That two parents working doesn’t work

No. We both work full time.

Yes… but the point is one parent stays at home? Either sex?

Lone parent. Week day meals are all really really quick. I buy a rotisserie chicken and use leftovers to make quick chicken noodle soup. Fresh pasta with quick fried pancetta etc I have a cleaner. I only do washing at the weekends. I don't iron or hardly ever. Low maintenance garden.

The logistics of after school stuff is tough though, I only have 1 and she's in private school so they have longer days and include clubs and matches etc

I work full time in a demanding job and it's very hard to juggle everything and that is with 1 so I honestly don't know how you do it.

I think it is fair to point out if the SAHM is judging mothers who work similar hours.

If it's ok for her husband to do it, it's ok for working mothers too. Unless she's sexist.

Is your partner / kids dad a stay at home parent then?

I honestly don’t know why someone would choose to have children if they don’t intend to see them develop and grow day by day- to see the milestones in fine tuned detail. It’s the greatest privilege

You mean just like your DH did? He wasn't there, is he a shit parent too? Or is that trope only reserved for women who work?

Don't you understand the ecomic reality for most parents is that they both work? SAHP is a privilege.

Career. As agreed by both of us because I put the kids first. Why do you keep posting the same thing? Someone to put work first. Someone to put the children first. If we both were stay at home parents, who would earn the money? A great dad because he made sure these things were agreed and in place before deciding to have kids!

Hilarious how any man with a SAHM is "choosing to spend as little time with his kids as possible..."

If it makes some people happier to think that, crack on....

He doesn’t choose to spend as little time where have you got that from- he works the hours his job requires and the rest of it is spent with us!

Which is also what I do as a working mother. Yet you seem to have an issue with that.

Sexism at its finest.

@PurpleWisteria1 Kids first. Career second. Otherwise I wouldn’t have had them.

And yet your husband was a "great dad" but didn't see his children for days at a time due to his career. Did he put kids first or career first would you say?

I honestly don’t know why someone would choose to have children if they don’t intend to see them develop and grow day by day- to see the milestones in fine tuned detail.

Why on earth did your husband choose to have kids then?

Lucky you for having parents / parents in law that will have the grandkids.
Personally I wouldn’t have had kids if a nanny was bringing them up / caring for them instead of me. Kids first. Career second. Otherwise I wouldn’t have had them.

I’m not sure what you are getting at or why you think our views are polar opposite?
We talked about children when we met and started a relationship many years ago - I believe it’s best for some parent to be at home with them in the early years and so did he. I had a strong desire to do that when the time came. He preferred to work rather than be a stay at home dad. That was fine with me- someone needs to be earning and someone needs to be doing the childcare.
If it had been different we probably wouldn’t have made it to the marriage stage as our fundamental views would have been too far apart.
I had a professional job, as did he. When kids came, we did what we had always planned.
Why is that opposing views?
He doesn’t choose to spend as little time where have you got that from- he works the hours his job requires and the rest of it is spent with us!

Women have studied and trained hard for jobs too.

Ah the great dad. Wouldn’t have had kids if he’d actually had to look after them of course. Some women really really have to hope they don’t get sick or in an accident don’t they, as what would happen to their kids?

Mine would be fine. Our nanny was sick so Dh stayed late this morning to take them to his parents, and I had a little sleep in with baby then Dh took them all to school/his parents and we both worked. I prepped stirfry at lunch and he cooked it when he got home with the kids as I was still working.

Agree wit other posters that you should reconsider the nanny. In the short term, it might take a lot of your (combined) income, but it would allow you to work more easily, do better at work (with promotion and pay increases that follow) and it's relatively short term while DC are young. It frees up a lot of your time and gives you a lot more flexibility.

Alternatively (or in addition), you might need to throw more money at the problem generally. A cleaner twice a week rather than once a week - someone who can also sort through clothes or do some of the heavy lifting.

Is there another parent you can share the lifting of your DC for sports with? We weren't able to do this with one of DS's sports and it was exhausting. But we do with some of DD's, and it makes a huge difference. Or, if she's playing at academy level, look around for one closer to you - you might be surprised. DS has moved club (not football) and it turns out the training and support at the new club is as good, if not better, even though it's smaller.

So your husband is just choosing to spend as little time as possible with his own children when there is no financial need for it whatsoever.

Interesting that your views are polar opposites and yet this is who you chose to have a family with.

Would you be able to drop to 3 days a week?
The 4 year old will be in School from September. You could put your one year old in nursery for 1 of your 2 days off work and you could get on with whatever needs doing in the house and then the other day spend focusing on your 1 year old.

my DH would work those hours if I was a SAHM or not. Or if we didn’t have kids. That’s his job that’s he’s studied and trained hard for- he’s not doing it because of no second income per say but it is a high earning job so has allowed me to stay with the kids which I what I wished to do- didn’t want anyone else being the main caregiver in those early years. It’s bad enough at 4 when they start school!
He is fully involved when he is not at work.

Well I only think it is either more because most SAHM's on this thread seem to be stating that about their own situation. One partner having to work so much in order to not need the second income that you don't see your children for literal days at a time isn't being "very involved" is it?

Well we could have switched roles? But the roles were agreed way before we even considered having children? Before we were in a long term relationship even. Isn’t that how most couples organise themselves?
Someone has to work- that’s blatantly obvious. I’m sure my husband would have in some ways liked to see the kids more and in some ways I would have enjoyed the odd day a week working. But in our view it’s very important to have one parent as the main day time carer for the children. So that’s how we split the roles.
If your child is at nursery for the working week, then you have outsourced a large part of their care development, progress to someone else.
Im not sure what you don’t get?

Sissynova - there is no limit on what you can give to kids. You can - obviously - have a SAHP and the other parent still be very involved outside of their work. I don't know why you think it's either / or. It's very often both. Also one family's concept of 'enough time' will be very different to another's. It's impossible to compare like with like.

Sissynova
I don’t know that poster’s situation but to get to my old job I had to be in for half eight and had an hour/two hour depending on traffic commute. Now dh has a one and a half hour commute but we live 35 minutes from the train station. On mn people would say live closer to your job or change jobs, but when you can only afford certain areas and said areas have very little prospects (no companies or factories) that’s not a possibility. You can be a great parent but not see your child enough 5 days a week

@PurpleWisteria1 Yes my DH is a great parent but historically a much less involved one than me as he’s at work full time so simply not around in their lives as much- this isn’t so stark now as they are older, up later and out of the house more anyway, but when they were pre schoolers in bed by 7pm - he doesn’t get home until 8pm so they wouldn’t see him sometimes for days.

This is what I don't get, in your view women who work and use nursery for childcare don't raise their children and yet your DH wouldn't see his children for DAYS at a time and yet he was "a great dad"?!

If money and careers aren't important why was your DH out at work until 8pm and leaving before they woke so he didn't see them for days at a time?
Why didn't he cut back his hours if money wasn't as important as spending early years with children? Or switch roles entirely?

Did you miss the many women on this thread, and all over MN, who have said they would have hated to be a SAHM? It turns out quite a lot of mothers aren't personally happy to stay at home. And there are many who are extremely glad they went back to work when their DH could no longer work, or sacked off the marriage.

Many of us here also value our children having a in depth relationship with their father; you know, the kind that comes with being involved with the minute of every day life.