What I’m noticing from millennial high achieving moms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1990 here, also Ivy grad. I've observed One And Done -OR- no kids actually. I had a kid at 30 and was the earliest one in my friend group.

I don't think of one and done or no kids as a flex. Three kids is very common in my area (Greenwich). That's the flex. Everything on the initial list is accurate. The running marathons is not something that I see (and I'm a former college runner so these are my people) but being very fit is definitely a flex.

PP here. I wasn't trying to say it's a flex. Just that it's the trend I see in my cohort. I'm 34 and I don't know anyone with 3 kids, a few with two kids, and quite a lot with one kid or no kids.

Ah that’s because you’re still relatively young. The third kid usually comes in the later 30s. Especially the baby girl with two older brothers. I’m 39 and there’s a lot of “2 close in age and then a 3rd when the younger is around 4-5.”

The “two careers” thing is common with only one kid but by the time kid 2 or 3 enters the picture, someone is ready to lean out to a part time job, or to government from private industry/Biglaw. All the rest is extremely true and is also true of older Millennials. There is also a lot of family financial support going on. Even in higher earning couples. Grandparents help pay for an additional nanny or private pre-K-12 and contribute the max to the college savings account.

I thought I wrote this for a second. I had two kids and DH and I both had big careers. I ended up taking a break and stayed home with my third kid. I have a five age gap between my second and third kid. I had first two kids in my early thirties and third kid at age 39.

OP still has young kids. This is doable with a good nanny. Juggling 3+ kids with a spouse who has a demanding schedule is not easy.

We are in our late forties now. Those women who seemed like super moms are now divorcing, have husbands who cheat, husbands who lose their jobs, kids who have special needs or anxiety or social problems. Everyone has problems not shown on social media.

Early years when kids wear adorable outfits on vacation to post on social media does not always continue in another decade.

So your hot take is that quitting your job after having a third child somehow made it so that your children don’t have social anxiety or special needs. I’d love to understand what quackery got you to that conclusion. Was it that you had more time to swim with them in Rock Creek Park when they were young or was it that you had more time to filter fluoride out of their drinking water?

DP but I didn't get any of that from PP. She had a follow up post where she talks about how the early years with her older two kids and working full time were a blur and might have looked good from the outside (cute pics of the kids, etc.) but it was really hard, and it's been better for HER to be home with them. I don't get the sense she's saying her kids have no issues.

As someone who has worked and stayed home as well, what I've learned is that everyone's family has issues, and you just need some kind of plan for addressing them. Anyone's kid can have SNs or social issues. A SAHP who actually likes that role could make that experience a lot easier on their family, but extended family, a great nanny, two partners working jobs with good work-life balance could be a better solution for other families. It just depends.

We have no help from extended family and don't make enough money to pay for a great nanny or other help, so for us, me staying home certain years was huge for helping us weather the tough times with kids better. We made the best choice for our circumstances. If our kids had other adults in their lives who were core supports, we might have made a different choice.

Everyone is just doing the best they can. Some people have more and better resources than others, and people have different personalities, kids, and marriages, so of course not everyone makes the same choices.

It’s quoted above…but putting it here for people you: “Those moms who seem like super moms have husbands who lose their jobs, are divorcing, their kids have special needs and social anxiety…”

She’s a Gen X (“older forties”) whose personality is literally “schadenfreude”. Why is she posting on a high achieving millennial moms thread that women juggling kids and jobs will eventually suffer through cheating spouses and kids’ mental health issues? It’s dark, mean, and incorrect. I can only imagine that a lack of self awareness and insecurity would make someone post this type of garbage.

I think it was misstated. Parents of working moms and stay at home moms can both end up with issues. I say this as a working parent - my kids spend a lot of time with our nanny and to me, it’s not ideal. My job flexibility is going away as more companies push RTO and I might quit, which would be a financial sacrifice - I don’t want to be away from my kids 12 hours a day. Right now I’m holed up at my computer working for 9 of those, but I save my commute hours and I have a pulse on things at home.

I’m a working mom with a kid who has special needs (and another kid who is typically developing). Most of my friends work and their kids don’t have special needs. My older sister is gen x and those with sahps are just as likely to have anxiety and eating disorders as the kids with the working parents. Everyone’s got their stuff. Barring a kid with special needs, the question is what the parent wants out of life and if the family can afford a sahp.

I wouldn't call a peer who became at SAHM after 10-12 years high achieving. After 15 years your career has more of an arc, but a career in any real sense is over 25 years. The bar is different for a high achieving millennial SAHM than a high achieving millennial working mom. There is no equivalency.

What is that higher achieving SAHM has a husband who is much more successful than the working mom and her husband and kids all attend the same schools? Are you still not peers living in the same neighborhood? You went to the same top colleges, kids attend same private schools, members at the same country clubs, etc.

If a female CFO is a high achiever is her husband also a high achiever? If someone’s spouse is a famous author or scientist and a high achiever does it mean their spouse is also a high achiever? If their spouse died or they got divorced would they still be considered a high achiever?

In your example, are you defining high achieving as simply being wealthy and being a member of an exclusive country club? There are lots of people who inherit wealth and status, but outside of spending their money don’t do much. Would you consider them to be high achieving if their kids go to private school and they live in a big house?

[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:1990 here, also Ivy grad. I've observed One And Done -OR- no kids actually. I had a kid at 30 and was the earliest one in my friend group.

I don't think of one and done or no kids as a flex. Three kids is very common in my area (Greenwich). That's the flex. Everything on the initial list is accurate. The running marathons is not something that I see (and I'm a former college runner so these are my people) but being very fit is definitely a flex.

PP here. I wasn't trying to say it's a flex. Just that it's the trend I see in my cohort. I'm 34 and I don't know anyone with 3 kids, a few with two kids, and quite a lot with one kid or no kids.

Ah that’s because you’re still relatively young. The third kid usually comes in the later 30s. Especially the baby girl with two older brothers. I’m 39 and there’s a lot of “2 close in age and then a 3rd when the younger is around 4-5.”

The “two careers” thing is common with only one kid but by the time kid 2 or 3 enters the picture, someone is ready to lean out to a part time job, or to government from private industry/Biglaw. All the rest is extremely true and is also true of older Millennials. There is also a lot of family financial support going on. Even in higher earning couples. Grandparents help pay for an additional nanny or private pre-K-12 and contribute the max to the college savings account.

I thought I wrote this for a second. I had two kids and DH and I both had big careers. I ended up taking a break and stayed home with my third kid. I have a five age gap between my second and third kid. I had first two kids in my early thirties and third kid at age 39.

OP still has young kids. This is doable with a good nanny. Juggling 3+ kids with a spouse who has a demanding schedule is not easy.

We are in our late forties now. Those women who seemed like super moms are now divorcing, have husbands who cheat, husbands who lose their jobs, kids who have special needs or anxiety or social problems. Everyone has problems not shown on social media.

Early years when kids wear adorable outfits on vacation to post on social media does not always continue in another decade.

So your hot take is that quitting your job after having a third child somehow made it so that your children don’t have social anxiety or special needs. I’d love to understand what quackery got you to that conclusion. Was it that you had more time to swim with them in Rock Creek Park when they were young or was it that you had more time to filter fluoride out of their drinking water?

DP but I didn't get any of that from PP. She had a follow up post where she talks about how the early years with her older two kids and working full time were a blur and might have looked good from the outside (cute pics of the kids, etc.) but it was really hard, and it's been better for HER to be home with them. I don't get the sense she's saying her kids have no issues.

As someone who has worked and stayed home as well, what I've learned is that everyone's family has issues, and you just need some kind of plan for addressing them. Anyone's kid can have SNs or social issues. A SAHP who actually likes that role could make that experience a lot easier on their family, but extended family, a great nanny, two partners working jobs with good work-life balance could be a better solution for other families. It just depends.

We have no help from extended family and don't make enough money to pay for a great nanny or other help, so for us, me staying home certain years was huge for helping us weather the tough times with kids better. We made the best choice for our circumstances. If our kids had other adults in their lives who were core supports, we might have made a different choice.

Everyone is just doing the best they can. Some people have more and better resources than others, and people have different personalities, kids, and marriages, so of course not everyone makes the same choices.

It’s quoted above…but putting it here for people you: “Those moms who seem like super moms have husbands who lose their jobs, are divorcing, their kids have special needs and social anxiety…”

She’s a Gen X (“older forties”) whose personality is literally “schadenfreude”. Why is she posting on a high achieving millennial moms thread that women juggling kids and jobs will eventually suffer through cheating spouses and kids’ mental health issues? It’s dark, mean, and incorrect. I can only imagine that a lack of self awareness and insecurity would make someone post this type of garbage.

I think it was misstated. Parents of working moms and stay at home moms can both end up with issues. I say this as a working parent - my kids spend a lot of time with our nanny and to me, it’s not ideal. My job flexibility is going away as more companies push RTO and I might quit, which would be a financial sacrifice - I don’t want to be away from my kids 12 hours a day. Right now I’m holed up at my computer working for 9 of those, but I save my commute hours and I have a pulse on things at home.

I’m a working mom with a kid who has special needs (and another kid who is typically developing). Most of my friends work and their kids don’t have special needs. My older sister is gen x and those with sahps are just as likely to have anxiety and eating disorders as the kids with the working parents. Everyone’s got their stuff. Barring a kid with special needs, the question is what the parent wants out of life and if the family can afford a sahp.

I wouldn't call a peer who became at SAHM after 10-12 years high achieving. After 15 years your career has more of an arc, but a career in any real sense is over 25 years. The bar is different for a high achieving millennial SAHM than a high achieving millennial working mom. There is no equivalency.

What is that higher achieving SAHM has a husband who is much more successful than the working mom and her husband and kids all attend the same schools? Are you still not peers living in the same neighborhood? You went to the same top colleges, kids attend same private schools, members at the same country clubs, etc.

If a female CFO is a high achiever is her husband also a high achiever? If someone’s spouse is a famous author or scientist and a high achiever does it mean their spouse is also a high achiever? If their spouse died or they got divorced would they still be considered a high achiever?

In your example, are you defining high achieving as simply being wealthy and being a member of an exclusive country club? There are lots of people who inherit wealth and status, but outside of spending their money don’t do much. Would you consider them to be high achieving if their kids go to private school and they live in a big house?

The pp said peer. I host those families in my home.

If my husband is a CEO in the same field and that mom is in a VP position in the same field and her husband is a director in also the same industry, I may be hosting these people in my house. I may also be volunteering at the school together, vacation together, etc.

Maybe I’m just a friend, not a peer.

[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:1990 here, also Ivy grad. I've observed One And Done -OR- no kids actually. I had a kid at 30 and was the earliest one in my friend group.

I don't think of one and done or no kids as a flex. Three kids is very common in my area (Greenwich). That's the flex. Everything on the initial list is accurate. The running marathons is not something that I see (and I'm a former college runner so these are my people) but being very fit is definitely a flex.

PP here. I wasn't trying to say it's a flex. Just that it's the trend I see in my cohort. I'm 34 and I don't know anyone with 3 kids, a few with two kids, and quite a lot with one kid or no kids.

Ah that’s because you’re still relatively young. The third kid usually comes in the later 30s. Especially the baby girl with two older brothers. I’m 39 and there’s a lot of “2 close in age and then a 3rd when the younger is around 4-5.”

The “two careers” thing is common with only one kid but by the time kid 2 or 3 enters the picture, someone is ready to lean out to a part time job, or to government from private industry/Biglaw. All the rest is extremely true and is also true of older Millennials. There is also a lot of family financial support going on. Even in higher earning couples. Grandparents help pay for an additional nanny or private pre-K-12 and contribute the max to the college savings account.

I thought I wrote this for a second. I had two kids and DH and I both had big careers. I ended up taking a break and stayed home with my third kid. I have a five age gap between my second and third kid. I had first two kids in my early thirties and third kid at age 39.

OP still has young kids. This is doable with a good nanny. Juggling 3+ kids with a spouse who has a demanding schedule is not easy.

We are in our late forties now. Those women who seemed like super moms are now divorcing, have husbands who cheat, husbands who lose their jobs, kids who have special needs or anxiety or social problems. Everyone has problems not shown on social media.

Early years when kids wear adorable outfits on vacation to post on social media does not always continue in another decade.

So your hot take is that quitting your job after having a third child somehow made it so that your children don’t have social anxiety or special needs. I’d love to understand what quackery got you to that conclusion. Was it that you had more time to swim with them in Rock Creek Park when they were young or was it that you had more time to filter fluoride out of their drinking water?

DP but I didn't get any of that from PP. She had a follow up post where she talks about how the early years with her older two kids and working full time were a blur and might have looked good from the outside (cute pics of the kids, etc.) but it was really hard, and it's been better for HER to be home with them. I don't get the sense she's saying her kids have no issues.

As someone who has worked and stayed home as well, what I've learned is that everyone's family has issues, and you just need some kind of plan for addressing them. Anyone's kid can have SNs or social issues. A SAHP who actually likes that role could make that experience a lot easier on their family, but extended family, a great nanny, two partners working jobs with good work-life balance could be a better solution for other families. It just depends.

We have no help from extended family and don't make enough money to pay for a great nanny or other help, so for us, me staying home certain years was huge for helping us weather the tough times with kids better. We made the best choice for our circumstances. If our kids had other adults in their lives who were core supports, we might have made a different choice.

Everyone is just doing the best they can. Some people have more and better resources than others, and people have different personalities, kids, and marriages, so of course not everyone makes the same choices.

It’s quoted above…but putting it here for people you: “Those moms who seem like super moms have husbands who lose their jobs, are divorcing, their kids have special needs and social anxiety…”

She’s a Gen X (“older forties”) whose personality is literally “schadenfreude”. Why is she posting on a high achieving millennial moms thread that women juggling kids and jobs will eventually suffer through cheating spouses and kids’ mental health issues? It’s dark, mean, and incorrect. I can only imagine that a lack of self awareness and insecurity would make someone post this type of garbage.

I think it was misstated. Parents of working moms and stay at home moms can both end up with issues. I say this as a working parent - my kids spend a lot of time with our nanny and to me, it’s not ideal. My job flexibility is going away as more companies push RTO and I might quit, which would be a financial sacrifice - I don’t want to be away from my kids 12 hours a day. Right now I’m holed up at my computer working for 9 of those, but I save my commute hours and I have a pulse on things at home.

I’m a working mom with a kid who has special needs (and another kid who is typically developing). Most of my friends work and their kids don’t have special needs. My older sister is gen x and those with sahps are just as likely to have anxiety and eating disorders as the kids with the working parents. Everyone’s got their stuff. Barring a kid with special needs, the question is what the parent wants out of life and if the family can afford a sahp.

I wouldn't call a peer who became at SAHM after 10-12 years high achieving. After 15 years your career has more of an arc, but a career in any real sense is over 25 years. The bar is different for a high achieving millennial SAHM than a high achieving millennial working mom. There is no equivalency.

What is that higher achieving SAHM has a husband who is much more successful than the working mom and her husband and kids all attend the same schools? Are you still not peers living in the same neighborhood? You went to the same top colleges, kids attend same private schools, members at the same country clubs, etc.

If a female CFO is a high achiever is her husband also a high achiever? If someone’s spouse is a famous author or scientist and a high achiever does it mean their spouse is also a high achiever? If their spouse died or they got divorced would they still be considered a high achiever?

In your example, are you defining high achieving as simply being wealthy and being a member of an exclusive country club? There are lots of people who inherit wealth and status, but outside of spending their money don’t do much. Would you consider them to be high achieving if their kids go to private school and they live in a big house?

High achieving isn’t limited to professional successes. A high achieving sahm might have been a top student, a great athlete, gone to a great college, or had a great career before kids. As a mom, they can be a great, present parent who is shuttling their kids everywhere and managing their home life really well. I know a stay at home mom I’d call high achieving and I know others who I’d say are less ambitious. What a narrow worldview.

I work but I value my stay at home mom friends. They are great parents, in tune with their kids needs, and a lot of them went back to work when their kids started school. They might not be law partners, but one’s profession is just a single component of achievement.

[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:1990 here, also Ivy grad. I've observed One And Done -OR- no kids actually. I had a kid at 30 and was the earliest one in my friend group.

I don't think of one and done or no kids as a flex. Three kids is very common in my area (Greenwich). That's the flex. Everything on the initial list is accurate. The running marathons is not something that I see (and I'm a former college runner so these are my people) but being very fit is definitely a flex.

PP here. I wasn't trying to say it's a flex. Just that it's the trend I see in my cohort. I'm 34 and I don't know anyone with 3 kids, a few with two kids, and quite a lot with one kid or no kids.

Ah that’s because you’re still relatively young. The third kid usually comes in the later 30s. Especially the baby girl with two older brothers. I’m 39 and there’s a lot of “2 close in age and then a 3rd when the younger is around 4-5.”

The “two careers” thing is common with only one kid but by the time kid 2 or 3 enters the picture, someone is ready to lean out to a part time job, or to government from private industry/Biglaw. All the rest is extremely true and is also true of older Millennials. There is also a lot of family financial support going on. Even in higher earning couples. Grandparents help pay for an additional nanny or private pre-K-12 and contribute the max to the college savings account.

I thought I wrote this for a second. I had two kids and DH and I both had big careers. I ended up taking a break and stayed home with my third kid. I have a five age gap between my second and third kid. I had first two kids in my early thirties and third kid at age 39.

OP still has young kids. This is doable with a good nanny. Juggling 3+ kids with a spouse who has a demanding schedule is not easy.

We are in our late forties now. Those women who seemed like super moms are now divorcing, have husbands who cheat, husbands who lose their jobs, kids who have special needs or anxiety or social problems. Everyone has problems not shown on social media.

Early years when kids wear adorable outfits on vacation to post on social media does not always continue in another decade.

So your hot take is that quitting your job after having a third child somehow made it so that your children don’t have social anxiety or special needs. I’d love to understand what quackery got you to that conclusion. Was it that you had more time to swim with them in Rock Creek Park when they were young or was it that you had more time to filter fluoride out of their drinking water?

DP but I didn't get any of that from PP. She had a follow up post where she talks about how the early years with her older two kids and working full time were a blur and might have looked good from the outside (cute pics of the kids, etc.) but it was really hard, and it's been better for HER to be home with them. I don't get the sense she's saying her kids have no issues.

As someone who has worked and stayed home as well, what I've learned is that everyone's family has issues, and you just need some kind of plan for addressing them. Anyone's kid can have SNs or social issues. A SAHP who actually likes that role could make that experience a lot easier on their family, but extended family, a great nanny, two partners working jobs with good work-life balance could be a better solution for other families. It just depends.

We have no help from extended family and don't make enough money to pay for a great nanny or other help, so for us, me staying home certain years was huge for helping us weather the tough times with kids better. We made the best choice for our circumstances. If our kids had other adults in their lives who were core supports, we might have made a different choice.

Everyone is just doing the best they can. Some people have more and better resources than others, and people have different personalities, kids, and marriages, so of course not everyone makes the same choices.

It’s quoted above…but putting it here for people you: “Those moms who seem like super moms have husbands who lose their jobs, are divorcing, their kids have special needs and social anxiety…”

She’s a Gen X (“older forties”) whose personality is literally “schadenfreude”. Why is she posting on a high achieving millennial moms thread that women juggling kids and jobs will eventually suffer through cheating spouses and kids’ mental health issues? It’s dark, mean, and incorrect. I can only imagine that a lack of self awareness and insecurity would make someone post this type of garbage.

I think it was misstated. Parents of working moms and stay at home moms can both end up with issues. I say this as a working parent - my kids spend a lot of time with our nanny and to me, it’s not ideal. My job flexibility is going away as more companies push RTO and I might quit, which would be a financial sacrifice - I don’t want to be away from my kids 12 hours a day. Right now I’m holed up at my computer working for 9 of those, but I save my commute hours and I have a pulse on things at home.

I’m a working mom with a kid who has special needs (and another kid who is typically developing). Most of my friends work and their kids don’t have special needs. My older sister is gen x and those with sahps are just as likely to have anxiety and eating disorders as the kids with the working parents. Everyone’s got their stuff. Barring a kid with special needs, the question is what the parent wants out of life and if the family can afford a sahp.

I wouldn't call a peer who became at SAHM after 10-12 years high achieving. After 15 years your career has more of an arc, but a career in any real sense is over 25 years. The bar is different for a high achieving millennial SAHM than a high achieving millennial working mom. There is no equivalency.

What is that higher achieving SAHM has a husband who is much more successful than the working mom and her husband and kids all attend the same schools? Are you still not peers living in the same neighborhood? You went to the same top colleges, kids attend same private schools, members at the same country clubs, etc.

If a female CFO is a high achiever is her husband also a high achiever? If someone’s spouse is a famous author or scientist and a high achiever does it mean their spouse is also a high achiever? If their spouse died or they got divorced would they still be considered a high achiever?

In your example, are you defining high achieving as simply being wealthy and being a member of an exclusive country club? There are lots of people who inherit wealth and status, but outside of spending their money don’t do much. Would you consider them to be high achieving if their kids go to private school and they live in a big house?

High achieving isn’t limited to professional successes. A high achieving sahm might have been a top student, a great athlete, gone to a great college, or had a great career before kids. As a mom, they can be a great, present parent who is shuttling their kids everywhere and managing their home life really well. I know a stay at home mom I’d call high achieving and I know others who I’d say are less ambitious. What a narrow worldview.

I work but I value my stay at home mom friends. They are great parents, in tune with their kids needs, and a lot of them went back to work when their kids started school. They might not be law partners, but one’s profession is just a single component of achievement.

A narrow worldview is viewing where someone went to college as a significant achievement when they are 29+ (millennials are 29-44). And with so many people getting a boost from legacy status or other advantages conferred by wealth the significance of the achievement is further muddied. Where some people are going to college is all but a foregone conclusion when they are born.

[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:1990 here, also Ivy grad. I've observed One And Done -OR- no kids actually. I had a kid at 30 and was the earliest one in my friend group.

I don't think of one and done or no kids as a flex. Three kids is very common in my area (Greenwich). That's the flex. Everything on the initial list is accurate. The running marathons is not something that I see (and I'm a former college runner so these are my people) but being very fit is definitely a flex.

PP here. I wasn't trying to say it's a flex. Just that it's the trend I see in my cohort. I'm 34 and I don't know anyone with 3 kids, a few with two kids, and quite a lot with one kid or no kids.

Ah that’s because you’re still relatively young. The third kid usually comes in the later 30s. Especially the baby girl with two older brothers. I’m 39 and there’s a lot of “2 close in age and then a 3rd when the younger is around 4-5.”

The “two careers” thing is common with only one kid but by the time kid 2 or 3 enters the picture, someone is ready to lean out to a part time job, or to government from private industry/Biglaw. All the rest is extremely true and is also true of older Millennials. There is also a lot of family financial support going on. Even in higher earning couples. Grandparents help pay for an additional nanny or private pre-K-12 and contribute the max to the college savings account.

I thought I wrote this for a second. I had two kids and DH and I both had big careers. I ended up taking a break and stayed home with my third kid. I have a five age gap between my second and third kid. I had first two kids in my early thirties and third kid at age 39.

OP still has young kids. This is doable with a good nanny. Juggling 3+ kids with a spouse who has a demanding schedule is not easy.

We are in our late forties now. Those women who seemed like super moms are now divorcing, have husbands who cheat, husbands who lose their jobs, kids who have special needs or anxiety or social problems. Everyone has problems not shown on social media.

Early years when kids wear adorable outfits on vacation to post on social media does not always continue in another decade.

So your hot take is that quitting your job after having a third child somehow made it so that your children don’t have social anxiety or special needs. I’d love to understand what quackery got you to that conclusion. Was it that you had more time to swim with them in Rock Creek Park when they were young or was it that you had more time to filter fluoride out of their drinking water?

DP but I didn't get any of that from PP. She had a follow up post where she talks about how the early years with her older two kids and working full time were a blur and might have looked good from the outside (cute pics of the kids, etc.) but it was really hard, and it's been better for HER to be home with them. I don't get the sense she's saying her kids have no issues.

As someone who has worked and stayed home as well, what I've learned is that everyone's family has issues, and you just need some kind of plan for addressing them. Anyone's kid can have SNs or social issues. A SAHP who actually likes that role could make that experience a lot easier on their family, but extended family, a great nanny, two partners working jobs with good work-life balance could be a better solution for other families. It just depends.

We have no help from extended family and don't make enough money to pay for a great nanny or other help, so for us, me staying home certain years was huge for helping us weather the tough times with kids better. We made the best choice for our circumstances. If our kids had other adults in their lives who were core supports, we might have made a different choice.

Everyone is just doing the best they can. Some people have more and better resources than others, and people have different personalities, kids, and marriages, so of course not everyone makes the same choices.

It’s quoted above…but putting it here for people you: “Those moms who seem like super moms have husbands who lose their jobs, are divorcing, their kids have special needs and social anxiety…”

She’s a Gen X (“older forties”) whose personality is literally “schadenfreude”. Why is she posting on a high achieving millennial moms thread that women juggling kids and jobs will eventually suffer through cheating spouses and kids’ mental health issues? It’s dark, mean, and incorrect. I can only imagine that a lack of self awareness and insecurity would make someone post this type of garbage.

I think it was misstated. Parents of working moms and stay at home moms can both end up with issues. I say this as a working parent - my kids spend a lot of time with our nanny and to me, it’s not ideal. My job flexibility is going away as more companies push RTO and I might quit, which would be a financial sacrifice - I don’t want to be away from my kids 12 hours a day. Right now I’m holed up at my computer working for 9 of those, but I save my commute hours and I have a pulse on things at home.

I’m a working mom with a kid who has special needs (and another kid who is typically developing). Most of my friends work and their kids don’t have special needs. My older sister is gen x and those with sahps are just as likely to have anxiety and eating disorders as the kids with the working parents. Everyone’s got their stuff. Barring a kid with special needs, the question is what the parent wants out of life and if the family can afford a sahp.

I wouldn't call a peer who became at SAHM after 10-12 years high achieving. After 15 years your career has more of an arc, but a career in any real sense is over 25 years. The bar is different for a high achieving millennial SAHM than a high achieving millennial working mom. There is no equivalency.

What is that higher achieving SAHM has a husband who is much more successful than the working mom and her husband and kids all attend the same schools? Are you still not peers living in the same neighborhood? You went to the same top colleges, kids attend same private schools, members at the same country clubs, etc.

If a female CFO is a high achiever is her husband also a high achiever? If someone’s spouse is a famous author or scientist and a high achiever does it mean their spouse is also a high achiever? If their spouse died or they got divorced would they still be considered a high achiever?

In your example, are you defining high achieving as simply being wealthy and being a member of an exclusive country club? There are lots of people who inherit wealth and status, but outside of spending their money don’t do much. Would you consider them to be high achieving if their kids go to private school and they live in a big house?

High achieving isn’t limited to professional successes. A high achieving sahm might have been a top student, a great athlete, gone to a great college, or had a great career before kids. As a mom, they can be a great, present parent who is shuttling their kids everywhere and managing their home life really well. I know a stay at home mom I’d call high achieving and I know others who I’d say are less ambitious. What a narrow worldview.

I work but I value my stay at home mom friends. They are great parents, in tune with their kids needs, and a lot of them went back to work when their kids started school. They might not be law partners, but one’s profession is just a single component of achievement.

A narrow worldview is viewing where someone went to college as a significant achievement when they are 29+ (millennials are 29-44). And with so many people getting a boost from legacy status or other advantages conferred by wealth the significance of the achievement is further muddied. Where some people are going to college is all but a foregone conclusion when they are born.

Most people who get into colleges are not legacies… and my point is that college is one of many different ways in which one can be “accomplished.”

And yes, that counts even if it’s in the past. Would you not consider Michael Phelps to be accomplished even though he hasn’t participated in the Olympics in a decade?

My larger point is that accomplishment is not unilaterally defined by your career, nor by any one period of your life.

[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:1990 here, also Ivy grad. I've observed One And Done -OR- no kids actually. I had a kid at 30 and was the earliest one in my friend group.

I don't think of one and done or no kids as a flex. Three kids is very common in my area (Greenwich). That's the flex. Everything on the initial list is accurate. The running marathons is not something that I see (and I'm a former college runner so these are my people) but being very fit is definitely a flex.

PP here. I wasn't trying to say it's a flex. Just that it's the trend I see in my cohort. I'm 34 and I don't know anyone with 3 kids, a few with two kids, and quite a lot with one kid or no kids.

Ah that’s because you’re still relatively young. The third kid usually comes in the later 30s. Especially the baby girl with two older brothers. I’m 39 and there’s a lot of “2 close in age and then a 3rd when the younger is around 4-5.”

The “two careers” thing is common with only one kid but by the time kid 2 or 3 enters the picture, someone is ready to lean out to a part time job, or to government from private industry/Biglaw. All the rest is extremely true and is also true of older Millennials. There is also a lot of family financial support going on. Even in higher earning couples. Grandparents help pay for an additional nanny or private pre-K-12 and contribute the max to the college savings account.

I thought I wrote this for a second. I had two kids and DH and I both had big careers. I ended up taking a break and stayed home with my third kid. I have a five age gap between my second and third kid. I had first two kids in my early thirties and third kid at age 39.

OP still has young kids. This is doable with a good nanny. Juggling 3+ kids with a spouse who has a demanding schedule is not easy.

We are in our late forties now. Those women who seemed like super moms are now divorcing, have husbands who cheat, husbands who lose their jobs, kids who have special needs or anxiety or social problems. Everyone has problems not shown on social media.

Early years when kids wear adorable outfits on vacation to post on social media does not always continue in another decade.

So your hot take is that quitting your job after having a third child somehow made it so that your children don’t have social anxiety or special needs. I’d love to understand what quackery got you to that conclusion. Was it that you had more time to swim with them in Rock Creek Park when they were young or was it that you had more time to filter fluoride out of their drinking water?

DP but I didn't get any of that from PP. She had a follow up post where she talks about how the early years with her older two kids and working full time were a blur and might have looked good from the outside (cute pics of the kids, etc.) but it was really hard, and it's been better for HER to be home with them. I don't get the sense she's saying her kids have no issues.

As someone who has worked and stayed home as well, what I've learned is that everyone's family has issues, and you just need some kind of plan for addressing them. Anyone's kid can have SNs or social issues. A SAHP who actually likes that role could make that experience a lot easier on their family, but extended family, a great nanny, two partners working jobs with good work-life balance could be a better solution for other families. It just depends.

We have no help from extended family and don't make enough money to pay for a great nanny or other help, so for us, me staying home certain years was huge for helping us weather the tough times with kids better. We made the best choice for our circumstances. If our kids had other adults in their lives who were core supports, we might have made a different choice.

Everyone is just doing the best they can. Some people have more and better resources than others, and people have different personalities, kids, and marriages, so of course not everyone makes the same choices.

It’s quoted above…but putting it here for people you: “Those moms who seem like super moms have husbands who lose their jobs, are divorcing, their kids have special needs and social anxiety…”

She’s a Gen X (“older forties”) whose personality is literally “schadenfreude”. Why is she posting on a high achieving millennial moms thread that women juggling kids and jobs will eventually suffer through cheating spouses and kids’ mental health issues? It’s dark, mean, and incorrect. I can only imagine that a lack of self awareness and insecurity would make someone post this type of garbage.

I think it was misstated. Parents of working moms and stay at home moms can both end up with issues. I say this as a working parent - my kids spend a lot of time with our nanny and to me, it’s not ideal. My job flexibility is going away as more companies push RTO and I might quit, which would be a financial sacrifice - I don’t want to be away from my kids 12 hours a day. Right now I’m holed up at my computer working for 9 of those, but I save my commute hours and I have a pulse on things at home.

I’m a working mom with a kid who has special needs (and another kid who is typically developing). Most of my friends work and their kids don’t have special needs. My older sister is gen x and those with sahps are just as likely to have anxiety and eating disorders as the kids with the working parents. Everyone’s got their stuff. Barring a kid with special needs, the question is what the parent wants out of life and if the family can afford a sahp.

I wouldn't call a peer who became at SAHM after 10-12 years high achieving. After 15 years your career has more of an arc, but a career in any real sense is over 25 years. The bar is different for a high achieving millennial SAHM than a high achieving millennial working mom. There is no equivalency.

What is that higher achieving SAHM has a husband who is much more successful than the working mom and her husband and kids all attend the same schools? Are you still not peers living in the same neighborhood? You went to the same top colleges, kids attend same private schools, members at the same country clubs, etc.

If a female CFO is a high achiever is her husband also a high achiever? If someone’s spouse is a famous author or scientist and a high achiever does it mean their spouse is also a high achiever? If their spouse died or they got divorced would they still be considered a high achiever?

In your example, are you defining high achieving as simply being wealthy and being a member of an exclusive country club? There are lots of people who inherit wealth and status, but outside of spending their money don’t do much. Would you consider them to be high achieving if their kids go to private school and they live in a big house?

High achieving isn’t limited to professional successes. A high achieving sahm might have been a top student, a great athlete, gone to a great college, or had a great career before kids. As a mom, they can be a great, present parent who is shuttling their kids everywhere and managing their home life really well. I know a stay at home mom I’d call high achieving and I know others who I’d say are less ambitious. What a narrow worldview.

I work but I value my stay at home mom friends. They are great parents, in tune with their kids needs, and a lot of them went back to work when their kids started school. They might not be law partners, but one’s profession is just a single component of achievement.

A narrow worldview is viewing where someone went to college as a significant achievement when they are 29+ (millennials are 29-44). And with so many people getting a boost from legacy status or other advantages conferred by wealth the significance of the achievement is further muddied. Where some people are going to college is all but a foregone conclusion when they are born.

Most people who get into colleges are not legacies… and my point is that college is one of many different ways in which one can be “accomplished.”

And yes, that counts even if it’s in the past. Would you not consider Michael Phelps to be accomplished even though he hasn’t participated in the Olympics in a decade?

My larger point is that accomplishment is not unilaterally defined by your career, nor by any one period of your life.

Michael Phelps’ Olympic career spanned nearly two decades (2000-2016) and he’s the greatest swimmer ever. It’s not comparable to spending four years studying sociology at Dartmouth or UVA.

[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:1990 here, also Ivy grad. I've observed One And Done -OR- no kids actually. I had a kid at 30 and was the earliest one in my friend group.

I don't think of one and done or no kids as a flex. Three kids is very common in my area (Greenwich). That's the flex. Everything on the initial list is accurate. The running marathons is not something that I see (and I'm a former college runner so these are my people) but being very fit is definitely a flex.

PP here. I wasn't trying to say it's a flex. Just that it's the trend I see in my cohort. I'm 34 and I don't know anyone with 3 kids, a few with two kids, and quite a lot with one kid or no kids.

Ah that’s because you’re still relatively young. The third kid usually comes in the later 30s. Especially the baby girl with two older brothers. I’m 39 and there’s a lot of “2 close in age and then a 3rd when the younger is around 4-5.”

The “two careers” thing is common with only one kid but by the time kid 2 or 3 enters the picture, someone is ready to lean out to a part time job, or to government from private industry/Biglaw. All the rest is extremely true and is also true of older Millennials. There is also a lot of family financial support going on. Even in higher earning couples. Grandparents help pay for an additional nanny or private pre-K-12 and contribute the max to the college savings account.

I thought I wrote this for a second. I had two kids and DH and I both had big careers. I ended up taking a break and stayed home with my third kid. I have a five age gap between my second and third kid. I had first two kids in my early thirties and third kid at age 39.

OP still has young kids. This is doable with a good nanny. Juggling 3+ kids with a spouse who has a demanding schedule is not easy.

We are in our late forties now. Those women who seemed like super moms are now divorcing, have husbands who cheat, husbands who lose their jobs, kids who have special needs or anxiety or social problems. Everyone has problems not shown on social media.

Early years when kids wear adorable outfits on vacation to post on social media does not always continue in another decade.

So your hot take is that quitting your job after having a third child somehow made it so that your children don’t have social anxiety or special needs. I’d love to understand what quackery got you to that conclusion. Was it that you had more time to swim with them in Rock Creek Park when they were young or was it that you had more time to filter fluoride out of their drinking water?

DP but I didn't get any of that from PP. She had a follow up post where she talks about how the early years with her older two kids and working full time were a blur and might have looked good from the outside (cute pics of the kids, etc.) but it was really hard, and it's been better for HER to be home with them. I don't get the sense she's saying her kids have no issues.

As someone who has worked and stayed home as well, what I've learned is that everyone's family has issues, and you just need some kind of plan for addressing them. Anyone's kid can have SNs or social issues. A SAHP who actually likes that role could make that experience a lot easier on their family, but extended family, a great nanny, two partners working jobs with good work-life balance could be a better solution for other families. It just depends.

We have no help from extended family and don't make enough money to pay for a great nanny or other help, so for us, me staying home certain years was huge for helping us weather the tough times with kids better. We made the best choice for our circumstances. If our kids had other adults in their lives who were core supports, we might have made a different choice.

Everyone is just doing the best they can. Some people have more and better resources than others, and people have different personalities, kids, and marriages, so of course not everyone makes the same choices.

It’s quoted above…but putting it here for people you: “Those moms who seem like super moms have husbands who lose their jobs, are divorcing, their kids have special needs and social anxiety…”

She’s a Gen X (“older forties”) whose personality is literally “schadenfreude”. Why is she posting on a high achieving millennial moms thread that women juggling kids and jobs will eventually suffer through cheating spouses and kids’ mental health issues? It’s dark, mean, and incorrect. I can only imagine that a lack of self awareness and insecurity would make someone post this type of garbage.

I think it was misstated. Parents of working moms and stay at home moms can both end up with issues. I say this as a working parent - my kids spend a lot of time with our nanny and to me, it’s not ideal. My job flexibility is going away as more companies push RTO and I might quit, which would be a financial sacrifice - I don’t want to be away from my kids 12 hours a day. Right now I’m holed up at my computer working for 9 of those, but I save my commute hours and I have a pulse on things at home.

I’m a working mom with a kid who has special needs (and another kid who is typically developing). Most of my friends work and their kids don’t have special needs. My older sister is gen x and those with sahps are just as likely to have anxiety and eating disorders as the kids with the working parents. Everyone’s got their stuff. Barring a kid with special needs, the question is what the parent wants out of life and if the family can afford a sahp.

I wouldn't call a peer who became at SAHM after 10-12 years high achieving. After 15 years your career has more of an arc, but a career in any real sense is over 25 years. The bar is different for a high achieving millennial SAHM than a high achieving millennial working mom. There is no equivalency.

What is that higher achieving SAHM has a husband who is much more successful than the working mom and her husband and kids all attend the same schools? Are you still not peers living in the same neighborhood? You went to the same top colleges, kids attend same private schools, members at the same country clubs, etc.

If a female CFO is a high achiever is her husband also a high achiever? If someone’s spouse is a famous author or scientist and a high achiever does it mean their spouse is also a high achiever? If their spouse died or they got divorced would they still be considered a high achiever?

In your example, are you defining high achieving as simply being wealthy and being a member of an exclusive country club? There are lots of people who inherit wealth and status, but outside of spending their money don’t do much. Would you consider them to be high achieving if their kids go to private school and they live in a big house?

High achieving isn’t limited to professional successes. A high achieving sahm might have been a top student, a great athlete, gone to a great college, or had a great career before kids. As a mom, they can be a great, present parent who is shuttling their kids everywhere and managing their home life really well. I know a stay at home mom I’d call high achieving and I know others who I’d say are less ambitious. What a narrow worldview.

I work but I value my stay at home mom friends. They are great parents, in tune with their kids needs, and a lot of them went back to work when their kids started school. They might not be law partners, but one’s profession is just a single component of achievement.

A narrow worldview is viewing where someone went to college as a significant achievement when they are 29+ (millennials are 29-44). And with so many people getting a boost from legacy status or other advantages conferred by wealth the significance of the achievement is further muddied. Where some people are going to college is all but a foregone conclusion when they are born.

Most people who get into colleges are not legacies… and my point is that college is one of many different ways in which one can be “accomplished.”

And yes, that counts even if it’s in the past. Would you not consider Michael Phelps to be accomplished even though he hasn’t participated in the Olympics in a decade?

My larger point is that accomplishment is not unilaterally defined by your career, nor by any one period of your life.

When I think of a high achieving millennial I don’t think of someone whose biggest achievement was getting into an Ivy or top SLAC or whose biggest achievement was winning the 800 meters at States in outdoor track their junior year of high school.

[Anonymous]

I'm not even going to bother reading the 24 pages of idiocy this post has prompted.

- Young Gen X Mom who thinks OP is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not even going to bother reading the 24 pages of idiocy this post has prompted.

- Young Gen X Mom who thinks OP is stupid.

I’m with you! It takes a few years to figure out how exhausting 3+ kids can be. By the time mom decides to SAH, the couple realizes how expensive 3+ kids can be esp to educate, save for retirement, take care of parents who are getting dementia. But you do you 30-somethings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not even going to bother reading the 24 pages of idiocy this post has prompted.

- Young Gen X Mom who thinks OP is stupid.

I’m with you! It takes a few years to figure out how exhausting 3+ kids can be. By the time mom decides to SAH, the couple realizes how expensive 3+ kids can be esp to educate, save for retirement, take care of parents who are getting dementia. But you do you 30-somethings.

I find it shocking that people have a third (or fourth or fifth) kid without realizing this. How???? Especially if you are well-educated and in your late 20s or early 30s by the time you start having kids.

I have friends with 3 who have acted surprised about every feature of their family size since the third was born. They were shocked at how expensive 4-5 bedroom houses are. They were shocked when their nanny expected more money for adding an infant to her workload. They were shocked when their food bill went up, when their eldest became jealous of the baby and started acting out, when their vacations became pricier and unwieldy due to the age spread.

I am empathetic -- it does in fact sound very hard. But I can't help wondering why on earth none of this occurred to them before? How can this be a surprise? I don't get it. This is precisely why we didn't have a third kid. We discussed it, we love kids and there are things about it that were very appealing, but the practicalities are just stacked against you.

I'm not against 3 or more kids (I am one of four, my sister has four) but I don't understand how it happens and then people realize "oh, this is harder and more expensive than having two, why didn't anyone tell me????" Uh, we thought you knew! It seems really obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not even going to bother reading the 24 pages of idiocy this post has prompted.

- Young Gen X Mom who thinks OP is stupid.

I’m with you! It takes a few years to figure out how exhausting 3+ kids can be. By the time mom decides to SAH, the couple realizes how expensive 3+ kids can be esp to educate, save for retirement, take care of parents who are getting dementia. But you do you 30-somethings.

I find it shocking that people have a third (or fourth or fifth) kid without realizing this. How???? Especially if you are well-educated and in your late 20s or early 30s by the time you start having kids.

I have friends with 3 who have acted surprised about every feature of their family size since the third was born. They were shocked at how expensive 4-5 bedroom houses are. They were shocked when their nanny expected more money for adding an infant to her workload. They were shocked when their food bill went up, when their eldest became jealous of the baby and started acting out, when their vacations became pricier and unwieldy due to the age spread.

I am empathetic -- it does in fact sound very hard. But I can't help wondering why on earth none of this occurred to them before? How can this be a surprise? I don't get it. This is precisely why we didn't have a third kid. We discussed it, we love kids and there are things about it that were very appealing, but the practicalities are just stacked against you.

I'm not against 3 or more kids (I am one of four, my sister has four) but I don't understand how it happens and then people realize "oh, this is harder and more expensive than having two, why didn't anyone tell me????" Uh, we thought you knew! It seems really obvious.

Newsflash, lady: they were not actually shocked - they were just venting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not even going to bother reading the 24 pages of idiocy this post has prompted.

- Young Gen X Mom who thinks OP is stupid.

I’m with you! It takes a few years to figure out how exhausting 3+ kids can be. By the time mom decides to SAH, the couple realizes how expensive 3+ kids can be esp to educate, save for retirement, take care of parents who are getting dementia. But you do you 30-somethings.

I find it shocking that people have a third (or fourth or fifth) kid without realizing this. How???? Especially if you are well-educated and in your late 20s or early 30s by the time you start having kids.

I have friends with 3 who have acted surprised about every feature of their family size since the third was born. They were shocked at how expensive 4-5 bedroom houses are. They were shocked when their nanny expected more money for adding an infant to her workload. They were shocked when their food bill went up, when their eldest became jealous of the baby and started acting out, when their vacations became pricier and unwieldy due to the age spread.

I am empathetic -- it does in fact sound very hard. But I can't help wondering why on earth none of this occurred to them before? How can this be a surprise? I don't get it. This is precisely why we didn't have a third kid. We discussed it, we love kids and there are things about it that were very appealing, but the practicalities are just stacked against you.

I'm not against 3 or more kids (I am one of four, my sister has four) but I don't understand how it happens and then people realize "oh, this is harder and more expensive than having two, why didn't anyone tell me????" Uh, we thought you knew! It seems really obvious.

Newsflash, lady: they were not actually shocked - they were just venting.

I don’t think this is it. I think it’s just that kids are the cheapest when they are babies, as expensive as a baby can be. At least for middle class folks with jobs and health care that seems like it’s certain forever with you’re in your prime before younger folks at work start to get some experience and catch up then overtake you. It’s just a human short sightedness and the fact that little kids can be rather charming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not even going to bother reading the 24 pages of idiocy this post has prompted.

- Young Gen X Mom who thinks OP is stupid.

I’m with you! It takes a few years to figure out how exhausting 3+ kids can be. By the time mom decides to SAH, the couple realizes how expensive 3+ kids can be esp to educate, save for retirement, take care of parents who are getting dementia. But you do you 30-somethings.

I find it shocking that people have a third (or fourth or fifth) kid without realizing this. How???? Especially if you are well-educated and in your late 20s or early 30s by the time you start having kids.

I have friends with 3 who have acted surprised about every feature of their family size since the third was born. They were shocked at how expensive 4-5 bedroom houses are. They were shocked when their nanny expected more money for adding an infant to her workload. They were shocked when their food bill went up, when their eldest became jealous of the baby and started acting out, when their vacations became pricier and unwieldy due to the age spread.

I am empathetic -- it does in fact sound very hard. But I can't help wondering why on earth none of this occurred to them before? How can this be a surprise? I don't get it. This is precisely why we didn't have a third kid. We discussed it, we love kids and there are things about it that were very appealing, but the practicalities are just stacked against you.

I'm not against 3 or more kids (I am one of four, my sister has four) but I don't understand how it happens and then people realize "oh, this is harder and more expensive than having two, why didn't anyone tell me????" Uh, we thought you knew! It seems really obvious.

Newsflash, lady: they were not actually shocked - they were just venting.

No, I agree that I don't think people with 3+ kids really thought it through, they just wanted more babies but then didn't think about logistics. Have 3+ kids? You'll need 2 hotel rooms or have to pay extra for a cot or make your kids sleep 3 to a bed and they will hate you forever for that. Have 3+ kids? You'll need a bigger car that fits 6+ people in case you need to bring a friend along somewhere. Have 3+ kids? One of them will always feel excluded if it's an odd number.

How do people not think this through???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not even going to bother reading the 24 pages of idiocy this post has prompted.

- Young Gen X Mom who thinks OP is stupid.

I’m with you! It takes a few years to figure out how exhausting 3+ kids can be. By the time mom decides to SAH, the couple realizes how expensive 3+ kids can be esp to educate, save for retirement, take care of parents who are getting dementia. But you do you 30-somethings.

I find it shocking that people have a third (or fourth or fifth) kid without realizing this. How???? Especially if you are well-educated and in your late 20s or early 30s by the time you start having kids.

I have friends with 3 who have acted surprised about every feature of their family size since the third was born. They were shocked at how expensive 4-5 bedroom houses are. They were shocked when their nanny expected more money for adding an infant to her workload. They were shocked when their food bill went up, when their eldest became jealous of the baby and started acting out, when their vacations became pricier and unwieldy due to the age spread.

I am empathetic -- it does in fact sound very hard. But I can't help wondering why on earth none of this occurred to them before? How can this be a surprise? I don't get it. This is precisely why we didn't have a third kid. We discussed it, we love kids and there are things about it that were very appealing, but the practicalities are just stacked against you.

I'm not against 3 or more kids (I am one of four, my sister has four) but I don't understand how it happens and then people realize "oh, this is harder and more expensive than having two, why didn't anyone tell me????" Uh, we thought you knew! It seems really obvious.

Newsflash, lady: they were not actually shocked - they were just venting.

They are venting because they are surprised. If they really understood all these aspects of having 3 or more kids, why would they need to vent about this stuff?

Also, the way they vent is like "ong can you believe this?" and the truth is that yes, of course I believe it. It is obvious to most people. Am I supposed to get worked up that my friend has to pay for two hotel rooms when they travel or their private school didn't offer them more of a discount for their third kid? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not even going to bother reading the 24 pages of idiocy this post has prompted.

- Young Gen X Mom who thinks OP is stupid.

I’m with you! It takes a few years to figure out how exhausting 3+ kids can be. By the time mom decides to SAH, the couple realizes how expensive 3+ kids can be esp to educate, save for retirement, take care of parents who are getting dementia. But you do you 30-somethings.

I find it shocking that people have a third (or fourth or fifth) kid without realizing this. How???? Especially if you are well-educated and in your late 20s or early 30s by the time you start having kids.

I have friends with 3 who have acted surprised about every feature of their family size since the third was born. They were shocked at how expensive 4-5 bedroom houses are. They were shocked when their nanny expected more money for adding an infant to her workload. They were shocked when their food bill went up, when their eldest became jealous of the baby and started acting out, when their vacations became pricier and unwieldy due to the age spread.

I am empathetic -- it does in fact sound very hard. But I can't help wondering why on earth none of this occurred to them before? How can this be a surprise? I don't get it. This is precisely why we didn't have a third kid. We discussed it, we love kids and there are things about it that were very appealing, but the practicalities are just stacked against you.

I'm not against 3 or more kids (I am one of four, my sister has four) but I don't understand how it happens and then people realize "oh, this is harder and more expensive than having two, why didn't anyone tell me????" Uh, we thought you knew! It seems really obvious.

Newsflash, lady: they were not actually shocked - they were just venting.

No, I agree that I don't think people with 3+ kids really thought it through, they just wanted more babies but then didn't think about logistics. Have 3+ kids? You'll need 2 hotel rooms or have to pay extra for a cot or make your kids sleep 3 to a bed and they will hate you forever for that. Have 3+ kids? You'll need a bigger car that fits 6+ people in case you need to bring a friend along somewhere. Have 3+ kids? One of them will always feel excluded if it's an odd number.

How do people not think this through???

Oh, well if YOU agree that must mean it’s gospel