Where have all the stay at home moms gone? :(

amother

Wine

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 7:33 am

I have a lot of relatives who are sahms with large families. They send their kids out wen young and how are they getting vouchers to pay in NYC? I thought vouchers was only for two working parents? But, one is a sahm. Anyway, I do understand the benefit of sending the child out young especially if they have a little baby and can't entertain the toddler. Wat I dont understand is how these sahms pay for these preschools...they are expensive and a lot of these sahms I'm talking about dhs are not in high income job.

im wondering how they pay bec I wish I can also send my toddler out but its too much money. For preschools, there's no tuition deduction, so I don't get it.(I'm not talking about sahms who have a lot of money ). Even my sibiling in Lakewood(kollel) who works part time sends her little one to playgroup but even though playgroup is very cheap, she is also getting a much lower salary, so I was always wondering how these families who are sahms whose dhs are working low paying jobs can afford to pay for these preschools which offer no deductions...(I'm not talking about vouchers in nyc which is not for sahm families).

I agree with those sahms who send out toddlers bec I think they learn social skills and the activities are good for them. But, I can't afford it and am wondering where everyone else has money for it.

amother

Bronze

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 8:02 am

What really bothers me about this post is that the op feels entitled to have other families make choices that make her life easier--more families need to keep their kids home because then it would be easier for her kid who is home to socialize. Sorry, honey, that's not how it works. Families make the best decisions for themselves, and they don't owe you consideration. Get used to it. There are families out there who will do all sorts of things differently that are going to make it rather harder to do things the way you'd like to. You don't get to tell them they're making your job harder. It's your responsibility to do what you feel is most important for your family even if it's harder to implement than you'd like. If it's that important to you, you'll manage to make it work.

amother

Pewter

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 8:17 am

I’m from Norway (no longer living there but live in Sweden so I’m never too far from home). Norway is an expensive country. The idea of being a stay at home mother for an indefinite amount of years is crazy to most Norwegian women. Up to 1 year of maternity leave is granted and after that, children go to kindergarten. Same here in Sweden. But we don’t work as many hours as Americans and we get more benefits. I don’t think our children suffer any more. In fact I think American parents hover over their children way too much. Being around your children all day every day is just not healthy for either of you, but maybe that’s just the Scandinavian in me talking.

amother

Olive

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 9:14 am

thegiver wrote:

Why does no one keep their kids home anymore? If more parents did it, it would incentivize others to do the same. My 3yo ds could use friends but all are in playgroups!! Do you think arts and crafts and a morah’s love is greater than being there for your little ones? This is their formative years. Nothing can replace your love and attention.

I understand if you are working by choice because you dont have patience. Its not easy being constantly on call to a toddler. But you are irreplaceable. Your time, your smile, your affection—even if you are doing your chores together, it can still be bonding.

I hope I can persuade other moms who are ambivalent about keeping their kids home and if it is viable financially for you not to work or to work nights and weekends or start your own business on your time... do it for your kids sake!! It is not easy but your kids will thank you one day. And no alphabet enrichment or education replaces the value of play at the tender age of 3. Socialization opportunities would be very beneficial though.

On that note if you are a stay at home mom with children age 3 or older (and not anti vax—pls no offense meant to you—just want to protect my little baby) pls reach out to me via private message and let’s connect.

My three-year old is at home too and I don’t send them out because I would be doing it solely for my benefit as I am currently not working. DS has siblings so I am not worried about socialization and he doesn’t seem interested in kids his own age at the moment. It is hard but I am comfortable with my choice. I will send him when I feel he would be happier with other kids vs me.

What I don’t like is everyone else telling me how he “must” go to nursery.

However, OP, I think your post is similar as it seems to be stating that other people’s choices to send their kids to playgroup or nursery is a less valid choice. Each parent can assess what they need for their family. An older child of mine was at nursery before aged 1 as I needed and wanted to work. He also needed the socialization. Each child, situation and family is different. OP, I can see that your post may understandably rile up some posters the wrong way.

amother

Slategray

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 9:23 am

previous amother-
my older dd's Montessori school asked my husband if he was planning on sending our younger dd to their 3 year old program. He said he wasn't sure because I'm a SAHM so we might just keep her home. They tried really hard to convince us how important that year was. Finally I told them to let me know if they'll close out since I didn't want to lose the spot for the following year. They said they were about to so I signed her up. She went for a little bit and the started getting UTI's which made her no longer potty trained. They wouldn't take her if she wasn't potty trained so she ended up staying home the whole year while we tried to figure out what was going on medically.

This year she's still not potty trained but I was able to get a doctor's note saying it's a medical issue so they are letting her in to school.

She's advanced for her age academically and is already starting to read in hebrew and english. I commented to the teacher that I'm glad to see that she doesn't seem to be behind because she wasn't in school last year, she was just like -not at all- your daughter is very bright! Since it's a montessouri school- this teacher would have been my daughter's teacher last year also Wink

When I told my dh- he was just like - I know... so no don't believe people that your daughter needs nursery- she'll be fine.

amother

Olive

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 9:27 am

amother wrote:

My 3 year olds where very bored at home. At that age they need structure. Unless the 3 year old is the youngest, it's not doable to entertain them all day. For me it was impossible to entertain a bored toddler while caring for a babies that cried most of the time.

This is part of it for me. My three-year old is my youngest (with a big age gap) and my last child. In a few years he’ll be out all day and I will work all day so I know that this is short term. That said, if he gets to the stage where he is bored at home, I would send out to nursery. We do a lot of classes during the day and at the moment he often asks to “stay home” so it feels ok as I don’t have other babies. I would NOT cope at home with him and younger kids at all and would send him out all day kicking and screaming if necessary in that situation lol. LOL

SacN

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 10:46 am

Quote:

That's what I always say. Honestly I'd rather not be allowed to vote and be able to raise my kids full time than vote and have to work full time!!

I'm horrified. Not because of voting.

Would you rather not be able to divorce in the event of abuse? Would you rather not be allowed to withdraw cash from the bank (without your husband)? Get fired from your job upon marriage? Have all legal rights to your property and children belong to your husband? Not be allowed to attend school? University? Not be able to press charges if you were raped? Not have legal rights to your own medical decisions?

Sheesh.

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 10:48 am

My sister, who has an only child, wanted to be a SAHM.

When her child was small, her Conservative synagogue asked her to work for a couple of weeks in the synagogue office getting the files, that were in huge disarray, in shape. The synagogue offered my sister child care in the synagogue's preschool during that 2 weeks. In 2 weeks, my sister had re-organized the synagogue files and had the place up and running in top shape. They wouldn't let my sister quit the job or let her child quit the pre-school. The board convinced them to stay and my sister ended her plan to be a SAHM.

My sister knows now that it was the best thing to happen to her and her daughter. Both she and her child made friends, my sister has held the job for around 30 years and still loves it, and she realizes now that it was far healthier for her child not to be hovered over by her all day, which had been her plan.

Sometimes it is in the best interest of the child, regardless of what the mother does, to be in a qualified pre-school. Schools can often pick up on developmental needs that parents miss and so on.

amother

Blush

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 11:01 am

SacN wrote:

Quote:

That's what I always say. Honestly I'd rather not be allowed to vote and be able to raise my kids full time than vote and have to work full time!!

I don't know what century you're thinking of. We're not talking about the middle ages. Besides I said voting.. I don't give a **** about voting so I couldn't care less.
But let's stay with the things you mentioned. 60 years ago let's say.. girls went to school unless you live in some random town in Texas but I'm pretty sure they went to school there aswell. They also went to university.. actually my grandmother who is 78 went to university, she became a dentist. She wanted to work until she had kids. My grandfather told her she could stop working whenever she wanted.. so she did, she wasn't fired though..so I don't know where you got your information from. He bought the house in THEIR names and always have her money whenever she asked him. So she didn't need to withdraw money.. he did it for her. She wasn't raped so I don't know about rape charges but honestly I doubt that rape victims have it easy nowadays. Haven't you heard a rapist didn't get convicted last week because the girl he raped (she was a virgin btw) was wearing a thong? So yeah you're 2018 isn't as great as you thought is it?
So back then, same as now : if you had a great husband .. all was fine. If you had an abusive husband all was not fine. Didn't change much. You wanna tell me women have it easier now getting out of a marriage? So how come single moms are the ones who live under the poverty line.. you want them to work full time and raise their kids at the same time?
My grandfather was a wonderful man, treated my grandmother like a queen. He never made her feel like she depended on him. I feel more dependent on my husband and I have a job!
So you can't convince me. I wasn't talking about the middle ages .. OBVIOUSLY I wouldn't wanna live back then. But in the 1950s or late 1940s? Definitely.

SacN

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 11:03 am

Sorry. I have to go on. It's not the middle ages, it's the 40s and 50s dear. Women were restricted from the top schools, from practicing in many fields.
The same women who fought for the right to vote fought for all these things. It's not there yet, as you say. So please, don't back pedal.

Some women had great husbands. Some had great employers and doctors. Not everyone was so lucky.

Denied autonomy to make decisions regarding birth control (by your doctor).

The right to own property.

The right to patent your ideas.

The right to have an abortion if your life is in danger.

The right to privacy.

The right to maintain your citizenship if you marry a foreigner.

The right to choose who you marry.

Dont forget equal pay for the same work.

The right to child support even when there's shared custody.

amother

Maroon

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 11:18 am

thegiver wrote:

I don't really understand.

Why are you not enough for your littles?

Nothing can replace YOUR love and attention. NOTHING. They don't need friends. They don't need anything but you.

Your time, your smile, your affection—even if you are doing your chores together, it can still be bonding. Can they really be replaced by another toddler?

And honestly, do you really think that any of that changes when your littles hit 5, or 9, or 17? I surely hope that you're not considering sending them to day prison. You're all they need. Ever.

SixOfWands

Wed, Nov 21 2018, 11:22 am

SacN wrote:

Women couldn't even get credit cards until the mid-70s.