Women whose partner's make enough for them to stay home, why do you prefer working?

[Anonymous]

Dh and I make almost the same, maybe a few k different once bonuses are accounted for. So either of us could quit. FIL had cancer during covid and he actually did end up taking a step back from work and stepping in to help his parents. The flexibility of my job allowed this, and had I been a SAHM this would not have been possible.

I think a long mat leave is honestly the best policy here. In Canada we get up to 18mons, some european countries have up to a few years. IMO staying home while children are this young is valuable. But once kids are in school? I'd rather pull my hair out than stay home twiddling my thumbs.

I'm happy to contribute to my household finances. DH is a great partner at home. He loves cooking, and we both hate cleaning and split it and hire out once a quarter. Doubling our income is awesome. I'd rather us both work hard to earn wealth now, and retire early together. I would never want to sit at home while DH works to the bone. I love that our life benefits each other in so many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn’t WFH completely changed this discussion? All the comments seem to reflect people going to offices 5 days per week…which is t happening for much of the white collar class.

Yes. But the women who quit their jobs can't acknowledge that, because that would upend their narrative about why they need to stop working for 40 years.

How silly. I quit my job because I wanted to stay home with my kids. I was offered part time and flexible hours. You seem to have a very limited view of the decision making of other women.

I think you missed the point that.... WFH literally equals staying home with our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn’t WFH completely changed this discussion? All the comments seem to reflect people going to offices 5 days per week…which is t happening for much of the white collar class.

Yes. But the women who quit their jobs can't acknowledge that, because that would upend their narrative about why they need to stop working for 40 years.

How silly. I quit my job because I wanted to stay home with my kids. I was offered part time and flexible hours. You seem to have a very limited view of the decision making of other women.

I think you missed the point that.... WFH literally equals staying home with our kids.

Not the pp. I hated working from home. If I’m home, I want to hang out with my kids. I do not want to be working. I used to have a WFH job with full time nanny. It was the worst. I would rather just be home with the kids and I still kept the nanny/housekeeper. It made life with 3 kids easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big career = kids who are not properly parented. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. There are 24 hours in a day and there simply isn’t enough time. Women’t can’t have it all, that’s a crack of sh&t and we all know it. But it’s totally fine if you choose a career, it’s your life and you should choose how you live it.

Let’s make sure all these dads with big careers get the message so that they can quit and properly parent their children.

[Anonymous]

Wasn’t this topic discussed ad nauseam in “Little Big Lies?” It’s great that some women have the means to either work or stay at home. For a lot of people it really isn’t a choice! What’s shocking to me is how awful women are to each other. It’s obvious from this thread that there is a lot of judgment from both sides. Yes, the women who chose differently from you don’t agree with your decision or else they would have made the same one. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many women justify staying in the workforce with extreme scenarios of illness, death or cheating, but for me it's much more simple than that. Regardless of what the law says about marital assets, the person bringing the income is the gatekeeper of that income and has the final say on where that money is spent. Even if the husband tries to be fair and egalitarian this power imbalance becomes obvious sooner or later. A friend's husband got a job offer that would pay slightly more, but required a relocation. My friend didn't want to go to another city, but had to agree as the increase was significant, which wouldn't have been the case if she was making at least 40% of the household income and relocating would mean that she would lose her job. The same friend also feels like she needs to keep her spending in check while tolerating some unnecessary spending from her husband. I couldn't live like this. It's infantilizing.

This, 100%. I work because I am unwilling to put myself (and my kids) in such a vulnerable state. I have some financial safeguards that I wouldn't have if I quit working, including a solid stream of income I can count on as long as I'm able, my retirement account in my name that I control, and 529 plans for the kids that I control. I also buy what I want, within reason, with no guilt. Now that my kids are in school full-time and play sports after school, I don't sacrifice time with them. I also would not be a happy person if I stayed home full-time. My maternity leaves were simultaneously wonderful and miserable. I need intellectual work and personal financial security.

This is me too.

[Anonymous]

Many factors. Money. Passion for profession. Social pressure. Prestige. Independence. Instability of marriage. To kill time. To dress up and socialize. To avoid house work. To avoid full time childcare.

[Anonymous]

I like my work, I am contributing to society with it, and my salary, though lower than my husband’s, lets us outsource almost all housework so we really have free time while not working. I had the benefit of flexibility to work from home when my children were younger. Now they are teens and we have a nice work-family time balance. What’s not to like?

[Anonymous]

Everyone contributes to society, what's the difference between raising your children, caring for your parents and managing your household vs doing it for money as an employee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone contributes to society, what's the difference between raising your children, caring for your parents and managing your household vs doing it for money as an employee?

I think that depends on the job. In mine (public policy) what I do is clearly aimed at benefiting a larger population than my family. And that makes me happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people like working. It gives them an identity and purpose apart from family life. It’s also empowering to earn money yourself. None of this disappears when children are born.

And if you grow apart later, it’s good to have a current skill set in case you have to support yourself again one day. It happens.

I understand this. I liked my job too and it gave me a sense of purpose, but I had to re-prioritize my goals ad staying in the workforce made it difficult for me to have to do everything.

This will sound much meaner over a post than if we were speaking. But I don’t mean it in a mean way. OP, everyone comes to the table with different skills and strengths and talents. Some women who stayed in the workforce had stronger skills in the workplace and homefront which allowed manage both more easily than you were able to.

NP, this is such an obnoxious viewpoint. My doctor mom would say the same thing. But after being raised by a go-getter, do it all-er, who felt vastly superior to stay at home mom’s, I chose to be a stay at home mom myself. My mom didn’t do it all, she just thought she did. I’m the one who suffered from her ambition and narcissism and chose not to inflict my children with the same. Get over yourself, you’re not managing as well as you think you are, unless you’re part time or your spouse stays with the kids. Nannies are not parents.

+100 found that incredibly obnoxious as well. Stronger skills on the homefront? If you're that smug it's unlikely you have the skills you think you do.

NP but it’s true. Some women are just scattered and disorganized. They have good degrees and everything, but maybe a neurological condition comes up and they are unable to handle things.

You sound so smug and delusional. Neurological conditions? There are only so many hours in the day. You can’t be a good parent and a good BigLaw partner at the same time. Something has to give. You’re delegating and delegating. Sure, a lady can clean your toilets well enough, but a nanny/au pair is not going to love your kid the way a parent does.

Some people, men and women, value parenting more than they value boardrooms. It’s okay to make the choices you’ve made, but don’t kid yourself that they don’t come at a huge cost, one way or another.

Some people are not able to manage both. Really it’s okay. Clearly you should not be balancing both with your negative attitude. You just see problems. You _have- to think that no BigLaw partner could be a good parent. Easiest way to justify not wanting to stay in BigLaw or that you were never going to make partner anyway.

Lol, I’m not a lawyer. It’s just what I’ve seen, knowing many, many lawyers. I have friends who are doctors who work part time. They manage both. Lawyers, never, unless they’re in-house. Same goes for investment banking. I have never seen anyone, male or female, manage both a BigLaw/investment banking career and being a good parent.
It does not happen.

Walk around NYC in the late morning, watch the nannies jabbering away on their phones, while walking dirty looking children in their strollers. Those kids do not look well taken care of (and yes, I can tell they are with their nannies because of obvious racial differences). The kids have messy hair, dirty fingers and cheeks. They keep trying to talk to their nannies, but the nannies don’t care. It’s pretty heartbreaking. But I am positive that their parents think everything is perfect.

Stop kidding yourself about how well you manage. There is always a price. You should know that; it’s basic microeconomics.

So you never worked at BigLaw? Your husband never worked at BigLaw? And you sure have a lot of opinions on the parenting of people you “know” in these careers. Sure lady. Lol. Here is a news flash. Lots of SAHM have kids with dirty hair and nails, unhappy children, etc. inattentive parents are inattentive whether they work or stay home.

Also you are posting on a DC board. Life does look different here.

PP, I do know what I am talking about because I was a legal assistant in BigLaw. After seeing what I saw, I opted out of going to law school (even though I had excellent credentials). All of the partners I met were horrible parents. Most of them went out of their way to purposefully work on holidays, especially Thanksgiving and Christmas, because they couldn’t bare being with their families. I’m sorry, but that is how it was. I chose to get a masters in something else. (I do work, but if money were not an issue, I would not.)

I don’t know know a single SAHM who isn’t on top of her kids being well manicured. Not one. The SAHMs I know volunteer at school and organize a million different things. There kids often times seem more talkative and confident and better adjusted. That’s how I see. I wish I could be a stay at home mom.

My SIL is a SAHM. Her kids are a mess. She's lazy and so is her husband. She doesn't cook or clean and her mother/my MIL does the laundry for the kids. They never have the supplies they need, they're rude, always attached to their iPads, etc. But I don't know why I'm even responding to you, your posts tell me all I need to know about you.

NP here. You can’t group all SAHMs together. I’m a well educated SAHM. I’m ivy educated and had a great career before deciding to stay home with my kids. My job was too demanding and Dh has an equally high demand job. We live in an affluent area and the SAHMs are all very involved. I do not envy the kids with nannies. There are some kids who are thriving with a great nanny and parents with big jobs but I would not say those kids are in a better situation. Most moms I know have complaints about the nanny and don’t have the best situation. They keep at it.

I miss my career. I will likely go back. For now, I am home with my three children and this is what is best for our family.

Why are your career relevant and education relevant?

There are some women who never had a career or weren’t good at their careers. They may opt to stay home because they would rather be home than work. There are others, like me, who had a career and were good at our careers. We choose to stay home with our kids.

High value men marry high value women and have high value children.

I am a working mom but this made me want to vomit. You go on raising your “high value” children, I’ll work to raise children who are kind and don’t engage in elitist sexist garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn’t WFH completely changed this discussion? All the comments seem to reflect people going to offices 5 days per week…which is t happening for much of the white collar class.

Yes. But the women who quit their jobs can't acknowledge that, because that would upend their narrative about why they need to stop working for 40 years.

It’s a good point, because even 10 years ago, I quit when I had a newborn because my job was in-office 4 days per week with a long commute. I’m sure that same job is nearly all remote now. The women who became SAHM years ago might not have made the same choice if WFH was more available then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many women justify staying in the workforce with extreme scenarios of illness, death or cheating, but for me it's much more simple than that. Regardless of what the law says about marital assets, the person bringing the income is the gatekeeper of that income and has the final say on where that money is spent. Even if the husband tries to be fair and egalitarian this power imbalance becomes obvious sooner or later. A friend's husband got a job offer that would pay slightly more, but required a relocation. My friend didn't want to go to another city, but had to agree as the increase was significant, which wouldn't have been the case if she was making at least 40% of the household income and relocating would mean that she would lose her job. The same friend also feels like she needs to keep her spending in check while tolerating some unnecessary spending from her husband. I couldn't live like this. It's infantilizing.

This, 100%. I work because I am unwilling to put myself (and my kids) in such a vulnerable state. I have some financial safeguards that I wouldn't have if I quit working, including a solid stream of income I can count on as long as I'm able, my retirement account in my name that I control, and 529 plans for the kids that I control. I also buy what I want, within reason, with no guilt. Now that my kids are in school full-time and play sports after school, I don't sacrifice time with them. I also would not be a happy person if I stayed home full-time. My maternity leaves were simultaneously wonderful and miserable. I need intellectual work and personal financial security.

I guess that none of this applied to me.
I knew that I could go back to work and have a good income whenever I wanted to. I never felt any guilt about buying whatever I wanted with household income, no matter who earned it. My kids were home a lot, and I liked to hang out with them and play laser tag or four square or whatever. My husband has two days off every week, but not always Saturday and Sunday, so I was solo parenting sometimes on the weekends, and we got to have “date days” during the week.

I liked being home those years, but I can see how people would make a different choice in a different situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone contributes to society, what's the difference between raising your children, caring for your parents and managing your household vs doing it for money as an employee?

For me it’s because once kids were in school there was not much “raising kids/caring for parents/managing household “ to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone contributes to society, what's the difference between raising your children, caring for your parents and managing your household vs doing it for money as an employee?

For me it’s because once kids were in school there was not much “raising kids/caring for parents/managing household “ to do.

I’m always surprised when people say this. I don’t think that my day to day changed that much when my youngest went to school. I just didn’t have my little buddy with me anymore.

I guess I don’t go to the zoo as much, but it’s not like I was spending hours a day playing CandyLand with a four year old before he went to school.