Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll help you out. Jeff is the administrator of this website. http://www.dcurbanmom.com/

If you're sock puppeting, denying who you are etc (via computer IP address), you can be easily disproven. So I think pps are saying admit you are who they say you are.

Just for the record, the post in question is here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/559129.page#8961149

And it was posted by the same poster who says that he didn't write that:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/390/559129.page#8968426

But, to be fair, he wrote the earlier post yesterday and he has posted a lot. He might have just forgot.

It's amazing that this thread has made it this far and has generally been reasonably (by our standards) polite.

Thanks for clearing that up. I did write both posts. In the second one, you'll note I was writing in the first person. I didn't deny writing the original post. What I was denying was the mischaracterizarion of my original post -- that I said lower educated people have nothing to offer my child. It's not at all what I said and I wanted to be sure she was responding to my post and not someone else's. I'm happy to defend my views about the merits of a parent staying home with young kids. But I'm not going to battle a straw man. That's a waste of time, even by the standards of Internet forum arguments. Anyway, the thread has thankfully moved past the issue of education levels and I'm happy to let that go.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like a lot of you posting here have really young kids. My kids are older and I am around a lot of older kids/teens. What I think is that people vastly overvalue SAH vs WOH. I think all things considered, it's a pretty minor factor. I see kids of both SAH and WOH excelling (and I mean in all ways, including emotionally). I also see the opposite.

Things that seem to matter way more than SAH or WOH, as far as I can tell: mental health of family members, family stability, alcoholism, anger issues, marital strife, financial strain, addiction issues. These things transcend WOH or SAH status. SAH/WOH might impact one or the other (like OP who resents his wife) but it's incidental to the real problem.

Those of you who are insistent that one way is best, like the husband posting here, or the WOHMs who talk about SAHMs being bad examples, you sound sort of desperately controlling to me. You are frantically scrabbling for SAH or WOH like it's some sort of magic charm that will make your kids the best. It's just not like that. There aren't magic charms in life and things are really complex.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll help you out. Jeff is the administrator of this website. http://www.dcurbanmom.com/

If you're sock puppeting, denying who you are etc (via computer IP address), you can be easily disproven. So I think pps are saying admit you are who they say you are.

Just for the record, the post in question is here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/559129.page#8961149

And it was posted by the same poster who says that he didn't write that:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/390/559129.page#8968426

But, to be fair, he wrote the earlier post yesterday and he has posted a lot. He might have just forgot.

It's amazing that this thread has made it this far and has generally been reasonably (by our standards) polite.

Anonymous wrote:I'll help you out. Jeff is the administrator of this website. http://www.dcurbanmom.com/

If you're sock puppeting, denying who you are etc (via computer IP address), you can be easily disproven. So I think pps are saying admit you are who they say you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But some people say something is a tradeoff... like I see my child less for money. But I don't see that as a tradeoff. I see that as a normal healthy relationship. I don't think it is all that healthy for a child to only have their mother as a caregiver. I am not trading one thing for the other. I think it is healthier for a child to be with people other than me sometimes. I think it is healthier for my children to have an involved father. I think it is healthier for children to grow up and realize they are not the center of the universe and that sometime mom is more important to dad and dad is more important to mom right now so you have a babysitter.

It's not necessarily a trade off but a lifestyle that I believe in, that I planned and executed.

But nothing, literally nothing on your list is necessarily mutually exclusive with a SAHP. Not every husband with a homemaker wife works crazy hours or isn't involved wit his children. Children don't have to grow up feeling like a center of the universe if their mother stays home. It's not like men with SAHMs never go out to dinner with their wives. It's not like an educated, intelligent SAHM would keep her child locked up in a room where he can only see her. They go out, do things, travel, see stuff. What makes you think exposure to diversity of experiences and people and other kids is only possible in a daycare or preschool setting? You are setting up a false dichotomy where there isn't one.

Anonymous wrote:
But some people say something is a tradeoff... like I see my child less for money. But I don't see that as a tradeoff. I see that as a normal healthy relationship. I don't think it is all that healthy for a child to only have their mother as a caregiver. I am not trading one thing for the other. I think it is healthier for a child to be with people other than me sometimes. I think it is healthier for my children to have an involved father. I think it is healthier for children to grow up and realize they are not the center of the universe and that sometime mom is more important to dad and dad is more important to mom right now so you have a babysitter.

It's not necessarily a trade off but a lifestyle that I believe in, that I planned and executed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids say what they feel and I care (deeply) how my kids feel. That's why I believe a parent should be home with them and they deserve two loving involved parents. You can't just pretend that all family situations turn out beautifully.

These parents who never see their kids (I'm talking about the double nanny type families) - we can agree to disagree that that is any way to raise children.

I agree that having one parent who never sees his kids but thinks his kids will be ok because the other parent SAH is no way to raise children.

I agree and I think this is a common trap of the SAHM lifestyle.

And hardly seeing your kids is a trap of a dual working family.

With 2 working you can have less demanding jobs (except for the power couples) so they both can be home early, take off for field trips, take the kids to doctor. That is what I see, 2 very flexible jobs and lots of time for both parents to see the kids.

Yes, I read so many stories of unhurried, relaxed and flexible work positions for moms and dads (BECAUSE their spouse works) on here. And of course they all split household duties, homemade meals and restful weekends with their equal powered spouse!

Except- we don't read that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So lots of holes in your thinking. First, you pretend to know all about daycare - there are some great, high quality centers and home daycares in this area - but you know nothing, NOTHING about them because the random drop off daycare your non-working wife drops them off at so she can grab her mani-pedi doesn't count. You can't talk about the merits of having a SAHM and be an expert on daycare. Sor.

Also, you conveniently leave out how much it sucks for your kids and you that are a paycheck while your wife "raises" them. Again, can't have it both ways. If working parents are having their kids raised by the lowly daycare staff and nannies who take care of them during working hours then you can't be raising your kids if you work. Many parents who both work actually stagger stuff so they both see the kids a lot - my husband goes in at 9 after kids get on the bus and I'm home by 6 when I don't WFH 2x a week. I'm betting you've never stayed home with a sick kid, gone to a dr. appointment with your kid, or volunteered for a field trip? My husband does and did all the time and you can really see it in his relationship with our kids.

Also, we used high quality daycare at my husband's work for a few years, then switched to a nanny. Our nanny was "uneducated" but she is the kindest, most patient, hardest working woman I know and my kids benefited greatly from her love and experience. She also taught them fluent Spanish. There are so many advantages to having others help raise your kids.

You also have no idea how your wife will feel about all this in 10, 15 years when the kids don't need her as much and she has been out of the workforce for over a decade. Maybe it will work out, maybe it won't, but your smugness about it all is not really appropriate at this time.

If your current situation is working for your family, that's swell. But to act like it would be perfect for every family or you just can't fathom why others make different choices, is just silly and makes you look foolish.

Look, I work and will always work because my income is critical to our family. But I do think you're being unnecessarily defensive with the guy by going on the attack. I don't think he's telling you how to do things; he's telling you what worked for him.

My kids have been in daycare and nannycare all their life. Do I think they had great childcare? yes, absolutely. Do I think that I would have provided it better? Absolutely. I love them more than any daycare worker could, and I know more and am more educated than any of their childcare workers. That doesn't mean their teachers have been uneducated, or didn't love them. It just means I love them more, and would have done better. It would have been perfect with me, but that's impossible. So we are going for good, which means high-quality preschools. Good is fine. Good is good. It doesn't hurt my feelings to say excellent is better than good but excellent isn't always possible. We'll live, kids are fine. Again, I don't doubt that your kid had great childcare. But to deny that care given by loving, educated mothers is not the gold standard is..sort of silly. And I know why people bristle at this; we hate the idea that we are giving the kids anything other than the very best. But that's the reality. We, well most of us, cannot achieve the best. We drive acceptable cars, we have acceptable jobs, we live in acceptable houses, there's always more perfect out there. We have it good. Good is fine. It's not as good as perfect or excellent, but that's OK, really.

You really didn't get my post. He (and I don't think this was a dude, sorry, this was an unappreciated SAHM), ONLY listed the pros of their situation, without considering the other aspects. I don't agree that moms need to be with their kids all day every day in the early years, or that is better. Fine if you think that, but not everyone does. If I did I would have quit work in a heartbeat but I think my staying in the workforce outweighed any of those advantages, and that is my point. Every action has a reaction and I don't think having a SAH parent for years is the optimum. I just don't. I think it work just fine, and I support women who make the choice (and men) but I don't think it is optimal. It does work better for some families, if the working parent works crazy, inflexible hours and the SAH parent really, really didn't want to work, for example. But I won't agree it is optimal for every family.

Our daycare workers were mainly young childless women with tons of energy and patience - most moms are not going to have endless patience for their own kids. Agree that it is best for mom not to rush off to work at 2 and 4 and 6 weeks which is a reality for some, but I don't think that is who we are talking about on this thread.

Daycare workers don't have "endless patience" for kids. They are doing a job, and often for extraordinarily low pay given the importance that people supposedly place on it. They also don't really love the kids, don't have any real personal investment in the kids' long-term development, likely are not that well-educated, and may or may not have the best moral outlook to impart. If you think that given all that, it is still superior to having your children raised by them instead of a mom or dad, then fine. But why are you (and others) so offended that someone sees the SAH parent option as superior? Does everyone have to accept your choices as equal for you to feel validated?

Sigh. So, so pathetically hypocritical and you don't even see it. Guess those elementary school teachers are raising your kids once they turn 5, and your usefulness on this earth is over.

So because you'll eventually have to send your children to school, you might as well never be the one to raise them.

You're either deliberately obtuse, or incredibly stupid.

You seem like a delightful person. I can see why you think someone else would do a better job raising your kids.

Ahhh, the irony!! Look it up.

I don't think irony is the right concept here, but let's put that aside. You obviously feel wronged by the fact that someone thinks his/her way of raising kids is better than yours. Seriously though -- why the vitriol? Why the thin skin? If you are so confident in your choices, just agree to disagree.

Seeing your responses though, I can see why you think that you wouldn't be a good primary parent. But the question isn't whether a bitter, angry, irrational person would be better than a professional daycare worker. Clearly, the professional would be better in that circumstance, so kudos to your wise (perhaps self-aware) choice. The question is whether a parent who is dedicated to being the best caregiver they can be would be better than a stranger who does it for a living. Someone earlier in the thread posited that they think the dedicated parent option is superior. That doesn't seem like such an outrageous position to take, and you (and others) just seem defensive. If you prioritized money or whatever else you get out of your job over the child rearing, that's fine, but let's be honest about the tradeoffs.

All of this assumes a choice in the matter, and of course, many don't have the choice for financial reasons.

NOT the PP but it is ironic that you believe that you and your wife are teaching morals AND you think that "lower educated people" can not add any value to your child's life.

You don't know if you wife is a better primary parent if you have all 3 kids home or if she would be better with 1 in preschool and 1 going to a playgroup with GASP strangers (sort of like the teacher or your mom). She may be better. She may be a better parent if her H was ever home. Maybe your kids will be better kids if they had the influence of their father, or maybe your abusive and you being removed from the picture is better.

I think you realize that you turned your wife into a single parent and are question that decision, but what can you do now... you went down that rabbit hole and you are stuck.

That's not what I think. Perhaps you are talking about some other poster in this thread, but that's not what I said.

As for the single parent line, I have no idea what you're talking about, but maybe you are responding to someone else in the thread. I don't know.

Maybe Jeff can straighten that out for you.

Huh?

IP.

More than one poster has outed you as the DH from earlier that spoke about uneducated nannies, etc. Just own it.

who is Jeff? what is IP? I'm confused.....

Anonymous wrote:That's why you are reading the thread? Because you are so content?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids say what they feel and I care (deeply) how my kids feel. That's why I believe a parent should be home with them and they deserve two loving involved parents. You can't just pretend that all family situations turn out beautifully.

These parents who never see their kids (I'm talking about the double nanny type families) - we can agree to disagree that that is any way to raise children.

I agree that having one parent who never sees his kids but thinks his kids will be ok because the other parent SAH is no way to raise children.

I agree and I think this is a common trap of the SAHM lifestyle.

And hardly seeing your kids is a trap of a dual working family.

With 2 working you can have less demanding jobs (except for the power couples) so they both can be home early, take off for field trips, take the kids to doctor. That is what I see, 2 very flexible jobs and lots of time for both parents to see the kids.

Yes, I read so many stories of unhurried, relaxed and flexible work positions for moms and dads (BECAUSE their spouse works) on here. And of course they all split household duties, homemade meals and restful weekends with their equal powered spouse!

Except- we don't read that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids say what they feel and I care (deeply) how my kids feel. That's why I believe a parent should be home with them and they deserve two loving involved parents. You can't just pretend that all family situations turn out beautifully.

These parents who never see their kids (I'm talking about the double nanny type families) - we can agree to disagree that that is any way to raise children.

I agree that having one parent who never sees his kids but thinks his kids will be ok because the other parent SAH is no way to raise children.

I agree and I think this is a common trap of the SAHM lifestyle.

And hardly seeing your kids is a trap of a dual working family.

With 2 working you can have less demanding jobs (except for the power couples) so they both can be home early, take off for field trips, take the kids to doctor. That is what I see, 2 very flexible jobs and lots of time for both parents to see the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't mean it derogatorily. A lot of people get personal fulfillment out of their job. Some people feel like they are better in the workforce than at home for any number of reasons. Some people feel like the advantages of the extra money outweigh the benefits of having a parent stay at home without earning money. I think that whatever the reasons, I understand that everyone has to make the choice they think is best for themselves, their families, and society as a whole. I just think that people need to be honest about the tradeoffs. People seem to be offended that others have suggested that there is any tradeoff. I understand that some people may truly feel that way, but I also understand that others do not feel that way. It just seems crazy that folks are getting so defensive.

Then be honest with yourself and understand that you have tradeoffs as well - and they're not all financial trade offs - there are trade offs to your kid as well. And you made the best choice for your family by having your wife stay home to be with them all the time - but there are socialization and educational trade-offs to your kids. They aren't getting as much diversity, education, and socialization like they would if they were in daycare/preschool. So you own that and I'll own my tradeoffs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids say what they feel and I care (deeply) how my kids feel. That's why I believe a parent should be home with them and they deserve two loving involved parents. You can't just pretend that all family situations turn out beautifully.

These parents who never see their kids (I'm talking about the double nanny type families) - we can agree to disagree that that is any way to raise children.

I agree that having one parent who never sees his kids but thinks his kids will be ok because the other parent SAH is no way to raise children.

I agree and I think this is a common trap of the SAHM lifestyle.

And hardly seeing your kids is a trap of a dual working family.