Family life sucks

[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:Do most women want to stay at home after having kids? I don't think they do. I personally would like to work 7 hour days after having kids (instead of 8.5). That would be ideal for me, and you could cut my salary by that same amount. I liked having 12 weeks paid maternity leave and then returning to work.

I see the stats in newspapers on maternity leave, but it doesn't mesh with what I see first hand. All of my girl friends have either had paid maternity leave through work, or paid through a work STD policy, or they used their own annual and sick leave (what I did). Career jobs do all have maternity leave or STD policies for birth.

Correct

Everyone with a professional salaried job gets 12 weeks paid by employer FMLA leave, must work there over 12 mos to qualify.

Hi. This is wrong. If your employer has fewer than 50 employees AT YOUR WORK SITE (or within 75 miles) you are not eligible for FMLA. While I get paid parental leave, I have no job protection because we have fewer than 50 employees in DC (but hundreds nationwide).

Correct. What about it? Your employees can’t hold your small business ransom.


Did they let go the last several pregnant women while they were home on (unprotected) leave?

How many weeks of (unprotected) leave did they pay or at what %?

Are these even high value, skilled roles? Because the more easily replaceable you are, the less you’re going to make at the office or on leave.


Go work somewhere else if that bothers you.

What small business? My employer has over 1,000 employees nationwide. The HQ just happens to be in a different city.

Women are severely underrepresented, particularly in leadership, in my industry.

I don’t have any job protection if I have a baby.

You mean b/c everyone is a remote worker?

Is that why FMLA doesn’t apply? Because clearly you’re over 50 FTEs.

Cut to the point PP. Are you an unskilled wage worker

Dude, I am a literal in-office biglaw attorney making over 600k/yr, but I’m sure you’ll somehow use that to disparage.

You are not eligible for FMLA unless you work in a location where your employer employs at least 50 employees within a 75 miles radius. My office is a satellite office, and we don’t meet that cut off. The HQ is New York. So no, I don’t work for a small business. I also still have no job protection if I have a baby or get seriously ill, even though my employer provides paid leave.

Don’t work there then if their paper rules bother you so much.

If you were so amazing you could negotiate whatever you want for leave. Like most adult professionals do with their boss.

This.

Lots of room to negotiate if not club Fed or big F500

How do you propose negotiating when you’re pregnant? What kind of leverage do you think the employee has there?

Did you get pregnant by surprise?

Sort of? It took over a year of trying, the assistance of a reproductive endocrinologist, and multiple losses. You know most people can just decide exactly when they’ll get pregnant, right?

You don't even get the irony of what you just posted, do you?

It took you over a year of trying to get pregnant, during which time you could have been negotiating for your leave package, but instead you waited until you were pregnant and then you just said welp, I can't negotiate now because I'm pregnant. I mean, some of us planned to get pregnant so we also had the foresight to save leave and negotiate what it would look like. You clearly had plenty of time...

You willfully ignore that anyone who negotiates additional parental leave is immediately flagged as a giant pregnancy liability and faces risk of being targeted for adverse employment action. Especially if you’re experiencing infertility and might not get pregnant for years, you do not want to put that kind of a target on you. There’s a reason you’re advised to not disclose you’re pregnancy until you start showing.

[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:Do most women want to stay at home after having kids? I don't think they do. I personally would like to work 7 hour days after having kids (instead of 8.5). That would be ideal for me, and you could cut my salary by that same amount. I liked having 12 weeks paid maternity leave and then returning to work.

I see the stats in newspapers on maternity leave, but it doesn't mesh with what I see first hand. All of my girl friends have either had paid maternity leave through work, or paid through a work STD policy, or they used their own annual and sick leave (what I did). Career jobs do all have maternity leave or STD policies for birth.

Correct

Everyone with a professional salaried job gets 12 weeks paid by employer FMLA leave, must work there over 12 mos to qualify.

Hi. This is wrong. If your employer has fewer than 50 employees AT YOUR WORK SITE (or within 75 miles) you are not eligible for FMLA. While I get paid parental leave, I have no job protection because we have fewer than 50 employees in DC (but hundreds nationwide).

Correct. What about it? Your employees can’t hold your small business ransom.


Did they let go the last several pregnant women while they were home on (unprotected) leave?

How many weeks of (unprotected) leave did they pay or at what %?

Are these even high value, skilled roles? Because the more easily replaceable you are, the less you’re going to make at the office or on leave.


Go work somewhere else if that bothers you.

What small business? My employer has over 1,000 employees nationwide. The HQ just happens to be in a different city.

Women are severely underrepresented, particularly in leadership, in my industry.

I don’t have any job protection if I have a baby.

You mean b/c everyone is a remote worker?

Is that why FMLA doesn’t apply? Because clearly you’re over 50 FTEs.

Cut to the point PP. Are you an unskilled wage worker

Dude, I am a literal in-office biglaw attorney making over 600k/yr, but I’m sure you’ll somehow use that to disparage.

You are not eligible for FMLA unless you work in a location where your employer employs at least 50 employees within a 75 miles radius. My office is a satellite office, and we don’t meet that cut off. The HQ is New York. So no, I don’t work for a small business. I also still have no job protection if I have a baby or get seriously ill, even though my employer provides paid leave.

Don’t work there then if their paper rules bother you so much.

If you were so amazing you could negotiate whatever you want for leave. Like most adult professionals do with their boss.

This.

Lots of room to negotiate if not club Fed or big F500

How do you propose negotiating when you’re pregnant? What kind of leverage do you think the employee has there?

Did you get pregnant by surprise?

Sort of? It took over a year of trying, the assistance of a reproductive endocrinologist, and multiple losses. You know most people can just decide exactly when they’ll get pregnant, right?

You don't even get the irony of what you just posted, do you?

It took you over a year of trying to get pregnant, during which time you could have been negotiating for your leave package, but instead you waited until you were pregnant and then you just said welp, I can't negotiate now because I'm pregnant. I mean, some of us planned to get pregnant so we also had the foresight to save leave and negotiate what it would look like. You clearly had plenty of time...

You willfully ignore that anyone who negotiates additional parental leave is immediately flagged as a giant pregnancy liability and faces risk of being targeted for adverse employment action. Especially if you’re experiencing infertility and might not get pregnant for years, you do not want to put that kind of a target on you. There’s a reason you’re advised to not disclose you’re pregnancy until you start showing.

Sorry *your

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will be a dissenter here. I love being a parent. Yes, there are always issues and problems. But that is often true in life whether you have kids or not. I'm in my 40s and literally everyone I know has dealt with heavy and stressful things in the last few years, most of which aren't even child related (and this includes many child free friends). Health issues, work issues, aging parent issues, money issues, etc. Life can be challenging.

But for me, even when my kid is having issues (frequently) or just being a pill (also frequent) or I'm annoyed with my DH for not helping enough (common), family life is the best part of my life. We'll pile into the couch for movie night or go out to dinner, and I'll just think how lucky I am to have them and how much comfort and fulfillment they bring me. I find being a parent, and raising a child with my DH, to be very fulfilling. I have zero regrets except to sometimes wonder if we should have had a second.

You feel this way because you only have one child. When my second came along, I realized I was on vacation with just having one.

Did you know the number of kids you have is a choice? No one made you have two.

1. Near marital rape (I did not choose that)
2. No sex in years. It was one time. I did not think I was ovulating. I was 37. Who would’ve thought the odds of sex one time in years and 37 would be 100% chance of getting pregnant like sex one time in a year at 34. Um, no one.

It’s not like I was having sex like a normal person on regular basis. I literally had sex twice in about seven year and both resulted in kids.

I am fifty and I still use condoms so that I won't get pregnant. 37 year olds can absolutely get pregnant after one time of unprotected sex. I'm not sure who taught you that you can't get pregnant if you only have sex once.

How would a woman use condoms in marital rape?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np I have friends overseas. The pay isn’t 100% of your salary on maternity leave (and their pay is already lower). So once they have a baby, their salaries take a big hit. They can’t return to work earlier because it’s stigmatized and daycare don’t take babies before 1 (one friend mentioned before 3 but idk if that’s true). Once kids are school aged, they have the same issues that moms have here where school ends at 3 but work ends at 5, however aftercare’s aren’t plentiful. Many stick to one kid for financial and logistical reasons. My Norwegian friends own their own condo, but it’s a 2 bedroom. They only had one kid for space reasons. I’m sure none of those reasons are insurmountable for people who really want kids but maternity leave isn’t this panacea that it’s purported to be.

It’s this. The woman is assumed to stay home for a year and the pay is low if you have a white collar job. It is a big financial hit in Scandinavian countries where housing costs are much higher than here. It also seriously derails the woman’s career.

No, the woman isn't assumed to stay home for a year. That's kind of the point of the Norwegian model. Every couple gets a year of paid parental leave (they can do 100% paid for 49 total weeks or 80% for 59 weeks). Mothers have a 15 week "quota," and six of those weeks must be taken immediately following birth. The father also gets a 15 week "quota" that can not be given to the mother. Then there is a joint 16-20 weeks that can be shared between both parents. This strongly encourages fathers to take a minimum of 15 weeks paid leave.

As a result, 90% of fathers in Norway take some parental leave. And about 70% take at least the full 15 weeks. And unsurprisingly, Norwegian fathers spend about 33% more time caring for their children and doing unpaid housework than American fathers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/08/22/1194946948/im-a-new-dad-heres-why-im-taking-more-parental-leave-than-my-wife

https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/pay-and-engagement-of-employees/permisjoner/parental-leave/

https://www.ssb.no/en/kultur-og-fritid/artikler-og-publikasjoner/yrkes-og-familiearbeid-i-barnefasen

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

This doesn't surprise me much then because my husband took the first four weeks off with me, then took more after I went back to work after 16 weeks. From day one he did as much as I did (we had twins who were premature but not in the NICU and they were on a mix of formula and pumped milk) and 15 years later he still does. I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives.

Pumping is not the same experience for everyone. For me, I didn't pump much because I found it really unpleasant (yes I tried different pumps and pump parts) and time consuming. We were also advised not to start pumping until baby was 6 weeks old.

Blaming women for their husbands not doing their part as a parent because the WOMEN did not do extra labor during the most labor intensive phase of parenting is a special kind of misogyny.

Way to miss the point. Enjoy your unhappy marriage I guess!

Nope, agree with the PP. If a woman is pumping milk (or the family is using formula) then yes, of course, the DH should be taking on more of the feeding duties. But if she's EBFing, for whatever reason, he should just do other stuff. Breastfeeding doesn't prevent a man from caretaking, that's absurd. Change diapers, get her dressed, give her baths, hold the baby when she cries, pay attention to her. Be the one looking up what to do about a fever or checking when the next pediatricians appointment is. Research nap schedules and initiate getting the baby on one. Do all the planning around his parents visiting or visiting them to meet the baby. And hey, why not check with mom while she's breastfeeding. Maybe being an around the clock food source is making her hungry or dehydrated -- can you make a sandwich or get her some water?

The idea that women somehow get in the way of men participating fully in parenting at the baby stage is just misogynist nonsense. There's lot to do. Do it. If you're unsure what to do, ask (your wife, the doctor, your own parents, friends with kids). Be a grown up. Take initiative.

Anyone claiming that men are just desperate to be fully involved parents if only their wives would pump more milk is a moron. Kids start eating some solids at 6 months! Breastfeeding is barely a blip and only one part of childcare. Honestly.

Well, you also missed the point of the post but I hope you had fun with your ranting.

I am the first PP that called you misogynist. You said, "I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives." I and the other PP are saying your solution of pumping doesn't work for everyone and it is ridiculous to suggest, as you definitely did, that by not doing extra work during the baby stage we somehow set the stage for our husbands to be less involved. Men do not need to feed an infant to be involved fathers, and if they choose not to be involved by let's say not wanting to wash pump parts or wake up early to take care of the baby or want to send the baby to daycare sick because they can't be bothered to care for a sick baby, then that is 100% on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does suck. I was not planning on having kids because I knew it would be hard and stressful and not bring that much joy for the sacrifices required. I have two kids despite my ex agreeing to no kids before getting married. I love my kids, but despite being a parent just as much as I anticipated that I might. It’s like a prison sentence. I’m a woman by the way. I really don’t recommend having kids unless it’s like the only thing you want to do in life. It is absolutely not worth the sacrifice that is required, and it’s much harder now than it was in previous generations.

YOU CHOSE THAT. Stop acting like he forced you to get pregnant and have multiple kids. Take some agency over your life. Jeez.

This. How did the PP wind up with two kids against her will? This is precisely the sort of person who shouldn't have kids.

I wanted my kids and love them and am happy. See how that works?

No one who posts on this board is happy, sweetheart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will be a dissenter here. I love being a parent. Yes, there are always issues and problems. But that is often true in life whether you have kids or not. I'm in my 40s and literally everyone I know has dealt with heavy and stressful things in the last few years, most of which aren't even child related (and this includes many child free friends). Health issues, work issues, aging parent issues, money issues, etc. Life can be challenging.

But for me, even when my kid is having issues (frequently) or just being a pill (also frequent) or I'm annoyed with my DH for not helping enough (common), family life is the best part of my life. We'll pile into the couch for movie night or go out to dinner, and I'll just think how lucky I am to have them and how much comfort and fulfillment they bring me. I find being a parent, and raising a child with my DH, to be very fulfilling. I have zero regrets except to sometimes wonder if we should have had a second.

You feel this way because you only have one child. When my second came along, I realized I was on vacation with just having one.

Did you know the number of kids you have is a choice? No one made you have two.

1. Near marital rape (I did not choose that)
2. No sex in years. It was one time. I did not think I was ovulating. I was 37. Who would’ve thought the odds of sex one time in years and 37 would be 100% chance of getting pregnant like sex one time in a year at 34. Um, no one.

It’s not like I was having sex like a normal person on regular basis. I literally had sex twice in about seven year and both resulted in kids.

I am fifty and I still use condoms so that I won't get pregnant. 37 year olds can absolutely get pregnant after one time of unprotected sex. I'm not sure who taught you that you can't get pregnant if you only have sex once.

Again, I was tracking my ovulation because we weren’t having sex for years and he refused to use a condom. It was one time. Literally, I thought I was in a safe day the only time we did it in years he wouldn’t use a condom and I wasn’t going back on a pill for a no- sex marriage that was on the brink of divorced the entire time. I’ve been on the pill since I divorced. I’m now in my late 40s and I can still get pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will be a dissenter here. I love being a parent. Yes, there are always issues and problems. But that is often true in life whether you have kids or not. I'm in my 40s and literally everyone I know has dealt with heavy and stressful things in the last few years, most of which aren't even child related (and this includes many child free friends). Health issues, work issues, aging parent issues, money issues, etc. Life can be challenging.

But for me, even when my kid is having issues (frequently) or just being a pill (also frequent) or I'm annoyed with my DH for not helping enough (common), family life is the best part of my life. We'll pile into the couch for movie night or go out to dinner, and I'll just think how lucky I am to have them and how much comfort and fulfillment they bring me. I find being a parent, and raising a child with my DH, to be very fulfilling. I have zero regrets except to sometimes wonder if we should have had a second.

You feel this way because you only have one child. When my second came along, I realized I was on vacation with just having one.

Did you know the number of kids you have is a choice? No one made you have two.

1. Near marital rape (I did not choose that)
2. No sex in years. It was one time. I did not think I was ovulating. I was 37. Who would’ve thought the odds of sex one time in years and 37 would be 100% chance of getting pregnant like sex one time in a year at 34. Um, no one.

It’s not like I was having sex like a normal person on regular basis. I literally had sex twice in about seven year and both resulted in kids.

I am fifty and I still use condoms so that I won't get pregnant. 37 year olds can absolutely get pregnant after one time of unprotected sex. I'm not sure who taught you that you can't get pregnant if you only have sex once.

How would a woman use condoms in marital rape?

First instance was basically marital rape because of saying no so of course there wasn’t a condom and he knew what he was doing

The second instance was years later sex one time and he refused to use a condom and I thought I was not ovulating. It literally was one time in years.

We literally had sex twice in a seven year span (date of conception of the first kid, then date of conception for the second kid and then no sex for seven years after that until we divorced).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

A few thoughts here:

(1) Because there are only 24 hours in a day, there will always be tradeoffs. If both parents work then the kids have to be in daycare or aftercare. Dinner is probably later because it's hard to start it until you get home from work (unless you want to eat reheated food or slow-cooker meals or pasta all the time). Bedtimes probably end up being later because you want to have at least some time with your kids. If your kids are in activities that require supervised practice every day (e.g., music) then you may be getting up early or going to bed late in order to do those things. You may frequently have to work at night to make up for time taken off of work to take care of the kids (e.g., doctors appointments, sick child, etc.). It can be harder to exercise unless you find creative ways to do it at your office. You can outsource cleaning the house, but that takes money, or you can live with the stress of cleaning the house at 9pm every night (which is what my wife and I do). You may have less time for your spouse because a lot of your time outside of work is spent on cleaning/laundry/etc. that couldn't be done during the day. Mandatory "volunteering" at school or daycare can be a huge imposition on parents' already stretched schedules. But if you do the stay-at-home parent thing, then you've got one parent who may feel unfulfilled because they see a lot of their peers with jobs that give them a lot of purpose in their lives and because they feel their education is going to waste. And of course you have less in income, retirement contributions, and potentially college savings. In our case, we made the calculation that it's best for us both to work, and we pay for it in having very little time for each other, a house that isn't as clean as we'd like, and kids going to bed later than we'd like.
(2) Daycare/aftercare is only a partial solution. It takes care of the kids during working hours, but kids get sick sometimes and are excluded from daycare and it throws everything into chaos. You still have transportation to and from the daycare, and once you add all of that in you may be looking at a late dinner and having to tackle homework/music/bath/etc. in a very limited time in the evening.
(3) As stressful as I find the two-career family thing, I remind myself that there are people who live in countries without proper sanitation, high levels of disease, active military conflicts, etc. Compared to much of the world (and almost all of human history) we have it pretty good. Not saying it's perfect, but my family is unlikely to die of a common bacterial infection or in a war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does suck. I was not planning on having kids because I knew it would be hard and stressful and not bring that much joy for the sacrifices required. I have two kids despite my ex agreeing to no kids before getting married. I love my kids, but despite being a parent just as much as I anticipated that I might. It’s like a prison sentence. I’m a woman by the way. I really don’t recommend having kids unless it’s like the only thing you want to do in life. It is absolutely not worth the sacrifice that is required, and it’s much harder now than it was in previous generations.

YOU CHOSE THAT. Stop acting like he forced you to get pregnant and have multiple kids. Take some agency over your life. Jeez.

This. How did the PP wind up with two kids against her will? This is precisely the sort of person who shouldn't have kids.

I wanted my kids and love them and am happy. See how that works?

No one who posts on this board is happy, sweetheart.

😩

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np I have friends overseas. The pay isn’t 100% of your salary on maternity leave (and their pay is already lower). So once they have a baby, their salaries take a big hit. They can’t return to work earlier because it’s stigmatized and daycare don’t take babies before 1 (one friend mentioned before 3 but idk if that’s true). Once kids are school aged, they have the same issues that moms have here where school ends at 3 but work ends at 5, however aftercare’s aren’t plentiful. Many stick to one kid for financial and logistical reasons. My Norwegian friends own their own condo, but it’s a 2 bedroom. They only had one kid for space reasons. I’m sure none of those reasons are insurmountable for people who really want kids but maternity leave isn’t this panacea that it’s purported to be.

It’s this. The woman is assumed to stay home for a year and the pay is low if you have a white collar job. It is a big financial hit in Scandinavian countries where housing costs are much higher than here. It also seriously derails the woman’s career.

No, the woman isn't assumed to stay home for a year. That's kind of the point of the Norwegian model. Every couple gets a year of paid parental leave (they can do 100% paid for 49 total weeks or 80% for 59 weeks). Mothers have a 15 week "quota," and six of those weeks must be taken immediately following birth. The father also gets a 15 week "quota" that can not be given to the mother. Then there is a joint 16-20 weeks that can be shared between both parents. This strongly encourages fathers to take a minimum of 15 weeks paid leave.

As a result, 90% of fathers in Norway take some parental leave. And about 70% take at least the full 15 weeks. And unsurprisingly, Norwegian fathers spend about 33% more time caring for their children and doing unpaid housework than American fathers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/08/22/1194946948/im-a-new-dad-heres-why-im-taking-more-parental-leave-than-my-wife

https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/pay-and-engagement-of-employees/permisjoner/parental-leave/

https://www.ssb.no/en/kultur-og-fritid/artikler-og-publikasjoner/yrkes-og-familiearbeid-i-barnefasen

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

This doesn't surprise me much then because my husband took the first four weeks off with me, then took more after I went back to work after 16 weeks. From day one he did as much as I did (we had twins who were premature but not in the NICU and they were on a mix of formula and pumped milk) and 15 years later he still does. I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives.

Pumping is not the same experience for everyone. For me, I didn't pump much because I found it really unpleasant (yes I tried different pumps and pump parts) and time consuming. We were also advised not to start pumping until baby was 6 weeks old.

Blaming women for their husbands not doing their part as a parent because the WOMEN did not do extra labor during the most labor intensive phase of parenting is a special kind of misogyny.

Way to miss the point. Enjoy your unhappy marriage I guess!

Nope, agree with the PP. If a woman is pumping milk (or the family is using formula) then yes, of course, the DH should be taking on more of the feeding duties. But if she's EBFing, for whatever reason, he should just do other stuff. Breastfeeding doesn't prevent a man from caretaking, that's absurd. Change diapers, get her dressed, give her baths, hold the baby when she cries, pay attention to her. Be the one looking up what to do about a fever or checking when the next pediatricians appointment is. Research nap schedules and initiate getting the baby on one. Do all the planning around his parents visiting or visiting them to meet the baby. And hey, why not check with mom while she's breastfeeding. Maybe being an around the clock food source is making her hungry or dehydrated -- can you make a sandwich or get her some water?

The idea that women somehow get in the way of men participating fully in parenting at the baby stage is just misogynist nonsense. There's lot to do. Do it. If you're unsure what to do, ask (your wife, the doctor, your own parents, friends with kids). Be a grown up. Take initiative.

Anyone claiming that men are just desperate to be fully involved parents if only their wives would pump more milk is a moron. Kids start eating some solids at 6 months! Breastfeeding is barely a blip and only one part of childcare. Honestly.

Well, you also missed the point of the post but I hope you had fun with your ranting.

I am the first PP that called you misogynist. You said, "I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives." I and the other PP are saying your solution of pumping doesn't work for everyone and it is ridiculous to suggest, as you definitely did, that by not doing extra work during the baby stage we somehow set the stage for our husbands to be less involved. Men do not need to feed an infant to be involved fathers, and if they choose not to be involved by let's say not wanting to wash pump parts or wake up early to take care of the baby or want to send the baby to daycare sick because they can't be bothered to care for a sick baby, then that is 100% on them.

DP. Agree with this. The most unequal marriages I know are where the DW EBF and both have demanding careers. It’s difficult to recover from the DW being the sole food source (and that’s the main job having a baby) for an entire year.

The push to EBF made sense once I had kids. The claims it’s “free” as though my time is worth nothing. It’s the patriarchy trying to use our labor. Formula is freedom and it allowed women to leave their babies and earn a living. During my own postpartum I could go workout or do something for myself without needing to pump,’ leave instructions or return by a certain time. In comparison, my EBF friends appeared to be in prison.

[Anonymous]

Overall, I agree, OP. I have two kids who are now teens. marriage intact. In many ways we are very lucky, and one of them is that my parents helped a lot. My mom flew from CA to stay with us for months when our kids weee infants. Then they went to daycare by 5 months. My parents helped financially too.

They have both passed on, and my husband still remarks how much more helpful they were than his parents who moved to DC! My parents were from India, where a communal family structure is still commonplace. it has its drawbacks for sure, but if you are blessed with good parents, it can be a godsend.


My brother didn’t marry and have kids, so he took care of my parents at the end of their lives, which was grueling. that he was able to do that was a blessing too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np I have friends overseas. The pay isn’t 100% of your salary on maternity leave (and their pay is already lower). So once they have a baby, their salaries take a big hit. They can’t return to work earlier because it’s stigmatized and daycare don’t take babies before 1 (one friend mentioned before 3 but idk if that’s true). Once kids are school aged, they have the same issues that moms have here where school ends at 3 but work ends at 5, however aftercare’s aren’t plentiful. Many stick to one kid for financial and logistical reasons. My Norwegian friends own their own condo, but it’s a 2 bedroom. They only had one kid for space reasons. I’m sure none of those reasons are insurmountable for people who really want kids but maternity leave isn’t this panacea that it’s purported to be.

It’s this. The woman is assumed to stay home for a year and the pay is low if you have a white collar job. It is a big financial hit in Scandinavian countries where housing costs are much higher than here. It also seriously derails the woman’s career.

No, the woman isn't assumed to stay home for a year. That's kind of the point of the Norwegian model. Every couple gets a year of paid parental leave (they can do 100% paid for 49 total weeks or 80% for 59 weeks). Mothers have a 15 week "quota," and six of those weeks must be taken immediately following birth. The father also gets a 15 week "quota" that can not be given to the mother. Then there is a joint 16-20 weeks that can be shared between both parents. This strongly encourages fathers to take a minimum of 15 weeks paid leave.

As a result, 90% of fathers in Norway take some parental leave. And about 70% take at least the full 15 weeks. And unsurprisingly, Norwegian fathers spend about 33% more time caring for their children and doing unpaid housework than American fathers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/08/22/1194946948/im-a-new-dad-heres-why-im-taking-more-parental-leave-than-my-wife

https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/pay-and-engagement-of-employees/permisjoner/parental-leave/

https://www.ssb.no/en/kultur-og-fritid/artikler-og-publikasjoner/yrkes-og-familiearbeid-i-barnefasen

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

This doesn't surprise me much then because my husband took the first four weeks off with me, then took more after I went back to work after 16 weeks. From day one he did as much as I did (we had twins who were premature but not in the NICU and they were on a mix of formula and pumped milk) and 15 years later he still does. I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives.

Pumping is not the same experience for everyone. For me, I didn't pump much because I found it really unpleasant (yes I tried different pumps and pump parts) and time consuming. We were also advised not to start pumping until baby was 6 weeks old.

Blaming women for their husbands not doing their part as a parent because the WOMEN did not do extra labor during the most labor intensive phase of parenting is a special kind of misogyny.

Way to miss the point. Enjoy your unhappy marriage I guess!

Nope, agree with the PP. If a woman is pumping milk (or the family is using formula) then yes, of course, the DH should be taking on more of the feeding duties. But if she's EBFing, for whatever reason, he should just do other stuff. Breastfeeding doesn't prevent a man from caretaking, that's absurd. Change diapers, get her dressed, give her baths, hold the baby when she cries, pay attention to her. Be the one looking up what to do about a fever or checking when the next pediatricians appointment is. Research nap schedules and initiate getting the baby on one. Do all the planning around his parents visiting or visiting them to meet the baby. And hey, why not check with mom while she's breastfeeding. Maybe being an around the clock food source is making her hungry or dehydrated -- can you make a sandwich or get her some water?

The idea that women somehow get in the way of men participating fully in parenting at the baby stage is just misogynist nonsense. There's lot to do. Do it. If you're unsure what to do, ask (your wife, the doctor, your own parents, friends with kids). Be a grown up. Take initiative.

Anyone claiming that men are just desperate to be fully involved parents if only their wives would pump more milk is a moron. Kids start eating some solids at 6 months! Breastfeeding is barely a blip and only one part of childcare. Honestly.

Well, you also missed the point of the post but I hope you had fun with your ranting.

I am the first PP that called you misogynist. You said, "I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives." I and the other PP are saying your solution of pumping doesn't work for everyone and it is ridiculous to suggest, as you definitely did, that by not doing extra work during the baby stage we somehow set the stage for our husbands to be less involved. Men do not need to feed an infant to be involved fathers, and if they choose not to be involved by let's say not wanting to wash pump parts or wake up early to take care of the baby or want to send the baby to daycare sick because they can't be bothered to care for a sick baby, then that is 100% on them.

DP. Agree with this. The most unequal marriages I know are where the DW EBF and both have demanding careers. It’s difficult to recover from the DW being the sole food source (and that’s the main job having a baby) for an entire year.

The push to EBF made sense once I had kids. The claims it’s “free” as though my time is worth nothing. It’s the patriarchy trying to use our labor. Formula is freedom and it allowed women to leave their babies and earn a living. During my own postpartum I could go workout or do something for myself without needing to pump,’ leave instructions or return by a certain time. In comparison, my EBF friends appeared to be in prison.

Hard disagree. Men can support EBF, recognize that EBF is a ton of labor so they do everything else for a few months, and then as the baby needs fewer and fewer feedings they do more. Men are sentient, intelligent life forms and can figure it out, they do not need to be told and if they don't step up without being yelled at that is on them, not on their wives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np I have friends overseas. The pay isn’t 100% of your salary on maternity leave (and their pay is already lower). So once they have a baby, their salaries take a big hit. They can’t return to work earlier because it’s stigmatized and daycare don’t take babies before 1 (one friend mentioned before 3 but idk if that’s true). Once kids are school aged, they have the same issues that moms have here where school ends at 3 but work ends at 5, however aftercare’s aren’t plentiful. Many stick to one kid for financial and logistical reasons. My Norwegian friends own their own condo, but it’s a 2 bedroom. They only had one kid for space reasons. I’m sure none of those reasons are insurmountable for people who really want kids but maternity leave isn’t this panacea that it’s purported to be.

It’s this. The woman is assumed to stay home for a year and the pay is low if you have a white collar job. It is a big financial hit in Scandinavian countries where housing costs are much higher than here. It also seriously derails the woman’s career.

No, the woman isn't assumed to stay home for a year. That's kind of the point of the Norwegian model. Every couple gets a year of paid parental leave (they can do 100% paid for 49 total weeks or 80% for 59 weeks). Mothers have a 15 week "quota," and six of those weeks must be taken immediately following birth. The father also gets a 15 week "quota" that can not be given to the mother. Then there is a joint 16-20 weeks that can be shared between both parents. This strongly encourages fathers to take a minimum of 15 weeks paid leave.

As a result, 90% of fathers in Norway take some parental leave. And about 70% take at least the full 15 weeks. And unsurprisingly, Norwegian fathers spend about 33% more time caring for their children and doing unpaid housework than American fathers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/08/22/1194946948/im-a-new-dad-heres-why-im-taking-more-parental-leave-than-my-wife

https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/pay-and-engagement-of-employees/permisjoner/parental-leave/

https://www.ssb.no/en/kultur-og-fritid/artikler-og-publikasjoner/yrkes-og-familiearbeid-i-barnefasen

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

This doesn't surprise me much then because my husband took the first four weeks off with me, then took more after I went back to work after 16 weeks. From day one he did as much as I did (we had twins who were premature but not in the NICU and they were on a mix of formula and pumped milk) and 15 years later he still does. I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives.

Pumping is not the same experience for everyone. For me, I didn't pump much because I found it really unpleasant (yes I tried different pumps and pump parts) and time consuming. We were also advised not to start pumping until baby was 6 weeks old.

Blaming women for their husbands not doing their part as a parent because the WOMEN did not do extra labor during the most labor intensive phase of parenting is a special kind of misogyny.

Way to miss the point. Enjoy your unhappy marriage I guess!

Nope, agree with the PP. If a woman is pumping milk (or the family is using formula) then yes, of course, the DH should be taking on more of the feeding duties. But if she's EBFing, for whatever reason, he should just do other stuff. Breastfeeding doesn't prevent a man from caretaking, that's absurd. Change diapers, get her dressed, give her baths, hold the baby when she cries, pay attention to her. Be the one looking up what to do about a fever or checking when the next pediatricians appointment is. Research nap schedules and initiate getting the baby on one. Do all the planning around his parents visiting or visiting them to meet the baby. And hey, why not check with mom while she's breastfeeding. Maybe being an around the clock food source is making her hungry or dehydrated -- can you make a sandwich or get her some water?

The idea that women somehow get in the way of men participating fully in parenting at the baby stage is just misogynist nonsense. There's lot to do. Do it. If you're unsure what to do, ask (your wife, the doctor, your own parents, friends with kids). Be a grown up. Take initiative.

Anyone claiming that men are just desperate to be fully involved parents if only their wives would pump more milk is a moron. Kids start eating some solids at 6 months! Breastfeeding is barely a blip and only one part of childcare. Honestly.

Well, you also missed the point of the post but I hope you had fun with your ranting.

I am the first PP that called you misogynist. You said, "I get that only women can breastfeed, but I think a lot of you do yourselves a disservice by not having your husbands do as much as possible in the beginning (pump some and let your husband feed the babies!) then you've set the tone for the rest of your lives." I and the other PP are saying your solution of pumping doesn't work for everyone and it is ridiculous to suggest, as you definitely did, that by not doing extra work during the baby stage we somehow set the stage for our husbands to be less involved. Men do not need to feed an infant to be involved fathers, and if they choose not to be involved by let's say not wanting to wash pump parts or wake up early to take care of the baby or want to send the baby to daycare sick because they can't be bothered to care for a sick baby, then that is 100% on them.

DP. Agree with this. The most unequal marriages I know are where the DW EBF and both have demanding careers. It’s difficult to recover from the DW being the sole food source (and that’s the main job having a baby) for an entire year.

The push to EBF made sense once I had kids. The claims it’s “free” as though my time is worth nothing. It’s the patriarchy trying to use our labor. Formula is freedom and it allowed women to leave their babies and earn a living. During my own postpartum I could go workout or do something for myself without needing to pump,’ leave instructions or return by a certain time. In comparison, my EBF friends appeared to be in prison.

Hard disagree. Men can support EBF, recognize that EBF is a ton of labor so they do everything else for a few months, and then as the baby needs fewer and fewer feedings they do more. Men are sentient, intelligent life forms and can figure it out, they do not need to be told and if they don't step up without being yelled at that is on them, not on their wives.

So what happens when the woman is home all day on parental leave and the DH is at the office? Do you think they can step it up and do 50/50 while they aren’t even home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I minored in biological anthropology in college. Reality is, human children are not meant to be raised solely by two people. We did not evolve with isolated nuclear families.

Human children are so time-intensive that we evolved to be raised by an entire village of people (alloparents). From what I remember, among hunter gatherers, the ratio of adults to children is around 4:1 and infants are held by up to 18 different people per hour.

Animals with extremely time-intensive parenting, such as birds, usually have a very short period of rearing. A baby bird is off on its own within 6-8 weeks.

Of course, there are trade-offs. Among animals, babies usually just follow their parents around while the parents go do normal life activities. However, this leads to extremely high death rates of 50-90%. Even among hunter-gatherers, childhood mortality is around 50%.

And having a village raise your child means they will alloparent in different ways from you, and you have very little say in it. There are reports of hunter-gatherers where the parents do virtually zero discipline and leave it up to other members of the group. This wouldn't fly among many parents today.

Unfortunately I don't think there's really a solution for families in the United States. We want to be independent and not live with multiple other people. Things like free daycare, free healthcare, a living wage, etc do help, though. But the reality is that life with kids is just intense. Add a capitalistic system where we're supposed to buy more things and bigger things, and nobody is happy.

As a grandparent who loves and wants to be part of the village, I would much more If I was allowed to "alloparent" similarly but not EXACTLY as the parents. We're made to feel as if our experience means nothing and are required to ask about everything. I'm not talking about diets, that I get. Times have changed but how we love and show love shouldn't be policed so strictly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I minored in biological anthropology in college. Reality is, human children are not meant to be raised solely by two people. We did not evolve with isolated nuclear families.

Human children are so time-intensive that we evolved to be raised by an entire village of people (alloparents). From what I remember, among hunter gatherers, the ratio of adults to children is around 4:1 and infants are held by up to 18 different people per hour.

Animals with extremely time-intensive parenting, such as birds, usually have a very short period of rearing. A baby bird is off on its own within 6-8 weeks.

Of course, there are trade-offs. Among animals, babies usually just follow their parents around while the parents go do normal life activities. However, this leads to extremely high death rates of 50-90%. Even among hunter-gatherers, childhood mortality is around 50%.

And having a village raise your child means they will alloparent in different ways from you, and you have very little say in it. There are reports of hunter-gatherers where the parents do virtually zero discipline and leave it up to other members of the group. This wouldn't fly among many parents today.

Unfortunately I don't think there's really a solution for families in the United States. We want to be independent and not live with multiple other people. Things like free daycare, free healthcare, a living wage, etc do help, though. But the reality is that life with kids is just intense. Add a capitalistic system where we're supposed to buy more things and bigger things, and nobody is happy.

As a grandparent who loves and wants to be part of the village, I would much more If I was allowed to "alloparent" similarly but not EXACTLY as the parents. We're made to feel as if our experience means nothing and are required to ask about everything. I'm not talking about diets, that I get. Times have changed but how we love and show love shouldn't be policed so strictly.

Boomer?