Do you stay home with your kids or work?

[RN4Babies]

OP, I don't want to pick on you, and I know this won't be what you want to hear....

The majority of the people who posted here stating that they're a stay at home parent have also stated that prior to staying home, that they already had disciplined themselves to live on one income, banking the rest; that they had no debt or had paid their debt down significantly before staying home, and that the sacrifices they make are the tradeoffs for staying home with their child.

Perhaps the question you should have posted could have said "If you have $19,000 in credit card debt, two car notes and a one year old, do you stay at home or work outside of the home?" At that point you would have feedback that was a true comparison of your situation.

I'm sorry if this is harsh. I've been in your shoes; my ex wanted every new toy out there, he was verbally and emotionally abusive to me and he took out credit cards in his name only (I've never owned a credit card), and owed over $25,000 on them when I filed for divorce two years ago. He also had major anger management issues. When my son was young, I enrolled at the local community college, one class at a time, for my nursing degree. It was apparent even back then (16 years ago) that our marriage wasn't happy. I wanted to put myself in a position to support myself and my children if he wasn't around. My biggest mistake and regret was putting up with all of my ex's antics for over 18 years.

Fast forward to the divorce. He was held solely liable for the full $25,000, even though Wisconsin is a marital property state, because I never had or used any of the credit cards. He pays no child support for our children, but the tradeoff is that I refinanced the house in my name (and he signed a quit claim deed), and I retained all of the equity in the house. He also was not awarded any of the money I have in my 401K account, or in my personal savings account. He was ordered by the judge to attend both anger management classes and parenting classes. They do seem to have helped him somewhat; last weekend he took the kids fishing, and baked chocolate chip cookies with them. He NEVER did things like that when we were married. He rents a one bedroom flat, and chooses to continue to buy all of the latest gizmos and gadgets. I have a modest three bedroom, 2 bath house in a very nice area with great schools. It's all about priorities. We happen to be much better coparents now than when we were married, and everyone is happier and more content.

Your continued excuses and justifications of your DH "not being that bad", "I'm used to the way he treats me", "He doesn't want to go to WDW, but has agreed because he knows it makes me happy" is very typical of a person who's in an abusive relationship. As I stated in one of my previous posts, I urge you to seek out counseling. You need a professional, objective person to tell your story to, to help you see things as they are, and to help you make some hard decisions.

Again, this is all said with compassion and concern for you and your daughter.

 

[KadysMom]

Just because you have heard from lots of people about this or that doesnt make it true. My husband loves the wii and playing on the computer but if that came before our daughter, it would be in the trash. But because your friend says that all men do that it makes it ok? I dont think so.

DH stayed home when our dd was born. I made more money and he was better at it. I am not a stay at home type of person and he was. He is totally involved in his daughters life. He works nights and sleeps during the day also, but because you "heard" that dads arent involved alot like in the 70's confused3) its ok?

You need new friends to talk to

 

[HelenePA]

OMG what is wrong with some of these posts? Men shouldn't have to take care of the kids, they need down time???

I'm NOT at all advocating that mom's go "off duty" when the father comes home but he needs "down time" first? Please. I don't know ANY mom, SAH or NOT, that ever goes off duty. I don't know any mom who does anything for herself until the kids are in bed!

When I worked FT there was no "down time." I picked DS up from daycare, came home, started dinner, laundry, cleaning, etc etc. I didn't shove him in a pack n play so I could get online or play video games. I had to put my wants aside to take care of him.

And thank goodness that my DH does the same thing! If he didn't we'd have serious problems. Treat me like a single mom, I might as well just go be a single mom.

I was beginning to think I was the only person here who had a house that ran this way. It works for us.. I guess it wont work for everyone.

 

[Fintastic]

If I were a SAHM, you bet I'd do my best to keep things clean and do the shopping and the errands and things like that. Would it always be perfect? Of course not. But if DH were working hard so I could stay home with the kids, it would be my way of showing him respect for that. I guess that makes me a throwback, but so be it.

He had a job a few years ago where he worked in shifts and was home for several days in a row. I would get really annoyed coming home after work if the house wasn't picked up, laundry done, dinner started, etc. It really isn't fair for the one working all day to come home and have to do all that too. When both parents work it can't be helped, obviously, but if one spouse is home during the day it should be his/her job to keep on top of that stuff. The nice thing about that is when the weekend rolls around, the household chores are taken care of already so weekends can really be family time. When both parents work, weekends are usually "catch up on chores and errands" time.

 

[pigletliz]

I'm not sure if anyone was refering to me with the down time comment. I did not mean that he shouldn't have to deal with the kids, I meant that if you deal with public safety all day - which can mean dealing with a domestic dispute, or traffic accident with a dead child, it is not always an easy transistion from taking off a uniform to walking in the front door in a good mood - no matter how much you love your family, even for the most squared away officers.

My 30 minutes is to get the events of the day to stop running though my head. I do deal with family members of dead loved ones before going home. The quiet does not mean I don't care about my kids and I certainly couldn't do it every day. My husband knows that and I give him that same space when needed. Trust me, as a mom, I got off work, picked my daughter up from school, transported her to all of her activities - even when I worked nights. It is what I chose to do. However, I also had no problem telling my husband that I needed help, after all, he is equally responsible as a parent. P.S. my house is a mess. Something had to give

 

[Caradana]

It would eat at me to give up the money. We don't have kids, but when we do, within the next few years, I fully expect that I'll continue to work. We'll probably pick up an au pair or perhaps have my mother move in; we'll be open to some unconventional daycare arrangements. We're going to need help to make this happen, but, the difference between me working and me not working is monumental in terms of our quality of life and the kinds of opportunities we'll be able to provide for kids.

Speaking plainly, ours is a case where I am capable of making far more money than the offsetting cost of daycare or an au pair. If that weren't the case, I'd probably feel differently.

Speaking aspirationally, I want to be a CEO. I think it's very possible to be both a fabulous mother and incredibly professionally successful. The woman who runs the group I am in currently has 3,500 employees in her group, runs a billion-dollar P&L, has an equally successful husband, and has three gorgeous little girls, ages 6, 4 and 2. She has a lot of help to which some women might object. There are nannies and a driver. But if you're a woman, and you can do both, and enjoy doing both, why not try?

 

[Robinrs]

It would eat at me to give up the money. We don't have kids, but when we do, within the next few years, I fully expect that I'll continue to work. We'll probably pick up an au pair or perhaps have my mother move in; we'll be open to some unconventional daycare arrangements. We're going to need help to make this happen, but, the difference between me working and me not working is monumental in terms of our quality of life and the kinds of opportunities we'll be able to provide for kids.

Speaking plainly, ours is a case where I am capable of making far more money than the offsetting cost of daycare or an au pair. If that weren't the case, I'd probably feel differently.

Speaking aspirationally, I want to be a CEO. I think it's very possible to be both a fabulous mother and incredibly professionally successful. The woman who runs the group I am in currently has 3,500 employees in her group, runs a billion-dollar P&L, has an equally successful husband, and has three gorgeous little girls, ages 6, 4 and 2. She has a lot of help to which some women might object. There are nannies and a driver. But if you're a woman, and you can do both, and enjoy doing both, why not try?

Wow, I was beginning to think this was a dying breed... thank you Caradana!

I am a National Director for a broadcasting entity AND a single parent. I was unemployed for a year so I was a voluntary SAHM and I was NOT good at it! And believe me, I tried!

The wonderful thing about being a woman is we do have that choice, neither is good or bad it's just a choice. I am amazed at how many women on this board are SAH women, it's the hardest job imaginable, and I tip my hat to them.

My co workers are VPs and directors and parents also, my boss has a 1 and 4 year old. It's a balancing act but it's good if it's the choice you want. As much as we don't like to believe it, money IS power, and that guy who thinks he needs down time believes he's earned it be cause he makes the money. I wonder how much lip service he'd be giving the OP if SHE was pulling in the check?

 

[Robinrs]

OP, I don't want to pick on you, and I know this won't be what you want to hear....

The majority of the people who posted here stating that they're a stay at home parent have also stated that prior to staying home, that they already had disciplined themselves to live on one income, banking the rest; that they had no debt or had paid their debt down significantly before staying home, and that the sacrifices they make are the tradeoffs for staying home with their child.

Perhaps the question you should have posted could have said "If you have $19,000 in credit card debt, two car notes and a one year old, do you stay at home or work outside of the home?" At that point you would have feedback that was a true comparison of your situation.

I'm sorry if this is harsh. I've been in your shoes; my ex wanted every new toy out there, he was verbally and emotionally abusive to me and he took out credit cards in his name only (I've never owned a credit card), and owed over $25,000 on them when I filed for divorce two years ago. He also had major anger management issues. When my son was young, I enrolled at the local community college, one class at a time, for my nursing degree. It was apparent even back then (16 years ago) that our marriage wasn't happy. I wanted to put myself in a position to support myself and my children if he wasn't around. My biggest mistake and regret was putting up with all of my ex's antics for over 18 years.

Fast forward to the divorce. He was held solely liable for the full $25,000, even though Wisconsin is a marital property state, because I never had or used any of the credit cards. He pays no child support for our children, but the tradeoff is that I refinanced the house in my name (and he signed a quit claim deed), and I retained all of the equity in the house. He also was not awarded any of the money I have in my 401K account, or in my personal savings account. He was ordered by the judge to attend both anger management classes and parenting classes. They do seem to have helped him somewhat; last weekend he took the kids fishing, and baked chocolate chip cookies with them. He NEVER did things like that when we were married. He rents a one bedroom flat, and chooses to continue to buy all of the latest gizmos and gadgets. I have a modest three bedroom, 2 bath house in a very nice area with great schools. It's all about priorities. We happen to be much better coparents now than when we were married, and everyone is happier and more content.

Your continued excuses and justifications of your DH "not being that bad", "I'm used to the way he treats me", "He doesn't want to go to WDW, but has agreed because he knows it makes me happy" is very typical of a person who's in an abusive relationship. As I stated in one of my previous posts, I urge you to seek out counseling. You need a professional, objective person to tell your story to, to help you see things as they are, and to help you make some hard decisions.

Again, this is all said with compassion and concern for you and your daughter.

Awesome post!

 

[Teresa Pitman]

Well, it's not really true that you can do both. You can't be a full-time mother to your children and work full-time in a workplace away from them. That doesn't mean that your children won't turn out fine, or that you won't have a happy life that way, but the reality is that your children will be primarily cared for by other people - not you. And clearly for many people, that's just fine.

It isn't for me. For me, the most important part of my life is my family (and since I'm single, that means my children). No "lifestyle," no amount of money is more valuable to me than being with them. These are the people I love most in the world, so I want to spend as much time as possible with them. That's especially true, for me, in the early years, when children have little sense of time and the amount of time they are awake each day is short. It would make me very sad to spend eight or nine hours a day at work, with people I may like well enough, but don't love, and only an hour or two with the children I love so deeply before they have to go to bed. I believe my children felt the same way about me as well - they loved me, not any babysitters I might have used from time to time, and they wanted to spend most of their time with me.

I also wanted to be the person who passed on the values and beliefs that I think are important. So many of these are things kids learn by observation, not by what we tell them, and the more time we have together the more opportunities they have to see me live my values.

There are a couple of sayings that I've always thought made sense for me "People are more important than things" and "Nobody on their deathbed ever says 'I wish I'd spent more time in the office.'" My kids are grown now, and yes, they probably did without some of the things their friends had because I tried to minimize time apart from them. But they tell me all the time how much they value our relationship, how glad they are that I chose being with them over bringing in more money.

Obviously, not everyone would make the same choices, and I'm not suggesting they should. I just think we need to recognize that "having it all" is kind of an inaccurate statement. You do have to give up something, and often what you are giving up is time with your child or children. For many people, that's a worthwhile trade-off. Not for me.

Teresa

 

[wvjules]

Well, it's not really true that you can do both. You can't be a full-time mother to your children and work full-time in a workplace away from them. That doesn't mean that your children won't turn out fine, or that you won't have a happy life that way, but the reality is that your children will be primarily cared for by other people - not you. And clearly for many people, that's just fine.

It isn't for me. For me, the most important part of my life is my family (and since I'm single, that means my children). No "lifestyle," no amount of money is more valuable to me than being with them. These are the people I love most in the world, so I want to spend as much time as possible with them. That's especially true, for me, in the early years, when children have little sense of time and the amount of time they are awake each day is short. It would make me very sad to spend eight or nine hours a day at work, with people I may like well enough, but don't love, and only an hour or two with the children I love so deeply before they have to go to bed. I believe my children felt the same way about me as well - they loved me, not any babysitters I might have used from time to time, and they wanted to spend most of their time with me.

I also wanted to be the person who passed on the values and beliefs that I think are important. So many of these are things kids learn by observation, not by what we tell them, and the more time we have together the more opportunities they have to see me live my values.

There are a couple of sayings that I've always thought made sense for me "People are more important than things" and "Nobody on their deathbed ever says 'I wish I'd spent more time in the office.'" My kids are grown now, and yes, they probably did without some of the things their friends had because I tried to minimize time apart from them. But they tell me all the time how much they value our relationship, how glad they are that I chose being with them over bringing in more money.

Obviously, not everyone would make the same choices, and I'm not suggesting they should. I just think we need to recognize that "having it all" is kind of an inaccurate statement. You do have to give up something, and often what you are giving up is time with your child or children. For many people, that's a worthwhile trade-off. Not for me.

Teresa

I'm shocked it took ten pages to get to the "I obviously love my children more than you do" post.

 

[Robinrs]

Well, it's not really true that you can do both. You can't be a full-time mother to your children and work full-time in a workplace away from them. That doesn't mean that your children won't turn out fine, or that you won't have a happy life that way, but the reality is that your children will be primarily cared for by other people - not you. And clearly for many people, that's just fine.

It isn't for me. For me, the most important part of my life is my family (and since I'm single, that means my children). No "lifestyle," no amount of money is more valuable to me than being with them. These are the people I love most in the world, so I want to spend as much time as possible with them. That's especially true, for me, in the early years, when children have little sense of time and the amount of time they are awake each day is short. It would make me very sad to spend eight or nine hours a day at work, with people I may like well enough, but don't love, and only an hour or two with the children I love so deeply before they have to go to bed. I believe my children felt the same way about me as well - they loved me, not any babysitters I might have used from time to time, and they wanted to spend most of their time with me.

I also wanted to be the person who passed on the values and beliefs that I think are important. So many of these are things kids learn by observation, not by what we tell them, and the more time we have together the more opportunities they have to see me live my values.

There are a couple of sayings that I've always thought made sense for me "People are more important than things" and "Nobody on their deathbed ever says 'I wish I'd spent more time in the office.'" My kids are grown now, and yes, they probably did without some of the things their friends had because I tried to minimize time apart from them. But they tell me all the time how much they value our relationship, how glad they are that I chose being with them over bringing in more money.

Obviously, not everyone would make the same choices, and I'm not suggesting they should. I just think we need to recognize that "having it all" is kind of an inaccurate statement. You do have to give up something, and often what you are giving up is time with your child or children. For many people, that's a worthwhile trade-off. Not for me.

Teresa

My son is 16 and all of his school life I've driven him to school and drove him home... yes, every day. I've been blessed to have a profession that's flexible enough to allow that because in my world, he needs me MORE as he gets older, not less.

My sisters still laugh that I pick him up everyday, but it's the least I can do. Instead of some knucklehead kid telling him his values, he can talk to me about it on the way home. And I can tell you some stories!!

It's been a trial making sure I am the one he can depend on, I'm all he has. The blessing is every single adult who deals with him tells me they WISH they had a son like that.

It IS possible. You just have to know how to balance.

 

[Robinrs]

I'm shocked it took ten pages to get to the "I obviously love my children more than you do" post.

You really EARNED your tag, jules!!!!

 

[dogluva]

It is also life that if you are $19000 in credit card debt and live in a tiny apartment and your husband is really financially stressed out that you get off your butt and get a job. Just because your a mother doesn't mean you should let your financial future go down the drain. And most women work 40+ hours per week and come home and do stuff too. Putting your child into daycare and working isn't going to kill you or your child.

I agree. I have always worked. I also have six kids. Believe me, it is not a bad thing. why are some people so against it. It sounds like they may have to work just to get by. HOw long can you go in debt? I would be so stressed knowing I was 19, 000 dollar in debt. To me, staying home isn't worth the stress. Maybe if the OP worked during the day, the husband could get some sleep during the day. My husband works nights and we are all gone during the day (work, school, daycare). Life is nice knowing you have money to pay bills.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

Now you know that's not what I said.

I said that FOR ME it was important to maximize the time I had with my children. Obviously lots of other people feel differently, and nowhere in what I wrote did I say that means they don't love their children or that they are bad parents. Nowhere. So don't put words in my mouth.

Teresa

 

[dogluva]

Just wanted to say that I get what you are saying (now and in your PP) and I agree with you!

My DH works two jobs to be able to pay the bills and still doesn't want me to work. The least I can do is make sure the house work is all done, he has a good meal, and the kids are not driving him crazy and that he gets to sleep.

He has so little free time now that he barely can get the yard work done. So I do as much as I can and only leave some of the handy man/yard work stuff for him.

This would never work for our family. My kids need to spend time with their father. I would never allow my husband to work two jobs so I could stay home. Too much of a sacrifice for us. My kids love seeing their father and doing stuff with him around the house. We both have free time and have equal jobs around the house.

 

[Christine]

There is no right or wrong way.

But the only right way is for a couple to be on the same page about their children.

Sadly, most people don't discuss this. They all walk around with their ideal worlds in their heads and don't often express it.

If you are a woman who knows you want to have children and who knows that you want to be a SAHM, I think you owe it to the marriage to have that discussed and settled before the children come. I know, easier said that done. This is not a discussion I ever had with my husband, but I never really thought I would be a SAHM. My mom always worked, my husband doesn't and will never rake in the dough. I just knew that I would have to work for the rest of my life probably. From there, it was a decision as to whether I wanted to have children in that type of setup or not.

I think many people go into having children never giving it much thought or asssuming that "of course, I'll stay home." The husband may have other ideas. There are many men out there who are clearly uncomfortable and pressured being the sole breadwinner. While they know that they would prefer their spouse at home, having to support a family on one income can be too much to handle. Just throwing things out there.

The reverse happens too. Some women want careers and their husbands go nuts if they return to work.

 

[dogluva]

Well, it's not really true that you can do both. You can't be a full-time mother to your children and work full-time in a workplace away from them. That doesn't mean that your children won't turn out fine, or that you won't have a happy life that way, but the reality is that your children will be primarily cared for by other people - not you. And clearly for many people, that's just fine.

It isn't for me. For me, the most important part of my life is my family (and since I'm single, that means my children). No "lifestyle," no amount of money is more valuable to me than being with them. These are the people I love most in the world, so I want to spend as much time as possible with them. That's especially true, for me, in the early years, when children have little sense of time and the amount of time they are awake each day is short. It would make me very sad to spend eight or nine hours a day at work, with people I may like well enough, but don't love, and only an hour or two with the children I love so deeply before they have to go to bed. I believe my children felt the same way about me as well - they loved me, not any babysitters I might have used from time to time, and they wanted to spend most of their time with me.

I also wanted to be the person who passed on the values and beliefs that I think are important. So many of these are things kids learn by observation, not by what we tell them, and the more time we have together the more opportunities they have to see me live my values.

There are a couple of sayings that I've always thought made sense for me "People are more important than things" and "Nobody on their deathbed ever says 'I wish I'd spent more time in the office.'" My kids are grown now, and yes, they probably did without some of the things their friends had because I tried to minimize time apart from them. But they tell me all the time how much they value our relationship, how glad they are that I chose being with them over bringing in more money.

Obviously, not everyone would make the same choices, and I'm not suggesting they should. I just think we need to recognize that "having it all" is kind of an inaccurate statement. You do have to give up something, and often what you are giving up is time with your child or children. For many people, that's a worthwhile trade-off. Not for me.

Teresa

I don't even know how to respond to this post as a working mother.

I know one thing, my kids sure like to eat. I know I really want to feed the kids I love the most in the world.

My kids haven't told me they are mad at me for chosing "brinigng in more money" over them but I am sure they appreciate that they have electricity and heat in the winter.

This post saddens me. I truly does. I am not even going to resond to the values part.

 

[bunny]

Speaking aspirationally, I want to be a CEO. I think it's very possible to be both a fabulous mother and incredibly professionally successful. The woman who runs the group I am in currently has 3,500 employees in her group, runs a billion-dollar P&L, has an equally successful husband, and has three gorgeous little girls, ages 6, 4 and 2. She has a lot of help to which some women might object. There are nannies and a driver. But if you're a woman, and you can do both, and enjoy doing both, why not try?

You go, girl!! It does seem sometimes that these boards are dominated by SAHMs. Maybe the WAHMs are too busy to post. I am all for women's equality. Just think what a great example this woman is to her children.

And, yes, there are sacrifices in every choice we make. Maybe the WOHM didn't see every thing her child ever did, but on the other hand, maybe she could afford to send her child to wonderful summer camps, travel with them, send them to top notch schools, pay for their college education, etc. Or maybe she just worked to put a roof over their heads and food in front of them. Whatever she did she was still their mother. It really irks me when people imply that if you aren't home with your kids that means you aren't raising them. Parents are still the most influential people in children's lives.

Lastly if the only important goal in a woman's life is stay at home barefoot and pregnant, why should woman even go to college? My mom was a SAHM and she was excellent. She only graduated from high school and I can't imagine that a college degree would have made her any better. My SIL is a SAHM with a Master's degree and $50,000 of college loans. She can't do half the domestic things my mom could do.

 

[bunny]

It isn't for me. For me, the most important part of my life is my family (and since I'm single, that means my children). No "lifestyle," no amount of money is more valuable to me than being with them. Teresa

Not to be nosy, but how is a single mom a SAHM? You either got a lot of child support or you lived off the system. I am not sure either one of those options is a great long term solution. It definitely wouldn't be worth it to me to stay at home with my kids if that meant we had to live in the projects and use food stamps.

My aunt did that after my uncle left her, even though she had been a nurse before having kids. My cousins were always so ashamed of their garage sale clothes and where they lived. Yes, they spent time with their mother, but it was really hard for them in school. They never had the money for sports or other activities. My cousin now has a Masters degree and is a WOHM. She loves her mother but she never wants to go back to that life.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I work, and while I enjoy it (most days), I would rather be home. My income is needed, though, so we can live comfortably. If I did not work, we would be struggling.