What do you think is the most ideal family set up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think is the most ideal family set up?

A. Both parents work flexible jobs and share parenting duties roughly 50-50

B. One high earner and one stay at home parent. Stay at home parent can outsource as needed

C. One big career and one flexible job. Have full time help.

D. Two big careers with high quality nanny plus full time housekeeper

Dh and I could be any of these categories. We are currently B. I feel like D gets the most respect.

Only A or C meet the needs of adults and kids in the family.

B and D are recipes for disaster.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

These scenarios don't account for the different needs of families when kids are under 5 versus elementary versus MS/HS. Many families move between these options and some options are better for certain ages. I wanted to SAHM when kids were very young but would feel uncomfortable doing it when kids are in upper elementary because I'd get bored and crave space for myself by then. By HS families need to be thinking about what their plan is when kids leave.

Also, none of these scenarios offer what is often the dream scenario for a lot of working parents, which is PT or occasional work. Maybe that's supposed to be baked into "flexible job" but I am assuming FT work still. Families generally need at least one FT parent for financial stability and healthcare. But being able to work PT, or not work summers, or do consulting work that allows you to pick it up when you want and take time off when you want, can be magical with kids. It allows that parent to have a work life while enabling the kind of flexibility that you can't get even with a remote, undemanding full time job.

So I'll add:

E. One parent with flexible FT job, one parent with PT work or self-employment, enough money to hire help when needed, splitting household duties 50/50 but childcare more like 70/30 to accommodate the fact that one parent wants to work a bit more and the other parent wants to spend more time with kids.

That's where we are at and it's perfect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A.

I think if you think D gets the most respect, that mostly reflects your own priorities. I have trouble understanding why people who both have very demanding jobs have kids if they are just going to hire other people to do most of the caregiving.

So. Much. This.

+2. I just don’t want a lifestyle where someone else is doing mornings and evenings with my kids. They’re my kids and I would miss them too much. DH feels the same way, so it’s A or bust for us. A wouldn’t work if I didn’t have a partner that WANTED to be as engaged as me. Some men (and women) just don’t feel the desire to do the day to day work.

[Anonymous]

B

[Anonymous]

We are a mix of A and C. DH has a flexible job that is usually around 40 hours per week, wfh 2-3 days. I almost always wfh and work 25-30 hours per week most weeks (occasionally up to 50, but that is very rare). Kids are in ES and we don't have any help except every other week cleaning service. We love this set up. More money would be nice of course, but we aren't willing to trade the work life balance we have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A.

I think if you think D gets the most respect, that mostly reflects your own priorities. I have trouble understanding why people who both have very demanding jobs have kids if they are just going to hire other people to do most of the caregiving.

+1

[Anonymous]

Definitely B

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These scenarios don't account for the different needs of families when kids are under 5 versus elementary versus MS/HS. Many families move between these options and some options are better for certain ages. I wanted to SAHM when kids were very young but would feel uncomfortable doing it when kids are in upper elementary because I'd get bored and crave space for myself by then. By HS families need to be thinking about what their plan is when kids leave.

Also, none of these scenarios offer what is often the dream scenario for a lot of working parents, which is PT or occasional work. Maybe that's supposed to be baked into "flexible job" but I am assuming FT work still. Families generally need at least one FT parent for financial stability and healthcare. But being able to work PT, or not work summers, or do consulting work that allows you to pick it up when you want and take time off when you want, can be magical with kids. It allows that parent to have a work life while enabling the kind of flexibility that you can't get even with a remote, undemanding full time job.

So I'll add:

E. One parent with flexible FT job, one parent with PT work or self-employment, enough money to hire help when needed, splitting household duties 50/50 but childcare more like 70/30 to accommodate the fact that one parent wants to work a bit more and the other parent wants to spend more time with kids.

That's where we are at and it's perfect.

I agree that it’s very different to have kids under 5, and I think it should be easier to change between options. I’m a PP who said A/C because I’m technically not full time but have some flexibility. So I work when my kids are in school/preschool and then if I need to do extra I do it when they are asleep. Hard on me sometimes but preferable to leaving the job market entirely. I would prefer my DH did a bit more helping out/child carebut I try to respect that he is choosing from some what limited options the same way I am. If I could trade 15 percent salary for 15 percent less work I would, absolutely. But it doesn’t work exactly like that. So we are doing our best to imperfectly meet everyone’s needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These scenarios don't account for the different needs of families when kids are under 5 versus elementary versus MS/HS. Many families move between these options and some options are better for certain ages. I wanted to SAHM when kids were very young but would feel uncomfortable doing it when kids are in upper elementary because I'd get bored and crave space for myself by then. By HS families need to be thinking about what their plan is when kids leave.

Also, none of these scenarios offer what is often the dream scenario for a lot of working parents, which is PT or occasional work. Maybe that's supposed to be baked into "flexible job" but I am assuming FT work still. Families generally need at least one FT parent for financial stability and healthcare. But being able to work PT, or not work summers, or do consulting work that allows you to pick it up when you want and take time off when you want, can be magical with kids. It allows that parent to have a work life while enabling the kind of flexibility that you can't get even with a remote, undemanding full time job.

So I'll add:

E. One parent with flexible FT job, one parent with PT work or self-employment, enough money to hire help when needed, splitting household duties 50/50 but childcare more like 70/30 to accommodate the fact that one parent wants to work a bit more and the other parent wants to spend more time with kids.

That's where we are at and it's perfect.

I agree that it’s very different to have kids under 5, and I think it should be easier to change between options. I’m a PP who said A/C because I’m technically not full time but have some flexibility. So I work when my kids are in school/preschool and then if I need to do extra I do it when they are asleep. Hard on me sometimes but preferable to leaving the job market entirely. I would prefer my DH did a bit more helping out/child carebut I try to respect that he is choosing from some what limited options the same way I am. If I could trade 15 percent salary for 15 percent less work I would, absolutely. But it doesn’t work exactly like that. So we are doing our best to imperfectly meet everyone’s needs.

Regardless of any specific set up, I think both parents should regularly care for the kids on their own. I liked that that happened naturally for an hour each morning during a previous iteration of our set up when my husband was actually working more. It definitely was good for his dynamic with the kids. I really need to find a way to make it happen more often now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So I'll add:

E. One parent with flexible FT job, one parent with PT work or self-employment, enough money to hire help when needed, splitting household duties 50/50 but childcare more like 70/30 to accommodate the fact that one parent wants to work a bit more and the other parent wants to spend more time with kids.

That's where we are at and it's perfect.

This is DH and I too. I have a flexible job, he is self-employed so can be available when needed during the work day. But we also have family in the area who are willing to help with childcare so maybe we are option F.
I think D sounds terrible (why even have kids) but I've seen B and C work well for other families. But for option B to work, I think you have to have a parent who really wants to SAH and another who stands behind that decision. I've seen that create a lot of issues for friends in that scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ideal is what works for the family and makes everyone happy.

Which is why you don’t see one clear winner in this thread in terms of responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These scenarios don't account for the different needs of families when kids are under 5 versus elementary versus MS/HS. Many families move between these options and some options are better for certain ages. I wanted to SAHM when kids were very young but would feel uncomfortable doing it when kids are in upper elementary because I'd get bored and crave space for myself by then. By HS families need to be thinking about what their plan is when kids leave.

Also, none of these scenarios offer what is often the dream scenario for a lot of working parents, which is PT or occasional work. Maybe that's supposed to be baked into "flexible job" but I am assuming FT work still. Families generally need at least one FT parent for financial stability and healthcare. But being able to work PT, or not work summers, or do consulting work that allows you to pick it up when you want and take time off when you want, can be magical with kids. It allows that parent to have a work life while enabling the kind of flexibility that you can't get even with a remote, undemanding full time job.

So I'll add:

E. One parent with flexible FT job, one parent with PT work or self-employment, enough money to hire help when needed, splitting household duties 50/50 but childcare more like 70/30 to accommodate the fact that one parent wants to work a bit more and the other parent wants to spend more time with kids.

That's where we are at and it's perfect.

I agree that it’s very different to have kids under 5, and I think it should be easier to change between options. I’m a PP who said A/C because I’m technically not full time but have some flexibility. So I work when my kids are in school/preschool and then if I need to do extra I do it when they are asleep. Hard on me sometimes but preferable to leaving the job market entirely. I would prefer my DH did a bit more helping out/child carebut I try to respect that he is choosing from some what limited options the same way I am. If I could trade 15 percent salary for 15 percent less work I would, absolutely. But it doesn’t work exactly like that. So we are doing our best to imperfectly meet everyone’s needs.

Regardless of any specific set up, I think both parents should regularly care for the kids on their own. I liked that that happened naturally for an hour each morning during a previous iteration of our set up when my husband was actually working more. It definitely was good for his dynamic with the kids. I really need to find a way to make it happen more often now.

+1 Covid was actually helpful for us in this way because now that DH has some WFH (I've always been FT WFH), he is able to do stuff like drop off/pick up and he gets more regular one-on-one time with kids, plus interacts more with teachers and just generally is more plugged in and involved. He would do this stuff on the weekend before, but now it's just built into our schedule and it's been so good for his relationship with the kids and also helped him develop more and better parenting skills.

I think any scenario in which one parent basically never parents on their own is a recipe for disaster because this creates so many disparities in a family. The children will instinctively always go to the parent they know and trust more, which compounds the problem, plus little jealousies and resentments crop up as the kids get older and these patterns get baked into relationships instead of just being a logistical issue.

I think men often need a push to do more solo parenting and develop more solo parenting skills, and in situations where the man has the more demanding job and his partner is either a SAHM or the one with the flexible job, it's harder to make this happen. Not impossible, but harder. I think A is easiest and D you risk neither parent ever really developing strong parenting skills because they simply do not parent enough. I know a family like this with tweens and while they both have really impressive careers, when I see them together as a family I am so, so grateful to not be in that situation. Their family dynamic is really overwhelming and dysfunctional when the nanny or MIL (who also helps them) is not around. They don't know how to make it any other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:C. We are currently A with no help. It’s very hard and we spend a ton of time on housekeeping, repairs and lawn care. We don’t feel like we can hire any of that out. 280k but 3 in daycare. I do love that Dh is my equal partner. I also love that I got the chance to lean into work. We both love our jobs, our kids and each other. Very happy with our family, just wish I had some help.

Oh please! HHI of almost $300,000 and you have money problems,! Obviously, you do not know how to manage money. You are in the 1% rarified air. Most people in this area are making less than $100,000. I have no sympathy. Take a class in money management!

[Anonymous]

This thread is making me want to SAH desperately. I work an intense job that I’m leaning way out of. 1 toddler, trying for a baby. H has a very stable fed job, but I make 3x his salary. I’ll have to leave this job soon enough anyway bc I’ll be pushed out and/or H and I will move abroad for his job. I currently WFH most days and ILs watch DC. We are so lucky, but it still sucks. I don’t want to lose my career, but I want to spend every minute with DC during these fleeting years. Does this feeling pass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So I'll add:

E. One parent with flexible FT job, one parent with PT work or self-employment, enough money to hire help when needed, splitting household duties 50/50 but childcare more like 70/30 to accommodate the fact that one parent wants to work a bit more and the other parent wants to spend more time with kids.

That's where we are at and it's perfect.

This is DH and I too. I have a flexible job, he is self-employed so can be available when needed during the work day. But we also have family in the area who are willing to help with childcare so maybe we are option F.
I think D sounds terrible (why even have kids) but I've seen B and C work well for other families. But for option B to work, I think you have to have a parent who really wants to SAH and another who stands behind that decision. I've seen that create a lot of issues for friends in that scenario.

+1

B. only works if both partners are enthusiastic about the arrangement. I've seen people on DCUM argue that this is never the case, but I've absolutely seen it. Part of it is that in these families, the work of the SAHM has to be valued *equally* to the earning spouse. I think a lot of people with misogynist ideas about care work, or just people with big egos, struggle with the idea that a SAHP could be working as hard and doing work as vital as whatever demanding, high-paying job the earning spouse is doing. But when people do view them equally, this can be a great set up where both partners really get what they want and the kids needs are served really well.

But of course, mutual respect is important to any of these arrangements. I actually think that C is where it is hardest because when both parents are working it's really easy to compare their jobs and I often see the parent with the flexible job winding up feeling relegated or undervalued, and since they are generally doing a lot more at home (even with outsourcing) this leads to a lot of resentment. Especially because historically, being the parent with the flexible job also meant being the parent with limited to no career advancement opportunities. This can get very ugly when the kids get older and this parent feels they have sacrificed their career for the family and their reward is to keep working in a dull career with limited potential. It can be salvaged with a return to school or a shift, but sometimes the resentment overwhelms the marriage.

I have also seen problems in B. or C. if the high earning spouse stagnates in their career and burns out, starts getting passed over, or gets laid off. This can be incredibly stressful all around. We talk a lot on these boards about what it is to be a SAHM or a working mom and the inherent stresses and unfairnesses to these arrangements. But we should talk more about the pressure of being the only or primary breadwinner and how some people get forced into this role, or think it's what the want when young and realize they don't anymore, and how that can cause problems if the other spouse was banking on their income enabling the family set up she wanted (it's usually she). Demanding jobs are... demanding. Not everyone wants one.

And I think that's why you see a lot of love for A in this thread, because I think it is a way of hedging bets. No one totally gives up their career. No one shoulders the financial burden alone. No one shoulders the parenting burden alone. The allure of an egalitarian marriage is pretty obvious, even when it means having less money than other options.