or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › "I do all that AND have a job!"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"I do all that AND have a job!" - Page 2

post #21 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pickle18 View Post

That study makes zero sense to my life. smile.gif  Really, I find it completely incomprehensible.  I spend every hour DH is at work with a kid physically attached to me, engaging with him.  So a difference of 83 minutes makes no sense to me -  even with pee breaks, it's got to be at least 8-9 hours difference.  The way they broke out the breastfeeding data is confusing - when they say an additional hour, does that mean on top of the 83 minutes?  PLUS 27 minutes of reading, singing, etc. PLUS 32 minutes more of cuddles?  Or are the latter two included?  

 

Further, it begs the question - if SAHMs are only spending an extra hour and a half with their kids, what the heck are they DOING all day???  Because it must be something, which the WOHMs aren't - right?  Or are we assuming they are at yoga, the spa, and eating bon-bons?  eyesroll.gif


Yes, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who couldn't understand those numbers, lol!

post #22 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

but kids grow up and go to school at 5 or maybe even to preschool at 3 in some cases. So, plenty of time to do everything with kid out of the house.I

 

 I am at work while my kid is in school, so I get home to "all that" after work

 

And when my kids were small I ran a business from home. 

 

 

Work is something additional in my day. I am not excused from making meal from scratch, teaching my kids things, filling out school paperwork etc.

 

But that's another trade-off - outsourcing your children's education (which ends up also being childcare).  So, you lose out on quality time with your kids.  Losing out on time spend engaging and raising them.  That is not a choice every mother makes.  

 

I'm sure running your own business with small children at home was stressful - but you made trade-offs - you couldn't have been on calls and doing work WHILE engaging with your kids.  You didn't do everything a SAHM does AND work then either.

 

Of course you aren't excused from those things, they are your chosen values and priorities as a parent.  It's all choices we make and trade-offs to support what we think is best for our families.  I think it is rude and insulting to assume that one could possibly do "everything a SAHM does plus more" in the same 24 hours.  If we are doing one thing, we are, by default, not doing something else.

post #23 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by tillymonster View Post

I'm sorry but first off, that is such an insulting thing to say to a SAHM.

Secondly, being a SAHM is a HARD job. Harder then getting up to go to an office, IMHO.

Thirdly, there is no way that a mom who has a job and "does all that" is physically/logistically able to really do all that. I bet you go to twice as many play dates and activities for your kids. I bet you play with them more. I am a work-at-home part-time freelancer and have found myself skipping many things to get an email written, put on the TV so I could have a conference call, been dropped off at Starbucks to work on weekends while daddy has all the fun taking DD to the park. All I do is work it seems. But we need the money. Once baby #2 comes we will reassess but living in CA, I don't see us not *needing* the money and I'd rather do this then go to an office and put kids in daycare. At least they are with me, for now at least.

I do not "do all that" at all! smile.gif

 

yeahthat.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittywitty View Post

It depends on the job. I think it's insulting to make it seem like SAHMs don't do as much work as WOHMs. It's just different work. Would you say a daycare worker really has that much different of a job than a SAHM? Yet the daycare worker gets benefits and respect, while SAHMs are just said to be lazy. I have worked many difficult jobs-hospice, infertility, etc. Some of that working 70+ hour weeks mostly on night shift. It was harder in some ways-scheduling, stress, etc. But I didn't do the same amount of work in the home or with kids. Other people had to pick up that, and since they weren't home as much, there was less work to be done at home. I also was a less thorough house cleaner and cooked far less. Right now I'm a SAHM and full time student. It's more work mostly because I am trying to do both full time (classes are online) at the *same* time. Not harder, just more work. But if I wasn't in classes, I would be doing more work around the house. orngtongue.gif

 

nod.gif  

post #24 of 90
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

but kids grow up and go to school at 5 or maybe even to preschool at 3 in some cases. So, plenty of time to do everything with kid out of the house.I

 

 I am at work while my kid is in school, so I get home to "all that" after work

 

And when my kids were small I ran a business from home. 

 

 

Work is something additional in my day. I am not excused from making meal from scratch, teaching my kids things, filling out school paperwork etc.

Good points... moms with older kids in school would be a whole different category.  Certainly they would have different days than moms with two young children still in diapers... or with an older child who is homeschooled.  Lots of variations.      

post #25 of 90

I worked at home 20 hours a week and those were 20 hours that my kid had to watch tv and play alone or the house had to suffer or I lost sleep.  You cannot do both. Its all work. Whether you are taing care of house and home or working  form home the hours don't really change
 

post #26 of 90
I agree, I can't imagine how WOHMs and SAHMs spend the same amount or near with their kids. No way. I used to work out of the home. Unless the SAHMs are sending their kids to daycare or school while they're home, I just can't see it. I spend every second until bedtime with my kids. Reading, teaching, cuddling, nursing (CONSTANTLY!), etc.
post #27 of 90
I can see if your kids are school aged and at school all day when you'd be at work anyway, it probably doesn't make much of a difference in how much time you spend one-on-one with your kids. Or if you are a SAHM and also have a nanny. But with a young child, either you're dealing with them one-on-one all the time, or someone else is. They don't sit there by themselves leaving you alone. You're reading to, feeding, doing stuff with, etc., a great deal of the time. And for babies, you're holding/wearing them and talking to them all the time.
post #28 of 90
Being a SAHM is as much of a job as you make it. My mom stayed at home and nothing to interact with us. Seriously she just watched her "stories" and then complained the house was a mess. Which it was very disorganized. Oh and relied on take out a bunch, cause she was so stressed and tired.... I am the opposite, I make staying at home a full time thing. Spend time with my children, keep the house in order and take care of meals. It's what you make of it.
post #29 of 90
lol...Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've said that before... I've stayed home with my babies when they were younger, and that is difficult, but quite frankly, being a mom of babies is hard for ANY mom! Now that my kids are in school though, I do think that I work a lot more than some of the SAHM's who have kids in school with mine. It gets irritating after a while to hear moms complain that there is 'so much to do at home' when their kids are in school all day. Some of us actually work all day, pick up the kids from school, take time off to volunteer, take kids to activities, then come home to cooking and housework. Definiately more work! I have to say, I do get jealous of the idea of relaxing every once in a while. ;)
post #30 of 90

I do not consider public school my kids went to outsourcing their education.

 

I did not do it because I do not love my kids or do not want to spend quality time with them.

 

I did it because schools in my ares have good teachers who did better job than I ever would and because shoal have amazing resources and mentors.

 

What I did was right for my family. My son has an awesome job at 17 that many older people would kill for .

 

I am tired of public school  portrayed as something bad. Some are and some are not. Homeschooling is not good thing for every child and every family.

 

So, yes, when we are talking about school age kids who are in school, "I do all that and my job".

post #31 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

I do not consider public school my kids went to outsourcing their education.

I did not do it because I do not love my kids or do not want to spend quality time with them.

I did it because schools in my ares have good teachers who did better job than I ever would and because shoal have amazing resources and mentors.

What I did was right for my family. My son has an awesome job at 17 that many older people would kill for .

I am tired of public school  portrayed as something bad. Some are and some are not. Homeschooling is not good thing for every child and every family.

So, yes, when we are talking about school age kids who are in school, "I do all that and my job".

I must have missed where this way said. I glanced back, but did someone say that on here to you? My oldest went to Kindy for half a year. Terrible, terrible situation. Not all schools are bad, and it really depends on the child. Unfortunately, you will find most people who hs on here do so because of a negative school situation, so you should take that into consideration.
post #32 of 90
When I worked outside the home I did not do everything I do now plus a job. I had to pay someone else to do some of it, and some of it simply couldn't get done. But some of it, yeah, I did have to do a lot of work at home on top of work at work. And it's mostly the not fun parts. Sometimes I feel sorry for my husband, because he works all day and then comes home and takes over at least half the home stuff. But he appreciates all I do when he's not home.

Still, I do a lot more with my kids now than I could possibly do if I also had to work.
post #33 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazee View PostBut with a young child, either you're dealing with them one-on-one all the time, or someone else is. They don't sit there by themselves leaving you alone. You're reading to, feeding, doing stuff with, etc., a great deal of the time. And for babies, you're holding/wearing them and talking to them all the time.

Exactly.

The australian study was talking about babies.  Breastfed and bottle fed infants.  I don't get the two hours per day of cuddle time.  When mine were infants they were in the sling against my skin 24/7.  If I worked 8hours per day that would be 8 hours subtracted.  Makes no sense.

post #34 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serafina33 View Post

Exactly.

The australian study was talking about babies.  Breastfed and bottle fed infants.  I don't get the two hours per day of cuddle time.  When mine were infants they were in the sling against my skin 24/7.  If I worked 8hours per day that would be 8 hours subtracted.  Makes no sense.

 

Depends on the situation. Some moms don't sleep with their babies, so they could subtract a few hours... There might be a few moms who hold their little ones 24/7 for months or years, I've just never met any!
post #35 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

I do not consider public school my kids went to outsourcing their education.

 

I did not do it because I do not love my kids or do not want to spend quality time with them.

 

I did it because schools in my ares have good teachers who did better job than I ever would and because shoal have amazing resources and mentors.

 

What I did was right for my family. My son has an awesome job at 17 that many older people would kill for .

 

I am tired of public school  portrayed as something bad. Some are and some are not. Homeschooling is not good thing for every child and every family.

 

So, yes, when we are talking about school age kids who are in school, "I do all that and my job".

 

Alenushka - I think you are misunderstanding me.  By using the word "outsource" I simply meant that you are making a choice to have someone else take over that part, whether because you believe someone else can do a better job of it than you, offer more opportunities, and/or you are not in a position to be able to homeschool financially, etc. etc.  Whatever the case may be, I'm not making a value judgment.  I absolutely trust that you are making the best choices for your family. 

 

I was just highlighting education as one more thing that we can choose to do ourselves or hire/allow someone else to take over if we choose (for any reason).  Like cleaning, cooking, child care, etc.  

 

I liked that you clarified that you are "talking about (moms of) school age kids who are in school" - that's a much more specific group you are comparing to, and that distinction is helpful.  I'm still not sure there isn't a trade-off (if you can get the cleaning, cooking and errands done during the day, presumably you'd have more time to be involved in after-school activities or other things to benefit the family, etc. - or, if you do all that as well, you are potentially losing out on sleep, and so on...all variables smile.gif).  

 

I do understand that you are referring to some basics like cooking, chores, paperwork, etc. and I do respect that those things are hard to balance with working full-time.

post #36 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazee View Post

How many SAHMs are there in Australia. We have neighbors in Australia and they acted like it was mainly just the super wealthy who had SAHMs, which would make it more of a The Nanny Diaries thing than what we're talking about. But maybe my neighbor was just talking about her part of Australia.

About 30% of Australian mothers have a job outside the home according to 2010-11 data. I couldn't find a breakdown of age of children or hours worked though.
post #37 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSLaura View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serafina33 View Post

Exactly.

The australian study was talking about babies.  Breastfed and bottle fed infants.  I don't get the two hours per day of cuddle time.  When mine were infants they were in the sling against my skin 24/7.  If I worked 8hours per day that would be 8 hours subtracted.  Makes no sense.

 

Depends on the situation. Some moms don't sleep with their babies, so they could subtract a few hours... There might be a few moms who hold their little ones 24/7 for months or years, I've just never met any!

Of course I exaggerate, I'd sometimes put them down somewhere to sleep during a really long, deep nap or I'd go to the gym and leave one of my kids with their father or grandparents for a couple of hours, etc....

But for the most part, I was sleeping next to them (or between two of them) at night, and carrying them in the sling in daytime, until they were running around and even then the amount of time during the days that they were on my person, in my lap, etc, was pretty high.

 

It can't be that unusual amongst AP parents.

post #38 of 90
Quote:

I liked that you clarified that you are "talking about (moms of) school age kids who are in school" - that's a much more specific group you are comparing to, and that distinction is helpful.  

The australian study was about infants, either bottle or breastfeeding.  Definitely kids not of school age.  I'm getting confused.

post #39 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serafina33 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KSLaura View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serafina33 View Post

Exactly.
The australian study was talking about babies.  Breastfed and bottle fed infants.  I don't get the two hours per day of cuddle time.  When mine were infants they were in the sling against my skin 24/7.  If I worked 8hours per day that would be 8 hours subtracted.  Makes no sense.

Depends on the situation. Some moms don't sleep with their babies, so they could subtract a few hours... There might be a few moms who hold their little ones 24/7 for months or years, I've just never met any!
Of course I exaggerate, I'd sometimes put them down somewhere to sleep during a really long, deep nap or I'd go to the gym and leave one of my kids with their father or grandparents for a couple of hours, etc....
But for the most part, I was sleeping next to them (or between two of them) at night, and carrying them in the sling in daytime, until they were running around and even then the amount of time during the days that they were on my person, in my lap, etc, was pretty high.

It can't be that unusual amongst AP parents.

I don't know how unusual it is but both our babies were on or beside someone (not always me but almost always a family member) unless they were in a carseat for the first few months. At about 4 months I would start sneaking away during some sleeps. And at about 5 months they both started sitting up and wanted some floor playtime. Actually with my second it was probably a bit earlier than that as I had more demands on my time so maybe 4 months for her.

Anyway, off topic. But no, not just you :-)
post #40 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serafina33 View Post

The australian study was about infants, either bottle or breastfeeding.  Definitely kids not of school age.  I'm getting confused.

I'm not sure why she posted that in support of her argument - other than perhaps to say, that even in arms babies don't get much more time with their mothers, so school age kids would get even less/the same as with a WOHM? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › "I do all that AND have a job!"