the show Expatsthat OP mentioned. It is an infuriating waste of time, like the clickbait that promises to show you something interesting but only after you sit thru an endless length of dragging video designed to increase eyeball time on the site

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to know what their Plan B is when the kids leave for college or if a divorce happens.

Plan B: For college - enjoy the freedom of not being a cook, housekeeper, laundry, and personal driver. If divorce happens, my spouse knows I'll go after everything but I cannot imagine divorce happening. The bigger concern is death and we have a paid-off house, college fund, savings and I'd get social security. And, life insurance. I could pick up a basic job if I wanted/needed to and be just fine. Believe it or not, some plan for these things. Death worries me more. I hope to die first.

Sounds like my best friend, except it took him 10 years to die. It drained their finances. He was 40 when he got sick. Social security is decades away and not that much when someone only working until 40.

We have good health insurance so thankfully it would only be a drain for a nursing home and I'd never do that to my spouse if I could avoid it. Same with my spouse. We are older so it's not decades away and as a spouse, with kids, you get survivor's benefits. And, I'd get my husband's small pension on top of social security, plus life insurance. And, that's why we made sure to live within our means, save and do things like pay off the house.

My father died young leaving my mother with five kids, two of them adults. She never worked outside the home. When he died she had a paid off house, SS, pension and 100% paid health insurance, now Medicare supplement. Even with inflation she still does ok and won’t let anyone help her financially.

It’s not automatic destitution when a woman is widowed young.

Kids rarely know the whole story.

My partner died last year. Our child gets SSS benefits for years to come.
Our net worth went up greatly in one year because of help of SS and not spending like DP did. I can only imagine how a once married woman was able to make it work with all the money coming in. I'm not even going after the life insurance or touch any other money coming for the child. Some of us can really stretch the dollar.

Anonymous wrote:This reads more like people asking the question what do you think of wives and mothers who work outside the home.

I’m a SAHM and for our family, my being home is best for our family. DH and I make a good parenting team and compliment one another well in raising our children. We believe character and integrity is equally important as achievement. I try hard not to spoil our kids even though we have the money. My kids do chores and clean up after themselves. I used to have a FT housekeeper/nanny but we got rid of her so that our kids could help around the house.

I’m from NYC and saw first hand the spoiled kids with nannies following them around. We also encountered successful power couples whose children did not turn out so well. Even when the parents went to HBS and Yale Law and were at their top of their fields, their kids seemed to lack character and often did not end up at good colleges. The kids were often disrespectful to their parents, peers and friends. I see some similar behavior here in DC but not as much.

This reads more like people asking the question what do you think of wives and mothers who work outside the home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with it except in two scenarios, both of which I have experienced:

1) Calling yourself CEO of Smith Household on social media, Linkedin or in person
2) Telling moms with childcare you stay home because you don't want someone else raising your children.

I currently stay at home but didn't always and could not agree with you more on #2. It is so offensive.

How so? As a parent, you are responsible for choosing who takes care of your kid 24 hours of a day. Why is it offensive to choose to stay home to be the primary caregiver? Why is it offensive to not want to hand your children over to a stranger for the majority of their waking hours?

There's nothing offensive about choosing to stay home to be the primary caregiver. I do that now. I also respect that some people are not comfortable with daycare, etc. But when you tell someone else who does use childcare that you don't want someone else raising your children, you are implying that they have allowed someone else to raise theirs. That's hurtful, especially for parents who may not have any option but to work. Personally I worked part time, my oldest was in childcare for 24 hours a week. I object to the suggestion that anyone other than me and her dad were raising her. Caring for her, of course. It takes a village, but no one else was her mom.

I think it just depends on your perspective. I work out of the home, and wholly believe that my kids' babysitters and daycare teachers are (at least in part) raising them. Not as their mom or dad, of course, but the kids spend almost as many waking hours at daycare as they do with my husband and I! The teachers play such an outsized role in raising our kids, imparting values, etc.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s great and their kids will probably benefit from it.

This. Everyone is different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be honest since you requested it OP.

I have a low opinion of parents who do not even want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers. I think prioritizing material things and one's own career and self-fulfillment is selfish and indicates a lack of understanding of how important it is for young children to spend most of their time with someone who loves them completely and unconditionally.

A little off of your topic but completely relevant.

Your opinion clearly presumes that the parent has a choice not to work. What about the mother who works not because she prioritizes material things but because she needs to earn money to put food on the table and a roof over the kid's head? Is she selfish?

Must be difficult for you to understand the world outside of your bubble.

I'm not talking about parents who have no choice financially. I'm talking about parents who don't want to be the primary caregiver for their children when they are infants and toddlers.

We did that as a family with very little extra money, prioritizing my children over everything else.

It really just robbed your kids of many experiences.

And you robbed your children of one of the most important experiences of their lives, and one which can't be experienced later in life: of being taken care of by someone who loves you completely and totally. They will never experience that in life. Ever. And that is very sad IMO.

Maybe? My own mother was like you and now that I’m a mother I find her behavior odd. I could write a novel on her bad parenting, but let’s just say that because if it I want to work and not stay home. She was also against “strangers” raising her children and thought she was so much better than others for prioritizing child rearing over money.

And, my mom prioritized my dad and her and his careers. I ended up doing most of the cleaning, cooking and laundry to keep the peace and had to sacrifice my teen years to their needs. I could not do sports or activities because it would inconvenience them. When I worked they took my money and barely gave me spending money except a rare occasion. They constantly screamed poverty when they both had good professional jobs and were being gifted money for our college and themselves. They inherited a ton and we never saw a dime. They were quick to help others but could not be bothered getting their kid a birthday present or their grandkids. So, yup, I choose the exact opposite.

I mean, you had a bad mom. But that had nothing to do with SAH. She would have been a bad mom as a working mom too.

Frankly this is all so much nonsense because working or staying home is pretty much irrelevant to outcome. Are you an alcoholic? Prone to rages? Financially unstable? Malicious? Physically or emotionally abusive? That’s going to matter a lot more to outcome than whether you stayed home or not.

Completely agree. If parents work 40 hours and devote the rest of their time to their kids it’s all good. But, many don’t and that is the problem but that’s with working or sah parents. When we die, our jobs wil be far less important than how we did raising our kids as that is our true legacy.

I’m glad my mom worked. She hated being home with us and resented having kids. She was too busy trying to please my dad who could never be please but that cost me my teen and young adult life being their caretakers.

That's a ballsy statement to say MOST working parents don't prioritize spending time with their children outside of work.

DP, but what? PP said "many don't" and you just changed it to "most." Many and most have different meanings. Why pick this fight?!?!?!

Many and most would both be incorrect. Some would work, also some would work with SAHMs.