What I’m noticing from millennial high achieving moms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

I think it meant a labor and delivery with no medical intervention, not the whole pregnancies. Home in a tub, whatever. Did someone say they were proud of it? Even so why would that bother you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

Lol. Why are you guys talking about epidurals on this thread?

Because a PP said that they’re seeing a trend of millennial moms skip epidurals as a flex. Not my experience personally, almost everyone I know wanted one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

I think it meant a labor and delivery with no medical intervention, not the whole pregnancies. Home in a tub, whatever. Did someone say they were proud of it? Even so why would that bother you?

My interpretation of PP's use of "natural pregnancy" is no IVF, no fertility treatments, etc. In a world where people are waiting longer to have children, I guess some people are using their fertility as a flex? The competitive type will find anything to be competitive about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

I think it meant a labor and delivery with no medical intervention, not the whole pregnancies. Home in a tub, whatever. Did someone say they were proud of it? Even so why would that bother you?

My interpretation of PP's use of "natural pregnancy" is no IVF, no fertility treatments, etc. In a world where people are waiting longer to have children, I guess some people are using their fertility as a flex? The competitive type will find anything to be competitive about.

Yep. I know a woman who insists on reminding us that her twins were natural, not IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

How gross. I think there's a lot of insecurity here - you regret "selling out" and wish you had meaningful work to do. As a former management consultant who went into government and LOVE my job now, I don't regret leaving the private sector one bit. I don't need much money to have a good life. But you will never get back all your hours as an excel monkey slaving away to make megacorp richer.

Where did I say that I’m grateful for selling out? Or even that I sold out? I was never on a path to be an NIH scientist. Also, where did I say that I was in Sales? Lots of insecurities on your end showing. I’m helping a FAANG decarbonize (google global warming) and getting paid a lot to do it. And I’m not jealous of my friends. We all went to the same undergrad and I got a very practical graduate degree and started earning a lot of money at a young age while they went through 4x the amount of grad school and can’t buy homes.

The PP I was responding to basically said high achieving is not high earning and my point was putting the idea of high achieving in a box and saying it has nothing to do with being high earning is disingenuous in the context of this conversation. Plenty of high achieving millennial moms are financially very stressed because they are not high earning. I provided a case in point. I’m glad you don’t need lots of money to be happy but I don’t recall that being in the OP’s post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

NIH scientists are doing admirable work making a difference in the world and you just have a job. I would take the scientists life over yours in a minute. You are ordinary which is fine but the work and intelligence it takes to be one of the scientists at NIH is extraordinary

You must be really insecure about your own choices (are you an NIH scientist?) if you get bent out of shape about someone pointing out how salary differentials impact how people live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

NIH scientists are doing admirable work making a difference in the world and you just have a job. I would take the scientists life over yours in a minute. You are ordinary which is fine but the work and intelligence it takes to be one of the scientists at NIH is extraordinary

You must be really insecure about your own choices (are you an NIH scientist?) if you get bent out of shape about someone pointing out how salary differentials impact how people live.

I’m a neutral party who is impressed by people who make science their profession. Tech is a necessary job but it’s not on the level of scientists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

I think it meant a labor and delivery with no medical intervention, not the whole pregnancies. Home in a tub, whatever. Did someone say they were proud of it? Even so why would that bother you?

My interpretation of PP's use of "natural pregnancy" is no IVF, no fertility treatments, etc. In a world where people are waiting longer to have children, I guess some people are using their fertility as a flex? The competitive type will find anything to be competitive about.

Yep. I know a woman who insists on reminding us that her twins were natural, not IVF.

I’d be annoyed too if everyone thought it was IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

NIH scientists are doing admirable work making a difference in the world and you just have a job. I would take the scientists life over yours in a minute. You are ordinary which is fine but the work and intelligence it takes to be one of the scientists at NIH is extraordinary

You must be really insecure about your own choices (are you an NIH scientist?) if you get bent out of shape about someone pointing out how salary differentials impact how people live.

DP. You are getting pushback because your definition of high-achieving is measured by income and elite education, and your disdain towards those who don't earn much. Pps are pointing out that other measures of success and achievement don't translate into the lifestyle described by the OP.
Nothing wrong with being motivated by money, but for many, being motivated by a purpose or passion is more admirable than luxury vacations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

NIH scientists are doing admirable work making a difference in the world and you just have a job. I would take the scientists life over yours in a minute. You are ordinary which is fine but the work and intelligence it takes to be one of the scientists at NIH is extraordinary

You must be really insecure about your own choices (are you an NIH scientist?) if you get bent out of shape about someone pointing out how salary differentials impact how people live.

DP. You are getting pushback because your definition of high-achieving is measured by income and elite education, and your disdain towards those who don't earn much. Pps are pointing out that other measures of success and achievement don't translate into the lifestyle described by the OP.
Nothing wrong with being motivated by money, but for many, being motivated by a purpose or passion is more admirable than luxury vacations.


I think you are deliberately or inadvertently misunderstanding that I’m saying it’s both. High achieving and high earning together. Why? Again, you are deliberately twisting what I wrote. I mentioned buying a house and quality childcare. You are twisting that to luxury vacations. You are making a totally different argument because you don’t want to argue on the merits of what I’m saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

I think it meant a labor and delivery with no medical intervention, not the whole pregnancies. Home in a tub, whatever. Did someone say they were proud of it? Even so why would that bother you?

My interpretation of PP's use of "natural pregnancy" is no IVF, no fertility treatments, etc. In a world where people are waiting longer to have children, I guess some people are using their fertility as a flex? The competitive type will find anything to be competitive about.

Yep. I know a woman who insists on reminding us that her twins were natural, not IVF.

+1 I know a woman who had twins in her late 30s and always tells people they were natural, not using artificial reproductive technology. I totally think multiple kids is a flex for rich parents nowadays. The more fertility rates drop, the more the “young mom” with lots of beautiful children and a loving rich husband becomes a flex

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

I think it meant a labor and delivery with no medical intervention, not the whole pregnancies. Home in a tub, whatever. Did someone say they were proud of it? Even so why would that bother you?

My interpretation of PP's use of "natural pregnancy" is no IVF, no fertility treatments, etc. In a world where people are waiting longer to have children, I guess some people are using their fertility as a flex? The competitive type will find anything to be competitive about.

Yep. I know a woman who insists on reminding us that her twins were natural, not IVF.

I’d be annoyed too if everyone thought it was IVF.

Why is it annoying if people think you used IFV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting convo. Oldest of the millennials here. Wife has been a SAHM to 3 kids for well over a decade. She worked for a F100 in management when she stepped away. If she’d stayed on track she’d make about 20-25% of what I make today. The money would be nice. But she was upfront with me from day 1 about wanting to SAHM.

Perhaps there is an assortment issue here. Overwhelming majority of our circle are in our boat with a SAHM. Of the few that do work, it is typically in a scaled back, flex role. The only exception is a mom of four in a big fed atty job and she makes about 10-15% of what her husband makes. So, not needed financially, but she likes to work.

I think what you describe is more typical of middle or lower middle class.
Op is describing upper middle class millennials

Really, middle or lower class would be making 10 - 15% of HHI with a fed attorney salary?? I didn't realize lower or middle class hhi was 1 mil but this is DCUM

Ha! I had that thought too. What is pp talking about that a seven figure HHI is lower middle class?

This thread isn’t about husbands income. It’s about a woman’s status regardless of their husband’s job. The question is if these women were high achievers/ Ivy League type grad in fields like law, medicine , engineering, etc. these are the woman we are discussing.

Many posters conflate high-achieving and high-earning. I know know many academics (PIs, tenured professors). Many of them are well-recognized in their respective fields but not necessarily highly compensated.

I don’t think it’s a conflation. Being an award winning NIH scientist is very impressive but making $160K at 36 in DC after attending Harvard and Cambridge for years is not that impressive. Barely or not being able to afford a house in your late 30s or not being able to have your first kid until 35 or 36 due to post doc obligations is not really a flex. Two of my friends meet the above criteria except one is at NIH and one is a professor in Europe (trying to be deliberately vague so I don’t identify them). They are both 36 and married to nice guys who are not high earners. Neither owns a house. One has two children and one just had her first. Kids are all in daycare settings all day due to work obligations and the cost of a nanny. I am in tech and thankful every day that I did not pursue a DPhil and that life. I make double what they do and am remote. I also met my very successful husband working in the real world. Having money is a total flex.

NIH scientists are doing admirable work making a difference in the world and you just have a job. I would take the scientists life over yours in a minute. You are ordinary which is fine but the work and intelligence it takes to be one of the scientists at NIH is extraordinary

You must be really insecure about your own choices (are you an NIH scientist?) if you get bent out of shape about someone pointing out how salary differentials impact how people live.

DP. You are getting pushback because your definition of high-achieving is measured by income and elite education, and your disdain towards those who don't earn much. Pps are pointing out that other measures of success and achievement don't translate into the lifestyle described by the OP.
Nothing wrong with being motivated by money, but for many, being motivated by a purpose or passion is more admirable than luxury vacations.


I think you are deliberately or inadvertently misunderstanding that I’m saying it’s both. High achieving and high earning together. Why? Again, you are deliberately twisting what I wrote. I mentioned buying a house and quality childcare. You are twisting that to luxury vacations. You are making a totally different argument because you don’t want to argue on the merits of what I’m saying.

First of all, you mentioned liking your vacations (in the same sentence where you mention the nanny and the house). OP describes high-achieving Ivy League-educated moms. It does not state the income.

Most of my high-achieving scientist female friends have high-earning partners. The number of kids and the quality of daycare varies.
The male scientists have SAH partners and pick up some side jobs to provide for their families and have a career they are passionate about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

I think it meant a labor and delivery with no medical intervention, not the whole pregnancies. Home in a tub, whatever. Did someone say they were proud of it? Even so why would that bother you?

My interpretation of PP's use of "natural pregnancy" is no IVF, no fertility treatments, etc. In a world where people are waiting longer to have children, I guess some people are using their fertility as a flex? The competitive type will find anything to be competitive about.

Yep. I know a woman who insists on reminding us that her twins were natural, not IVF.

I’d be annoyed too if everyone thought it was IVF.

Who cares? Who cares if it’s ivf? Why would anyone care and why would you care? Insanity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

I think it meant a labor and delivery with no medical intervention, not the whole pregnancies. Home in a tub, whatever. Did someone say they were proud of it? Even so why would that bother you?

My interpretation of PP's use of "natural pregnancy" is no IVF, no fertility treatments, etc. In a world where people are waiting longer to have children, I guess some people are using their fertility as a flex? The competitive type will find anything to be competitive about.

Yep. I know a woman who insists on reminding us that her twins were natural, not IVF.

+1 I know a woman who had twins in her late 30s and always tells people they were natural, not using artificial reproductive technology. I totally think multiple kids is a flex for rich parents nowadays. The more fertility rates drop, the more the “young mom” with lots of beautiful children and a loving rich husband becomes a flex

Multiple kids is a flex. It’s also very risky unless you have high net worth and can deal if one parents income bites the bullet