Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

There are 168 hours in a week.
Infants are awake for 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 48 of those hours, you see your kid 63 of those hours.
I see my kids 28% of the time, you see your kids 37% of the time.
It's 23% of their waking time... 15 hours.

Thanks for pointing out how little actual time is spent "raising" your kids.... lol 37% of your time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its funny that PP thinks all or even most infants sleep 4 hours a day. Neither of my kids ever took a 2 hour nap as babies. More like 45 minutes. Once they become toddlers and consolidated to 1 nap a day it was about 2 hours but not much more. They did sleep 7-7 at night though.

Your infant too 1 45 minute nap a day. Hmmm.

No. 2-3. But never more than 45 minutes at a time. And it never cumulated more than 2 hours, let alone 4. It works for your narrative that your nanny is supervising 4 hours of nap time that you are not missing with your child.

It's not a narrative. It's our family schedule and it works.

Just like your H not being a part of raising your kids works for your family.

I'm a DP. How is your H able to spend up until 9 am with your infant? Does he WFH? How late does he have to stay logged on or at work to accommodate a 9 am or later start time? How early do you have to start work to be home at 3:30? Does that mean that you are not ever together in the morning or evening hours? Are all three of you ever together at all during the weekdays?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Yes it is true most SAHM's that are wealthy and poor send their kids to 5 days of preschool because of the value it adds. For the poor it's free and for the wealthy it's not a big deal.

But if you give up an income and have to skrimp I understand you can't send your kids 5 days a week and that's fine, they will be fine.

I live in a UMC suburb. The wealthy SAHMs here do "3 day 3's" -- preschool 3 mornings a week. They don't see a value beyond that amount of preschool time for a 3 yr old.

Our SAHM do preschool 5 days and aftercare 2-3 days a week (easier than playdates which have to be planned). Aftercare just ended up being easier than trying to figure out playdate in the middle of dinner.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of two teens here with two observations:

1) my kids friends are all really great, smart, well mannered, kind kids. I couldn’t tell you which ones had SAHMs and which ones had WOHMs if I didn’t know their parents (I know many but not all and it’s a mix of both working and non working parents - they all raised awesome kids).


2) this concept of raising your own children is a relatively new phenomenon. Ever heard of the term “it takes a village”? I also have seen some studies that say that working parents now spend significantly more time with their children than stay at home moms did 20-30 years ago. Probably because there isn’t really a village anymore.

Interesting how everyone is just passing by and ignoring this post. As a mom of older ES kids, I agree - all of my children's friends are wonderful kids. Some of them have SAHMs, some of them have two working parents. They're all great kids. If it makes you ladies feel better to put down working moms and tell us we're ruining our children forever, then fine, go ahead, but my kids have turned out great so far, even with a mom who sent them to daycare.

I agree that there are great kids of working parents and great kids of stay at home parents. But the topic isn't about outcomes/how the kids turn out in the end as a result of who raises them. The topic is about who IS actually raising the kids and, although I'd never say this to anyone and think it's totally rude to do so, you can't really argue that parents who both work and whose kids either go to daycare or have a nanny or a grandparent or whoever take care of them are being 100% raised by their parents. They hardly even see their parents. They spend most of their time w/ someone other than their parents. It's just not possible that their parents are the main ones raising them.

Except every parent with kids in school or preschool do this and you are saying only the SAH person is raising their Child, even though the working parent sees the child just as much.

This thread is largely about kids who are not yet school age.

Though also lots of preschools are not full time so are not meant to be full time childcare -- my child attended a half day preschool starting at age 2.5 which was great and helped her get ready for kindergarten. It was 3 hours a day.

And even once you have school age kids... my kid is off today and tomorrow and monday. He's been sick 4 days in the last month due to RSV and a bad cold going around his school. 10 weeks off in summer. Winter break (2 weeks) and spring break (1 week). Random PD days throughout the year. And the kicker -- school ends at 2:30pm.

Even once kids are in school SAHP see their kids a lot more than full time working parents. And I say that as a working parent. You can't deny facts.

This is why many people can't just get a job once their child is school age. It's cheaper and less stress to just have one parent on-call for all the p.i.t.a. kid related issues, especially if the other parent is a high earner. If we both worked, we have literally nobody to cover all the days when kids aren't in school and need care at home. I don't care who looks down on it. Half the families at my school have a SAHP because they have the same problem. Preschool is so few hours during the week we skipped it for all the children and just taught them to read and write and do math at home before they started K, also saved a lot of money there.

Before I had kids and was working, I didn't really feel I was doing anything all that important. So many of these jobs that people think are high status will be replaced by automation and AI. Might as well raise your kids and let the status obsessed folks do their thing.

And yet tons of working parents have figured out how to work and be able to care for their kids on sick days, etc. Sorry you couldn't, but that doesn't mean others can't.

Tons of parents have figured out how to care for their kids without needing two incomes. Sorry you couldn’t, but that doesn’t mean others can’t.

Some of us want our kids to be raised by both parents. Sorry all your husband can do is make money.

Please explain your logic.

If I work 40 hours per week and my husband works 40 hours per week, then we are both raising the kids, right? But according to you, if I work 0 hours per week and my husband works 40 hours per week, then he is no longer raising the kids?

Go to the relationship forum and talk to the women there whose h’s work too much, work 60 hours a week, get home after bedtime, work weekends, travel, are gone 10-12 hours a day are never home, never help, don’t know the teachers names, etc.

They can explain it to you.

Not according to me, according to OP anybody who works isn’t raising their kids. My H and I stagger our schedule and we both are raising our children

So… you’ve got nothing. Color me shocked.

(Also, are all of the women complaining about workaholic husbands SAHMs? In THIS area? You’re conflating two separate issues.)

So I explained it and you still don’t get it.

Not shocked.

I still think the best thing for kids is to have a dad who is heavily involved in their care.

You didn’t explain anything. You “answered” my question about a 40 hour per week job by vaguely pointing “over there” where some guys work 60 hours! Not relevant.

My husband works the *exact same* 40 hour per week job now that he did before I quit. He is actually able to be MORE involved with the kids because I get all those pesky chores done during the week so he can just work, then come home and be 100% on as Dad.

And let me guess, he earns seven figures?

Nope! Doesn’t even earn 150. Thanks for playing.

That's awesome and he's there in the morning helping with breakfast and he is home when the kids get home from school and helping with snack time and home work and bedtime routine. That's amazing.

Yes he helps with breakfast, homework, and bedtime. No he isn’t there when they get home from school not helping out at snack time. Because he’s at work. Just like he was when I was ALSO at work during those times.

I honestly don’t care who works and who doesn’t. I’m sure you’re great at your job, your marriage is wonderful, and your children are thriving. Why would I assume otherwise?

Yet you seem desperate to twist my situation into somehow being bad. Why is that?

Nobody said it was bad, they just said it's not better and you are no more rasing your kids than other are.

I'm confused.

You: I don't work so I can raise my kids
Me: So your husband doesn't raise your kids
You: Of course he does, I do all the chores so he can spend every moment with his kids
Me: So you spend lots of your day doing chores not with your kids
You: No ... hmmm
Me: So your H is gone 40 hours a week but he raises his kids but moms who work don't unless they are your husband.
You: Why are you twisting my words.

It's not me twisting your words it's you having twisted logic.

My H is with my infant from wake up to 9am...
nanny at 9-11 (nap time)
Nanny 11-1 (2 hours)
nanny 1-3 (nap time)
Me home at 3:30

But you are raising your kids and I'm not because my nanny is with my infant for 2 waking hours?

It's great that you want to cook and clean and run errands and fit some "raising of your children" inbetween the cracks, that's great.

But your logic that you had to fully quit a job to do that is illogical.
If you said, I just didn't want to work i'd rather be in my home while my kids are napping, i'd rather not have my H ve involved so much that he cooks meals and feeds the baby and does doctors appointment because I want to do that... great... that's all good, I support your decision.

But my H wants to do volunteering at school and feeding the baby and doctors appointment and sick days and all the stuff.

But your logic that you and your H is are fully raising your infant/children and I'm not because my H is fully engaged in morning routine and a nanny cares for the infant 2 hours of waking time ... it's just not logical.

It’s also not logical to act like SAHMs are fitting “raising of children” in between naps. I mean good grief. You started off logical but then went way off in the other direction. News flash: long sleeping infants are a fraction in time of the experience of moms, working or not.

When are SAHM's "raising children" if it is NOT during waking hours?

It's also not logical to say you are "raising your child" while they nap or while they are at school or while they are doing their sports practice.
It's also not logical to say you are "raising your child" while they are independently playing or while you are cooking and cleaning and doing other things (and btw I don't think you should be hoovering over your child so that is a good thing)

At 3 they are in preschool 9-1 and nap from 1-2:30 and i'm home 3:30-4 so I'm going to quit working for 1 hour a day? That is also not logical
At 5 they are in school all day
By middle school they are in school all day, practice in the afternoon, then homework (which could use some parenting- depending on the child)

The reality is the # of hours you are "raising your children" is way less than you like to use to justify not working (not sure why you need to justify - to be clear - do your thing girl).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its funny that PP thinks all or even most infants sleep 4 hours a day. Neither of my kids ever took a 2 hour nap as babies. More like 45 minutes. Once they become toddlers and consolidated to 1 nap a day it was about 2 hours but not much more. They did sleep 7-7 at night though.

Your infant too 1 45 minute nap a day. Hmmm.

No. 2-3. But never more than 45 minutes at a time. And it never cumulated more than 2 hours, let alone 4. It works for your narrative that your nanny is supervising 4 hours of nap time that you are not missing with your child.

It's not a narrative. It's our family schedule and it works.

Just like your H not being a part of raising your kids works for your family.

Husband is home until 9am too. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Yes it is true most SAHM's that are wealthy and poor send their kids to 5 days of preschool because of the value it adds. For the poor it's free and for the wealthy it's not a big deal.

But if you give up an income and have to skrimp I understand you can't send your kids 5 days a week and that's fine, they will be fine.

I live in a UMC suburb. The wealthy SAHMs here do "3 day 3's" -- preschool 3 mornings a week. They don't see a value beyond that amount of preschool time for a 3 yr old.

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Yes it is true most SAHM's that are wealthy and poor send their kids to 5 days of preschool because of the value it adds. For the poor it's free and for the wealthy it's not a big deal.

But if you give up an income and have to skrimp I understand you can't send your kids 5 days a week and that's fine, they will be fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its funny that PP thinks all or even most infants sleep 4 hours a day. Neither of my kids ever took a 2 hour nap as babies. More like 45 minutes. Once they become toddlers and consolidated to 1 nap a day it was about 2 hours but not much more. They did sleep 7-7 at night though.

Your infant too 1 45 minute nap a day. Hmmm.

No. 2-3. But never more than 45 minutes at a time. And it never cumulated more than 2 hours, let alone 4. It works for your narrative that your nanny is supervising 4 hours of nap time that you are not missing with your child.

It's not a narrative. It's our family schedule and it works.

Just like your H not being a part of raising your kids works for your family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its funny that PP thinks all or even most infants sleep 4 hours a day. Neither of my kids ever took a 2 hour nap as babies. More like 45 minutes. Once they become toddlers and consolidated to 1 nap a day it was about 2 hours but not much more. They did sleep 7-7 at night though.

Your infant too 1 45 minute nap a day. Hmmm.

No. 2-3. But never more than 45 minutes at a time. And it never cumulated more than 2 hours, let alone 4. It works for your narrative that your nanny is supervising 4 hours of nap time that you are not missing with your child.

It's not a narrative. It's our family schedule and it works.

Just like your H not being a part of raising your kids works for your family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.

Me again - also what is this talk about 3 year olds going to preschool 5 days a week from 9-1? The majority of the SAHMs in my area send their 3 yr olds to preschool for 3 mornings a week (pick up at lunch). Haven't you heard of the "3 days 3's"? It's very silly to make up all these numbers and schedules. Certainly pre-ES, of course SAHMs spend an appreciably larger percentage of their kids' waking hours with them than do most WOHM (at least those with fairly typical schedules). How silly to pretend otherwise!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its funny that PP thinks all or even most infants sleep 4 hours a day. Neither of my kids ever took a 2 hour nap as babies. More like 45 minutes. Once they become toddlers and consolidated to 1 nap a day it was about 2 hours but not much more. They did sleep 7-7 at night though.

Your infant too 1 45 minute nap a day. Hmmm.

No. 2-3. But never more than 45 minutes at a time. And it never cumulated more than 2 hours, let alone 4. It works for your narrative that your nanny is supervising 4 hours of nap time that you are not missing with your child.

Anonymous wrote:If your infant takes a 2-hr am nap and a 2-hr pm nap, and sleeps like 11-12 hours a night, then your infant is only awake 9 hours a day. All these folks saying, well my nanny only spent 3-4 waking hours with my kid...I mean, I get that "3" and "4" sound like small numbers, but it is a full 30-40% of your child's waking hours. That's of course a meaningful difference in what you could be spending if you stayed home (and again, that's assuming you have a very good napper).

I'm a FT working mom, btw.