Why do people with demanding jobs choose to have 3+ kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't disagree that there are easier ways to show you have resources, but I absolutely think there are people who have a third (or fourth, now) kid to signal status. They may not even be aware of that as a factor, but I know way too many Type A people who get a charge out of their ability to display their professional and parental prowess by having 3+ kids. It wasn't why we have three kids, but is that a reason for some people? Totally.

Maybe it's because I don't live in DC, but there's nothing impressive to most people I know about 3 or 4 kids. 7 kids, yes, people do a double take. 3 or 4, nobody gives a hoot.

[Anonymous]

I was one of three and I always wanted three and my DH was one of seven so he was very supportive of my hopes. We both had demanding careers and we could afford a live in nanny and a once a week house cleaner. Life was more chaotic with three but I loved the crazy years.

[Anonymous]

I only have 2, but I originally wanted 3 because I loved being part of a large family as a kid. It's just fun. I don't have the time/energy to devote to a third, and I'm not willing to outsource, so I had to stick with two. But I'm envious of people who have flexible jobs and can juggle 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't disagree that there are easier ways to show you have resources, but I absolutely think there are people who have a third (or fourth, now) kid to signal status. They may not even be aware of that as a factor, but I know way too many Type A people who get a charge out of their ability to display their professional and parental prowess by having 3+ kids. It wasn't why we have three kids, but is that a reason for some people? Totally.

Maybe it's because I don't live in DC, but there's nothing impressive to most people I know about 3 or 4 kids. 7 kids, yes, people do a double take. 3 or 4, nobody gives a hoot.

Where do you live? When I lived in the Midwest, yeah, I agree. But then, people there generally weren't as professionally ambitious as they are here. It's less the more kids thing, it's more kids AND a demanding career, which is the whole point of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Someone posts this question every year or so. And then someone always responds with ‘stop complaining because you chose to have 3 (or similar)’. It’s like people with 1 or 2 children never complain. Why does OP (and others) care how many children anyone has? Why is there this anti-3 bias? You women need to find something more constructive to occupy your time. Men don’t care about this shit. Women need to stop trying to one-up each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't disagree that there are easier ways to show you have resources, but I absolutely think there are people who have a third (or fourth, now) kid to signal status. They may not even be aware of that as a factor, but I know way too many Type A people who get a charge out of their ability to display their professional and parental prowess by having 3+ kids. It wasn't why we have three kids, but is that a reason for some people? Totally.

Maybe it's because I don't live in DC, but there's nothing impressive to most people I know about 3 or 4 kids. 7 kids, yes, people do a double take. 3 or 4, nobody gives a hoot.

Where do you live? When I lived in the Midwest, yeah, I agree. But then, people there generally weren't as professionally ambitious as they are here. It's less the more kids thing, it's more kids AND a demanding career, which is the whole point of this thread.

Yes, the Midwest. The professional ambitions here aren't as prestigious, but I know plenty of people who work long hours and/or have to travel a lot. I don't get the impression this thread is limited to brain surgeons who work 90+ hours every week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a SAHM so this thread isn’t addressed to me but what do you mean by “spending time with your kids”? My kids would rather play with their friends (or each other now that we’re locked down). We do fun stuff together, in the before times we did solo outings occasionally, but I’m their mom, not their playmate. If they want to help me cook dinner or go for a walk and talk about life or weed the garden together, cool.

This. I like you, PP. And I'm a WOHM (currently working at home). I enjoy it when people who make different choices can agree on things. I wish more of DCUM was like this.

Agree. What is with all the insistence of 1:1 time. Kids don't want that daily for prolonged periods

It’s not just about 1:1 time. A parent also has to spend time thinking about the kid too. Whether they’re meeting milestones. Whether they’re okay physically, emotionally, socially, academically. Helping them with homework. Buying clothes for them. Finding good activities and summer camps to enroll them in. Participating in events for school and activities.

Most parents with demanding jobs and too many kids either outsource all of that parenting to others. Or else decide they’re not going to bother and just do the bare minimum for their kids. And I’m not a SAHM, btw.

I’m the original SAHM poster, and I absolutely would not be able to do all the stuff I do and have a demanding full-time job. But most of what I do could be easily done by someone else! School events, assessing activities and milestones and helping kids deal with social issues, sure, that really does want a parent. But my time is mostly spent tidying, cooking, cleaning, mediating squabbles, wiping butts, transporting — all of that a good nanny or housekeeper could do just fine. It’s not how I choose to live my life, both because I enjoy doing these things to take care of my family and because it’s easier to keep track of what’s going on my kids’ lives when we’re in the same place, but it’s certainly possible. My husband seems to do all the “this really needs a parent” jobs while running a company. I guess he and I spend more time talking about the kids than we would with a hypothetical nanny?

What does this mean?

PP you’re replying to. I mean that he knows what they’re interested in, thinks of stuff they would enjoy doing, keeps an eye on how they’re developing/how they’re doing emotionally, talks to them if there’s something big going on in their lives...all the stuff that a working parent needs to do even if someone else is doing the bulk of the childcare “dirty work.” Obviously I do these things too, plus doing the “dirty work” from 9-5 in our house, but I’m holding him out as evidence that outsourcing doesn’t prevent you from being a good and engaged parent for the stuff that you don’t want to leave to someone you’ve hired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't disagree that there are easier ways to show you have resources, but I absolutely think there are people who have a third (or fourth, now) kid to signal status. They may not even be aware of that as a factor, but I know way too many Type A people who get a charge out of their ability to display their professional and parental prowess by having 3+ kids. It wasn't why we have three kids, but is that a reason for some people? Totally.

Maybe it's because I don't live in DC, but there's nothing impressive to most people I know about 3 or 4 kids. 7 kids, yes, people do a double take. 3 or 4, nobody gives a hoot.

Where do you live? When I lived in the Midwest, yeah, I agree. But then, people there generally weren't as professionally ambitious as they are here. It's less the more kids thing, it's more kids AND a demanding career, which is the whole point of this thread.

Yes, the Midwest. The professional ambitions here aren't as prestigious, but I know plenty of people who work long hours and/or have to travel a lot. I don't get the impression this thread is limited to brain surgeons who work 90+ hours every week.

Yes, because that's the only demanding job out there. Actual work hours aside, the culture in DC is palpably different from the Midwest, and that's part of why having more kids here becomes a status thing in a way it's not there. I don't think that's a positive, but it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't disagree that there are easier ways to show you have resources, but I absolutely think there are people who have a third (or fourth, now) kid to signal status. They may not even be aware of that as a factor, but I know way too many Type A people who get a charge out of their ability to display their professional and parental prowess by having 3+ kids. It wasn't why we have three kids, but is that a reason for some people? Totally.

Maybe it's because I don't live in DC, but there's nothing impressive to most people I know about 3 or 4 kids. 7 kids, yes, people do a double take. 3 or 4, nobody gives a hoot.

Where do you live? When I lived in the Midwest, yeah, I agree. But then, people there generally weren't as professionally ambitious as they are here. It's less the more kids thing, it's more kids AND a demanding career, which is the whole point of this thread.

Yes, the Midwest. The professional ambitions here aren't as prestigious, but I know plenty of people who work long hours and/or have to travel a lot. I don't get the impression this thread is limited to brain surgeons who work 90+ hours every week.

Yes, because that's the only demanding job out there. Actual work hours aside, the culture in DC is palpably different from the Midwest, and that's part of why having more kids here becomes a status thing in a way it's not there. I don't think that's a positive, but it is what it is.

LOL at the bolded, it's just dumb. And when you set "actual work hours aside" you're moving the goalposts of the entire concept of "demanding."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a SAHM so this thread isn’t addressed to me but what do you mean by “spending time with your kids”? My kids would rather play with their friends (or each other now that we’re locked down). We do fun stuff together, in the before times we did solo outings occasionally, but I’m their mom, not their playmate. If they want to help me cook dinner or go for a walk and talk about life or weed the garden together, cool.

This. I like you, PP. And I'm a WOHM (currently working at home). I enjoy it when people who make different choices can agree on things. I wish more of DCUM was like this.

Agree. What is with all the insistence of 1:1 time. Kids don't want that daily for prolonged periods

It’s not just about 1:1 time. A parent also has to spend time thinking about the kid too. Whether they’re meeting milestones. Whether they’re okay physically, emotionally, socially, academically. Helping them with homework. Buying clothes for them. Finding good activities and summer camps to enroll them in. Participating in events for school and activities.

Most parents with demanding jobs and too many kids either outsource all of that parenting to others. Or else decide they’re not going to bother and just do the bare minimum for their kids. And I’m not a SAHM, btw.

I’m the original SAHM poster, and I absolutely would not be able to do all the stuff I do and have a demanding full-time job. But most of what I do could be easily done by someone else! School events, assessing activities and milestones and helping kids deal with social issues, sure, that really does want a parent. But my time is mostly spent tidying, cooking, cleaning, mediating squabbles, wiping butts, transporting — all of that a good nanny or housekeeper could do just fine. It’s not how I choose to live my life, both because I enjoy doing these things to take care of my family and because it’s easier to keep track of what’s going on my kids’ lives when we’re in the same place, but it’s certainly possible. My husband seems to do all the “this really needs a parent” jobs while running a company. I guess he and I spend more time talking about the kids than we would with a hypothetical nanny?

Thank you. Someone has to do those things, but they are not the most important part of parenting. The important part is the helping with emotional regulation, the emotional support, listening. I can pay someone to wipe butts if I have a job. For us we waited to have a third until we felt we could be emotionally present enough for them. This requires outsourcing of other things so we could prioritize our mental health. Can’t pour from an empty cup and all that

Kids need their parents doing those things as its part of parenting. If you outsource everything down to wiping butts, then what really is your role as a parent except to pay for things. Clothing, shopping, cooking are not a big deal and those can be outsourced, but its part of being involved as a parent.

DH and I work FT (albeit in very flexible, not typically demanding jobs) and have three kids. I think too many parents focus on quality over quantity time with their kids, but kids need at least some quantity, too. The people who are wiping butts are also the ones *present* most of the time. Being able to truly help kids with emotional development means knowing them and being around enough to have a sense of what they need. You can’t just do that while you’re at brunch Sunday morning or at your weekly outing or whatever.

Even things like schlepping kids to activities: you can learn SO much about your kids during those car rides, whether from talking to them or listening to their conversations with friends when you’re older. So, sure, we had our kids in daycare before they started school, but they also didn’t spend 11 hours/day there, nor did we hire babysitters for large chunks of our weekends. There’s a balance between spending every non-working moment with your kids and outsourcing everything.

I used to have a very demanding job and was on the road for over half of the time. I was concerned about having kids with a demanding career, so I crowdsourced feedback on another forum from adults who had parents who had jobs that often kept them from their children. I received comments from around 40 people and nearly all of them said it was the quality of time (being present, not distracted with work calls etc) and not the quality of time that mattered. Some people had a parent who was home all of the time but not a good parent and their relationship today is non existent. Thankfully now my career is more manageable but still can be busy at times so I always on quality over quantity of time.

[Anonymous]

I can see how having a really impressive tiger cub type kid would be a status marker. "Little Larlo is taking calculus in 6th grade, leads his travel league in scoring, and is CEO of his own non-profit that provides electron microscopes to promising needy children."

But I think it would be easier to do that with an only or two at most.

[Anonymous]

I always knew I wanted three kids. I also happened to have a lucrative career with good maternity leave benefits when I was at my child-rearing age, so I stuck with it and then went to part-time (80 percent at a law firm) when the kids were really young. Then I realized I was being underpaid and overworking for being part time, so I left for a job where I’m happy and full time but with lots of flexibility. Why haven’t I left to stay at home? Because I am making good money and we’ve almost paid off our house and achieved financial freedom. I like my job and I often find the hardest days are the days off with the kids. I hate the chaos of juggling it all a lot of time, but I feel lucky for all these blessings. I feel like I’ve gotten a lot of quality time with my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me it was one then surprise twins. But I am happy to have three even though I might not have had a third separately (or might not have tried very hard). I like kids, I can afford it, why not? I am not too stressed or tired.

Same, it’s fine but incredibly difficult as well. We do have a nanny and a cleaning service.

[Anonymous]

People make snarky comments about having 3+ all the time but it’s been a life saver for these kids to have each other during the pandemic. They haven’t been lonely and still get tons of play. So we’re quite happy with having gone with more than the norm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People make snarky comments about having 3+ all the time but it’s been a life saver for these kids to have each other during the pandemic. They haven’t been lonely and still get tons of play. So we’re quite happy with having gone with more than the norm

Us too! We have to break up the occasional spat, but overall so much better.