Do people really let careers get in way of having kids (if they want kids)?

[Anonymous]

OP said, "decided against having kids", that's very different. Very different than, your career dictated/or influenced "when", which is quite ordinary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised when talking to a married woman in late 30 who expressed how she hasn’t had kids due to the intensity of her health care work that leaves little time to pump or keep up with motherhood duties. It sounded like she wants to be a mom but has allowed her career to dictate whether she will be a mom or not. I find it strange because I come from a culture where ppl would never let a career get in the way of having kids they want to have and several women in my culture have jobs that are relentless.

Do you know ppl who have decided against kids due to careers? Do they regret it later? Did the satisfaction form their career outweighed the loss of not having children (assuming they want children)?

I had to wait longer than I wanted to start a family due to med school and residency - a seven year residency. So yes, my career dictated when I would have children. And I have no regrets.

Some ppl never have kids as physicians because of the intensity of the work but you decided to still have them. Do you have any classmates that decided against kids due to the rigors of the field and now regret it?

[Anonymous]

Certain careers shouldn’t have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised when talking to a married woman in late 30 who expressed how she hasn’t had kids due to the intensity of her health care work that leaves little time to pump or keep up with motherhood duties. It sounded like she wants to be a mom but has allowed her career to dictate whether she will be a mom or not. I find it strange because I come from a culture where ppl would never let a career get in the way of having kids they want to have and several women in my culture have jobs that are relentless.

Do you know ppl who have decided against kids due to careers? Do they regret it later? Did the satisfaction form their career outweighed the loss of not having children (assuming they want children)?

I had to wait longer than I wanted to start a family due to med school and residency - a seven year residency. So yes, my career dictated when I would have children. And I have no regrets.

Some ppl never have kids as physicians because of the intensity of the work but you decided to still have them. Do you have any classmates that decided against kids due to the rigors of the field and now regret it?

I am not the pp, but I also have an MD. I do know people who decided not to have kids, and I am not sure if they regret it. I do know a few women who didn’t put any effort into dinding a husband during their twenties and early thirties, and I think they regret that. I think they thought they could be like the men. But being a high earning single woman in your mid- thirties is very different than being a high earning single man in your mid-thirties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is an idiot. There is a reason why such idiots should not reproduce. Let her work to death.

The idiots are the self-absorbed, selfish women are those that have children and then hire nannies to rear them because they care more about their jobs than they care about their children? Yes, I am judging you.

Are you judging the men that do this? Sexist pig.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised when talking to a married woman in late 30 who expressed how she hasn’t had kids due to the intensity of her health care work that leaves little time to pump or keep up with motherhood duties. It sounded like she wants to be a mom but has allowed her career to dictate whether she will be a mom or not. I find it strange because I come from a culture where ppl would never let a career get in the way of having kids they want to have and several women in my culture have jobs that are relentless.

Do you know ppl who have decided against kids due to careers? Do they regret it later? Did the satisfaction form their career outweighed the loss of not having children (assuming they want children)?

I had to wait longer than I wanted to start a family due to med school and residency - a seven year residency. So yes, my career dictated when I would have children. And I have no regrets.

Some ppl never have kids as physicians because of the intensity of the work but you decided to still have them. Do you have any classmates that decided against kids due to the rigors of the field and now regret it?

I know plenty of parents that do regret having kids. It goes both ways.

I am not the pp, but I also have an MD. I do know people who decided not to have kids, and I am not sure if they regret it. I do know a few women who didn’t put any effort into dinding a husband during their twenties and early thirties, and I think they regret that. I think they thought they could be like the men. But being a high earning single woman in your mid- thirties is very different than being a high earning single man in your mid-thirties.

[Anonymous]

I would stop saying "high earning" when what you really mean is "hard-working." The arts, teaching, first-responders, retail management, etc etc etc. All these demand so much of your mental and physical life it is difficult to find time to be a parent, not just a pro-creator.

[Anonymous]

It’s why three couples I know have 1 or 2 kids instead of more. They got started late and then needed to postpone another round of add in a miscarriage or two and your family is smaller unless you adopt. My kids are a decade apart because of this same situation.

[Anonymous]

I have taught for 30 years at all levels -- Elementary, middle, high school. It is sad to say that it is very apparent who has a primary, readily available parent and who has parents (married or not) who work long long hours, whether it is by choice or by necessity. All teachers can see this. Working 70+ hours a week at one job, or 70+ hours at week at 3 jobs, it still 70 hours a week. It always "shows up" in the kids behavior or performance, rich or poor, in any grade level. *Someone* in the family has got to be the primary, *present, available* loving parent. I am not saying stay-at-home parent, not at all. If you are partnered and having children, you are lucky. Only one of you has to be away from the child you apparently want to have and to raise only 40 hours per week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have taught for 30 years at all levels -- Elementary, middle, high school. It is sad to say that it is very apparent who has a primary, readily available parent and who has parents (married or not) who work long long hours, whether it is by choice or by necessity. All teachers can see this. Working 70+ hours a week at one job, or 70+ hours at week at 3 jobs, it still 70 hours a week. It always "shows up" in the kids behavior or performance, rich or poor, in any grade level. *Someone* in the family has got to be the primary, *present, available* loving parent. I am not saying stay-at-home parent, not at all. If you are partnered and having children, you are lucky. Only one of you has to be away from the child you apparently want to have and to raise only 40 hours per week.

And this is why I nanny. I’m the stable point in the children’s lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have taught for 30 years at all levels -- Elementary, middle, high school. It is sad to say that it is very apparent who has a primary, readily available parent and who has parents (married or not) who work long long hours, whether it is by choice or by necessity. All teachers can see this. Working 70+ hours a week at one job, or 70+ hours at week at 3 jobs, it still 70 hours a week. It always "shows up" in the kids behavior or performance, rich or poor, in any grade level. *Someone* in the family has got to be the primary, *present, available* loving parent. I am not saying stay-at-home parent, not at all. If you are partnered and having children, you are lucky. Only one of you has to be away from the child you apparently want to have and to raise only 40 hours per week.

What are the signs you see?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have taught for 30 years at all levels -- Elementary, middle, high school. It is sad to say that it is very apparent who has a primary, readily available parent and who has parents (married or not) who work long long hours, whether it is by choice or by necessity. All teachers can see this. Working 70+ hours a week at one job, or 70+ hours at week at 3 jobs, it still 70 hours a week. It always "shows up" in the kids behavior or performance, rich or poor, in any grade level. *Someone* in the family has got to be the primary, *present, available* loving parent. I am not saying stay-at-home parent, not at all. If you are partnered and having children, you are lucky. Only one of you has to be away from the child you apparently want to have and to raise only 40 hours per week.

This. Although I think kids absolutely need a stay at home parent. Stability matters!

[Anonymous]

Busy careers are just an excuse for people who really don’t want to have children. Saying “we are so busy with our career right now....” is more socially acceptable than saying I don’t want to have children.....period. Given the number of screwed up children maybe more people should have stayed career focused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have taught for 30 years at all levels -- Elementary, middle, high school. It is sad to say that it is very apparent who has a primary, readily available parent and who has parents (married or not) who work long long hours, whether it is by choice or by necessity. All teachers can see this. Working 70+ hours a week at one job, or 70+ hours at week at 3 jobs, it still 70 hours a week. It always "shows up" in the kids behavior or performance, rich or poor, in any grade level. *Someone* in the family has got to be the primary, *present, available* loving parent. I am not saying stay-at-home parent, not at all. If you are partnered and having children, you are lucky. Only one of you has to be away from the child you apparently want to have and to raise only 40 hours per week.

This. Although I think kids absolutely need a stay at home parent. Stability matters!

21.56 Nope, kids can do with with part-time or full-time care. They also do with with great in-home care. But the reality is that a nanny is raising the children if they never see their parents at all on weekdays. That’s fine with some parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have taught for 30 years at all levels -- Elementary, middle, high school. It is sad to say that it is very apparent who has a primary, readily available parent and who has parents (married or not) who work long long hours, whether it is by choice or by necessity. All teachers can see this. Working 70+ hours a week at one job, or 70+ hours at week at 3 jobs, it still 70 hours a week. It always "shows up" in the kids behavior or performance, rich or poor, in any grade level. *Someone* in the family has got to be the primary, *present, available* loving parent. I am not saying stay-at-home parent, not at all. If you are partnered and having children, you are lucky. Only one of you has to be away from the child you apparently want to have and to raise only 40 hours per week.

This. Although I think kids absolutely need a stay at home parent. Stability matters!

21.56 Nope, kids can do with with part-time or full-time care. They also do with with great in-home care. But the reality is that a nanny is raising the children if they never see their parents at all on weekdays. That’s fine with some parents.

Nope, kids need a full-time parent.