Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what nature intended for babies? Be with their loving parents or be with indifferent caretakers and see parents only for a couple of waking hours?

I don't know what nature intended but I do know that I was not interested in letting anybody else except my husband and I care for our children when they were infants and toddlers except for occasionally. These days parents are conditioned to resist those urges though. I do not think it's a good thing.

+1 that mothers are conditioned to resist those urges now.

And it’s even worse in countries with more equality. I have friends in Sweden and they are pretty much forced by society to send their kids to a state run daycare to return to work. They praise the long maternity leave but then when it’s over put their child in institutionalized childcare. They also have their husbands taking long parental leaves but the men are still not as good of a caregiver as the mom. It seems like they are trying as hard as they can to fight the biological urge women have to care for their own children. My female friends there are all very unhappy but can’t figure out why. I know why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what nature intended for babies? Be with their loving parents or be with indifferent caretakers and see parents only for a couple of waking hours?

I don't know what nature intended but I do know that I was not interested in letting anybody else except my husband and I care for our children when they were infants and toddlers except for occasionally. These days parents are conditioned to resist those urges though. I do not think it's a good thing.

+1 that mothers are conditioned to resist those urges now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what nature intended for babies? Be with their loving parents or be with indifferent caretakers and see parents only for a couple of waking hours?

I don't know what nature intended but I do know that I was not interested in letting anybody else except my husband and I care for our children when they were infants and toddlers except for occasionally. These days parents are conditioned to resist those urges though. I do not think it's a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having a toddler and being pregnant is tough. I was a SAHM until my youngest went to kindergarten. I had to re-enter the workforce after 7 years out. It was very hard but I did it. I wish our country had better mat leave and accessible daycare. I got a daycare spot 6 weeks after quitting my job.

Why were you out 7 years though? A lot of women lament the lack of long parental leaves but 1 or 2 years isn’t 7! Unfortunately if you want to be home at year one you likely want to be home at year five. Parental leave is a short term solution. If you want to be home with kids, you want to be home. I know a few women who act like the lack of parental leave is why they are at home, but we’ve been in one of the best times in recent decades to look for a job and they haven’t even submitted their resume. I just don’t believe that parental leave would have changed things. I think they want to be at home and that’s okay.

And on the flip side think of all the women who would take expanded parental leave only to put the baby in daycare or with a nanny early because they “couldn’t take it.” A friend of mine took a year LWOP when her second was born and still out both kids in daycare ASAP. It was a head scratcher.

At least they're open about it! As someone that had SAH with two toddlers I just had to roll my eyes when people who had never done that would condescendingly tell me it "doesn't get any easier" when kids get older yet their kids were older and in school for 7+ free hours a day when they decided to stop working.
I can tell you now that it most certainly does and your prior job must have been really cushy if taking care of two elementary school aged kids before and after school only is just as hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having a toddler and being pregnant is tough. I was a SAHM until my youngest went to kindergarten. I had to re-enter the workforce after 7 years out. It was very hard but I did it. I wish our country had better mat leave and accessible daycare. I got a daycare spot 6 weeks after quitting my job.

Why were you out 7 years though? A lot of women lament the lack of long parental leaves but 1 or 2 years isn’t 7! Unfortunately if you want to be home at year one you likely want to be home at year five. Parental leave is a short term solution. If you want to be home with kids, you want to be home. I know a few women who act like the lack of parental leave is why they are at home, but we’ve been in one of the best times in recent decades to look for a job and they haven’t even submitted their resume. I just don’t believe that parental leave would have changed things. I think they want to be at home and that’s okay.

And on the flip side think of all the women who would take expanded parental leave only to put the baby in daycare or with a nanny early because they “couldn’t take it.” A friend of mine took a year LWOP when her second was born and still out both kids in daycare ASAP. It was a head scratcher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having a toddler and being pregnant is tough. I was a SAHM until my youngest went to kindergarten. I had to re-enter the workforce after 7 years out. It was very hard but I did it. I wish our country had better mat leave and accessible daycare. I got a daycare spot 6 weeks after quitting my job.

Why were you out 7 years though? A lot of women lament the lack of long parental leaves but 1 or 2 years isn’t 7! Unfortunately if you want to be home at year one you likely want to be home at year five. Parental leave is a short term solution. If you want to be home with kids, you want to be home. I know a few women who act like the lack of parental leave is why they are at home, but we’ve been in one of the best times in recent decades to look for a job and they haven’t even submitted their resume. I just don’t believe that parental leave would have changed things. I think they want to be at home and that’s okay.

And on the flip side think of all the women who would take expanded parental leave only to put the baby in daycare or with a nanny early because they “couldn’t take it.” A friend of mine took a year LWOP when her second was born and still out both kids in daycare ASAP. It was a head scratcher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having a toddler and being pregnant is tough. I was a SAHM until my youngest went to kindergarten. I had to re-enter the workforce after 7 years out. It was very hard but I did it. I wish our country had better mat leave and accessible daycare. I got a daycare spot 6 weeks after quitting my job.

Why were you out 7 years though? A lot of women lament the lack of long parental leaves but 1 or 2 years isn’t 7! Unfortunately if you want to be home at year one you likely want to be home at year five. Parental leave is a short term solution. If you want to be home with kids, you want to be home. I know a few women who act like the lack of parental leave is why they are at home, but we’ve been in one of the best times in recent decades to look for a job and they haven’t even submitted their resume. I just don’t believe that parental leave would have changed things. I think they want to be at home and that’s okay.

Anonymous wrote:Having a toddler and being pregnant is tough. I was a SAHM until my youngest went to kindergarten. I had to re-enter the workforce after 7 years out. It was very hard but I did it. I wish our country had better mat leave and accessible daycare. I got a daycare spot 6 weeks after quitting my job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what nature intended for babies? Be with their loving parents or be with indifferent caretakers and see parents only for a couple of waking hours?

I don't know what nature intended but I do know that I was not interested in letting anybody else except my husband and I care for our children when they were infants and toddlers except for occasionally. These days parents are conditioned to resist those urges though. I do not think it's a good thing.

You are actually going against nature by letting your husband take care of your children. In most traditional societies that is not done, at least until it’s time to teach the boys to farm or hunt.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what nature intended for babies? Be with their loving parents or be with indifferent caretakers and see parents only for a couple of waking hours?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what nature intended for babies? Be with their loving parents or be with indifferent caretakers and see parents only for a couple of waking hours?

I don't know what nature intended but I do know that I was not interested in letting anybody else except my husband and I care for our children when they were infants and toddlers except for occasionally. These days parents are conditioned to resist those urges though. I do not think it's a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:I'm pregnant with my third and have no desire to be a SAHM. I make over $250K, am fully remote and work a lot with Asia and the West Coast so have a lot of flexibility during the day, have an amazing FT nanny, and really like my job. From a financial standpoint, I would never recoup all the lost earnings if I left the workforce now (even if I planned to only be out until my youngest was in K) and from a personal fulfillment standpoint I would be unhappy. I feel like I get the best of both worlds now and I am so grateful that I feel very little/no guilt about my choices. I also have two girls (third child's gender is a mystery) and am aware of the impact that having a working mother has on girls in particular.

But you do you OP. I wouldn't judge a parent (male or female) for their decision on this topic, it's very personal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t get the urge to SAH until my youngest was 4. It just wouldn’t have been fun before then. I left my job a few months ago and it’s pretty awesome now. They’re in school all day so I have actual leisure time! And we can do fun stuff together when they’re home.

Well, I think wanting to stay at home only once your kids are school-aged is a lot different than wanting to be a SAHM to kids who are actually there all/most of the day.

For me it has gotten much harder to juggle everything now that my children are in elementary school. The school day is shorter, there are many more holidays, more school events in the middle of the work day, and other demands on my time. I found it much easier to work full time when my children were in full day daycare/preschool. I considered staying home briefly when my 1st was a newborn and was glad to have a job to go back to by the time I finished my 2nd maternity leave, but am again thinking about it seriously with a 6 year old and a 4.5 year old.

There are definitely valid reasons to SAH while kids are in school. I just know several people that only chose to start SAH once their kids were in school and they all say it's because they want to be with their kids. It just comes across a little odd because they formerly had their kids in daycare from 7:30am-6pm and they could have had them at home all day with them instead, but now that they're in school for hours every day it's suddenly important for the mom to be in the (child-free) home.

Exactly. It’s so transparent and no one is fooled, except possibly the women’s husbands. I’ve been at home since my first was born and the school years an infinitely easier. And my husband knows this too.