Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Good thing he will make it to superbowl, even if not your kids graduation! Lucky fam!
Why would he not go to my child’s graduation?
Do you think every physician is a bad parent? So odd.
Just the one who hasn't been around for 20 yrs. per your post.
He has only been a parent for 10 so there should be enough time for him to go to our kids’ future graduations.
Yes, he does not attend school events during the school day. I attend all of those. Some dads do come but the majority of attendees are moms. I handle mornings and after school and get the kids to dance, soccer, basketball, etc. He operates late 2-3 times per week. He has dinner with us on the other nights and takes the kids to their activities when he can. DH loves sports. He went to 2 of our kids’ sports games tonight.
Sorry, when is he around? HE doesn't even see the kids in the mornings? Wow.
OMG---you are relentless and beyond ridiculous! ES started at 9:20 for my kids. We were a 2 min drive from school, drop-off started at 9am. Let's see, I had kids who liked to sleep, so they got up at 8:15/8:30 to get to school.
My husband's job was 46 miles from home--so an hour commute (on a good day). He typically left for work by 7:30am at the latest. So yeah, nope, he didn't see the kids in the AM. Same for when they were in Preschool---we left at 8:50 for 9am drop-off.
99% of working parents were not going to see their kid before they leave, unless you mean quality time where you drag the kids out of bed at 6:20am, change their clothing and make them use the bathroom, then put them in the car to drive to daycare, dropping off so you both can get to work for the day. Are you referring to that quality time in the morning?
why do you think most parents aren't seeing their kid before school? the only parents i know who aren't seeing their kid before school are on wall street. Other than that and medical/ postal workers/ bus drivers and early store openers - most ppl have time to see their kid before school.
Can you read? ?!?!?! No, most people don't really "see their kids before school" Most parents are doing the best they can to shuttle the kids out the door to school on time. And even more stress and Time constraints if the parent (mom or dad) is trying to get the kids to before care and make it themselves to a job on time.
Almost all of my friend's kids didn't see their working parent before school. Why? Because the kids were still sleeping when that parent had to leave for work. Nobody wakes a kid up at 6am to have some quality time with a 6 yo---smart parents allow the kid to get some damn sleep.
Then again, maybe you and your friends all have jobs that don't start until 9am+? Or you live next-door to work? Or you don't understand that yes, there ar plenty of jobs where people leave for work at 7am daily (hour commute, gets you there at 8)
The only ones that saw both parents were kids being dragged to daycare/before care at 6:45/7am. Not exactly high quality time with your kids.
i think you are missing the point that the kids of parents who dont see them before school are either the kids of families who are likely not in a position to choose whether or not to work bc they are trying to make ends meet, or the kids of finance people who are making bank.
if you are in a position to choose whether or not to work, you are likely not also the same person who is being dragged out of the house at 5am to do said work.
Well, 95%+ of my friends spouses did not see the kids in the AM, or if they did, it was a very quick hello on the way out the door (and the kids were early risers--some 4 yo do get up at 6am, not all, but some)
Hint: none of my friends worked in Finance, and none were poor/working to make ends meet. All people in a variety of jobs (jobs that require a BS/MS) and making $150-200K. One was an architect---commute to work was almost an hour. Much of the time it was "on the project site", where you cannot just show up at 9am---you have to be there when the construction workers are there.
Many were in Tech. But none were in Wall Street finance like you are thinking.
And then if the 2nd parent went back to work, there was no quality time in the AM. It was rushing and sometimes yelling to get the slow half asleep kid up, ready and out the door to drop off so they could both get to work. I was drop-off for one friend and her kids for 2+ years in ES. Trust me, there was no "quality time" with those kids at that hour---they would rather have been sleeping
You do have trouble reading dont you? Nothing was said about quality time - just that a pps husband didnt even see his kids in the morning. Sounds like all those parents youre talking about DO see their kids. Is it the bestest quality time? Maybe not, but they still see them. So no, your 95% stat is clearly wrong. You keep twisting words to try and make your point, but it's just... incorrect.
Well I guess we value quality time a bit more than just "any time" when everyone is cranky and stressed. So once again, do what works for your family. But don't denigrate people who chose to have a SAHP and one in a higher powered (and most likely higher paying) career path and say the parent working longer hours/traveling for work is not "raising their kids". They are doing what works for them. Just like 2 career (or single parent) households are doing.
Sure, people value things differently. But you are purposely twisting words into things that are what YOU want, rather than what the pps have written. I highly doubt a surgeon who comes home at 9pm and kisses the kids when theyre already asleep considers that quality time either.
Going forward, it would be helpful if you replied to the actual topic at hand, instead of pretzeling to make your inaccurate point.
aren't we all glad when our heart stops beating or our leg gets severed in a car crash that there IS a surgeon of any gender willing to miss their kids bedtime to fix us? good LORD the myopathy is grueling on this thread.
Of course, has anyone said otherwise? Just that he cares more about his job (very important, life saving job) than his family. Which is fine.
WOW.
uh - no. You can care about both, you actual psychopath. In fact you can care MORE about your family and still have a demanding job that frequently prevents you putting children to bed. Both can be true. I'm sorry that you are mentally Amish.
Does this only apply if you have a penis? Because this whole thread is about working moms getting told they don't care about their family, they aren't raising their kids, etc etc. What kind of hypocrisy is this?
This whole thread? You’ve probably contributed half the posts denigrating women who stay at home who have done nothing to you. Why are yoj so angry? What is wrong with you?
Definitely not - there are multiple posters on here you know. But interesting that you still won't say that working moms are raising their kids. It does apparently only apply if you have a penis!
I don’t work for you so I won’t cave to your demands.
It's clear where you stand. Misogyny runs deep.
Like you who thinks female surgeons are the worst bc they dont have fake work from home jobs? Girl power!
Are you twisting words again? Can't ever respond to what was actually said, because you have no real response? How sad that your reading comprehension is this horrible. Are you sure you graduated HS?
I am not going to take you seriously because you’re a troll.
Very much not a troll. Just someone who disagrees that a man working 100h a week is a great dad but a woman who works 40h is a sh*t mom.
Working women are raising their children. That's all. You don't agree. That's fine. Misogynistic, but fine.
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Good thing he will make it to superbowl, even if not your kids graduation! Lucky fam!
Why would he not go to my child’s graduation?
Do you think every physician is a bad parent? So odd.
Just the one who hasn't been around for 20 yrs. per your post.
He has only been a parent for 10 so there should be enough time for him to go to our kids’ future graduations.
Yes, he does not attend school events during the school day. I attend all of those. Some dads do come but the majority of attendees are moms. I handle mornings and after school and get the kids to dance, soccer, basketball, etc. He operates late 2-3 times per week. He has dinner with us on the other nights and takes the kids to their activities when he can. DH loves sports. He went to 2 of our kids’ sports games tonight.
Sorry, when is he around? HE doesn't even see the kids in the mornings? Wow.
OMG---you are relentless and beyond ridiculous! ES started at 9:20 for my kids. We were a 2 min drive from school, drop-off started at 9am. Let's see, I had kids who liked to sleep, so they got up at 8:15/8:30 to get to school.
My husband's job was 46 miles from home--so an hour commute (on a good day). He typically left for work by 7:30am at the latest. So yeah, nope, he didn't see the kids in the AM. Same for when they were in Preschool---we left at 8:50 for 9am drop-off.
99% of working parents were not going to see their kid before they leave, unless you mean quality time where you drag the kids out of bed at 6:20am, change their clothing and make them use the bathroom, then put them in the car to drive to daycare, dropping off so you both can get to work for the day. Are you referring to that quality time in the morning?
why do you think most parents aren't seeing their kid before school? the only parents i know who aren't seeing their kid before school are on wall street. Other than that and medical/ postal workers/ bus drivers and early store openers - most ppl have time to see their kid before school.
Can you read? ?!?!?! No, most people don't really "see their kids before school" Most parents are doing the best they can to shuttle the kids out the door to school on time. And even more stress and Time constraints if the parent (mom or dad) is trying to get the kids to before care and make it themselves to a job on time.
Almost all of my friend's kids didn't see their working parent before school. Why? Because the kids were still sleeping when that parent had to leave for work. Nobody wakes a kid up at 6am to have some quality time with a 6 yo---smart parents allow the kid to get some damn sleep.
Then again, maybe you and your friends all have jobs that don't start until 9am+? Or you live next-door to work? Or you don't understand that yes, there ar plenty of jobs where people leave for work at 7am daily (hour commute, gets you there at 8)
The only ones that saw both parents were kids being dragged to daycare/before care at 6:45/7am. Not exactly high quality time with your kids.
i think you are missing the point that the kids of parents who dont see them before school are either the kids of families who are likely not in a position to choose whether or not to work bc they are trying to make ends meet, or the kids of finance people who are making bank.
if you are in a position to choose whether or not to work, you are likely not also the same person who is being dragged out of the house at 5am to do said work.
Well, 95%+ of my friends spouses did not see the kids in the AM, or if they did, it was a very quick hello on the way out the door (and the kids were early risers--some 4 yo do get up at 6am, not all, but some)
Hint: none of my friends worked in Finance, and none were poor/working to make ends meet. All people in a variety of jobs (jobs that require a BS/MS) and making $150-200K. One was an architect---commute to work was almost an hour. Much of the time it was "on the project site", where you cannot just show up at 9am---you have to be there when the construction workers are there.
Many were in Tech. But none were in Wall Street finance like you are thinking.
And then if the 2nd parent went back to work, there was no quality time in the AM. It was rushing and sometimes yelling to get the slow half asleep kid up, ready and out the door to drop off so they could both get to work. I was drop-off for one friend and her kids for 2+ years in ES. Trust me, there was no "quality time" with those kids at that hour---they would rather have been sleeping
You do have trouble reading dont you? Nothing was said about quality time - just that a pps husband didnt even see his kids in the morning. Sounds like all those parents youre talking about DO see their kids. Is it the bestest quality time? Maybe not, but they still see them. So no, your 95% stat is clearly wrong. You keep twisting words to try and make your point, but it's just... incorrect.
Well I guess we value quality time a bit more than just "any time" when everyone is cranky and stressed. So once again, do what works for your family. But don't denigrate people who chose to have a SAHP and one in a higher powered (and most likely higher paying) career path and say the parent working longer hours/traveling for work is not "raising their kids". They are doing what works for them. Just like 2 career (or single parent) households are doing.
Sure, people value things differently. But you are purposely twisting words into things that are what YOU want, rather than what the pps have written. I highly doubt a surgeon who comes home at 9pm and kisses the kids when theyre already asleep considers that quality time either.
Going forward, it would be helpful if you replied to the actual topic at hand, instead of pretzeling to make your inaccurate point.
aren't we all glad when our heart stops beating or our leg gets severed in a car crash that there IS a surgeon of any gender willing to miss their kids bedtime to fix us? good LORD the myopathy is grueling on this thread.
Of course, has anyone said otherwise? Just that he cares more about his job (very important, life saving job) than his family. Which is fine.
WOW.
uh - no. You can care about both, you actual psychopath. In fact you can care MORE about your family and still have a demanding job that frequently prevents you putting children to bed. Both can be true. I'm sorry that you are mentally Amish.
Does this only apply if you have a penis? Because this whole thread is about working moms getting told they don't care about their family, they aren't raising their kids, etc etc. What kind of hypocrisy is this?
This whole thread? You’ve probably contributed half the posts denigrating women who stay at home who have done nothing to you. Why are yoj so angry? What is wrong with you?
Definitely not - there are multiple posters on here you know. But interesting that you still won't say that working moms are raising their kids. It does apparently only apply if you have a penis!
The prior PP is correct that this "whole thread" is not an attack on working moms. I'd venture that at most 10% - and that's generous - of the posts have agreed that working moms do not "raise" their kids. A significant percentage of post disagreed, and then the remaining posts were about a whole bunch of other crap.
It's nuts to me that a working mom apparently defending against the statement in the OP would say that a surgeon chose career over their kids and isn't raising their kids. No one has answered my question: if you think this about a dad surgeon, do you also think it's true of a mom surgeon? She chose career over her kids and isn't a real mom?
Apparently people who choose their careers over their family actually care MORE about their families, but only if you're a man. If youre a woman, you're still a sh*t mom. Dad who never sees their kids? Still raising them, probably getting a dad of the year award.
I don't think a surgeon has chosen career over family. I think they are both a surgeon and a mom or dad. And, you bet I think a parent that only sees their kids at bedtime or on the weekend can be an excellent parent. Why are you -- seemingly a working mom -- suggesting otherwise?
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Choosing to have kids is your choice. There are people who do not choose that. So why should we all pay for you wanting to have a kid and stay home for more than 12 weeks? If you are an adult, you plan for that accordingly.
I'd much rather see universal healthcare as a thing, as it would literally benefit everyone, than universal maternity leave funded by the government.
Nobody is saying you cannot take the leave, just that you have to pay for your life choices.
If I choose to take 3 months off to care for an elderly parent or aunt or uncle, do I get paid time off? Where do you stop with "it benefits society"? I'd support a law that enables people to get time off each year, for family needs, and keep their job/a job at the company that is similar. But I do not think we should be funding any of that for the employees. It's up to the employer what to provide.
But why should everyone else fund your choice to have a kid? Or to have multiple kids? Do childless people get a sabbatical in place of not having kids?
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Good thing he will make it to superbowl, even if not your kids graduation! Lucky fam!
Why would he not go to my child’s graduation?
Do you think every physician is a bad parent? So odd.
Just the one who hasn't been around for 20 yrs. per your post.
He has only been a parent for 10 so there should be enough time for him to go to our kids’ future graduations.
Yes, he does not attend school events during the school day. I attend all of those. Some dads do come but the majority of attendees are moms. I handle mornings and after school and get the kids to dance, soccer, basketball, etc. He operates late 2-3 times per week. He has dinner with us on the other nights and takes the kids to their activities when he can. DH loves sports. He went to 2 of our kids’ sports games tonight.
Sorry, when is he around? HE doesn't even see the kids in the mornings? Wow.
OMG---you are relentless and beyond ridiculous! ES started at 9:20 for my kids. We were a 2 min drive from school, drop-off started at 9am. Let's see, I had kids who liked to sleep, so they got up at 8:15/8:30 to get to school.
My husband's job was 46 miles from home--so an hour commute (on a good day). He typically left for work by 7:30am at the latest. So yeah, nope, he didn't see the kids in the AM. Same for when they were in Preschool---we left at 8:50 for 9am drop-off.
99% of working parents were not going to see their kid before they leave, unless you mean quality time where you drag the kids out of bed at 6:20am, change their clothing and make them use the bathroom, then put them in the car to drive to daycare, dropping off so you both can get to work for the day. Are you referring to that quality time in the morning?
why do you think most parents aren't seeing their kid before school? the only parents i know who aren't seeing their kid before school are on wall street. Other than that and medical/ postal workers/ bus drivers and early store openers - most ppl have time to see their kid before school.
Can you read? ?!?!?! No, most people don't really "see their kids before school" Most parents are doing the best they can to shuttle the kids out the door to school on time. And even more stress and Time constraints if the parent (mom or dad) is trying to get the kids to before care and make it themselves to a job on time.
Almost all of my friend's kids didn't see their working parent before school. Why? Because the kids were still sleeping when that parent had to leave for work. Nobody wakes a kid up at 6am to have some quality time with a 6 yo---smart parents allow the kid to get some damn sleep.
Then again, maybe you and your friends all have jobs that don't start until 9am+? Or you live next-door to work? Or you don't understand that yes, there ar plenty of jobs where people leave for work at 7am daily (hour commute, gets you there at 8)
The only ones that saw both parents were kids being dragged to daycare/before care at 6:45/7am. Not exactly high quality time with your kids.
i think you are missing the point that the kids of parents who dont see them before school are either the kids of families who are likely not in a position to choose whether or not to work bc they are trying to make ends meet, or the kids of finance people who are making bank.
if you are in a position to choose whether or not to work, you are likely not also the same person who is being dragged out of the house at 5am to do said work.
Well, 95%+ of my friends spouses did not see the kids in the AM, or if they did, it was a very quick hello on the way out the door (and the kids were early risers--some 4 yo do get up at 6am, not all, but some)
Hint: none of my friends worked in Finance, and none were poor/working to make ends meet. All people in a variety of jobs (jobs that require a BS/MS) and making $150-200K. One was an architect---commute to work was almost an hour. Much of the time it was "on the project site", where you cannot just show up at 9am---you have to be there when the construction workers are there.
Many were in Tech. But none were in Wall Street finance like you are thinking.
And then if the 2nd parent went back to work, there was no quality time in the AM. It was rushing and sometimes yelling to get the slow half asleep kid up, ready and out the door to drop off so they could both get to work. I was drop-off for one friend and her kids for 2+ years in ES. Trust me, there was no "quality time" with those kids at that hour---they would rather have been sleeping
You do have trouble reading dont you? Nothing was said about quality time - just that a pps husband didnt even see his kids in the morning. Sounds like all those parents youre talking about DO see their kids. Is it the bestest quality time? Maybe not, but they still see them. So no, your 95% stat is clearly wrong. You keep twisting words to try and make your point, but it's just... incorrect.
Well I guess we value quality time a bit more than just "any time" when everyone is cranky and stressed. So once again, do what works for your family. But don't denigrate people who chose to have a SAHP and one in a higher powered (and most likely higher paying) career path and say the parent working longer hours/traveling for work is not "raising their kids". They are doing what works for them. Just like 2 career (or single parent) households are doing.
Sure, people value things differently. But you are purposely twisting words into things that are what YOU want, rather than what the pps have written. I highly doubt a surgeon who comes home at 9pm and kisses the kids when theyre already asleep considers that quality time either.
Going forward, it would be helpful if you replied to the actual topic at hand, instead of pretzeling to make your inaccurate point.
But that surgeon (I'm not that Poster btw), likely has the weekends to spend quality time with their kids, and the non surgery days, is home at 5/6pm. Also, when you or a family member needs a highly qualified surgeon, I bet you are hoping there are plenty around, not just people who chose not to have kids, right? That would greatly limit the number (and thus quality) of surgeons available to society.
I grew up in a 2 parent working home to pay the bills (barely). One parent worked in office setting, so in at 8, out by 5 most days (as an secretary back in the day)--but if boss needed you to stay late to do something, you had no choice if you wanted to keep your job.
other parent worked in factories. Manytimes 2nd or 3rd shifts. So when dad leaves for work at 4/5pm and gets home at 2am, There is not really any "seeing the kids". I only saw him on weekends or for 30 mins before he left for work as a teen. He was at work or sleeping quite frankly anytime I was home. Plenty of kids life life like this. It's no different for a surgeon, except in that situation, the kid has all of their needs met (if they need new shoes, they aren't told, wait until next paycheck and just wear the ones with holes until then, we don't have the money) and has no worries about having quality food to eat.
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Choosing to have kids is your choice. There are people who do not choose that. So why should we all pay for you wanting to have a kid and stay home for more than 12 weeks? If you are an adult, you plan for that accordingly.
I'd much rather see universal healthcare as a thing, as it would literally benefit everyone, than universal maternity leave funded by the government.
Nobody is saying you cannot take the leave, just that you have to pay for your life choices.
If I choose to take 3 months off to care for an elderly parent or aunt or uncle, do I get paid time off? Where do you stop with "it benefits society"? I'd support a law that enables people to get time off each year, for family needs, and keep their job/a job at the company that is similar. But I do not think we should be funding any of that for the employees. It's up to the employer what to provide.
But why should everyone else fund your choice to have a kid? Or to have multiple kids? Do childless people get a sabbatical in place of not having kids?
It’s ultimately better for the economy for people to a) have kids and b) not need to leave the workforce after having kids. Most wealthy nations have universal maternal leave - many of them have it for a year, and also heavily subsidize childcare. A lot of the same nations also have universal healthcare, with private options.
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Not that pp. most Americans would not want to pay 50+% tax. I wouldn’t and I’m a sahm. I got 12 weeks maternity leave and I took an additional 4 weeks unpaid. I would not expect a year paid, especially when I had only worked at that company for less than 2 years. Having a job protected is another possibility but that company probably needs to hire someone to cover that year and it isn’t fair to take that job from the new person either.
Thank you! And yes, job protection has never meant, the exact same job. Because as a company, If someone is gone for 6 months, I'm hiring or promoting (and hiring for their job) for someone to do that job. I'm not firing that person after 6 months. Someone has to do the work. For 12 weeks or 16 weeks, I'm having co-workers step up and do the extra work. But much more than that and you have to have someone doing the job. I'm running a company and if your job is meaningful and necessary, I need someone doing it. I cannot just have co-workers stepping up for 6-12 months, that is not fair to any of them (it isn't for 12 weeks either--but that's easier to manage).
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Choosing to have kids is your choice. There are people who do not choose that. So why should we all pay for you wanting to have a kid and stay home for more than 12 weeks? If you are an adult, you plan for that accordingly.
I'd much rather see universal healthcare as a thing, as it would literally benefit everyone, than universal maternity leave funded by the government.
Nobody is saying you cannot take the leave, just that you have to pay for your life choices.
If I choose to take 3 months off to care for an elderly parent or aunt or uncle, do I get paid time off? Where do you stop with "it benefits society"? I'd support a law that enables people to get time off each year, for family needs, and keep their job/a job at the company that is similar. But I do not think we should be funding any of that for the employees. It's up to the employer what to provide.
But why should everyone else fund your choice to have a kid? Or to have multiple kids? Do childless people get a sabbatical in place of not having kids?
It’s ultimately better for the economy for people to a) have kids and b) not need to leave the workforce after having kids. Most wealthy nations have universal maternal leave - many of them have it for a year, and also heavily subsidize childcare. A lot of the same nations also have universal healthcare, with private options.
+1
These things go hand in hand. It comes down to caring about citizens as a whole.
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Not that pp. most Americans would not want to pay 50+% tax. I wouldn’t and I’m a sahm. I got 12 weeks maternity leave and I took an additional 4 weeks unpaid. I would not expect a year paid, especially when I had only worked at that company for less than 2 years. Having a job protected is another possibility but that company probably needs to hire someone to cover that year and it isn’t fair to take that job from the new person either.
Thank you! And yes, job protection has never meant, the exact same job. Because as a company, If someone is gone for 6 months, I'm hiring or promoting (and hiring for their job) for someone to do that job. I'm not firing that person after 6 months. Someone has to do the work. For 12 weeks or 16 weeks, I'm having co-workers step up and do the extra work. But much more than that and you have to have someone doing the job. I'm running a company and if your job is meaningful and necessary, I need someone doing it. I cannot just have co-workers stepping up for 6-12 months, that is not fair to any of them (it isn't for 12 weeks either--but that's easier to manage).
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Good thing he will make it to superbowl, even if not your kids graduation! Lucky fam!
Why would he not go to my child’s graduation?
Do you think every physician is a bad parent? So odd.
Just the one who hasn't been around for 20 yrs. per your post.
He has only been a parent for 10 so there should be enough time for him to go to our kids’ future graduations.
Yes, he does not attend school events during the school day. I attend all of those. Some dads do come but the majority of attendees are moms. I handle mornings and after school and get the kids to dance, soccer, basketball, etc. He operates late 2-3 times per week. He has dinner with us on the other nights and takes the kids to their activities when he can. DH loves sports. He went to 2 of our kids’ sports games tonight.
Sorry, when is he around? HE doesn't even see the kids in the mornings? Wow.
OMG---you are relentless and beyond ridiculous! ES started at 9:20 for my kids. We were a 2 min drive from school, drop-off started at 9am. Let's see, I had kids who liked to sleep, so they got up at 8:15/8:30 to get to school.
My husband's job was 46 miles from home--so an hour commute (on a good day). He typically left for work by 7:30am at the latest. So yeah, nope, he didn't see the kids in the AM. Same for when they were in Preschool---we left at 8:50 for 9am drop-off.
99% of working parents were not going to see their kid before they leave, unless you mean quality time where you drag the kids out of bed at 6:20am, change their clothing and make them use the bathroom, then put them in the car to drive to daycare, dropping off so you both can get to work for the day. Are you referring to that quality time in the morning?
why do you think most parents aren't seeing their kid before school? the only parents i know who aren't seeing their kid before school are on wall street. Other than that and medical/ postal workers/ bus drivers and early store openers - most ppl have time to see their kid before school.
Can you read? ?!?!?! No, most people don't really "see their kids before school" Most parents are doing the best they can to shuttle the kids out the door to school on time. And even more stress and Time constraints if the parent (mom or dad) is trying to get the kids to before care and make it themselves to a job on time.
Almost all of my friend's kids didn't see their working parent before school. Why? Because the kids were still sleeping when that parent had to leave for work. Nobody wakes a kid up at 6am to have some quality time with a 6 yo---smart parents allow the kid to get some damn sleep.
Then again, maybe you and your friends all have jobs that don't start until 9am+? Or you live next-door to work? Or you don't understand that yes, there ar plenty of jobs where people leave for work at 7am daily (hour commute, gets you there at 8)
The only ones that saw both parents were kids being dragged to daycare/before care at 6:45/7am. Not exactly high quality time with your kids.
i think you are missing the point that the kids of parents who dont see them before school are either the kids of families who are likely not in a position to choose whether or not to work bc they are trying to make ends meet, or the kids of finance people who are making bank.
if you are in a position to choose whether or not to work, you are likely not also the same person who is being dragged out of the house at 5am to do said work.
Well, 95%+ of my friends spouses did not see the kids in the AM, or if they did, it was a very quick hello on the way out the door (and the kids were early risers--some 4 yo do get up at 6am, not all, but some)
Hint: none of my friends worked in Finance, and none were poor/working to make ends meet. All people in a variety of jobs (jobs that require a BS/MS) and making $150-200K. One was an architect---commute to work was almost an hour. Much of the time it was "on the project site", where you cannot just show up at 9am---you have to be there when the construction workers are there.
Many were in Tech. But none were in Wall Street finance like you are thinking.
And then if the 2nd parent went back to work, there was no quality time in the AM. It was rushing and sometimes yelling to get the slow half asleep kid up, ready and out the door to drop off so they could both get to work. I was drop-off for one friend and her kids for 2+ years in ES. Trust me, there was no "quality time" with those kids at that hour---they would rather have been sleeping
You do have trouble reading dont you? Nothing was said about quality time - just that a pps husband didnt even see his kids in the morning. Sounds like all those parents youre talking about DO see their kids. Is it the bestest quality time? Maybe not, but they still see them. So no, your 95% stat is clearly wrong. You keep twisting words to try and make your point, but it's just... incorrect.
Well I guess we value quality time a bit more than just "any time" when everyone is cranky and stressed. So once again, do what works for your family. But don't denigrate people who chose to have a SAHP and one in a higher powered (and most likely higher paying) career path and say the parent working longer hours/traveling for work is not "raising their kids". They are doing what works for them. Just like 2 career (or single parent) households are doing.
Sure, people value things differently. But you are purposely twisting words into things that are what YOU want, rather than what the pps have written. I highly doubt a surgeon who comes home at 9pm and kisses the kids when theyre already asleep considers that quality time either.
Going forward, it would be helpful if you replied to the actual topic at hand, instead of pretzeling to make your inaccurate point.
aren't we all glad when our heart stops beating or our leg gets severed in a car crash that there IS a surgeon of any gender willing to miss their kids bedtime to fix us? good LORD the myopathy is grueling on this thread.
Of course, has anyone said otherwise? Just that he cares more about his job (very important, life saving job) than his family. Which is fine.
WOW.
uh - no. You can care about both, you actual psychopath. In fact you can care MORE about your family and still have a demanding job that frequently prevents you putting children to bed. Both can be true. I'm sorry that you are mentally Amish.
Does this only apply if you have a penis? Because this whole thread is about working moms getting told they don't care about their family, they aren't raising their kids, etc etc. What kind of hypocrisy is this?
This whole thread? You’ve probably contributed half the posts denigrating women who stay at home who have done nothing to you. Why are yoj so angry? What is wrong with you?
Definitely not - there are multiple posters on here you know. But interesting that you still won't say that working moms are raising their kids. It does apparently only apply if you have a penis!
The prior PP is correct that this "whole thread" is not an attack on working moms. I'd venture that at most 10% - and that's generous - of the posts have agreed that working moms do not "raise" their kids. A significant percentage of post disagreed, and then the remaining posts were about a whole bunch of other crap.
It's nuts to me that a working mom apparently defending against the statement in the OP would say that a surgeon chose career over their kids and isn't raising their kids. No one has answered my question: if you think this about a dad surgeon, do you also think it's true of a mom surgeon? She chose career over her kids and isn't a real mom?
Apparently people who choose their careers over their family actually care MORE about their families, but only if you're a man. If youre a woman, you're still a sh*t mom. Dad who never sees their kids? Still raising them, probably getting a dad of the year award.
Since you have not answered my question, I assume it's safe to conclude that you bleive mom surgeons are not raising their kids either. Noted.
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Ummm...I never stated that. That was different poster.
Both parents can have whatever career aspirations they want. In our household, we felt it was silly to have kids and have BOTH parents wanting to pursue a highly stressful, high travel type of career. We didn't feel it was fair to have kids then have a few full time nannies who would take care of them if/when we both had to travel Sunday to Friday. Or whose jobs would require them rarely to be home until 7/8pm. So we CHOSE to have one pursue the high powered path and the other to focus more on the kids. I don't care if it's the mom or dad or both who pursues that. If you are fine with several weeks per month having neither parent home (they are traveling for work) or neither home until the kids are in bed most nights, then you go for it. We were not fine with that, and didn't have family nearby, so we chose to not do that (but we were on that path prekids. )
We felt that wasn't fair to the kids, so I chose to SAHP. I could have just scaled back to PT, but once I had my first, I wanted to be at home.
And some people think it isn't fair to their kids to be raised by only one parent. To each their own.
They are raised by both parents. One just isn't around quite as much as the one who is there 24/7. Just like a kid who goes to daycare/before care at 7am and isn't picked up from daycare/aftercare until 6:30pm, isn't around their parents during that time.
So kid gets 3-4 waking hours with both parents a day or full time with one parent and 1-2 hours a day with the other. And then most weekends dad is around and involved (plans when they have to do work calls/work around the kid's schedule so they don't miss important events with the kids--games/concerts/recitals/etc)
Oh and the perks of that mean instead of making $300-350k we make $800K+ and don't have to worry about college, our retirement, paying for kid's activities (one did travel ball, other did competitive dance at $20K/year).
You can pick whichever you want. Others will pick accordingly for their family.
Your hypocrisy is so astounding, but I'm hoping you can finally see it 150 pages in.
You say kids with a SAHM and a working dad are raised by both parents. But the OP said that working moms don't raise their kids.
So either you agree that the OP is untrue and offensive or you're a hypocrite. Which one is it?
Not what I'm saying. You are confusing many other Posters with me.
In all situations, the kids are being raised by both parents. I have never stated WOHM don't raise their kids.
Once again, you do what works for you. Stop denigrating other people for their choices.
And stop being jealous that someone has the finances and healthy marriage and ability to choose to stay at home. That's their choice. Just like many women choose to work because they get great joy from their career.
Hint: Both are smart women, both use their brains. So stop with the antics of degrading people.
Lol! Let's not equate those two. We see plenty of SAHMs on here trapped in terrible marriages but they can't leave. Just because you stay home does not mean you have a healthy marriage.
In our UMC/UC neighborhood, the SAHMs seem to be in good marriages, at least when the kids are still young. The MC SAHMs I knew mostly went back to work when kids were school aged.
Most married people seem unhappy in their 50s whether the wife works or not. At that point, kids don’t really need them whether they are teens or out of the house already.
I don’t know trapped SAHMs. These women would get money if they divorced.
Bolded is the important thing here. You have no idea what goes on behind closed doors, don't pretend like you know every detail about every sahp in your neighborhood.
You may get money if you leave, but you also get your kids for less time.
Of course I don’t know every family. The demanding job working moms seem the most unhappy in marriages, the ones where they are the breadwinner and they have a lower achieving husband.
I’m thinking of this one couple we know where mom is big time lawyer, definitely makes $$$ and works a lot. She always has a scowl and barking at the husband. If she treats him that way in public, I wonder how they are in private.
he most likely isn't stepping up to take the full load of being a SAHP off of her. If I'm working long hours and the sole breadwinner, I dont' want to be the one arranging playdates, scheduling doctors appointments, coming home and figuring out what's for dinner. I expect the parent at home to be doing their "job".
Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by the fact that no one on this thread is like - hey - how could we help women. How could we make it better for ourselves? What if instead of warring we all agreed we want the best for our kids and it would be great if we could have flexible jobs that allowed for great family balance and a good social safety net. No - were like - you suck because you care about stupid college and I am at peace. Truly why don’t we work toward a more equitable future instead of this endless loop
I'm a pp who suggested long mat leaves, but a sahm shut that down quickly. How dare she have to pay for someone elses mat leave! Even though it benefits every parent! I'm also pro pat leave.
Well it is not really the government's job to pay for long maternity leaves, IMO. I don't want to go to the tax levels that countries who provide this tax people.
However, they should put a plan into place that ensures you can "come back and get your job back/similar job back" after X months. But no (I'm DP) don't think we need to fund that. If you want to take 6 months off of a 12 months off, then you plan for that and save for that before you have a kid. Or you take part of it without pay.
In reality, companies should be more flexible in allowing parents to work PT after maternity leave (and for Dads). But this should be something offered to any employee after a "life event"---so someone who needs to do the same for an elderly parent has choices as well.
So you are the person who doesn't want to support other parents in mat leave? Got it. Way to make it harder for all women, but you save a few pennies on your taxes, yay!
Not that pp. most Americans would not want to pay 50+% tax. I wouldn’t and I’m a sahm. I got 12 weeks maternity leave and I took an additional 4 weeks unpaid. I would not expect a year paid, especially when I had only worked at that company for less than 2 years. Having a job protected is another possibility but that company probably needs to hire someone to cover that year and it isn’t fair to take that job from the new person either.
Good lord, where do you get your facts from? You clearly don't understand how the system works. When someone goes on mat leave, they hire a contract person for the duration. If the person on leave decides to come back, the contract ends as it should (or if they are really great, they are moved elsewhere in the company). If they choose to quit and stay home, the contract person gets a FT job. No one is "taking the job away".
When I went on maternity leave, they did not get a replacement. My coworkers absorbed my work until I came back.
My husband has someone who just left on maternity and they also did not hire someone new.
Because most only take 2-3 months maternity leave. If they tell the company--I want a full year off, you most likely would need to hire someone
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Not that pp. she seems on point though. A person who became a c level executive earning seven or eight figures does not get there by signing off at 5 and staying home one days the kids are sick.
My husband has never taken a sick day in his 20 years of working. He has only taken a day off suddenly for funerals and one Super Bowl.
Cool. I'd be kind of disgusted by a dad who took time off for a sporting event but not to take care of his own children, but you do you.
Right? Now that's a parent who doesn't GAF about their kids, JFC.
Are you talking about my husband? He is a surgeon and may be operating on your kid or mother instead of staying home because my kid has a fever. He absolutely does GAF about his own children.
Good thing he will make it to superbowl, even if not your kids graduation! Lucky fam!
Why would he not go to my child’s graduation?
Do you think every physician is a bad parent? So odd.
Just the one who hasn't been around for 20 yrs. per your post.
He has only been a parent for 10 so there should be enough time for him to go to our kids’ future graduations.
Yes, he does not attend school events during the school day. I attend all of those. Some dads do come but the majority of attendees are moms. I handle mornings and after school and get the kids to dance, soccer, basketball, etc. He operates late 2-3 times per week. He has dinner with us on the other nights and takes the kids to their activities when he can. DH loves sports. He went to 2 of our kids’ sports games tonight.
Sorry, when is he around? HE doesn't even see the kids in the mornings? Wow.
OMG---you are relentless and beyond ridiculous! ES started at 9:20 for my kids. We were a 2 min drive from school, drop-off started at 9am. Let's see, I had kids who liked to sleep, so they got up at 8:15/8:30 to get to school.
My husband's job was 46 miles from home--so an hour commute (on a good day). He typically left for work by 7:30am at the latest. So yeah, nope, he didn't see the kids in the AM. Same for when they were in Preschool---we left at 8:50 for 9am drop-off.
99% of working parents were not going to see their kid before they leave, unless you mean quality time where you drag the kids out of bed at 6:20am, change their clothing and make them use the bathroom, then put them in the car to drive to daycare, dropping off so you both can get to work for the day. Are you referring to that quality time in the morning?
why do you think most parents aren't seeing their kid before school? the only parents i know who aren't seeing their kid before school are on wall street. Other than that and medical/ postal workers/ bus drivers and early store openers - most ppl have time to see their kid before school.
Can you read? ?!?!?! No, most people don't really "see their kids before school" Most parents are doing the best they can to shuttle the kids out the door to school on time. And even more stress and Time constraints if the parent (mom or dad) is trying to get the kids to before care and make it themselves to a job on time.
Almost all of my friend's kids didn't see their working parent before school. Why? Because the kids were still sleeping when that parent had to leave for work. Nobody wakes a kid up at 6am to have some quality time with a 6 yo---smart parents allow the kid to get some damn sleep.
Then again, maybe you and your friends all have jobs that don't start until 9am+? Or you live next-door to work? Or you don't understand that yes, there ar plenty of jobs where people leave for work at 7am daily (hour commute, gets you there at 8)
The only ones that saw both parents were kids being dragged to daycare/before care at 6:45/7am. Not exactly high quality time with your kids.
i think you are missing the point that the kids of parents who dont see them before school are either the kids of families who are likely not in a position to choose whether or not to work bc they are trying to make ends meet, or the kids of finance people who are making bank.
if you are in a position to choose whether or not to work, you are likely not also the same person who is being dragged out of the house at 5am to do said work.
Well, 95%+ of my friends spouses did not see the kids in the AM, or if they did, it was a very quick hello on the way out the door (and the kids were early risers--some 4 yo do get up at 6am, not all, but some)
Hint: none of my friends worked in Finance, and none were poor/working to make ends meet. All people in a variety of jobs (jobs that require a BS/MS) and making $150-200K. One was an architect---commute to work was almost an hour. Much of the time it was "on the project site", where you cannot just show up at 9am---you have to be there when the construction workers are there.
Many were in Tech. But none were in Wall Street finance like you are thinking.
And then if the 2nd parent went back to work, there was no quality time in the AM. It was rushing and sometimes yelling to get the slow half asleep kid up, ready and out the door to drop off so they could both get to work. I was drop-off for one friend and her kids for 2+ years in ES. Trust me, there was no "quality time" with those kids at that hour---they would rather have been sleeping
You do have trouble reading dont you? Nothing was said about quality time - just that a pps husband didnt even see his kids in the morning. Sounds like all those parents youre talking about DO see their kids. Is it the bestest quality time? Maybe not, but they still see them. So no, your 95% stat is clearly wrong. You keep twisting words to try and make your point, but it's just... incorrect.
Well I guess we value quality time a bit more than just "any time" when everyone is cranky and stressed. So once again, do what works for your family. But don't denigrate people who chose to have a SAHP and one in a higher powered (and most likely higher paying) career path and say the parent working longer hours/traveling for work is not "raising their kids". They are doing what works for them. Just like 2 career (or single parent) households are doing.
Sure, people value things differently. But you are purposely twisting words into things that are what YOU want, rather than what the pps have written. I highly doubt a surgeon who comes home at 9pm and kisses the kids when theyre already asleep considers that quality time either.
Going forward, it would be helpful if you replied to the actual topic at hand, instead of pretzeling to make your inaccurate point.
aren't we all glad when our heart stops beating or our leg gets severed in a car crash that there IS a surgeon of any gender willing to miss their kids bedtime to fix us? good LORD the myopathy is grueling on this thread.
Of course, has anyone said otherwise? Just that he cares more about his job (very important, life saving job) than his family. Which is fine.
you can care equally about your job and your family. Even if you have a non 9-5 job.
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Ummm...I never stated that. That was different poster.
Both parents can have whatever career aspirations they want. In our household, we felt it was silly to have kids and have BOTH parents wanting to pursue a highly stressful, high travel type of career. We didn't feel it was fair to have kids then have a few full time nannies who would take care of them if/when we both had to travel Sunday to Friday. Or whose jobs would require them rarely to be home until 7/8pm. So we CHOSE to have one pursue the high powered path and the other to focus more on the kids. I don't care if it's the mom or dad or both who pursues that. If you are fine with several weeks per month having neither parent home (they are traveling for work) or neither home until the kids are in bed most nights, then you go for it. We were not fine with that, and didn't have family nearby, so we chose to not do that (but we were on that path prekids. )
We felt that wasn't fair to the kids, so I chose to SAHP. I could have just scaled back to PT, but once I had my first, I wanted to be at home.
And some people think it isn't fair to their kids to be raised by only one parent. To each their own.
They are raised by both parents. One just isn't around quite as much as the one who is there 24/7. Just like a kid who goes to daycare/before care at 7am and isn't picked up from daycare/aftercare until 6:30pm, isn't around their parents during that time.
So kid gets 3-4 waking hours with both parents a day or full time with one parent and 1-2 hours a day with the other. And then most weekends dad is around and involved (plans when they have to do work calls/work around the kid's schedule so they don't miss important events with the kids--games/concerts/recitals/etc)
Oh and the perks of that mean instead of making $300-350k we make $800K+ and don't have to worry about college, our retirement, paying for kid's activities (one did travel ball, other did competitive dance at $20K/year).
You can pick whichever you want. Others will pick accordingly for their family.
Your hypocrisy is so astounding, but I'm hoping you can finally see it 150 pages in.
You say kids with a SAHM and a working dad are raised by both parents. But the OP said that working moms don't raise their kids.
So either you agree that the OP is untrue and offensive or you're a hypocrite. Which one is it?
Not what I'm saying. You are confusing many other Posters with me.
In all situations, the kids are being raised by both parents. I have never stated WOHM don't raise their kids.
Once again, you do what works for you. Stop denigrating other people for their choices.
And stop being jealous that someone has the finances and healthy marriage and ability to choose to stay at home. That's their choice. Just like many women choose to work because they get great joy from their career.
Hint: Both are smart women, both use their brains. So stop with the antics of degrading people.
Lol! Let's not equate those two. We see plenty of SAHMs on here trapped in terrible marriages but they can't leave. Just because you stay home does not mean you have a healthy marriage.
In our UMC/UC neighborhood, the SAHMs seem to be in good marriages, at least when the kids are still young. The MC SAHMs I knew mostly went back to work when kids were school aged.
Most married people seem unhappy in their 50s whether the wife works or not. At that point, kids don’t really need them whether they are teens or out of the house already.
I don’t know trapped SAHMs. These women would get money if they divorced.
You seem to think those SAHMs would never have to work if they divorced. Their entire life would change. And as seen on here, many just do not want to work. People stay in bad marriages for all sorts of reasons, you are very privileged to have a happy marriage and not have to consider those reasons. There are women married to high earners who are financially abused and not allowed their own credit card. Just because you are a) a SAHM and b) married to a high earner does not guarantee a happy long lasting marriage whatsoever.
It is very risky. At our kids private there are a lot of huge mega mega earners but 90% of their wives still keep some kind of employment bc you never know and bc what else do during day when kid is out? It's great bc they bring really interesting conversation to the table at home also that allows them to relate to each other better bc it's not like 'today I litigated chevron's anti trust case, what did you do?' 'Oh I played pickleball and then had coffee with cheryl and talked about other people's marriages'. nope.
Dear god---after spending all day in meetings and working, the last thing my husband wants to do is rehash his day with me. Maybe talk about someone he saw/talked to that he hasn't in a while, but really he doesn't want to continue stressing about work. We have discussions with the kids and talk about plans for the weekend (and kids sports and how it all fits together).
Also, a supportive spouse (who supports the SAHP), wouldn't hate that their spouse "played pickle ball and then had coffee with a friend" and doesn't care that their spouse doesn't have "an important litigation case" to discuss over dinner.
Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with wanting free time, downtime, and an unhurried life. I don’t think my parenting or my children are superior to yours. But I adore my slower relaxing life and don’t care if you look down on it. I’ll be on the couch with my book and my dog.
…..while your husband sacrifices his down time and free time to fund your life.
He doesn't see it that way. First, he likes working. Also, he has a lot more downtime than if we both worked. He doesn’t need to split chores or errands with me - I get those done during the day on weekdays. He doesn’t have to scramble to figure out what’s for dinner, or rearrange his workday because a child is sick. There are benefits to having an at home spouse. Some people value those benefits more than others.
Why do people keep saying that the working spouse is sacrificing time to have a SAHP? It’s just a nonsensical argument.
Between my husband and I, when we both worked outside the home we worked 80 hours + 20-30 hours of commuting (to include kids drop offs and pick ups) per week between us. Now he works 40 hours + 5 hour commute weekly (generally no kid stuff plus he has more flexibility to base his commute schedule around traffic).
I understand that we are giving up my salary, and that he is taking on the mental burden of being a sole provider, and I am taking a risk in terms of future career and earnings potential.
But he isn’t giving up any more of his free time or down time with me home, and as you pointed out, he actually gets MORE free time this way because he doesn’t have to spend so many nights and weekends doing stuff that I have already gotten done.
Have you missed the zillion pages of this thread plus the million other threads about husbands of SAHMs who work long hours and/or travel and are never around? Obviously that's not the case for everyone, but for you to think that most people can just cut their income in half and have a spouse who only works 40 hours a week and support their family in this area is what is nonsensical.
It’s not a matter of percentage of income. It’s an absolute number: “how much money does our family need to bring in to live the life that we want to live?” If it takes both spouses to hit that, both spouses work. If one or both spouses make that on their own, then a couple can have a conversation about whether or not one of them wants to stay home.
If your family can comfortably and happily live on 200k per year, then cutting your HHI from 500k to 250k is no problem. Cutting it from 1 million to 500k is even less of a problem.
A lot of people in this area truly love their jobs (which is great). However, a lot of people in this area are almost addicted to making money, just for the sake of it, or because as someone else said here they use their income as a way to keep score in the game of life. But no matter how much you make, you’re not actually required to spend it all. So many families can just choose to make less.
This isn’t complicated.
(NB I am not saying that families *should* have a SAHP. I am merely pointing out that it’s an option should a family decide to go that way, and it doesn’t mean the working spouse has to take on a bigger job or more hours.)
I just wrote that I didn’t want a job for the sake of having a job.
If DH earned 500 or even 800k, I would probably go back to work. He earns 2-3m so we don’t need for me to go out and get a 100-200k WFH flexible job. I have considered getting a job now that my youngest started elementary school. What I did not anticipate is that my middle and high school kids require a lot more parenting and driving. It was hard enough for me when I was a working mom to drive one kid to sports once per week. Now I have 3 kids with activities every single day. My daughter has activities 5x per week. Both my older kids have sports 5-6x per week. It is a lot.
Do you think you're different from other people with three kids in activities?
Your husband making $2-3 million a year is an absolute outlier.
So you're using your incredibly unique income experience to justify your incredibly common life. It's just silly.
You just said our HHi was an outlier and then said we had an incredibly common life.
The point was that it was hard for me when I was a working mom getting my kid to sports practice once per week. It felt like a big scramble on that day. I had to pick up two kids, get to practice and get dinner. It would be much more difficult with 3 kids and sports daily, not just once per week. I am well aware that many families juggle work and sports. Most of my kids’ teammates have parents who all work.
What is very different is that I do not have to scramble and feel stressed out all the time. I don’t have to be annoyed at staff appreciation or the last minute class party. I can visit my dad in the hospital in a different state or drive my mom to surgery. I know other working parents also have to deal with elderly parents, kids, work and the house but I don’t have to do it strained.
+1
You also don't have to be that parent who is constantly emailing/begging for someone on the team to include their kid in carpool to/from the activities. That is how many of the working parents/parents without extremely flexible schedules manage it. Our HS/MS got out at 2:20pm. Unless you are flexible and WFH, who can leave work at 2pm to transport their kids to activities and then not get home until 7/8pm to finally "return to working". Not many people I know can do that on a daily basis.
So you end up asking the SAHP/PT working parents to grab your kid from school to get them to the game (but you also have to manage getting the equipment there as well---most MS/HS kid don't use lockers so they cannot take big gear to school).
I was a SAHP simply because I wanted to be home with my kids when young. It was what worked best for our family. My husband was on a path to high paying job and it meant travel and oh, his job was a 45 min drive from the house. So yeah, he left at 7:30/7:45 am for work and often got home at 7:30/8pm (avoided the rush hour on way home so it was only 45 mins, not 75 mins). So I concluded I wasn't going to run myself ragged managing it all by myself when he was traveling and in reality for most days as most "work with the kids" is done by 8pm when they are under 9. So choice was to hire a nanny to do it all for us and I go back to work, or I just do it---I enjoyed it and loved watching my kids at their activities. But most importantly, we didn't need my income. Kids were set for college (at 90K/year colleges) and our retirement was on track and we were still saving 25%+ on top of that.
So while your kids don't need to do all the activities daily, some want to and enjoy it. We didn't want to deny them that. And I refused to work a full time job and run my self ragged with everything else. Yes I know most families do just that. But I'm not most families and we lived in a way to allow the choice not to (we lived on one income even when we both made the same thing).
This describes most of the SAHM setups I know. The dad doesn’t want to dad so the mom has to be both parents, which is impossible if you work FT.
not that dad "didn't want to Dad". They had career aspirations and wanted to pursue those (highly successful CEO by 42). Very involved when around (not traveling for work or at work).
But we decided that as a family, we didn't want to have both parents doing that--someone needed a more flexible job. I chose to SAHP because I didn't want to "do it all". I wanted to have a more relaxed life for our family. Had I wanted to work and try to do it all, I would have hired a Nanny, cook, whatever we needed to make it happen smoothly.
And yes, it made sense for my husband to pursue his job, because he was passionate about it, and while I made excellent money, I had no desire to move up management (I'm an introvert techie---love the work no desire for the politics involved at the higher levels). So it makes sense to let the person with chance for much higher pay to pursue that. And yes, I'm a highly educated woman who made that choice after a decade of working. Lucky to be in that position.
Hint: you don't get to C suite/CEO/high level management very often if you leave work at 5pm to get the kids, and take 3 days off the week your kids are too sick to go to school (or work from home despite having in person meetings that week).
DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?
A man who wants to pursue his "career aspirations" is still a dad. But a mom who works doesn't raise her child.
Ummm...I never stated that. That was different poster.
Both parents can have whatever career aspirations they want. In our household, we felt it was silly to have kids and have BOTH parents wanting to pursue a highly stressful, high travel type of career. We didn't feel it was fair to have kids then have a few full time nannies who would take care of them if/when we both had to travel Sunday to Friday. Or whose jobs would require them rarely to be home until 7/8pm. So we CHOSE to have one pursue the high powered path and the other to focus more on the kids. I don't care if it's the mom or dad or both who pursues that. If you are fine with several weeks per month having neither parent home (they are traveling for work) or neither home until the kids are in bed most nights, then you go for it. We were not fine with that, and didn't have family nearby, so we chose to not do that (but we were on that path prekids. )
We felt that wasn't fair to the kids, so I chose to SAHP. I could have just scaled back to PT, but once I had my first, I wanted to be at home.
And some people think it isn't fair to their kids to be raised by only one parent. To each their own.
They are raised by both parents. One just isn't around quite as much as the one who is there 24/7. Just like a kid who goes to daycare/before care at 7am and isn't picked up from daycare/aftercare until 6:30pm, isn't around their parents during that time.
So kid gets 3-4 waking hours with both parents a day or full time with one parent and 1-2 hours a day with the other. And then most weekends dad is around and involved (plans when they have to do work calls/work around the kid's schedule so they don't miss important events with the kids--games/concerts/recitals/etc)
Oh and the perks of that mean instead of making $300-350k we make $800K+ and don't have to worry about college, our retirement, paying for kid's activities (one did travel ball, other did competitive dance at $20K/year).
You can pick whichever you want. Others will pick accordingly for their family.
Your hypocrisy is so astounding, but I'm hoping you can finally see it 150 pages in.
You say kids with a SAHM and a working dad are raised by both parents. But the OP said that working moms don't raise their kids.
So either you agree that the OP is untrue and offensive or you're a hypocrite. Which one is it?
Not what I'm saying. You are confusing many other Posters with me.
In all situations, the kids are being raised by both parents. I have never stated WOHM don't raise their kids.
Once again, you do what works for you. Stop denigrating other people for their choices.
And stop being jealous that someone has the finances and healthy marriage and ability to choose to stay at home. That's their choice. Just like many women choose to work because they get great joy from their career.
Hint: Both are smart women, both use their brains. So stop with the antics of degrading people.
Lol! Let's not equate those two. We see plenty of SAHMs on here trapped in terrible marriages but they can't leave. Just because you stay home does not mean you have a healthy marriage.
In our UMC/UC neighborhood, the SAHMs seem to be in good marriages, at least when the kids are still young. The MC SAHMs I knew mostly went back to work when kids were school aged.
Most married people seem unhappy in their 50s whether the wife works or not. At that point, kids don’t really need them whether they are teens or out of the house already.
I don’t know trapped SAHMs. These women would get money if they divorced.
You seem to think those SAHMs would never have to work if they divorced. Their entire life would change. And as seen on here, many just do not want to work. People stay in bad marriages for all sorts of reasons, you are very privileged to have a happy marriage and not have to consider those reasons. There are women married to high earners who are financially abused and not allowed their own credit card. Just because you are a) a SAHM and b) married to a high earner does not guarantee a happy long lasting marriage whatsoever.
We live in 4-5m houses. These women have access to a credit card.
I don’t doubt there are women who are abused financially.
"access to" again not what was said. Keep twisting those posts though, reading comprehension will get there eventually.
We have 2, $3M+ homes. I have managed the finances for over 30 years (haven't "worked much" in 25 years). In reality, my spouse knows where the money is and has a spreadsheet with all the details and logins, but they would have to go searching for it and make an effort. Because I manage all of that and they have no reason to burden themselves with it.
If I wanted to I could be spending an extra $10K/month on whatever and they would have no clue>. I don't because we are on the same page fiscally and we typically discuss larger purchases over $500 ( a throwback to the early days when we had to be very frugal). But I have never been told...nope don't spend on that.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}