Advice Needed: parents who both work long hours

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to be this and I cut back. I ended up staying home and had a third child. DH earns a seven figure income and I’m a SAHM. We live in a nice house in mclean and our kids attend public school.

I was just missing my career today. Reading this post reminds me of how hard it was when I was working. I used to cry because I missed my baby’s bedtime most nights. Getting an hour with your baby in the morning just wasn’t enough. I actually did cut back and it still was hard. I remember having two drop offs and pick ups when my older child started elementary. I was always scrambling.

I used to have a full time nanny plus preschool. Then I had a housekeeper and cook. It was really hard to get a PT afternoon sitter/driver. I remember writing the description for care.com and I decided I wanted to be the one to take my kids to sports and activities, help kids with homework and feed them dinner. We would never have had our third child if I was still working.

I don’t think your dual long hours are sustainable. We do know families who have multiple nannies or a FT nanny even when kids are in elementary.

That's exactly what this boils down to, PP. I'm happy for you that you are in a better place. Working moms are in a rough spot. We've been fed the line that we must get out into the working world to prove our worth (and pay homage to the feminist leaders before us) but we also have been sold the line that we can have it all. The fact of the matter is that we absolutely cannot. OP, you cannot have it all so you must choose. You either outsource your household duties (and much of that mothering) or you give up your current career path. One of those will have to give. I'm not here to tell you which is more valuable, as that's for you to decide. But if you wish to continue with your hours and DH's schedule, you'll have to hire more help. And you'll need to balance your budget to do that. Figure out what line items are really worth it (good bye cars) and ante up for the extra domestic help.

I know we all read the Atlantic article a few years back about not having it all. I'm 40+, 3 kids and found it out the hard way in law. I now work for myself and am WAHM full time. It works for me but I won't have the upward income mobility as OP. I am raising my own kids, doing all the cooking/cleaning/sports events because that was the choice that I made. OP, figure out your choice and roll with it. Because we don't get it all in this life. And no, your DH doesn't either despite what PPs here may say.

Not true. Of course a hardworking parent in a high-powered career can "have it all" with a rich and fulfilling home life. How do we know? Because men have been doing it for generations. Wanting to "have it all" is not the problem. Partners who aren't on board are.

that's just not true. We cannot have it all. The definition of "having it all" has been being able to spend quality time with the kids, parent as you see fit, attain the career goals that you want and make the salary that you desire. Men have outsourced the first half of that for centuries and have not parented. They outsourced all home/parenting duties to SAHMs. If working moms want to outsource parenting to SAHDs they can absolutely do that, but they are not "having it all". That is the conundrum. Do you want the work life or the parenting life? Pick one and outsource or limit the other.

There are countless threads on DCUM where SAHMs say their long-hours working spouses are excellent parents. Are you saying the SAHMs are not describing their families accurately? That their husbands aren't parenting? That seems unduly judgmental to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to be this and I cut back. I ended up staying home and had a third child. DH earns a seven figure income and I’m a SAHM. We live in a nice house in mclean and our kids attend public school.

I was just missing my career today. Reading this post reminds me of how hard it was when I was working. I used to cry because I missed my baby’s bedtime most nights. Getting an hour with your baby in the morning just wasn’t enough. I actually did cut back and it still was hard. I remember having two drop offs and pick ups when my older child started elementary. I was always scrambling.

I used to have a full time nanny plus preschool. Then I had a housekeeper and cook. It was really hard to get a PT afternoon sitter/driver. I remember writing the description for care.com and I decided I wanted to be the one to take my kids to sports and activities, help kids with homework and feed them dinner. We would never have had our third child if I was still working.

I don’t think your dual long hours are sustainable. We do know families who have multiple nannies or a FT nanny even when kids are in elementary.

That's exactly what this boils down to, PP. I'm happy for you that you are in a better place. Working moms are in a rough spot. We've been fed the line that we must get out into the working world to prove our worth (and pay homage to the feminist leaders before us) but we also have been sold the line that we can have it all. The fact of the matter is that we absolutely cannot. OP, you cannot have it all so you must choose. You either outsource your household duties (and much of that mothering) or you give up your current career path. One of those will have to give. I'm not here to tell you which is more valuable, as that's for you to decide. But if you wish to continue with your hours and DH's schedule, you'll have to hire more help. And you'll need to balance your budget to do that. Figure out what line items are really worth it (good bye cars) and ante up for the extra domestic help.

I know we all read the Atlantic article a few years back about not having it all. I'm 40+, 3 kids and found it out the hard way in law. I now work for myself and am WAHM full time. It works for me but I won't have the upward income mobility as OP. I am raising my own kids, doing all the cooking/cleaning/sports events because that was the choice that I made. OP, figure out your choice and roll with it. Because we don't get it all in this life. And no, your DH doesn't either despite what PPs here may say.

Not true. Of course a hardworking parent in a high-powered career can "have it all" with a rich and fulfilling home life. How do we know? Because men have been doing it for generations. Wanting to "have it all" is not the problem. Partners who aren't on board are.

that's just not true. We cannot have it all. The definition of "having it all" has been being able to spend quality time with the kids, parent as you see fit, attain the career goals that you want and make the salary that you desire. Men have outsourced the first half of that for centuries and have not parented. They outsourced all home/parenting duties to SAHMs. If working moms want to outsource parenting to SAHDs they can absolutely do that, but they are not "having it all". That is the conundrum. Do you want the work life or the parenting life? Pick one and outsource or limit the other.

There are countless threads on DCUM where SAHMs say their long-hours working spouses are excellent parents. Are you saying the SAHMs are not describing their families accurately? That their husbands aren't parenting? That seems unduly judgmental to me.

Did you actually read this thread? Many of us have suggested that op’s dh could be the one to sah or cut back , or they both could downsize their jobs. What typically does not work is two careers with very high hours demands. This is not a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.

[Anonymous]

And when they are both school age it will be infinitely easier. My 7 year old helps so much — folding laundry, tidying up, even cooking and cooking prep. Not to mention all the things he can do for himself.

And then when they are slightly older (10-12), they need you around more (even if they don't admit it) and it gets harder again for so many reasons. You have finite time on earth. Do you really want to spend every spare second working? Are you happy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You could probably hire a full time housekeeper for 45-50k. Keep the nanny. What do you pay her, 45-50k?

Employee expenses are still under 100k.

How is this not doable for two BigLaw partners?

Op isn’t a partner and they likely have a hug mortgage om that $2.5 million house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to be this and I cut back. I ended up staying home and had a third child. DH earns a seven figure income and I’m a SAHM. We live in a nice house in mclean and our kids attend public school.

I was just missing my career today. Reading this post reminds me of how hard it was when I was working. I used to cry because I missed my baby’s bedtime most nights. Getting an hour with your baby in the morning just wasn’t enough. I actually did cut back and it still was hard. I remember having two drop offs and pick ups when my older child started elementary. I was always scrambling.

I used to have a full time nanny plus preschool. Then I had a housekeeper and cook. It was really hard to get a PT afternoon sitter/driver. I remember writing the description for care.com and I decided I wanted to be the one to take my kids to sports and activities, help kids with homework and feed them dinner. We would never have had our third child if I was still working.

I don’t think your dual long hours are sustainable. We do know families who have multiple nannies or a FT nanny even when kids are in elementary.

That's exactly what this boils down to, PP. I'm happy for you that you are in a better place. Working moms are in a rough spot. We've been fed the line that we must get out into the working world to prove our worth (and pay homage to the feminist leaders before us) but we also have been sold the line that we can have it all. The fact of the matter is that we absolutely cannot. OP, you cannot have it all so you must choose. You either outsource your household duties (and much of that mothering) or you give up your current career path. One of those will have to give. I'm not here to tell you which is more valuable, as that's for you to decide. But if you wish to continue with your hours and DH's schedule, you'll have to hire more help. And you'll need to balance your budget to do that. Figure out what line items are really worth it (good bye cars) and ante up for the extra domestic help.

I know we all read the Atlantic article a few years back about not having it all. I'm 40+, 3 kids and found it out the hard way in law. I now work for myself and am WAHM full time. It works for me but I won't have the upward income mobility as OP. I am raising my own kids, doing all the cooking/cleaning/sports events because that was the choice that I made. OP, figure out your choice and roll with it. Because we don't get it all in this life. And no, your DH doesn't either despite what PPs here may say.

Not true. Of course a hardworking parent in a high-powered career can "have it all" with a rich and fulfilling home life. How do we know? Because men have been doing it for generations. Wanting to "have it all" is not the problem. Partners who aren't on board are.

that's just not true. We cannot have it all. The definition of "having it all" has been being able to spend quality time with the kids, parent as you see fit, attain the career goals that you want and make the salary that you desire. Men have outsourced the first half of that for centuries and have not parented. They outsourced all home/parenting duties to SAHMs. If working moms want to outsource parenting to SAHDs they can absolutely do that, but they are not "having it all". That is the conundrum. Do you want the work life or the parenting life? Pick one and outsource or limit the other.

There are countless threads on DCUM where SAHMs say their long-hours working spouses are excellent parents. Are you saying the SAHMs are not describing their families accurately? That their husbands aren't parenting? That seems unduly judgmental to me.

Did you actually read this thread? Many of us have suggested that op’s dh could be the one to sah or cut back , or they both could downsize their jobs. What typically does not work is two careers with very high hours demands. This is not a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.

You didn't read the context for what I said. The PP above me said that men didn't have it all (in response to a poster who observed that men did "have it all") because men who work long hours are not parenting. I think that is unduly harsh, though I actually agree that if the standard for being a good parent is not working long hours, then all these men working long hours with SAHM wives are actually bad parents (by that standard). I think that standard is bogus, but I also think that it is illogical to claim that OP will automatically become a "good parent" if she cuts back while her spouse continues long hours. In other words, if presence is what makes a good parent, it applies to both spouses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And when they are both school age it will be infinitely easier. My 7 year old helps so much — folding laundry, tidying up, even cooking and cooking prep. Not to mention all the things he can do for himself.

And then when they are slightly older (10-12), they need you around more (even if they don't admit it) and it gets harder again for so many reasons. You have finite time on earth. Do you really want to spend every spare second working? Are you happy?

PP here. I’m happy, my hours are totally flexible. I was just responding to OP’s situation because I think people are getting derailed here. For all WOHM the hardest time by far is juggling two kids when the youngest is not yet 4. It does get a lot easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to be this and I cut back. I ended up staying home and had a third child. DH earns a seven figure income and I’m a SAHM. We live in a nice house in mclean and our kids attend public school.

I was just missing my career today. Reading this post reminds me of how hard it was when I was working. I used to cry because I missed my baby’s bedtime most nights. Getting an hour with your baby in the morning just wasn’t enough. I actually did cut back and it still was hard. I remember having two drop offs and pick ups when my older child started elementary. I was always scrambling.

I used to have a full time nanny plus preschool. Then I had a housekeeper and cook. It was really hard to get a PT afternoon sitter/driver. I remember writing the description for care.com and I decided I wanted to be the one to take my kids to sports and activities, help kids with homework and feed them dinner. We would never have had our third child if I was still working.

I don’t think your dual long hours are sustainable. We do know families who have multiple nannies or a FT nanny even when kids are in elementary.

That's exactly what this boils down to, PP. I'm happy for you that you are in a better place. Working moms are in a rough spot. We've been fed the line that we must get out into the working world to prove our worth (and pay homage to the feminist leaders before us) but we also have been sold the line that we can have it all. The fact of the matter is that we absolutely cannot. OP, you cannot have it all so you must choose. You either outsource your household duties (and much of that mothering) or you give up your current career path. One of those will have to give. I'm not here to tell you which is more valuable, as that's for you to decide. But if you wish to continue with your hours and DH's schedule, you'll have to hire more help. And you'll need to balance your budget to do that. Figure out what line items are really worth it (good bye cars) and ante up for the extra domestic help.

I know we all read the Atlantic article a few years back about not having it all. I'm 40+, 3 kids and found it out the hard way in law. I now work for myself and am WAHM full time. It works for me but I won't have the upward income mobility as OP. I am raising my own kids, doing all the cooking/cleaning/sports events because that was the choice that I made. OP, figure out your choice and roll with it. Because we don't get it all in this life. And no, your DH doesn't either despite what PPs here may say.

Not true. Of course a hardworking parent in a high-powered career can "have it all" with a rich and fulfilling home life. How do we know? Because men have been doing it for generations. Wanting to "have it all" is not the problem. Partners who aren't on board are.

that's just not true. We cannot have it all. The definition of "having it all" has been being able to spend quality time with the kids, parent as you see fit, attain the career goals that you want and make the salary that you desire. Men have outsourced the first half of that for centuries and have not parented. They outsourced all home/parenting duties to SAHMs. If working moms want to outsource parenting to SAHDs they can absolutely do that, but they are not "having it all". That is the conundrum. Do you want the work life or the parenting life? Pick one and outsource or limit the other.

There are countless threads on DCUM where SAHMs say their long-hours working spouses are excellent parents. Are you saying the SAHMs are not describing their families accurately? That their husbands aren't parenting? That seems unduly judgmental to me.

Did you actually read this thread? Many of us have suggested that op’s dh could be the one to sah or cut back , or they both could downsize their jobs. What typically does not work is two careers with very high hours demands. This is not a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.

You didn't read the context for what I said. The PP above me said that men didn't have it all (in response to a poster who observed that men did "have it all") because men who work long hours are not parenting. I think that is unduly harsh, though I actually agree that if the standard for being a good parent is not working long hours, then all these men working long hours with SAHM wives are actually bad parents (by that standard). I think that standard is bogus, but I also think that it is illogical to claim that OP will automatically become a "good parent" if she cuts back while her spouse continues long hours. In other words, if presence is what makes a good parent, it applies to both spouses.

I think your premise is wrong. One spouse can work long hours and still have time for themself and family time if the other spouse is handing most of the primary child care duties. Op’s husband probably is having it all, but she has the big job and is the default parent and is miserable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And when they are both school age it will be infinitely easier. My 7 year old helps so much — folding laundry, tidying up, even cooking and cooking prep. Not to mention all the things he can do for himself.

And then when they are slightly older (10-12), they need you around more (even if they don't admit it) and it gets harder again for so many reasons. You have finite time on earth. Do you really want to spend every spare second working? Are you happy?

PP here. I’m happy, my hours are totally flexible. I was just responding to OP’s situation because I think people are getting derailed here. For all WOHM the hardest time by far is juggling two kids when the youngest is not yet 4. It does get a lot easier.

Totally disagree, middle school on is equally difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And when they are both school age it will be infinitely easier. My 7 year old helps so much — folding laundry, tidying up, even cooking and cooking prep. Not to mention all the things he can do for himself.

And then when they are slightly older (10-12), they need you around more (even if they don't admit it) and it gets harder again for so many reasons. You have finite time on earth. Do you really want to spend every spare second working? Are you happy?

PP here. I’m happy, my hours are totally flexible. I was just responding to OP’s situation because I think people are getting derailed here. For all WOHM the hardest time by far is juggling two kids when the youngest is not yet 4. It does get a lot easier.

I'm with you, but there is a prevailing belief on this board that older kids are harder. I think some people put so much in to those little kid years that they get burnt out, and everything seems hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to be this and I cut back. I ended up staying home and had a third child. DH earns a seven figure income and I’m a SAHM. We live in a nice house in mclean and our kids attend public school.

I was just missing my career today. Reading this post reminds me of how hard it was when I was working. I used to cry because I missed my baby’s bedtime most nights. Getting an hour with your baby in the morning just wasn’t enough. I actually did cut back and it still was hard. I remember having two drop offs and pick ups when my older child started elementary. I was always scrambling.

I used to have a full time nanny plus preschool. Then I had a housekeeper and cook. It was really hard to get a PT afternoon sitter/driver. I remember writing the description for care.com and I decided I wanted to be the one to take my kids to sports and activities, help kids with homework and feed them dinner. We would never have had our third child if I was still working.

I don’t think your dual long hours are sustainable. We do know families who have multiple nannies or a FT nanny even when kids are in elementary.

That's exactly what this boils down to, PP. I'm happy for you that you are in a better place. Working moms are in a rough spot. We've been fed the line that we must get out into the working world to prove our worth (and pay homage to the feminist leaders before us) but we also have been sold the line that we can have it all. The fact of the matter is that we absolutely cannot. OP, you cannot have it all so you must choose. You either outsource your household duties (and much of that mothering) or you give up your current career path. One of those will have to give. I'm not here to tell you which is more valuable, as that's for you to decide. But if you wish to continue with your hours and DH's schedule, you'll have to hire more help. And you'll need to balance your budget to do that. Figure out what line items are really worth it (good bye cars) and ante up for the extra domestic help.

I know we all read the Atlantic article a few years back about not having it all. I'm 40+, 3 kids and found it out the hard way in law. I now work for myself and am WAHM full time. It works for me but I won't have the upward income mobility as OP. I am raising my own kids, doing all the cooking/cleaning/sports events because that was the choice that I made. OP, figure out your choice and roll with it. Because we don't get it all in this life. And no, your DH doesn't either despite what PPs here may say.

Not true. Of course a hardworking parent in a high-powered career can "have it all" with a rich and fulfilling home life. How do we know? Because men have been doing it for generations. Wanting to "have it all" is not the problem. Partners who aren't on board are.

that's just not true. We cannot have it all. The definition of "having it all" has been being able to spend quality time with the kids, parent as you see fit, attain the career goals that you want and make the salary that you desire. Men have outsourced the first half of that for centuries and have not parented. They outsourced all home/parenting duties to SAHMs. If working moms want to outsource parenting to SAHDs they can absolutely do that, but they are not "having it all". That is the conundrum. Do you want the work life or the parenting life? Pick one and outsource or limit the other.

There are countless threads on DCUM where SAHMs say their long-hours working spouses are excellent parents. Are you saying the SAHMs are not describing their families accurately? That their husbands aren't parenting? That seems unduly judgmental to me.

Did you actually read this thread? Many of us have suggested that op’s dh could be the one to sah or cut back , or they both could downsize their jobs. What typically does not work is two careers with very high hours demands. This is not a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.

You didn't read the context for what I said. The PP above me said that men didn't have it all (in response to a poster who observed that men did "have it all") because men who work long hours are not parenting. I think that is unduly harsh, though I actually agree that if the standard for being a good parent is not working long hours, then all these men working long hours with SAHM wives are actually bad parents (by that standard). I think that standard is bogus, but I also think that it is illogical to claim that OP will automatically become a "good parent" if she cuts back while her spouse continues long hours. In other words, if presence is what makes a good parent, it applies to both spouses.

Of course the dad is not "having it all". By very nature, he is outsourcing a significant portion of the parenting duties to the WAHM or SAHM. That does not mean that he is not a good parent. You are making false equivalencies. What I am saying is that we have been wrongly fed the line that we can both attain all of our career/salary goals while simultaneously being physically present for our children's events, sports, school, etc. and maintaining the household (meals, domestic, work, etc.). That premise of having it all is unequivocally a crock of horse sh#t. It cannot be achieved by a parent with extended working hours. Some of it must be outsourced, if not most. That does not mean to say that a parent with long working hours is a bad parent. They just cannot do all of it so you must make the choice as to which you want to do. Some women/men opt to outsource domestic duties to nannies, childcare workers, in-home chefs, cleaners, or what have you. Others go PT or cut the career goals.

So, pick one because doing ALL THE THINGs is not a realistic goal, as this generation of working women have come to learn the hard way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to be this and I cut back. I ended up staying home and had a third child. DH earns a seven figure income and I’m a SAHM. We live in a nice house in mclean and our kids attend public school.

I was just missing my career today. Reading this post reminds me of how hard it was when I was working. I used to cry because I missed my baby’s bedtime most nights. Getting an hour with your baby in the morning just wasn’t enough. I actually did cut back and it still was hard. I remember having two drop offs and pick ups when my older child started elementary. I was always scrambling.

I used to have a full time nanny plus preschool. Then I had a housekeeper and cook. It was really hard to get a PT afternoon sitter/driver. I remember writing the description for care.com and I decided I wanted to be the one to take my kids to sports and activities, help kids with homework and feed them dinner. We would never have had our third child if I was still working.

I don’t think your dual long hours are sustainable. We do know families who have multiple nannies or a FT nanny even when kids are in elementary.

That's exactly what this boils down to, PP. I'm happy for you that you are in a better place. Working moms are in a rough spot. We've been fed the line that we must get out into the working world to prove our worth (and pay homage to the feminist leaders before us) but we also have been sold the line that we can have it all. The fact of the matter is that we absolutely cannot. OP, you cannot have it all so you must choose. You either outsource your household duties (and much of that mothering) or you give up your current career path. One of those will have to give. I'm not here to tell you which is more valuable, as that's for you to decide. But if you wish to continue with your hours and DH's schedule, you'll have to hire more help. And you'll need to balance your budget to do that. Figure out what line items are really worth it (good bye cars) and ante up for the extra domestic help.

I know we all read the Atlantic article a few years back about not having it all. I'm 40+, 3 kids and found it out the hard way in law. I now work for myself and am WAHM full time. It works for me but I won't have the upward income mobility as OP. I am raising my own kids, doing all the cooking/cleaning/sports events because that was the choice that I made. OP, figure out your choice and roll with it. Because we don't get it all in this life. And no, your DH doesn't either despite what PPs here may say.

Not true. Of course a hardworking parent in a high-powered career can "have it all" with a rich and fulfilling home life. How do we know? Because men have been doing it for generations. Wanting to "have it all" is not the problem. Partners who aren't on board are.

that's just not true. We cannot have it all. The definition of "having it all" has been being able to spend quality time with the kids, parent as you see fit, attain the career goals that you want and make the salary that you desire. Men have outsourced the first half of that for centuries and have not parented. They outsourced all home/parenting duties to SAHMs. If working moms want to outsource parenting to SAHDs they can absolutely do that, but they are not "having it all". That is the conundrum. Do you want the work life or the parenting life? Pick one and outsource or limit the other.

There are countless threads on DCUM where SAHMs say their long-hours working spouses are excellent parents. Are you saying the SAHMs are not describing their families accurately? That their husbands aren't parenting? That seems unduly judgmental to me.

Did you actually read this thread? Many of us have suggested that op’s dh could be the one to sah or cut back , or they both could downsize their jobs. What typically does not work is two careers with very high hours demands. This is not a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.

You didn't read the context for what I said. The PP above me said that men didn't have it all (in response to a poster who observed that men did "have it all") because men who work long hours are not parenting. I think that is unduly harsh, though I actually agree that if the standard for being a good parent is not working long hours, then all these men working long hours with SAHM wives are actually bad parents (by that standard). I think that standard is bogus, but I also think that it is illogical to claim that OP will automatically become a "good parent" if she cuts back while her spouse continues long hours. In other words, if presence is what makes a good parent, it applies to both spouses.

Of course the dad is not "having it all". By very nature, he is outsourcing a significant portion of the parenting duties to the WAHM or SAHM. That does not mean that he is not a good parent. You are making false equivalencies. What I am saying is that we have been wrongly fed the line that we can both attain all of our career/salary goals while simultaneously being physically present for our children's events, sports, school, etc. and maintaining the household (meals, domestic, work, etc.). That premise of having it all is unequivocally a crock of horse sh#t. It cannot be achieved by a parent with extended working hours. Some of it must be outsourced, if not most. That does not mean to say that a parent with long working hours is a bad parent. They just cannot do all of it so you must make the choice as to which you want to do. Some women/men opt to outsource domestic duties to nannies, childcare workers, in-home chefs, cleaners, or what have you. Others go PT or cut the career goals.

So, pick one because doing ALL THE THINGs is not a realistic goal, as this generation of working women have come to learn the hard way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And when they are both school age it will be infinitely easier. My 7 year old helps so much — folding laundry, tidying up, even cooking and cooking prep. Not to mention all the things he can do for himself.

And then when they are slightly older (10-12), they need you around more (even if they don't admit it) and it gets harder again for so many reasons. You have finite time on earth. Do you really want to spend every spare second working? Are you happy?

PP here. I’m happy, my hours are totally flexible. I was just responding to OP’s situation because I think people are getting derailed here. For all WOHM the hardest time by far is juggling two kids when the youngest is not yet 4. It does get a lot easier.

I'm with you, but there is a prevailing belief on this board that older kids are harder. I think some people put so much in to those little kid years that they get burnt out, and everything seems hard.

+1

Older kids need *different* things from their parents than younger ones, and they absolutely need parental involvement and supervision. But they're also in school and (often) activities for much of their time, so the parenting and communication have to become strategic. You can't check out as a parent of tweens/teens.

That being said, I do think a lot of parents on this board outsource a crap-ton of the child-rearing in the very young years, because you can and then tell yourself they're "too young" to notice/remember/etc. (which is BS, but whatever). It becomes more obvious when you outsource that much with older kids, e.g., hiring drivers to get your kid places, never showing up at games or recitals, etc. So, while some parents overdo it at home in the young years and burn out, others overdo it at work and burn out that way.

tl;dr - there are always aspects of parenting that are hard, and no parent, male or female, can "have it all." I'm playing the long game and treating this as a marathon, so that I can hopefully be as present as my kids need throughout their lives (my oldest is 10, and I also have 8 and 6 year olds; DH and I work FT, but deliberately not in the kinds of "big" jobs OP and her spouse have).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to be this and I cut back. I ended up staying home and had a third child. DH earns a seven figure income and I’m a SAHM. We live in a nice house in mclean and our kids attend public school.

I was just missing my career today. Reading this post reminds me of how hard it was when I was working. I used to cry because I missed my baby’s bedtime most nights. Getting an hour with your baby in the morning just wasn’t enough. I actually did cut back and it still was hard. I remember having two drop offs and pick ups when my older child started elementary. I was always scrambling.

I used to have a full time nanny plus preschool. Then I had a housekeeper and cook. It was really hard to get a PT afternoon sitter/driver. I remember writing the description for care.com and I decided I wanted to be the one to take my kids to sports and activities, help kids with homework and feed them dinner. We would never have had our third child if I was still working.

I don’t think your dual long hours are sustainable. We do know families who have multiple nannies or a FT nanny even when kids are in elementary.

That's exactly what this boils down to, PP. I'm happy for you that you are in a better place. Working moms are in a rough spot. We've been fed the line that we must get out into the working world to prove our worth (and pay homage to the feminist leaders before us) but we also have been sold the line that we can have it all. The fact of the matter is that we absolutely cannot. OP, you cannot have it all so you must choose. You either outsource your household duties (and much of that mothering) or you give up your current career path. One of those will have to give. I'm not here to tell you which is more valuable, as that's for you to decide. But if you wish to continue with your hours and DH's schedule, you'll have to hire more help. And you'll need to balance your budget to do that. Figure out what line items are really worth it (good bye cars) and ante up for the extra domestic help.

I know we all read the Atlantic article a few years back about not having it all. I'm 40+, 3 kids and found it out the hard way in law. I now work for myself and am WAHM full time. It works for me but I won't have the upward income mobility as OP. I am raising my own kids, doing all the cooking/cleaning/sports events because that was the choice that I made. OP, figure out your choice and roll with it. Because we don't get it all in this life. And no, your DH doesn't either despite what PPs here may say.

Not true. Of course a hardworking parent in a high-powered career can "have it all" with a rich and fulfilling home life. How do we know? Because men have been doing it for generations. Wanting to "have it all" is not the problem. Partners who aren't on board are.

that's just not true. We cannot have it all. The definition of "having it all" has been being able to spend quality time with the kids, parent as you see fit, attain the career goals that you want and make the salary that you desire. Men have outsourced the first half of that for centuries and have not parented. They outsourced all home/parenting duties to SAHMs. If working moms want to outsource parenting to SAHDs they can absolutely do that, but they are not "having it all". That is the conundrum. Do you want the work life or the parenting life? Pick one and outsource or limit the other.

There are countless threads on DCUM where SAHMs say their long-hours working spouses are excellent parents. Are you saying the SAHMs are not describing their families accurately? That their husbands aren't parenting? That seems unduly judgmental to me.

Did you actually read this thread? Many of us have suggested that op’s dh could be the one to sah or cut back , or they both could downsize their jobs. What typically does not work is two careers with very high hours demands. This is not a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.

You didn't read the context for what I said. The PP above me said that men didn't have it all (in response to a poster who observed that men did "have it all") because men who work long hours are not parenting. I think that is unduly harsh, though I actually agree that if the standard for being a good parent is not working long hours, then all these men working long hours with SAHM wives are actually bad parents (by that standard). I think that standard is bogus, but I also think that it is illogical to claim that OP will automatically become a "good parent" if she cuts back while her spouse continues long hours. In other words, if presence is what makes a good parent, it applies to both spouses.

I think your premise is wrong. One spouse can work long hours and still have time for themself and family time if the other spouse is handing most of the primary child care duties. Op’s husband probably is having it all, but she has the big job and is the default parent and is miserable.

I think the premise is that they can’t both have it all. And “having it all,” to me, includes at least one parent who is present for things like school conferences, sports practices or events, etc. It could be either parent, but it really should be one of them. Otherwise, what the heck is the point? I think to both have big careers as OP describes, they’ll have to outsource quite a bit of parenting, otherwise they’ll remain overwhelmed. And that, in my mind, is not “having it all.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to be this and I cut back. I ended up staying home and had a third child. DH earns a seven figure income and I’m a SAHM. We live in a nice house in mclean and our kids attend public school.

I was just missing my career today. Reading this post reminds me of how hard it was when I was working. I used to cry because I missed my baby’s bedtime most nights. Getting an hour with your baby in the morning just wasn’t enough. I actually did cut back and it still was hard. I remember having two drop offs and pick ups when my older child started elementary. I was always scrambling.

I used to have a full time nanny plus preschool. Then I had a housekeeper and cook. It was really hard to get a PT afternoon sitter/driver. I remember writing the description for care.com and I decided I wanted to be the one to take my kids to sports and activities, help kids with homework and feed them dinner. We would never have had our third child if I was still working.

I don’t think your dual long hours are sustainable. We do know families who have multiple nannies or a FT nanny even when kids are in elementary.

That's exactly what this boils down to, PP. I'm happy for you that you are in a better place. Working moms are in a rough spot. We've been fed the line that we must get out into the working world to prove our worth (and pay homage to the feminist leaders before us) but we also have been sold the line that we can have it all. The fact of the matter is that we absolutely cannot. OP, you cannot have it all so you must choose. You either outsource your household duties (and much of that mothering) or you give up your current career path. One of those will have to give. I'm not here to tell you which is more valuable, as that's for you to decide. But if you wish to continue with your hours and DH's schedule, you'll have to hire more help. And you'll need to balance your budget to do that. Figure out what line items are really worth it (good bye cars) and ante up for the extra domestic help.

I know we all read the Atlantic article a few years back about not having it all. I'm 40+, 3 kids and found it out the hard way in law. I now work for myself and am WAHM full time. It works for me but I won't have the upward income mobility as OP. I am raising my own kids, doing all the cooking/cleaning/sports events because that was the choice that I made. OP, figure out your choice and roll with it. Because we don't get it all in this life. And no, your DH doesn't either despite what PPs here may say.

Not true. Of course a hardworking parent in a high-powered career can "have it all" with a rich and fulfilling home life. How do we know? Because men have been doing it for generations. Wanting to "have it all" is not the problem. Partners who aren't on board are.

that's just not true. We cannot have it all. The definition of "having it all" has been being able to spend quality time with the kids, parent as you see fit, attain the career goals that you want and make the salary that you desire. Men have outsourced the first half of that for centuries and have not parented. They outsourced all home/parenting duties to SAHMs. If working moms want to outsource parenting to SAHDs they can absolutely do that, but they are not "having it all". That is the conundrum. Do you want the work life or the parenting life? Pick one and outsource or limit the other.

There are countless threads on DCUM where SAHMs say their long-hours working spouses are excellent parents. Are you saying the SAHMs are not describing their families accurately? That their husbands aren't parenting? That seems unduly judgmental to me.

Did you actually read this thread? Many of us have suggested that op’s dh could be the one to sah or cut back , or they both could downsize their jobs. What typically does not work is two careers with very high hours demands. This is not a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.

You didn't read the context for what I said. The PP above me said that men didn't have it all (in response to a poster who observed that men did "have it all") because men who work long hours are not parenting. I think that is unduly harsh, though I actually agree that if the standard for being a good parent is not working long hours, then all these men working long hours with SAHM wives are actually bad parents (by that standard). I think that standard is bogus, but I also think that it is illogical to claim that OP will automatically become a "good parent" if she cuts back while her spouse continues long hours. In other words, if presence is what makes a good parent, it applies to both spouses.

Of course the dad is not "having it all". By very nature, he is outsourcing a significant portion of the parenting duties to the WAHM or SAHM. That does not mean that he is not a good parent. You are making false equivalencies. What I am saying is that we have been wrongly fed the line that we can both attain all of our career/salary goals while simultaneously being physically present for our children's events, sports, school, etc. and maintaining the household (meals, domestic, work, etc.). That premise of having it all is unequivocally a crock of horse sh#t. It cannot be achieved by a parent with extended working hours. Some of it must be outsourced, if not most. That does not mean to say that a parent with long working hours is a bad parent. They just cannot do all of it so you must make the choice as to which you want to do. Some women/men opt to outsource domestic duties to nannies, childcare workers, in-home chefs, cleaners, or what have you. Others go PT or cut the career goals.

So, pick one because doing ALL THE THINGs is not a realistic goal, as this generation of working women have come to learn the hard way

Having nannies around the clock is not the same as having parental involvement in a child’s life. If both spouses are truly unwilling to make any career accommodations to facilitate family life, probably best to not have kids. I think you are under appreciating how much easier a sah spouse makes life for the other parent, and frees up more family and personal time for both. Most women with big careers have either a sah spouse or one who has cut back, and I think this arrangement comes pretty darn close to having it all. Both parents working 40 to 50 hour a week jobs can work too,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We used to be this and I cut back. I ended up staying home and had a third child. DH earns a seven figure income and I’m a SAHM. We live in a nice house in mclean and our kids attend public school.

I was just missing my career today. Reading this post reminds me of how hard it was when I was working. I used to cry because I missed my baby’s bedtime most nights. Getting an hour with your baby in the morning just wasn’t enough. I actually did cut back and it still was hard. I remember having two drop offs and pick ups when my older child started elementary. I was always scrambling.

I used to have a full time nanny plus preschool. Then I had a housekeeper and cook. It was really hard to get a PT afternoon sitter/driver. I remember writing the description for care.com and I decided I wanted to be the one to take my kids to sports and activities, help kids with homework and feed them dinner. We would never have had our third child if I was still working.

I don’t think your dual long hours are sustainable. We do know families who have multiple nannies or a FT nanny even when kids are in elementary.

That's exactly what this boils down to, PP. I'm happy for you that you are in a better place. Working moms are in a rough spot. We've been fed the line that we must get out into the working world to prove our worth (and pay homage to the feminist leaders before us) but we also have been sold the line that we can have it all. The fact of the matter is that we absolutely cannot. OP, you cannot have it all so you must choose. You either outsource your household duties (and much of that mothering) or you give up your current career path. One of those will have to give. I'm not here to tell you which is more valuable, as that's for you to decide. But if you wish to continue with your hours and DH's schedule, you'll have to hire more help. And you'll need to balance your budget to do that. Figure out what line items are really worth it (good bye cars) and ante up for the extra domestic help.

I know we all read the Atlantic article a few years back about not having it all. I'm 40+, 3 kids and found it out the hard way in law. I now work for myself and am WAHM full time. It works for me but I won't have the upward income mobility as OP. I am raising my own kids, doing all the cooking/cleaning/sports events because that was the choice that I made. OP, figure out your choice and roll with it. Because we don't get it all in this life. And no, your DH doesn't either despite what PPs here may say.

Not true. Of course a hardworking parent in a high-powered career can "have it all" with a rich and fulfilling home life. How do we know? Because men have been doing it for generations. Wanting to "have it all" is not the problem. Partners who aren't on board are.

that's just not true. We cannot have it all. The definition of "having it all" has been being able to spend quality time with the kids, parent as you see fit, attain the career goals that you want and make the salary that you desire. Men have outsourced the first half of that for centuries and have not parented. They outsourced all home/parenting duties to SAHMs. If working moms want to outsource parenting to SAHDs they can absolutely do that, but they are not "having it all". That is the conundrum. Do you want the work life or the parenting life? Pick one and outsource or limit the other.

There are countless threads on DCUM where SAHMs say their long-hours working spouses are excellent parents. Are you saying the SAHMs are not describing their families accurately? That their husbands aren't parenting? That seems unduly judgmental to me.

Did you actually read this thread? Many of us have suggested that op’s dh could be the one to sah or cut back , or they both could downsize their jobs. What typically does not work is two careers with very high hours demands. This is not a woman’s issue, it’s a family issue.

You didn't read the context for what I said. The PP above me said that men didn't have it all (in response to a poster who observed that men did "have it all") because men who work long hours are not parenting. I think that is unduly harsh, though I actually agree that if the standard for being a good parent is not working long hours, then all these men working long hours with SAHM wives are actually bad parents (by that standard). I think that standard is bogus, but I also think that it is illogical to claim that OP will automatically become a "good parent" if she cuts back while her spouse continues long hours. In other words, if presence is what makes a good parent, it applies to both spouses.

I think your premise is wrong. One spouse can work long hours and still have time for themself and family time if the other spouse is handing most of the primary child care duties. Op’s husband probably is having it all, but she has the big job and is the default parent and is miserable.

I think the premise is that they can’t both have it all. And “having it all,” to me, includes at least one parent who is present for things like school conferences, sports practices or events, etc. It could be either parent, but it really should be one of them. Otherwise, what the heck is the point? I think to both have big careers as OP describes, they’ll have to outsource quite a bit of parenting, otherwise they’ll remain overwhelmed. And that, in my mind, is not “having it all.”

Agree completely,