I’m an elementary school principal (public) here in the DMV in an upper middle class community. I love my work.

There are homes with SAHMs and moms who work outside the home. No, the parents are not okay. The level of anxiety is through the roof, and it’s passed along to their children. The emails I receive around class placement with a particular teacher or around making sure specific friends are placed with their child is ridiculous. Everything is managed to the nth degree.

I went to school in the 70s & 80s and graduated from a top 20 school. I cannot imagine my own parents engaging in this behavior for a second.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is such BS, it’s not about intensive parenting. It’s about having two working parents required to just get by, and then really expensive housing which makes everything else harder to manage and afford. There was a lot easier lifestyle where without intensive parenting, when you had a parent, who was home to take care of everything related to the kids as well as clean and cook.

Arghh! Easier for whom? There was a silent epidemic of prescription drug abuse and depression among women who were forced to stay home, cook, clean and wait on everyone. Nice for the man I guess but horrible for the woman.

Like we don’t have wine’o’clock epidemic.

That’s really about the lack of choice. Policies could also enable both parents to work part time for example, which is really the model that we need. If I could work 4 hours and my spouse works 4 hours, we tag team the home and it’s delightful.

And they everyone would get two jobs to make more money and get ahead of everyone else, then everyone would figure out this strategy, and we would be back to where we started.

Well we could make companies offer split time jobs and see how it plays out. It would be a lot easier if health care was single payer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting episode they dropped today:

Parents report being more stressed than other adults, and the U.S. Surgeon General now considers raising a family a health risk.

For years, research on hyper-attentive parenting has focused on all the ways that it can hurt children.

Now, the U.S. government is reframing that conversation and asking if our new era of parenting is actually bad for the parents themselves.

Claire Cain Miller, who covers families and education for The New York Times, explains why raising children is a risk to your health.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/podcasts/the-daily/parenting-stress.html

I mean yes it's hard but "a risk to your health," good grief.

My health is 100% affected poorly by parenting. So much stress and less time for wellness and sleep and rest and down time

Anonymous wrote:"A couple of Cs" dooms kids to community college now? jeeeeez.

With modern grading policy, getting a C is same as F 15 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is such BS, it’s not about intensive parenting. It’s about having two working parents required to just get by, and then really expensive housing which makes everything else harder to manage and afford. There was a lot easier lifestyle where without intensive parenting, when you had a parent, who was home to take care of everything related to the kids as well as clean and cook.

Arghh! Easier for whom? There was a silent epidemic of prescription drug abuse and depression among women who were forced to stay home, cook, clean and wait on everyone. Nice for the man I guess but horrible for the woman.

Like we don’t have wine’o’clock epidemic.

That’s really about the lack of choice. Policies could also enable both parents to work part time for example, which is really the model that we need. If I could work 4 hours and my spouse works 4 hours, we tag team the home and it’s delightful.

And they everyone would get two jobs to make more money and get ahead of everyone else, then everyone would figure out this strategy, and we would be back to where we started.

Anonymous wrote:I think the article missed the mark when it failed to talk about affordable, quality childcare.

What was my first parenting challenge? Trying to get on daycare waitlists when I was 4 minutes pregnant and stressing whether I'd get a spot before I had to go back to work.

What are my absolute most stressful days? Those when my kid can't go to daycare/school and my backup care falls through and my spouse and I both have meetings.

What are my most stressful things to schedule? Summer camps that fit with my work schedule, that are affordable, that my kids don't hate, and where I feel they'll be safe.

What are the biggest disruption to feeling on top of my work and personal schedule? All the time random days off of school and early releases, each of which requires me to arrange separate childcare.

Why don't I go on Saturday night dates with my spouse more often? Finding and scheduling a babysitter is a giant pain and they often fall through.

Really, so so much of modern parenting stress revolves around insufficient childcare.

Next on my list of stressful things are elementary schools that refuse to accommodate working parents.
What is making a huge mess of my work week this week? A parent teacher conferences scheduled by the school without my input at 1 PM on a Thursday, at a time when I'm supposed to be presenting to leadership and the school tells me I can't reschedule.

You capture this issue well! I chose to SAH and then work PT until my youngest hit kindergarten but still have many of these same issues working FT now with camps and childcare. I wish my parents lived nearby though I know that isn't always the answer either.

"A couple of Cs" dooms kids to community college now? jeeeeez.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is such BS, it’s not about intensive parenting. It’s about having two working parents required to just get by, and then really expensive housing which makes everything else harder to manage and afford. There was a lot easier lifestyle where without intensive parenting, when you had a parent, who was home to take care of everything related to the kids as well as clean and cook.

But what parent really wants to give up everything to stay home cooking and cleaning? I know some people are happy to do it, but it shouldn’t be an expectation for good parenting.

Why are you devaluing SAH parents?

Because everything a SAH parent has all day to do still needs to be done by working parents, just without a lot less tome to actually do it

Exactly. As a mom I just decided I would rather have one job than two. I’m not a SAHM because I think working would be bad for my kids. I don’t think that. I chose it because I thought working on top of doing everything else wasn’t fair to me. Thankfully DH was on board and happy for there to be a relief valve available for all the pressure of having two working parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree it’s the stress about there not being enough good jobs for everyone and the labor market changing so quickly you can keep up (major in CS! No, don’t—all the CA jobs are being done by robots! Data science! No wait, robots are doing that now too! Wait we don’t even call it robots anymore—it’s AI!”)

My brothers grew up in the 50s and 60s, HS in the 70s. They got bad grades and smoked pot and got into actual fist fights. They got yelled ant by my dad annd grounded obviously but it was all basically fine. They have successful careers now. Nowadays if your son got into a fist fight, omg, you would be a social pariah and he’d probably be suspended. Get a couple of Cs and you’ll be lucky to get into any college. It’s a lot of effort to raise kids who don’t make mistakes! I’m a pretty low key parent that doesn’t care what other people think of me, but it’s still pretty stressful.

The demographics are strongly against the bolded being true. "Any" college might mean any T50, but for example my very average alma mater is easier to get into now than it was when I went there. And any kid with a couple of Cs can easily go to NOVA, pull themselves together, and transfer to a Virginia state school after 2 years and graduate with the same W&M, UVA, or VT degree as someone who did much better in high school.

Please tell me your alma later that my kid can get into with multiple Cs! We are not in Virginia so unfortunately the nova community college trick doesn’t work for us.It’s getting much harder to get into state universities and a lot of the lower tier private are going out of business.

Ok. Then send your kid to any community college that IS in your area and then have them transfer to your local state university after a few years.

The podcast touched on some important points, but I really think missed the mark by not discussing:

-the long-term impact of COVID on parents - eg loss of child care, school closures, social isolation, profound stress, loss of relationships/community, having to work full time while also caring full time for your children and facilitating their virtual learning - for weeks, months, or more, etc.

I honestly feel the trauma and stress of that time completely destroyed my resilience as a parent and negatively impacted my family, mental health, relationships, and physical health in both the short term and in longer term ways that may not be as acute or easy to measure, but are harmful, eg increased anxiety, sleep deprivation, frayed social ties, etc. I think parents as a whole who lived through this time while caring for children suffered a lot and the ripples of that trauma and unseen negative impacts continue to play out in our lives and will continue to do so, despite things being “back to normal.” I’m sure I aged a decade and my mental and physical health is much worse for having lived through that time. I’m sure there will be studies that come about this in the coming decades to actually quantify it, but I feel this acutely in just feeling generally worn down and burned out and I have talked with many other parents who feel similarly.

-the increase in modern work expectations, facilitated by tech. Technology has destroyed all boundaries of having separate personal and professional lives. The bleed over of work beyond the hours of 9-5 and expectations and pressure of constant availability, productivity,
and responsiveness (eg a Teams light showing you’re inactive when you don’t move the mouse every 3 minutes, emails that fly early in the morning/on weekends/late at night, your boss’ ability to call/text/zoom/email you at any moment, taking a week off and coming back to hundreds of emails, etc) means people are working harder and more hours than ever, which is not realistic for anyone with caregiving responsibilities, yet somehow we are all just expected to work like we don’t have kids with no boundaries.

-the negative impact of screens. We are now living in a time where we are all basically screen addicts, even our kids. It’s absurd how much time modern humans spend in front of screens each day and not outdoors, or with each other, or doing real life activities. Addictive algorithm-based apps and social media platforms that commodify our attention, feed us endless dopamine squirts that keep us hooked, and make us feel bad about ourselves and inadequate about our lives combined with the loss of real in person time with others being replaced by virtual interactions/screen time is destroying people’s mental health and especially children’s. We are all screen addicts of these stupid 6 inch glowing rectangles and some of us know that and are also addicted,
but also remember what life was like when we didn’t have these things and it was different.

I think these factors, combined with the ridiculous economic shifts that necessitate two working adults in modern families (when previously one person could provide an adequate living for a family), lack of child care and paid leave, and fraying of social/community/family ties that previous generations of parents benefited from have created the modern toxic sludge environment most modern working parents are navigating through.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is such BS, it’s not about intensive parenting. It’s about having two working parents required to just get by, and then really expensive housing which makes everything else harder to manage and afford. There was a lot easier lifestyle where without intensive parenting, when you had a parent, who was home to take care of everything related to the kids as well as clean and cook.

Arghh! Easier for whom? There was a silent epidemic of prescription drug abuse and depression among women who were forced to stay home, cook, clean and wait on everyone. Nice for the man I guess but horrible for the woman.

Like we don’t have wine’o’clock epidemic.

That’s really about the lack of choice. Policies could also enable both parents to work part time for example, which is really the model that we need. If I could work 4 hours and my spouse works 4 hours, we tag team the home and it’s delightful.

I don't think the DCUM crowd would be happy with their husbands only working 4 hours a day!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is such BS, it’s not about intensive parenting. It’s about having two working parents required to just get by, and then really expensive housing which makes everything else harder to manage and afford. There was a lot easier lifestyle where without intensive parenting, when you had a parent, who was home to take care of everything related to the kids as well as clean and cook.

Arghh! Easier for whom? There was a silent epidemic of prescription drug abuse and depression among women who were forced to stay home, cook, clean and wait on everyone. Nice for the man I guess but horrible for the woman.

Like we don’t have wine’o’clock epidemic.

That’s really about the lack of choice. Policies could also enable both parents to work part time for example, which is really the model that we need. If I could work 4 hours and my spouse works 4 hours, we tag team the home and it’s delightful.

Cue this classic by Elizabeth Warren: https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Still/dp/0465097707

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree it’s the stress about there not being enough good jobs for everyone and the labor market changing so quickly you can keep up (major in CS! No, don’t—all the CA jobs are being done by robots! Data science! No wait, robots are doing that now too! Wait we don’t even call it robots anymore—it’s AI!”)

My brothers grew up in the 50s and 60s, HS in the 70s. They got bad grades and smoked pot and got into actual fist fights. They got yelled ant by my dad annd grounded obviously but it was all basically fine. They have successful careers now. Nowadays if your son got into a fist fight, omg, you would be a social pariah and he’d probably be suspended. Get a couple of Cs and you’ll be lucky to get into any college. It’s a lot of effort to raise kids who don’t make mistakes! I’m a pretty low key parent that doesn’t care what other people think of me, but it’s still pretty stressful.

The demographics are strongly against the bolded being true. "Any" college might mean any T50, but for example my very average alma mater is easier to get into now than it was when I went there. And any kid with a couple of Cs can easily go to NOVA, pull themselves together, and transfer to a Virginia state school after 2 years and graduate with the same W&M, UVA, or VT degree as someone who did much better in high school.

The vast majority of colleges in the country will accept anyone with a pulse. Those aren't the colleges most people on this forum want their kids to go to, but they are accessible to kids with terrible grades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is such BS, it’s not about intensive parenting. It’s about having two working parents required to just get by, and then really expensive housing which makes everything else harder to manage and afford. There was a lot easier lifestyle where without intensive parenting, when you had a parent, who was home to take care of everything related to the kids as well as clean and cook.

Arghh! Easier for whom? There was a silent epidemic of prescription drug abuse and depression among women who were forced to stay home, cook, clean and wait on everyone. Nice for the man I guess but horrible for the woman.

Like we don’t have wine’o’clock epidemic.

That’s really about the lack of choice. Policies could also enable both parents to work part time for example, which is really the model that we need. If I could work 4 hours and my spouse works 4 hours, we tag team the home and it’s delightful.

Anonymous wrote:This article is such BS, it’s not about intensive parenting. It’s about having two working parents required to just get by, and then really expensive housing which makes everything else harder to manage and afford. There was a lot easier lifestyle where without intensive parenting, when you had a parent, who was home to take care of everything related to the kids as well as clean and cook.

Arghh! Easier for whom? There was a silent epidemic of prescription drug abuse and depression among women who were forced to stay home, cook, clean and wait on everyone. Nice for the man I guess but horrible for the woman.