Anonymous wrote:Attorney mom here -- do what you can to accommodate the requests. Believe me, she will be gone before you know it and you will miss the time with her so much that your heart will ache about it. And it's WAY more important than that memo, or brief, or conference call, or what have you. Legal work expands or contracts to fill available time. I actually spent a lot of time with my DCs despite working like a maniac for years -- and never said no, that I can recall, to a direct request to go to dinner or Staples for school supplies or such -- but I know that my work put a damper on the requests, there were times when I was on the blackberry or iphone incessantly at Staples or dinner, and I have had to travel extensively at times for work. So wish I had some of that time back. There is nothing more important than your kids. Obviously you have to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, but if they want time with you - make it happen.... Because they won't want it soon enough.
This is so much true. Once your child turn into a teenager, and then into adult, you will never ever have another chance to build that strong bond. And in 1-15 years, when you will look back, I am not sure that the money you are making now will be as important as relations with your child.
Anonymous wrote:SAH moms get bashed on DCUM all the time for being lazy, unmotivated, or worse. The reality is often much different.
Imagine that you met your spouse in grad school when you were both young and ambitious. You fell in love, got married, and decided to take the next step and have a family after a few years on the job. Baby arrives and Mom is instantly Mommy-tracked by her bosses. Dad's career takes off and he feels pressure to work more. Travels more, takes on more responsibility at work, and income continues to rise. Moms career gets stalled because she can't travel as much or work til 10 pm. Baby #2 arrives and Mom SAH because she makes a fraction of spouse and DH is working all the time. Add in taking care of aging parents. Life happens, and not always as we planned.
Allowing this model to continue is terrible for both the future of our sons and daughters.
Men need to raise their kids and stop using work as an excuse.
I think that's easy to say, but sometimes harder to put into practice. My situation pretty closely tracked what PP laid out, except that I was the big law associate who was very openly being groomed to make partner in a couple of years while my husband was struggling to find a place professionally. After baby #1, I was very explicitly mommy tracked no matter how hard I worked, while DH finally found a firm that looked promising. We were killing ourselves working, he started making headway while I continued to stall, and when baby #2 was on the way I looked at our lives and realized it wasn't worth killing myself for something that wasn't going to happen and that it would be better for everyone if I gave up, stayed home with the kids and supported DH's career instead. I don't think that's a decision I ever would have made if my career had continued on its pre-baby trajectory, it was directly the result of pretty blatant discrimination at work. Sure, we could have decided that DH would be the one to step back and I'd keep beating my head against a brick wall in the name of gender equality, but neither of us would have been all that happy.
It's not about gender equality at work, it's about your children having 2 parents at home.
You chose 1 huge income instead of 2 reasonable incomes that accommodate your children having 2 parents.
Again, things that are easy to say from the cheap seats. We got into those careers before kids were even an idea for us, and we didn't have a realistic understanding of what it would take to balance those careers and kids at the time. By the time reality hit us, we were in the thick of it and basically took the clearest route to sanity, which was for me to quit and DH to keep working. Trying to figure out two simultaneous career changes (that probably would have required a lot of extra work time on their own to make the transition) when no one was sleeping enough and we were stressed to the hilt just wasn't happening. Or smart.
Since then I've gone back to work, I run my own business from our home that lets me control my own schedule and be available to my kids when they're not in school (but I still don't do 7 pm Target runs). Now that he is a mid-level partner, DH has been able to reclaim some control over his professional schedule and has made adjustments so that he gets meaningful time with our kids every day. He puts the scout meetings and soccer games in his calendar and schedules work around them as best he can so he's there most of the time (and when he can't, I make sure I'm there). We have 1 big income, one significantly smaller income, and kids who know they can count on us because we've made it a priority and structured our lives around making sure they don't get the short end of our choices.
Your choices were exactly that choices. Your H chose to miss a huge chunk of his kids life for money, it was a choice nothing that was put upon you. I am glad he is finally engaging in his kids life, kids should have 2 parents when there are actually 2 parents.
You can color code it any way you want but you children missed out on a bond with their father for parts of their life. Nice to see he is making up for it.
You are reading a lot into my posts that isn't there. My DH has always been engaged, and they didn't miss out on a bond with their father for parts of their life. Even during the periods when he had less control over his schedule and less time at home during the week, I viewed part of my responsibility as SAHM as getting all of the household work and errands out of the way during the week so that when he was home with us, we were all present as a family and not distracted by yard maintenance or trips to Target. Through this whole discussion, I've never said that OP's kids weren't bonded to her and their dad, that's a separate issue from whether the kids have an adult who's present and engaged at any point during the week. We don't always get it right (no parent does), but we make a conscious effort to pay attention to what's happening in our household and to make changes when we realize things are off balance.
You are doing a lot of back peddling here. Your post was all about ambition and your H working long hours and traveling a lot, now you are trying to paint a different picture to feel better.
Here is the deal, tons of SAH moms have H that are engaged/don't travel/are home at 5. This is not a SAH/WOH issue.
Your issue is that your H decided to take a high pressure job with lots of travel and he is not around to raise his kids. He visits and that is nice, but that is not a good model going forward for most people, men/women/children.
Where did I back pedal? You are writing a fantasy about my life that simply isn't grounded in what I wrote. I'm very sorry for whatever's going on in your own life that's leading you to want to dump all over mine, but that's yours to deal with, not mine.
You posts state...
Dad's career takes off and he feels pressure to work more. Travels more, takes on more responsibility at work
DH is working all the time
By the time reality hit us, we were in the thick of it
no one was sleeping enough
You chose to keep your H on a path of travel, no sleep, more responsibility and working on the time.
The trade off was that you raised the kids alone and he financially supports that. That is your decision. Not something that just happened to you. It's fine, 1% of people take that path. The rest of us want to see our kids, both parents.
The bolded parts are not from one of my posts; I specifically distinguished myself from that poster when I first responded. When I said my experience tracked what that person who posted, I was referring to the broader idea of starting out with both people ambitious, mom's career getting mommy-tracked and eventually sidelined while husband's career took off. All of this was written in response to that poster's initial premise, which is that SAHMs are not all lazy and unmotivated. You took it in a different direction after my first post and I responded to you, but that doesn't change the context in which I first engaged in the discussion.
Contextual reading. It helps.
Your H and the OP work the same schedule. It does not matter their gender.
But you say OP is not engaged with her kids enough, then you say your H is totally engaged with his kids.
You can't have it both ways.
Either
OP is fine, she has the same schedule as your ambitious H and they are both totally engaged with their kids
or
OP and your H both need to scale back their work and engage in their children's lives.
Not the PP, but again and again you keep missing the point. Try reading slowly. It helps.
In OP's situation, both parents work extremely long hours, travel, etc. Neither parent sees much of the kids. Bad situation. Period.
In PP's case, the husband used to work long hours and traveled, but now that he's in a more senior position, he has much more flexibility and can be home earlier, participate in their activities, etc. But the biggest point of all that you have SERIOUSLY MISSED is this: the PP is a SAHP. There is a parent available to their kids. She is that parent. So not only is she spending lots of time with the kids, but she's able to get things done by the time her husband comes home so that HE can ALSO spend time with them.
What about this are you not getting? I think you just want to argue because you're envious.
Read slowly so you can understand.
Her children for a large majority of their life were raised by a single parent with an absentee dad. Just because he is working does not excuse that for years he was absent from their lives.
It is a bad model for raising kids. I would not model it. Stop using it as an example of how it should be done.
Stop acting like it is the golden standard. It is a horrible example of parenting.
Sorry, but your "golden standard" of having both parents work and NEITHER see their child much or at all, is truly the horrible example of parenting. But you do you.
Thank you PP who described the path of big law to SAHM to returning to work with lop-sided incomes. My experience to a tee. And I am soooo happy working 20-30 hours a week and being the "default parent." DH is present and engaged but as PPs post makes clear, getting all the chores done during the week enables DH to parent and engage with family when he's not working.
My kids are teens/preteens now. I know A LOT of families. There are many other models that work for others. I really can't understand the poster who thinks he/she has stumbled on to "the answer." Do you not get out much? Do you not know other families and see and respect that their families work for them?. Perhaps you're just a "know it all." I find it baffling.
OP, all teens want things last minute. That doesn't mean they should/need to get their way. I've seen families where the teens only do activities if they can get themselves there ... no sports teams unless they bike, learn themselves about the city bus schedule .. etc. I know families where teens don't see one of the parents for months. It happens. All families are different. Kids are very resilient. Let your preteen express themselves, to a point, but you do not have to put up with disrespect.
Anonymous wrote:SAH moms get bashed on DCUM all the time for being lazy, unmotivated, or worse. The reality is often much different.
Imagine that you met your spouse in grad school when you were both young and ambitious. You fell in love, got married, and decided to take the next step and have a family after a few years on the job. Baby arrives and Mom is instantly Mommy-tracked by her bosses. Dad's career takes off and he feels pressure to work more. Travels more, takes on more responsibility at work, and income continues to rise. Moms career gets stalled because she can't travel as much or work til 10 pm. Baby #2 arrives and Mom SAH because she makes a fraction of spouse and DH is working all the time. Add in taking care of aging parents. Life happens, and not always as we planned.
Allowing this model to continue is terrible for both the future of our sons and daughters.
Men need to raise their kids and stop using work as an excuse.
I think that's easy to say, but sometimes harder to put into practice. My situation pretty closely tracked what PP laid out, except that I was the big law associate who was very openly being groomed to make partner in a couple of years while my husband was struggling to find a place professionally. After baby #1, I was very explicitly mommy tracked no matter how hard I worked, while DH finally found a firm that looked promising. We were killing ourselves working, he started making headway while I continued to stall, and when baby #2 was on the way I looked at our lives and realized it wasn't worth killing myself for something that wasn't going to happen and that it would be better for everyone if I gave up, stayed home with the kids and supported DH's career instead. I don't think that's a decision I ever would have made if my career had continued on its pre-baby trajectory, it was directly the result of pretty blatant discrimination at work. Sure, we could have decided that DH would be the one to step back and I'd keep beating my head against a brick wall in the name of gender equality, but neither of us would have been all that happy.
It's not about gender equality at work, it's about your children having 2 parents at home.
You chose 1 huge income instead of 2 reasonable incomes that accommodate your children having 2 parents.
Again, things that are easy to say from the cheap seats. We got into those careers before kids were even an idea for us, and we didn't have a realistic understanding of what it would take to balance those careers and kids at the time. By the time reality hit us, we were in the thick of it and basically took the clearest route to sanity, which was for me to quit and DH to keep working. Trying to figure out two simultaneous career changes (that probably would have required a lot of extra work time on their own to make the transition) when no one was sleeping enough and we were stressed to the hilt just wasn't happening. Or smart.
Since then I've gone back to work, I run my own business from our home that lets me control my own schedule and be available to my kids when they're not in school (but I still don't do 7 pm Target runs). Now that he is a mid-level partner, DH has been able to reclaim some control over his professional schedule and has made adjustments so that he gets meaningful time with our kids every day. He puts the scout meetings and soccer games in his calendar and schedules work around them as best he can so he's there most of the time (and when he can't, I make sure I'm there). We have 1 big income, one significantly smaller income, and kids who know they can count on us because we've made it a priority and structured our lives around making sure they don't get the short end of our choices.
Your choices were exactly that choices. Your H chose to miss a huge chunk of his kids life for money, it was a choice nothing that was put upon you. I am glad he is finally engaging in his kids life, kids should have 2 parents when there are actually 2 parents.
You can color code it any way you want but you children missed out on a bond with their father for parts of their life. Nice to see he is making up for it.
You are reading a lot into my posts that isn't there. My DH has always been engaged, and they didn't miss out on a bond with their father for parts of their life. Even during the periods when he had less control over his schedule and less time at home during the week, I viewed part of my responsibility as SAHM as getting all of the household work and errands out of the way during the week so that when he was home with us, we were all present as a family and not distracted by yard maintenance or trips to Target. Through this whole discussion, I've never said that OP's kids weren't bonded to her and their dad, that's a separate issue from whether the kids have an adult who's present and engaged at any point during the week. We don't always get it right (no parent does), but we make a conscious effort to pay attention to what's happening in our household and to make changes when we realize things are off balance.
You are doing a lot of back peddling here. Your post was all about ambition and your H working long hours and traveling a lot, now you are trying to paint a different picture to feel better.
Here is the deal, tons of SAH moms have H that are engaged/don't travel/are home at 5. This is not a SAH/WOH issue.
Your issue is that your H decided to take a high pressure job with lots of travel and he is not around to raise his kids. He visits and that is nice, but that is not a good model going forward for most people, men/women/children.
Where did I back pedal? You are writing a fantasy about my life that simply isn't grounded in what I wrote. I'm very sorry for whatever's going on in your own life that's leading you to want to dump all over mine, but that's yours to deal with, not mine.
You posts state...
Dad's career takes off and he feels pressure to work more. Travels more, takes on more responsibility at work
DH is working all the time
By the time reality hit us, we were in the thick of it
no one was sleeping enough
You chose to keep your H on a path of travel, no sleep, more responsibility and working on the time.
The trade off was that you raised the kids alone and he financially supports that. That is your decision. Not something that just happened to you. It's fine, 1% of people take that path. The rest of us want to see our kids, both parents.
The bolded parts are not from one of my posts; I specifically distinguished myself from that poster when I first responded. When I said my experience tracked what that person who posted, I was referring to the broader idea of starting out with both people ambitious, mom's career getting mommy-tracked and eventually sidelined while husband's career took off. All of this was written in response to that poster's initial premise, which is that SAHMs are not all lazy and unmotivated. You took it in a different direction after my first post and I responded to you, but that doesn't change the context in which I first engaged in the discussion.
Contextual reading. It helps.
Your H and the OP work the same schedule. It does not matter their gender.
But you say OP is not engaged with her kids enough, then you say your H is totally engaged with his kids.
You can't have it both ways.
Either
OP is fine, she has the same schedule as your ambitious H and they are both totally engaged with their kids
or
OP and your H both need to scale back their work and engage in their children's lives.
Not the PP, but again and again you keep missing the point. Try reading slowly. It helps.
In OP's situation, both parents work extremely long hours, travel, etc. Neither parent sees much of the kids. Bad situation. Period.
In PP's case, the husband used to work long hours and traveled, but now that he's in a more senior position, he has much more flexibility and can be home earlier, participate in their activities, etc. But the biggest point of all that you have SERIOUSLY MISSED is this: the PP is a SAHP. There is a parent available to their kids. She is that parent. So not only is she spending lots of time with the kids, but she's able to get things done by the time her husband comes home so that HE can ALSO spend time with them.
What about this are you not getting? I think you just want to argue because you're envious.
Read slowly so you can understand.
Her children for a large majority of their life were raised by a single parent with an absentee dad. Just because he is working does not excuse that for years he was absent from their lives.
It is a bad model for raising kids. I would not model it. Stop using it as an example of how it should be done.
Stop acting like it is the golden standard. It is a horrible example of parenting.
Sorry, but your "golden standard" of having both parents work and NEITHER see their child much or at all, is truly the horrible example of parenting. But you do you.
Of course there is the option that one person SAH and the father/mother has a job where he/she is home at 5 (which is what most SAH families have).
or both parents work and they are both home at 4 or 5 and they have a flexible work place so they can volunteer (which is what most people have).
This world where you are willing to be a single parent for more and more and more material goods is a bad model.
You are 1%ers which means the rest of the 99% have figured out how to not miss our childrens' lives. This is not a SAH/WOH parent war. Most SAH/WOH parents see their kids.
Anonymous wrote:SAH moms get bashed on DCUM all the time for being lazy, unmotivated, or worse. The reality is often much different.
Imagine that you met your spouse in grad school when you were both young and ambitious. You fell in love, got married, and decided to take the next step and have a family after a few years on the job. Baby arrives and Mom is instantly Mommy-tracked by her bosses. Dad's career takes off and he feels pressure to work more. Travels more, takes on more responsibility at work, and income continues to rise. Moms career gets stalled because she can't travel as much or work til 10 pm. Baby #2 arrives and Mom SAH because she makes a fraction of spouse and DH is working all the time. Add in taking care of aging parents. Life happens, and not always as we planned.
Allowing this model to continue is terrible for both the future of our sons and daughters.
Men need to raise their kids and stop using work as an excuse.
I think that's easy to say, but sometimes harder to put into practice. My situation pretty closely tracked what PP laid out, except that I was the big law associate who was very openly being groomed to make partner in a couple of years while my husband was struggling to find a place professionally. After baby #1, I was very explicitly mommy tracked no matter how hard I worked, while DH finally found a firm that looked promising. We were killing ourselves working, he started making headway while I continued to stall, and when baby #2 was on the way I looked at our lives and realized it wasn't worth killing myself for something that wasn't going to happen and that it would be better for everyone if I gave up, stayed home with the kids and supported DH's career instead. I don't think that's a decision I ever would have made if my career had continued on its pre-baby trajectory, it was directly the result of pretty blatant discrimination at work. Sure, we could have decided that DH would be the one to step back and I'd keep beating my head against a brick wall in the name of gender equality, but neither of us would have been all that happy.
It's not about gender equality at work, it's about your children having 2 parents at home.
You chose 1 huge income instead of 2 reasonable incomes that accommodate your children having 2 parents.
Again, things that are easy to say from the cheap seats. We got into those careers before kids were even an idea for us, and we didn't have a realistic understanding of what it would take to balance those careers and kids at the time. By the time reality hit us, we were in the thick of it and basically took the clearest route to sanity, which was for me to quit and DH to keep working. Trying to figure out two simultaneous career changes (that probably would have required a lot of extra work time on their own to make the transition) when no one was sleeping enough and we were stressed to the hilt just wasn't happening. Or smart.
Since then I've gone back to work, I run my own business from our home that lets me control my own schedule and be available to my kids when they're not in school (but I still don't do 7 pm Target runs). Now that he is a mid-level partner, DH has been able to reclaim some control over his professional schedule and has made adjustments so that he gets meaningful time with our kids every day. He puts the scout meetings and soccer games in his calendar and schedules work around them as best he can so he's there most of the time (and when he can't, I make sure I'm there). We have 1 big income, one significantly smaller income, and kids who know they can count on us because we've made it a priority and structured our lives around making sure they don't get the short end of our choices.
Your choices were exactly that choices. Your H chose to miss a huge chunk of his kids life for money, it was a choice nothing that was put upon you. I am glad he is finally engaging in his kids life, kids should have 2 parents when there are actually 2 parents.
You can color code it any way you want but you children missed out on a bond with their father for parts of their life. Nice to see he is making up for it.
You are reading a lot into my posts that isn't there. My DH has always been engaged, and they didn't miss out on a bond with their father for parts of their life. Even during the periods when he had less control over his schedule and less time at home during the week, I viewed part of my responsibility as SAHM as getting all of the household work and errands out of the way during the week so that when he was home with us, we were all present as a family and not distracted by yard maintenance or trips to Target. Through this whole discussion, I've never said that OP's kids weren't bonded to her and their dad, that's a separate issue from whether the kids have an adult who's present and engaged at any point during the week. We don't always get it right (no parent does), but we make a conscious effort to pay attention to what's happening in our household and to make changes when we realize things are off balance.
You are doing a lot of back peddling here. Your post was all about ambition and your H working long hours and traveling a lot, now you are trying to paint a different picture to feel better.
Here is the deal, tons of SAH moms have H that are engaged/don't travel/are home at 5. This is not a SAH/WOH issue.
Your issue is that your H decided to take a high pressure job with lots of travel and he is not around to raise his kids. He visits and that is nice, but that is not a good model going forward for most people, men/women/children.
Where did I back pedal? You are writing a fantasy about my life that simply isn't grounded in what I wrote. I'm very sorry for whatever's going on in your own life that's leading you to want to dump all over mine, but that's yours to deal with, not mine.
You posts state...
Dad's career takes off and he feels pressure to work more. Travels more, takes on more responsibility at work
DH is working all the time
By the time reality hit us, we were in the thick of it
no one was sleeping enough
You chose to keep your H on a path of travel, no sleep, more responsibility and working on the time.
The trade off was that you raised the kids alone and he financially supports that. That is your decision. Not something that just happened to you. It's fine, 1% of people take that path. The rest of us want to see our kids, both parents.
The bolded parts are not from one of my posts; I specifically distinguished myself from that poster when I first responded. When I said my experience tracked what that person who posted, I was referring to the broader idea of starting out with both people ambitious, mom's career getting mommy-tracked and eventually sidelined while husband's career took off. All of this was written in response to that poster's initial premise, which is that SAHMs are not all lazy and unmotivated. You took it in a different direction after my first post and I responded to you, but that doesn't change the context in which I first engaged in the discussion.
Contextual reading. It helps.
Your H and the OP work the same schedule. It does not matter their gender.
But you say OP is not engaged with her kids enough, then you say your H is totally engaged with his kids.
You can't have it both ways.
Either
OP is fine, she has the same schedule as your ambitious H and they are both totally engaged with their kids
or
OP and your H both need to scale back their work and engage in their children's lives.
Not the PP, but again and again you keep missing the point. Try reading slowly. It helps.
In OP's situation, both parents work extremely long hours, travel, etc. Neither parent sees much of the kids. Bad situation. Period.
In PP's case, the husband used to work long hours and traveled, but now that he's in a more senior position, he has much more flexibility and can be home earlier, participate in their activities, etc. But the biggest point of all that you have SERIOUSLY MISSED is this: the PP is a SAHP. There is a parent available to their kids. She is that parent. So not only is she spending lots of time with the kids, but she's able to get things done by the time her husband comes home so that HE can ALSO spend time with them.
What about this are you not getting? I think you just want to argue because you're envious.
Read slowly so you can understand.
Her children for a large majority of their life were raised by a single parent with an absentee dad. Just because he is working does not excuse that for years he was absent from their lives.
It is a bad model for raising kids. I would not model it. Stop using it as an example of how it should be done.
Stop acting like it is the golden standard. It is a horrible example of parenting.
Sorry, but your "golden standard" of having both parents work and NEITHER see their child much or at all, is truly the horrible example of parenting. But you do you.
Of course there is the option that one person SAH and the father/mother has a job where he/she is home at 5 (which is what most SAH families have).
or both parents work and they are both home at 4 or 5 and they have a flexible work place so they can volunteer (which is what most people have).
This world where you are willing to be a single parent for more and more and more material goods is a bad model.
You are 1%ers which means the rest of the 99% have figured out how to not miss our childrens' lives. This is not a SAH/WOH parent war. Most SAH/WOH parents see their kids.
I guess OP and her husband should figure out how to do that. Kids need to have at least one parent around each day.
Anonymous wrote:SAH moms get bashed on DCUM all the time for being lazy, unmotivated, or worse. The reality is often much different.
Imagine that you met your spouse in grad school when you were both young and ambitious. You fell in love, got married, and decided to take the next step and have a family after a few years on the job. Baby arrives and Mom is instantly Mommy-tracked by her bosses. Dad's career takes off and he feels pressure to work more. Travels more, takes on more responsibility at work, and income continues to rise. Moms career gets stalled because she can't travel as much or work til 10 pm. Baby #2 arrives and Mom SAH because she makes a fraction of spouse and DH is working all the time. Add in taking care of aging parents. Life happens, and not always as we planned.
Allowing this model to continue is terrible for both the future of our sons and daughters.
Men need to raise their kids and stop using work as an excuse.
I think that's easy to say, but sometimes harder to put into practice. My situation pretty closely tracked what PP laid out, except that I was the big law associate who was very openly being groomed to make partner in a couple of years while my husband was struggling to find a place professionally. After baby #1, I was very explicitly mommy tracked no matter how hard I worked, while DH finally found a firm that looked promising. We were killing ourselves working, he started making headway while I continued to stall, and when baby #2 was on the way I looked at our lives and realized it wasn't worth killing myself for something that wasn't going to happen and that it would be better for everyone if I gave up, stayed home with the kids and supported DH's career instead. I don't think that's a decision I ever would have made if my career had continued on its pre-baby trajectory, it was directly the result of pretty blatant discrimination at work. Sure, we could have decided that DH would be the one to step back and I'd keep beating my head against a brick wall in the name of gender equality, but neither of us would have been all that happy.
It's not about gender equality at work, it's about your children having 2 parents at home.
You chose 1 huge income instead of 2 reasonable incomes that accommodate your children having 2 parents.
Again, things that are easy to say from the cheap seats. We got into those careers before kids were even an idea for us, and we didn't have a realistic understanding of what it would take to balance those careers and kids at the time. By the time reality hit us, we were in the thick of it and basically took the clearest route to sanity, which was for me to quit and DH to keep working. Trying to figure out two simultaneous career changes (that probably would have required a lot of extra work time on their own to make the transition) when no one was sleeping enough and we were stressed to the hilt just wasn't happening. Or smart.
Since then I've gone back to work, I run my own business from our home that lets me control my own schedule and be available to my kids when they're not in school (but I still don't do 7 pm Target runs). Now that he is a mid-level partner, DH has been able to reclaim some control over his professional schedule and has made adjustments so that he gets meaningful time with our kids every day. He puts the scout meetings and soccer games in his calendar and schedules work around them as best he can so he's there most of the time (and when he can't, I make sure I'm there). We have 1 big income, one significantly smaller income, and kids who know they can count on us because we've made it a priority and structured our lives around making sure they don't get the short end of our choices.
Your choices were exactly that choices. Your H chose to miss a huge chunk of his kids life for money, it was a choice nothing that was put upon you. I am glad he is finally engaging in his kids life, kids should have 2 parents when there are actually 2 parents.
You can color code it any way you want but you children missed out on a bond with their father for parts of their life. Nice to see he is making up for it.
You are reading a lot into my posts that isn't there. My DH has always been engaged, and they didn't miss out on a bond with their father for parts of their life. Even during the periods when he had less control over his schedule and less time at home during the week, I viewed part of my responsibility as SAHM as getting all of the household work and errands out of the way during the week so that when he was home with us, we were all present as a family and not distracted by yard maintenance or trips to Target. Through this whole discussion, I've never said that OP's kids weren't bonded to her and their dad, that's a separate issue from whether the kids have an adult who's present and engaged at any point during the week. We don't always get it right (no parent does), but we make a conscious effort to pay attention to what's happening in our household and to make changes when we realize things are off balance.
You are doing a lot of back peddling here. Your post was all about ambition and your H working long hours and traveling a lot, now you are trying to paint a different picture to feel better.
Here is the deal, tons of SAH moms have H that are engaged/don't travel/are home at 5. This is not a SAH/WOH issue.
Your issue is that your H decided to take a high pressure job with lots of travel and he is not around to raise his kids. He visits and that is nice, but that is not a good model going forward for most people, men/women/children.
Where did I back pedal? You are writing a fantasy about my life that simply isn't grounded in what I wrote. I'm very sorry for whatever's going on in your own life that's leading you to want to dump all over mine, but that's yours to deal with, not mine.
You posts state...
Dad's career takes off and he feels pressure to work more. Travels more, takes on more responsibility at work
DH is working all the time
By the time reality hit us, we were in the thick of it
no one was sleeping enough
You chose to keep your H on a path of travel, no sleep, more responsibility and working on the time.
The trade off was that you raised the kids alone and he financially supports that. That is your decision. Not something that just happened to you. It's fine, 1% of people take that path. The rest of us want to see our kids, both parents.
The bolded parts are not from one of my posts; I specifically distinguished myself from that poster when I first responded. When I said my experience tracked what that person who posted, I was referring to the broader idea of starting out with both people ambitious, mom's career getting mommy-tracked and eventually sidelined while husband's career took off. All of this was written in response to that poster's initial premise, which is that SAHMs are not all lazy and unmotivated. You took it in a different direction after my first post and I responded to you, but that doesn't change the context in which I first engaged in the discussion.
Contextual reading. It helps.
Your H and the OP work the same schedule. It does not matter their gender.
But you say OP is not engaged with her kids enough, then you say your H is totally engaged with his kids.
You can't have it both ways.
Either
OP is fine, she has the same schedule as your ambitious H and they are both totally engaged with their kids
or
OP and your H both need to scale back their work and engage in their children's lives.
Not the PP, but again and again you keep missing the point. Try reading slowly. It helps.
In OP's situation, both parents work extremely long hours, travel, etc. Neither parent sees much of the kids. Bad situation. Period.
In PP's case, the husband used to work long hours and traveled, but now that he's in a more senior position, he has much more flexibility and can be home earlier, participate in their activities, etc. But the biggest point of all that you have SERIOUSLY MISSED is this: the PP is a SAHP. There is a parent available to their kids. She is that parent. So not only is she spending lots of time with the kids, but she's able to get things done by the time her husband comes home so that HE can ALSO spend time with them.
What about this are you not getting? I think you just want to argue because you're envious.
Read slowly so you can understand.
Her children for a large majority of their life were raised by a single parent with an absentee dad. Just because he is working does not excuse that for years he was absent from their lives.
It is a bad model for raising kids. I would not model it. Stop using it as an example of how it should be done.
Stop acting like it is the golden standard. It is a horrible example of parenting.
Sorry, but your "golden standard" of having both parents work and NEITHER see their child much or at all, is truly the horrible example of parenting. But you do you.
Of course there is the option that one person SAH and the father/mother has a job where he/she is home at 5 (which is what most SAH families have).
or both parents work and they are both home at 4 or 5 and they have a flexible work place so they can volunteer (which is what most people have).
This world where you are willing to be a single parent for more and more and more material goods is a bad model.
You are 1%ers which means the rest of the 99% have figured out how to not miss our childrens' lives. This is not a SAH/WOH parent war. Most SAH/WOH parents see their kids.
I guess OP and her husband should figure out how to do that. Kids need to have at least one parent around each day.
OP and her husband need to figure it out. Kids need TWO parents unless one is dead or too disabled to engage.
OP I haven't read all the replies but I want to say this to you: Time alone in the car with your DD is a godsend. I've got 12 y.o. and 14 y.o. DDs, and there is something about the car (with just ONE of them in it--just you and her) that brings out all sorts of bonding and chatter. It might be that you are both parallel-facing and "doing something" so it makes it safe for a kid to talk/confide/bond.
I'm a former attorney so I get where you are coming from but I have to tell you, OP, your life sounds seriously out of balance. Attorney-work is like a sponge; it sucks you dry and you'll never give enough. As a PP said, you will look up and your DD will be gone to college. Please get the f in the car with her and go buy poster board.
Anonymous wrote:Of course there is the option that one person SAH and the father/mother has a job where he/she is home at 5 (which is what most SAH families have).
or both parents work and they are both home at 4 or 5 and they have a flexible work place so they can volunteer (which is what most people have).
This world where you are willing to be a single parent for more and more and more material goods is a bad model.
You are 1%ers which means the rest of the 99% have figured out how to not miss our childrens' lives. This is not a SAH/WOH parent war. Most SAH/WOH parents see their kids.
Ah, now we're to the source of the bitterness. PP and their spouse are both working full time and still aren't 1%, and PP is jealous of those people who don't have to work and are still 1%.
Anonymous wrote:SAH moms get bashed on DCUM all the time for being lazy, unmotivated, or worse. The reality is often much different.
Imagine that you met your spouse in grad school when you were both young and ambitious. You fell in love, got married, and decided to take the next step and have a family after a few years on the job. Baby arrives and Mom is instantly Mommy-tracked by her bosses. Dad's career takes off and he feels pressure to work more. Travels more, takes on more responsibility at work, and income continues to rise. Moms career gets stalled because she can't travel as much or work til 10 pm. Baby #2 arrives and Mom SAH because she makes a fraction of spouse and DH is working all the time. Add in taking care of aging parents. Life happens, and not always as we planned.
Allowing this model to continue is terrible for both the future of our sons and daughters.
Men need to raise their kids and stop using work as an excuse.
I think that's easy to say, but sometimes harder to put into practice. My situation pretty closely tracked what PP laid out, except that I was the big law associate who was very openly being groomed to make partner in a couple of years while my husband was struggling to find a place professionally. After baby #1, I was very explicitly mommy tracked no matter how hard I worked, while DH finally found a firm that looked promising. We were killing ourselves working, he started making headway while I continued to stall, and when baby #2 was on the way I looked at our lives and realized it wasn't worth killing myself for something that wasn't going to happen and that it would be better for everyone if I gave up, stayed home with the kids and supported DH's career instead. I don't think that's a decision I ever would have made if my career had continued on its pre-baby trajectory, it was directly the result of pretty blatant discrimination at work. Sure, we could have decided that DH would be the one to step back and I'd keep beating my head against a brick wall in the name of gender equality, but neither of us would have been all that happy.
It's not about gender equality at work, it's about your children having 2 parents at home.
You chose 1 huge income instead of 2 reasonable incomes that accommodate your children having 2 parents.
Again, things that are easy to say from the cheap seats. We got into those careers before kids were even an idea for us, and we didn't have a realistic understanding of what it would take to balance those careers and kids at the time. By the time reality hit us, we were in the thick of it and basically took the clearest route to sanity, which was for me to quit and DH to keep working. Trying to figure out two simultaneous career changes (that probably would have required a lot of extra work time on their own to make the transition) when no one was sleeping enough and we were stressed to the hilt just wasn't happening. Or smart.
Since then I've gone back to work, I run my own business from our home that lets me control my own schedule and be available to my kids when they're not in school (but I still don't do 7 pm Target runs). Now that he is a mid-level partner, DH has been able to reclaim some control over his professional schedule and has made adjustments so that he gets meaningful time with our kids every day. He puts the scout meetings and soccer games in his calendar and schedules work around them as best he can so he's there most of the time (and when he can't, I make sure I'm there). We have 1 big income, one significantly smaller income, and kids who know they can count on us because we've made it a priority and structured our lives around making sure they don't get the short end of our choices.
Your choices were exactly that choices. Your H chose to miss a huge chunk of his kids life for money, it was a choice nothing that was put upon you. I am glad he is finally engaging in his kids life, kids should have 2 parents when there are actually 2 parents.
You can color code it any way you want but you children missed out on a bond with their father for parts of their life. Nice to see he is making up for it.
You are reading a lot into my posts that isn't there. My DH has always been engaged, and they didn't miss out on a bond with their father for parts of their life. Even during the periods when he had less control over his schedule and less time at home during the week, I viewed part of my responsibility as SAHM as getting all of the household work and errands out of the way during the week so that when he was home with us, we were all present as a family and not distracted by yard maintenance or trips to Target. Through this whole discussion, I've never said that OP's kids weren't bonded to her and their dad, that's a separate issue from whether the kids have an adult who's present and engaged at any point during the week. We don't always get it right (no parent does), but we make a conscious effort to pay attention to what's happening in our household and to make changes when we realize things are off balance.
You are doing a lot of back peddling here. Your post was all about ambition and your H working long hours and traveling a lot, now you are trying to paint a different picture to feel better.
Here is the deal, tons of SAH moms have H that are engaged/don't travel/are home at 5. This is not a SAH/WOH issue.
Your issue is that your H decided to take a high pressure job with lots of travel and he is not around to raise his kids. He visits and that is nice, but that is not a good model going forward for most people, men/women/children.
Where did I back pedal? You are writing a fantasy about my life that simply isn't grounded in what I wrote. I'm very sorry for whatever's going on in your own life that's leading you to want to dump all over mine, but that's yours to deal with, not mine.
You posts state...
Dad's career takes off and he feels pressure to work more. Travels more, takes on more responsibility at work
DH is working all the time
By the time reality hit us, we were in the thick of it
no one was sleeping enough
You chose to keep your H on a path of travel, no sleep, more responsibility and working on the time.
The trade off was that you raised the kids alone and he financially supports that. That is your decision. Not something that just happened to you. It's fine, 1% of people take that path. The rest of us want to see our kids, both parents.
The bolded parts are not from one of my posts; I specifically distinguished myself from that poster when I first responded. When I said my experience tracked what that person who posted, I was referring to the broader idea of starting out with both people ambitious, mom's career getting mommy-tracked and eventually sidelined while husband's career took off. All of this was written in response to that poster's initial premise, which is that SAHMs are not all lazy and unmotivated. You took it in a different direction after my first post and I responded to you, but that doesn't change the context in which I first engaged in the discussion.
Contextual reading. It helps.
Your H and the OP work the same schedule. It does not matter their gender.
But you say OP is not engaged with her kids enough, then you say your H is totally engaged with his kids.
You can't have it both ways.
Either
OP is fine, she has the same schedule as your ambitious H and they are both totally engaged with their kids
or
OP and your H both need to scale back their work and engage in their children's lives.
Not the PP, but again and again you keep missing the point. Try reading slowly. It helps.
In OP's situation, both parents work extremely long hours, travel, etc. Neither parent sees much of the kids. Bad situation. Period.
In PP's case, the husband used to work long hours and traveled, but now that he's in a more senior position, he has much more flexibility and can be home earlier, participate in their activities, etc. But the biggest point of all that you have SERIOUSLY MISSED is this: the PP is a SAHP. There is a parent available to their kids. She is that parent. So not only is she spending lots of time with the kids, but she's able to get things done by the time her husband comes home so that HE can ALSO spend time with them.
What about this are you not getting? I think you just want to argue because you're envious.
Read slowly so you can understand.
Her children for a large majority of their life were raised by a single parent with an absentee dad. Just because he is working does not excuse that for years he was absent from their lives.
It is a bad model for raising kids. I would not model it. Stop using it as an example of how it should be done.
Stop acting like it is the golden standard. It is a horrible example of parenting.
Sorry, but your "golden standard" of having both parents work and NEITHER see their child much or at all, is truly the horrible example of parenting. But you do you.
Of course there is the option that one person SAH and the father/mother has a job where he/she is home at 5 (which is what most SAH families have).
or both parents work and they are both home at 4 or 5 and they have a flexible work place so they can volunteer (which is what most people have).
This world where you are willing to be a single parent for more and more and more material goods is a bad model.
You are 1%ers which means the rest of the 99% have figured out how to not miss our childrens' lives. This is not a SAH/WOH parent war. Most SAH/WOH parents see their kids.
I guess OP and her husband should figure out how to do that. Kids need to have at least one parent around each day.
OP and her husband need to figure it out. Kids need TWO parents unless one is dead or too disabled to engage.
Oh god, you're family shoppers, aren't you? No one can go to target for the poster board or Giant for a gallon of milk without the whole family tagging along.
Anonymous wrote:^^^^ nobody goes to the store anymore for supplies.
Why are so many people saying 1 parent is better than 2 parents raising a child.
What planet are you on?
You're the one arguing that kids need both parents home all evening to accommodate requests for poster board at Target and rides to their friend's houses.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
