I've done work+house/child care, work+spouse did (some) house/child care and stay at home mom. They all have their pros and cons and which one is 'right' varies by the individual and their partner.
In my opinion, working and doing little to nothing around the house is the easiest. Way easier than taking care of the house and kids full time. Yeah, you're at work for 8 hours but you get to stop working...and while a SAHP might not be actively working for 8 hours straight, it's a 24/7 job where you don't get to ever fully stop or have a day off. On top of that, it's a largely thankless job and too many people think it's so easy and don't realize how much work actually goes into it. I also think people underestimate how valuable it can be for a child to have a parent that's always there. Even after children go to school, having a parent wake you up and send you off and then be there when you're home is great. Why should that be done by some babysitter or day care program? And isn't it funny that somehow it's reasonable to PAY someone to watch your children while you work but yet when you watch your own children it's worthless? You can say the same about all things SAHP's do. Maids get paid, personal assistants get paid, accountants, chefs and waiters, etc, even the floofy stuff like event planners and decorators get paid for their services and we recognize those things as 'real jobs' yet when a stay at home parent does all of those things suddenly they have no value?
My work is, basically, to be a part time stay at home parent. Admittedly, there will be some deadshits who do fuck all all day, but looking after kids and running a household is hard work. I only do ten to eleven hours a day and it's tiring. Parents don't get to go home at the end if the day. Most parents I've worked for consider their paid work as a "break" from their home "work".
I was thinking when I first read this...a stay at home parent of a school age child still "works" with the kids from say, 6/7am til school tome, does shopping, cooking, housework, laundry, anything needed for school before the kids come home say 3:30/4 and then they "work" with them til bedtime - say 7/8. So call that two hours before school, minimum two hours during school hours and three hours after school...that's still 7hrs of work, and we haven't even factored in night times - either regular or when kids are sick.
Prior to school age...not only do most stay at home mothers go through carrying the little fuckers inside them for nine months (usually not a walk in the park, but some better than others), go through the pain of labour and recovery (possibly serious surgical recovery), then have to work 24/7 for five years...
So...five years is...1826 days, with one leap year. Say they get the equivalent of one day "off" a week for whatever reasons - someone else is doing all their work or whatever. That's 260 days - lets be generous and call it 300, just to make my point even stronger.
So they work 24/7 for 1526 days in five years. Let's even round down to 1500, whatever.
Let's be extra generous and say they only work...18hrs a day. Let's also pretend broken sleep doesn't adversely affect you.
18hrs for 1500 days...is...27000 hours. Or the equivalent of 540 50hour work weeks. Say someone works 50 weeks a year...to work that many hours, they would need to work 10.8 years. Stay at home parents have that squished into five. And I was being incredibly generous and under estimating the actual time they put in.
Almost eleven years of a heavy work week in a regular job, of being NEEDED constantly. People who aren't around kids don't understand how needy they are.
Sorry for the long post at you. I know you get all of this.
Taking care of other peoples kids is a job because you make money and dont just live off someone else's income. Stay at home parent is easier than going to a place to do a job. Pluss most of the time you're taking care of many kids unless you're a full time nanny in which case the wife of the family is probably rich and unemployed as well.
SOMEONE has to watch the kids. Its value is equal to what you'd pay in daycare, not to mention the value in having a parent who is always there. Daycare is super expensive so in order to justify the expense you have to make enough money to make it worthwhile and factor in the cost of your (BOTH parents) absence for a significant chunk of your child's life. Bear in mind also that at least one parent needs to have a VERY flexible job to allow for missed days due to the child being ill, days school is closed, hours that match up with the operating hours of daycare/school. Employment options are severely limited for most. For many people, having one parent stay at home is the smartest solution, for many it's the ONLY viable solution. And...some people simply don't believe in having kids only to dump them into someone else's care regardless of how much money they do or don't make. What right do you have to judge any of this? Do you know everyone's finances, job availability, and personal beliefs? Who the fuck are you to claim someone is 'living off' of their partner? You must not realize that in most cases the situation is agreed upon based on the personal preferences and particulars of these couples.
It is agreed upon in situations where a female who does not want a job finds a sucker who will support her financially. Happens in reverse in the case of stay at home dads. Sending kids to school isn't "dumping" them, its called having kids that have actual social skills unlike ones unfortunate enough to have parents who are constantly around. Public school is free so once the kid is like 4 there's no excuse for one partner to sit at home and watch Dr. phil tell her how hard her life is.
Also, stay at home dads are generally considered bums who dont work so why do women get a pass on this?
You are extremely immature, inexperienced, ignorant and hateful.
I have already answered your points but you do not seem to get it or are blinded so much by your bias and hateful feelings that you won't get it. I'm all for having a discussion but you apparently aren't.
I understand your points, the points made by a person to excuse why somehow cleaning their own mess qualifies as a job so they don't have to actually leave the house to work. Contributing a useless baby to an overcrowded world is not an accomplishment.
When I was the one working, having my SO take care of the house and kids was worth more to me than him making a few hundred bucks a week and having to have someone else watching my kids (that is something I will not do, ever). He wasn't 'living off' me, he was providing more value in work taking care of things around the house than I'd get out of him bringing in a bit of money working for someone else.
Shit, when I was around 21 I had to move back to my parents house and instead of paying rent, all my mom wanted was for me to clean, buy groceries and cook. My mom LOVES money but for her it was more worth it to have me do those things because she doesn't like to. She wouldn't say I was 'living off her' because she was getting what she wanted out of the deal which was worth more to her than a rent check.
IIN to hate "stay at home moms"?
← View full post
I've done work+house/child care, work+spouse did (some) house/child care and stay at home mom. They all have their pros and cons and which one is 'right' varies by the individual and their partner.
In my opinion, working and doing little to nothing around the house is the easiest. Way easier than taking care of the house and kids full time. Yeah, you're at work for 8 hours but you get to stop working...and while a SAHP might not be actively working for 8 hours straight, it's a 24/7 job where you don't get to ever fully stop or have a day off. On top of that, it's a largely thankless job and too many people think it's so easy and don't realize how much work actually goes into it. I also think people underestimate how valuable it can be for a child to have a parent that's always there. Even after children go to school, having a parent wake you up and send you off and then be there when you're home is great. Why should that be done by some babysitter or day care program? And isn't it funny that somehow it's reasonable to PAY someone to watch your children while you work but yet when you watch your own children it's worthless? You can say the same about all things SAHP's do. Maids get paid, personal assistants get paid, accountants, chefs and waiters, etc, even the floofy stuff like event planners and decorators get paid for their services and we recognize those things as 'real jobs' yet when a stay at home parent does all of those things suddenly they have no value?
--
charli.m
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This.
My work is, basically, to be a part time stay at home parent. Admittedly, there will be some deadshits who do fuck all all day, but looking after kids and running a household is hard work. I only do ten to eleven hours a day and it's tiring. Parents don't get to go home at the end if the day. Most parents I've worked for consider their paid work as a "break" from their home "work".
I was thinking when I first read this...a stay at home parent of a school age child still "works" with the kids from say, 6/7am til school tome, does shopping, cooking, housework, laundry, anything needed for school before the kids come home say 3:30/4 and then they "work" with them til bedtime - say 7/8. So call that two hours before school, minimum two hours during school hours and three hours after school...that's still 7hrs of work, and we haven't even factored in night times - either regular or when kids are sick.
Prior to school age...not only do most stay at home mothers go through carrying the little fuckers inside them for nine months (usually not a walk in the park, but some better than others), go through the pain of labour and recovery (possibly serious surgical recovery), then have to work 24/7 for five years...
So...five years is...1826 days, with one leap year. Say they get the equivalent of one day "off" a week for whatever reasons - someone else is doing all their work or whatever. That's 260 days - lets be generous and call it 300, just to make my point even stronger.
So they work 24/7 for 1526 days in five years. Let's even round down to 1500, whatever.
Let's be extra generous and say they only work...18hrs a day. Let's also pretend broken sleep doesn't adversely affect you.
18hrs for 1500 days...is...27000 hours. Or the equivalent of 540 50hour work weeks. Say someone works 50 weeks a year...to work that many hours, they would need to work 10.8 years. Stay at home parents have that squished into five. And I was being incredibly generous and under estimating the actual time they put in.
Almost eleven years of a heavy work week in a regular job, of being NEEDED constantly. People who aren't around kids don't understand how needy they are.
Sorry for the long post at you. I know you get all of this.
Taking care of other peoples kids is a job because you make money and dont just live off someone else's income. Stay at home parent is easier than going to a place to do a job. Pluss most of the time you're taking care of many kids unless you're a full time nanny in which case the wife of the family is probably rich and unemployed as well.
Not worthless, its just not a job
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
SOMEONE has to watch the kids. Its value is equal to what you'd pay in daycare, not to mention the value in having a parent who is always there. Daycare is super expensive so in order to justify the expense you have to make enough money to make it worthwhile and factor in the cost of your (BOTH parents) absence for a significant chunk of your child's life. Bear in mind also that at least one parent needs to have a VERY flexible job to allow for missed days due to the child being ill, days school is closed, hours that match up with the operating hours of daycare/school. Employment options are severely limited for most. For many people, having one parent stay at home is the smartest solution, for many it's the ONLY viable solution. And...some people simply don't believe in having kids only to dump them into someone else's care regardless of how much money they do or don't make. What right do you have to judge any of this? Do you know everyone's finances, job availability, and personal beliefs? Who the fuck are you to claim someone is 'living off' of their partner? You must not realize that in most cases the situation is agreed upon based on the personal preferences and particulars of these couples.
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It is agreed upon in situations where a female who does not want a job finds a sucker who will support her financially. Happens in reverse in the case of stay at home dads. Sending kids to school isn't "dumping" them, its called having kids that have actual social skills unlike ones unfortunate enough to have parents who are constantly around. Public school is free so once the kid is like 4 there's no excuse for one partner to sit at home and watch Dr. phil tell her how hard her life is.
Also, stay at home dads are generally considered bums who dont work so why do women get a pass on this?
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You are extremely immature, inexperienced, ignorant and hateful.
I have already answered your points but you do not seem to get it or are blinded so much by your bias and hateful feelings that you won't get it. I'm all for having a discussion but you apparently aren't.
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I understand your points, the points made by a person to excuse why somehow cleaning their own mess qualifies as a job so they don't have to actually leave the house to work. Contributing a useless baby to an overcrowded world is not an accomplishment.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
No, you obviously don't understand.
When I was the one working, having my SO take care of the house and kids was worth more to me than him making a few hundred bucks a week and having to have someone else watching my kids (that is something I will not do, ever). He wasn't 'living off' me, he was providing more value in work taking care of things around the house than I'd get out of him bringing in a bit of money working for someone else.
Shit, when I was around 21 I had to move back to my parents house and instead of paying rent, all my mom wanted was for me to clean, buy groceries and cook. My mom LOVES money but for her it was more worth it to have me do those things because she doesn't like to. She wouldn't say I was 'living off her' because she was getting what she wanted out of the deal which was worth more to her than a rent check.
Different strokes for different folks.