People who have kids but have no time for them

Nystyle709 wrote:LOL. I don't know where you think daycares and nannies are only used to 'pawn' your kids off on, but it's not. They are there for people with careers and who want to work to have a good life for themselves and their families. They are there for help. Not everybody can (or wants) to stay home all day with children. You have to have a life too.

Supernova wrote:

I find it a little hard to believe that of all the parents who do do this that there is absolutely NO other relatives who could stay home with the kids during the day instead of packing them off to day cares, which as it turns out a lot of them just sit kids in front of the TV for hours on end every day. Why would anybody want to pay $8 an hour for that privilege?

Bluesmama wrote:

My neighbor down the street charges $600 per child per month, and she watches 5 or 6 kids.

Personally, I think it's important to try and raise a child during the first few years before they start school. But, y'know, a lot of grandparents work, too, and not everyone has relatives around. We didn't.

And being a stay-at-home mom, though I recommend it for awhile, doesn't guarantee a child's outcome. I've known obnoxious brats from stay-at-home moms while I've known a few good kids from working single-parents. It's interesting.

Nystyle709 wrote:LOL. I don't know where you think daycares and nannies are only used to 'pawn' your kids off on, but it's not. They are there for people with careers and who want to work to have a good life for themselves and their families. They are there for help. Not everybody can (or wants) to stay home all day with children. You have to have a life too.

Supernova wrote:

I find it a little hard to believe that of all the parents who do do this that there is absolutely NO other relatives who could stay home with the kids during the day instead of packing them off to day cares, which as it turns out a lot of them just sit kids in front of the TV for hours on end every day. Why would anybody want to pay $8 an hour for that privilege?

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

I think part of the point being made, is that the people in question never see their kids because they put their jobs and themselves first all the time. They drop them off at daycare, and get home from their workday just in time to see them off to bed, then start the process all over..

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

I think part of the point being made, is that the people in question never see their kids because they put their jobs and themselves first all the time. They drop them off at daycare, and get home from their workday just in time to see them off to bed, then start the process all over.

Parenting is a balance, and while parental sacrifice can only go so far, you still need to be able to live your own life and do some of the things you want, while paying attention to your kids, too. Sometimes--many times--you have to put aside something you want or one of your dreams in order to provide for your kids, but that doesn't mean you can't do it later on, or more time-appropriate based on where your kids are in their lives.

All my own career choices have been dictated by the needs of my family, and I'm still at the same employer I have been at since I was 20 years old. I've been passed over 4 times for supervisory positions because I couldn't devote the time and 24 hour availablility they wanted of me to do one of those jobs, because I chose to put my kid first. I still make damn good money, and even though I don't have the title after my name, my co-workers trust me more and look to me more than the actual supervisors, for guidance.

Someday I'll live a little more selfishly than I do now, but not until my daughter is either in college or established on her own.

Supernova wrote:


Exactly, anybody who thinks having a kid isn't going to alter how they live their lives and how they do things needs to face reality. That's one reason why I'm in no hurry to have kids because then your life as you know it is over, suddenly it's 3 A.M. wake up calls, or in my mother's case, the whole first 3 years without a single full night's sleep, and for 18 years you are responsible for another human being.

Alan Smithee wrote:

And even if you're not legally responsible for them after that, if you're doing it right, you will always worry about them to some degree.

Nystyle709 wrote:

That is NOT the case for everyone who has a nanny or who has their child in daycare.....which is what she's insinuating. Furthermore, not all daycares just plop the kids in front of the tv. I know people who have and work in daycare centers and they are very hands on with the children and are a Godsend for busy parents. It's not that parents don't want to be with their kids, but bills don't pay themselves. And nobody should have to apologize for wanting children and also wanting a career as well. If you want to have kids, being able to stay home with them shouldnt be a factor when you have resources available to help you.

Supernova wrote:


Exactly, and I want to have a life before it gets put on hold for someone else. So I intend to have a few years to myself to spend it how I want, do the things I want on my own schedule before it's 3 A.M. feedings and diapers and chickenpox and school and all of that. But, long before I had kids I would make sure I was somewhat financially ready for them and that I wouldn't have to be gone 18 hours of the day to support them because I would be there to raise them otherwise what point in having them?

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

I agree with most of that, and mainly what I was focusing on is the career-hungry people who have power-workdays where they start at 5am and get home around 8 or 9pm when the kids are going off to bed--they never see them awake, practically. They're so engrossed in "Me, me me" and everyone else is along for their ride, including the kids.

That's unfortunate. But should you assume that those are ONLY the types of people who use daycare or nanny services? Absolutely not.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Hyacinth Girl wrote:

Well I'm not sure how you deduced that I made that assumption, but however you want to read into it. Seems pretty obvious that those types of people would be engaging the services of daycare/nannies/au-pairs, etc., based on the hours they put into their days, but plenty of other people who don't live for their careers, have valid reasons for using daycare and are well warranted to do so.

LOL. I didn't say YOU said it. But you were trying to defend her point when that's EXACTLY what she implied.

My point was not to classify people based on daycare use or non-use.

RedBedroom wrote:It is idealistic to think that both parents don't want to or don't have to work full time. Working full time does not equate to 12 hour work days.

Family looking after a child is ideal, but today, grandparents are still working full time when the kids are young because they have to.

I am so anti-facility daycare that I found a way to earn money at home so that I could raise my son because I didn't have family to watch him but I still had to earn a dime.

Supernova wrote:

I commend you, RB. My mother also took jobs she could do from home so she could earn money while she home schooled us, so I know how hard that can be. When we were in college we were interviewed about our experiences in homeschooling and apparently there's a school of thought that parents get PAID to do it, and I'm here to tell you they do NOT, books cost $1,000 a grade so you had to be financially set for it.

And if you don't mind my asking, what was it exactly that turned you off from sending your kid to day care?