Nytimes: I’ve picked my job over my kids

[Anonymous]

am a working single mom. My work is also a major part of my identity; I make a difference in the world and I am proud of what I do.

But my daughter comes first. I am her only mother, and I am teaching her who she is and how to be in the world. I am teaching her what Love looks like. Yes, sometimes I work long hours, but not even close to the way the author describes her priorities. My daughter will grow up and move out, and then I can work as much as I please, but her childhood doesn’t get a do over. I chose to be a mom, and being there for her is the biggest part of what it means to me to be her mom.

I do not understand the author’s priorities at all. I wonder if her children do, either. I hope that she has some magic that makes it all okay, but a tearful seven year old crying over a missed birthday party (one missed event in a long list) seems like the stuff of rage, pain, adult therapy, and painful questions with uncomfortable answers. There is no going back from some things. I hope I am wrong and that her children in adulthood will just be proud of her, but I have serious doubts about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Children do not need to come first when 1st means they need a birthday party. First means they need food, shelter, education and love/protection.

This is not new. Even women who “stayed home” cared for the animals on the farm and the garden. They did not coddle their child’s every need.

The endless need to coddle children’s every whim is the problem not missing a few ridiculous newly invented events in their life like the 100th day of school, K graduation, the endless need to go to a pumpkin patch every Fall.

But in those days the kids had more freedom, they were not "farmed" locked up in tinny homes and apartments and schools all day long. They had happy free roaming life full of experiences and interactions with all kinds of people. Their needs were filled in many different ways from many different sources. It was also not standard to have b. parties then.
Now you live in different times when a child is isolated from most of the world for most of the time due to the system, the parents and the current trends. If you are the one who depraves a child from all natural resources for attention, love and friendships in free fall manner, then YOU need to substitute up to the standards of the society.

What you PP are trying to do is take away it all from a kid and give nothing saying it is fair
and your final argument is "suck it up butter cup".

Bless your heart. You are bent on raising kids who will grow into broken people. What is your conviction? Every house needs a strong foundation, every tree needs a strong roots. You want both, no roots and no foundation and you clearly give no F. about the tree at the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These justifications fall flat. For pretty much anyone out there, the author included, there are other people who could and would do the job. Nearly none of us is so unique or special in our job so as to be indispensable to our clients or employers.

I think you've never met a truly mission-driven person. It's not that they think they are unique, but rather they are committed to what they are doing. That is their life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children do not need to come first when 1st means they need a birthday party. First means they need food, shelter, education and love/protection.

This is not new. Even women who “stayed home” cared for the animals on the farm and the garden. They did not coddle their child’s every need.

The endless need to coddle children’s every whim is the problem not missing a few ridiculous newly invented events in their life like the 100th day of school, K graduation, the endless need to go to a pumpkin patch every Fall.

But in those days the kids had more freedom, they were not "farmed" locked up in tinny homes and apartments and schools all day long. They had happy free roaming life full of experiences and interactions with all kinds of people. Their needs were filled in many different ways from many different sources. It was also not standard to have b. parties then.
Now you live in different times when a child is isolated from most of the world for most of the time due to the system, the parents and the current trends. If you are the one who depraves a child from all natural resources for attention, love and friendships in free fall manner, then YOU need to substitute up to the standards of the society.

What you PP are trying to do is take away it all from a kid and give nothing saying it is fair
and your final argument is "suck it up butter cup".

Bless your heart. You are bent on raising kids who will grow into broken people. What is your conviction? Every house needs a strong foundation, every tree needs a strong roots. You want both, no roots and no foundation and you clearly give no F. about the tree at the end.

why can't THE DAD provide that foundation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These justifications fall flat. For pretty much anyone out there, the author included, there are other people who could and would do the job. Nearly none of us is so unique or special in our job so as to be indispensable to our clients or employers.

That's true. I assume you believe all men should quit their jobs too? Or do you go the other way and think we should have an all-male workplace? I can never tell which particular logical fallacy you people are going for

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These justifications fall flat. For pretty much anyone out there, the author included, there are other people who could and would do the job. Nearly none of us is so unique or special in our job so as to be indispensable to our clients or employers.

I think you've never met a truly mission-driven person. It's not that they think they are unique, but rather they are committed to what they are doing. That is their life.

Sure. But if that's your life, why have kids? I say that as someone who generally rolls my eyes at the "why have kids" comment, but in this case...if you live and breathe "THE MISSION" seems like having kids is just an added hassle. As it clearly is in this case.

[Anonymous]

The author seems to suggest that if she weren't there, there would be no other person in the world to take on these cases, no other competent lawyers who could possibly be doing the work that she does.

Special level of narcissism. Weird how she's sooo indespensible when it comes to her work, but when it comes to being there for the children she produced...meh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children do not need to come first when 1st means they need a birthday party. First means they need food, shelter, education and love/protection.

This is not new. Even women who “stayed home” cared for the animals on the farm and the garden. They did not coddle their child’s every need.

The endless need to coddle children’s every whim is the problem not missing a few ridiculous newly invented events in their life like the 100th day of school, K graduation, the endless need to go to a pumpkin patch every Fall.

+ 1

My family member is active duty. You should see what amazing and resilient children their family has raised. They grew up understanding they were not the center of the universe, learning how to do things for themselves, and learning how to work through adversity.

There is a big difference between being active duty and deployed and choosing a work schedule/date that you know will upset your child on their special day. If you cannot be available to your child a few days a year you should not be having kids. This isn't a field trip, this isn't 100 day of school. This is one day a year, their birthday. More than likely parents like that don't spend much time with their kids and their kids are just there for status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The author seems to suggest that if she weren't there, there would be no other person in the world to take on these cases, no other competent lawyers who could possibly be doing the work that she does.

Special level of narcissism. Weird how she's sooo indespensible when it comes to her work, but when it comes to being there for the children she produced...meh.

+1

[Anonymous]

As long as the other parent is filling that primary parent role, I don’t have too much of a problem with this. For me, what the feminism movement did was make it clear that roles within a family do not have to be gender based. So if her ex is the one doing the scheduling, party planning, homework monitoring, etc, fine. Now if he’s also checked out then I think is sad.

However, she shouldn’t be writing articles about it. Own your choices, but it still isn’t something to be proud of. It isn’t for men either. If you’re going to make the argument that men have been doing this forever and men and women are equal, then there’s no need to challenge people to judge you.I suspect when she’s older she’s going to be really misty eyed when she listens to “Cat’s in the Cradle”, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These justifications fall flat. For pretty much anyone out there, the author included, there are other people who could and would do the job. Nearly none of us is so unique or special in our job so as to be indispensable to our clients or employers.

I think you've never met a truly mission-driven person. It's not that they think they are unique, but rather they are committed to what they are doing. That is their life.

Sure. But if that's your life, why have kids? I say that as someone who generally rolls my eyes at the "why have kids" comment, but in this case...if you live and breathe "THE MISSION" seems like having kids is just an added hassle. As it clearly is in this case.

because you have a partner who can do the heavy lifting ... just like dads have done forever and continue to do. how many zillions of threads are there on dcum about the dad who "travels constantly for work" or "leaves before the kids are awake and gets home after bedtime"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children do not need to come first when 1st means they need a birthday party. First means they need food, shelter, education and love/protection.

This is not new. Even women who “stayed home” cared for the animals on the farm and the garden. They did not coddle their child’s every need.

The endless need to coddle children’s every whim is the problem not missing a few ridiculous newly invented events in their life like the 100th day of school, K graduation, the endless need to go to a pumpkin patch every Fall.

+ 1

My family member is active duty. You should see what amazing and resilient children their family has raised. They grew up understanding they were not the center of the universe, learning how to do things for themselves, and learning how to work through adversity.

There is a big difference between being active duty and deployed and choosing a work schedule/date that you know will upset your child on their special day. If you cannot be available to your child a few days a year you should not be having kids. This isn't a field trip, this isn't 100 day of school. This is one day a year, their birthday. More than likely parents like that don't spend much time with their kids and their kids are just there for status.

you don't understand trials - that's ok.

[Anonymous]

Parenting IS A JOB. Most people can't do two jobs 100%. FACT. Pick one job and be good at it. Simple.

[Anonymous]

Sandy Chaplin wrote a song with her husband, Harry, called ‘Cat’s in the Cradle’. It was a hit in the 70s.

Every time my husband and I felt work may get in the way of being responsible parents, we'd listen to that song.

The author of this article should, too.

[Anonymous]

Seems like fake drama. Just pick a different day to celebrate the child's birthday.