Women staying in, staying home, downshifting this year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

I am living your "Northern European" model in the US and am not miserable. I work part-time, DH works FT but in a job that allows for balance (no late nights or weekends, easy to set boundaries). We are not wealthy. We get lots of time with our kid (we only had one) and both feel we have good work life balance. You are right we cannot afford to outsource a lot. We are fine with that, as we do not mind cleaning our own home or taking care of our own child. DH likes to cook, I am handy around the house. I feel our life is a really manageable scale.

I don't think either of our jobs are "mediocre." They are not high powered or high paying, as neither of us want the kind of job where you are on call 70 hours a week or that is very high stress. I am a consultant and can be selective about clients and projects, so I choose things that interest me and work with people I like. DH is salaried but selected his position because he likes the culture and the work. We are both professionally fulfilled, though neither of us views our job as the most important part of who we are. We both value being parents and investing in our family and community more than work. Work is for money and to be useful to society, but it's not everything.

I cannot imagine not having a child. I respect anyone who chooses not to have kids, people should only going into parenthood enthusiastically, but for me it is an essential part of my life and the human experience I have found most rewarding and fulfilling. Forgoing motherhood in the name of equality does not sound like equality to me. It sounds like a prison of its own.

I think the key to our happiness and fulfillment is in rejecting hyper-capitalism and the idea that we can be made happier with more money and more stuff. I have found the opposite to be true. Most days, my happiest moments are sitting on my couch reading library books with my daughter and my husband in our small but happy home. I have literally never though in those moments, "If only I had a higher paying but stressful job that I could be doing right now away from my loved ones in a bigger, more expensive home, wearing fancier clothes and ordering expensive food from a restaurant because we don't have time cook." Never, not once!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

I am living your "Northern European" model in the US and am not miserable. I work part-time, DH works FT but in a job that allows for balance (no late nights or weekends, easy to set boundaries). We are not wealthy. We get lots of time with our kid (we only had one) and both feel we have good work life balance. You are right we cannot afford to outsource a lot. We are fine with that, as we do not mind cleaning our own home or taking care of our own child. DH likes to cook, I am handy around the house. I feel our life is a really manageable scale.

I don't think either of our jobs are "mediocre." They are not high powered or high paying, as neither of us want the kind of job where you are on call 70 hours a week or that is very high stress. I am a consultant and can be selective about clients and projects, so I choose things that interest me and work with people I like. DH is salaried but selected his position because he likes the culture and the work. We are both professionally fulfilled, though neither of us views our job as the most important part of who we are. We both value being parents and investing in our family and community more than work. Work is for money and to be useful to society, but it's not everything.

I cannot imagine not having a child. I respect anyone who chooses not to have kids, people should only going into parenthood enthusiastically, but for me it is an essential part of my life and the human experience I have found most rewarding and fulfilling. Forgoing motherhood in the name of equality does not sound like equality to me. It sounds like a prison of its own.

I think the key to our happiness and fulfillment is in rejecting hyper-capitalism and the idea that we can be made happier with more money and more stuff. I have found the opposite to be true. Most days, my happiest moments are sitting on my couch reading library books with my daughter and my husband in our small but happy home. I have literally never though in those moments, "If only I had a higher paying but stressful job that I could be doing right now away from my loved ones in a bigger, more expensive home, wearing fancier clothes and ordering expensive food from a restaurant because we don't have time cook." Never, not once!

That’s awesome you are so fulfilled professionally and don’t feel the need for a large home, fancy clothes, restaurant meals etc. Most people aren’t like you. I want a nice,‘comfortable home and I enjoy dressing well. Same for nice dinners out with my family.

The same capitalism you criticize is what allows you to post on this message board with a phone and has resulted in many other technologies and advancements that make modern day life comfortable.

But I get it. You’re not an ugly American who wants a big house. You’re much better than the rest of us.

I’d be careful being so judgy and smug because plenty of people would think YOU are materialistic with your large home and fancy lifestyle. You just can’t see it because you’re smug.

[Anonymous]

We will just help our kids - son-DIL, DD-SIL - when they have kids with outsourcing. When they have a young family, they don't make too much money. So, it is better that I give them money then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

I am living your "Northern European" model in the US and am not miserable. I work part-time, DH works FT but in a job that allows for balance (no late nights or weekends, easy to set boundaries). We are not wealthy. We get lots of time with our kid (we only had one) and both feel we have good work life balance. You are right we cannot afford to outsource a lot. We are fine with that, as we do not mind cleaning our own home or taking care of our own child. DH likes to cook, I am handy around the house. I feel our life is a really manageable scale.

I don't think either of our jobs are "mediocre." They are not high powered or high paying, as neither of us want the kind of job where you are on call 70 hours a week or that is very high stress. I am a consultant and can be selective about clients and projects, so I choose things that interest me and work with people I like. DH is salaried but selected his position because he likes the culture and the work. We are both professionally fulfilled, though neither of us views our job as the most important part of who we are. We both value being parents and investing in our family and community more than work. Work is for money and to be useful to society, but it's not everything.

I cannot imagine not having a child. I respect anyone who chooses not to have kids, people should only going into parenthood enthusiastically, but for me it is an essential part of my life and the human experience I have found most rewarding and fulfilling. Forgoing motherhood in the name of equality does not sound like equality to me. It sounds like a prison of its own.

I think the key to our happiness and fulfillment is in rejecting hyper-capitalism and the idea that we can be made happier with more money and more stuff. I have found the opposite to be true. Most days, my happiest moments are sitting on my couch reading library books with my daughter and my husband in our small but happy home. I have literally never though in those moments, "If only I had a higher paying but stressful job that I could be doing right now away from my loved ones in a bigger, more expensive home, wearing fancier clothes and ordering expensive food from a restaurant because we don't have time cook." Never, not once!

That’s awesome you are so fulfilled professionally and don’t feel the need for a large home, fancy clothes, restaurant meals etc. Most people aren’t like you. I want a nice,‘comfortable home and I enjoy dressing well. Same for nice dinners out with my family.

The same capitalism you criticize is what allows you to post on this message board with a phone and has resulted in many other technologies and advancements that make modern day life comfortable.

But I get it. You’re not an ugly American who wants a big house. You’re much better than the rest of us.

I’d be careful being so judgy and smug because plenty of people would think YOU are materialistic with your large home and fancy lifestyle. You just can’t see it because you’re smug.

I wasn't writing to be smug. I was responding to a comment that asserted the kind of life I am leading makes people "miserable." While there may be people who are miserable in this life, I am not one. I wrote to describe how my life works and is set up, and how I feel about it, which is good. Unlike the PP, I didn't project my own assumptions on how other people feel about their lives, and only wrote of my own experience. If you view that as judgmental, you might want to take some time to ask yourself why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don't eat out as much because the food is no good. I don't know what happened, but Covid started it and then the past year or two restaurants cut costs and everything is gross. Same with shopping. I don't really purchase anything anymore.

This is e as well.. Quality went down and prices went up during COVID and retailers and services have keep prices up. We are only going out to parks and libraries and museums at this point, and making all meals at home except for special occasions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

I am living your "Northern European" model in the US and am not miserable. I work part-time, DH works FT but in a job that allows for balance (no late nights or weekends, easy to set boundaries). We are not wealthy. We get lots of time with our kid (we only had one) and both feel we have good work life balance. You are right we cannot afford to outsource a lot. We are fine with that, as we do not mind cleaning our own home or taking care of our own child. DH likes to cook, I am handy around the house. I feel our life is a really manageable scale.

I don't think either of our jobs are "mediocre." They are not high powered or high paying, as neither of us want the kind of job where you are on call 70 hours a week or that is very high stress. I am a consultant and can be selective about clients and projects, so I choose things that interest me and work with people I like. DH is salaried but selected his position because he likes the culture and the work. We are both professionally fulfilled, though neither of us views our job as the most important part of who we are. We both value being parents and investing in our family and community more than work. Work is for money and to be useful to society, but it's not everything.

I cannot imagine not having a child. I respect anyone who chooses not to have kids, people should only going into parenthood enthusiastically, but for me it is an essential part of my life and the human experience I have found most rewarding and fulfilling. Forgoing motherhood in the name of equality does not sound like equality to me. It sounds like a prison of its own.

I think the key to our happiness and fulfillment is in rejecting hyper-capitalism and the idea that we can be made happier with more money and more stuff. I have found the opposite to be true. Most days, my happiest moments are sitting on my couch reading library books with my daughter and my husband in our small but happy home. I have literally never though in those moments, "If only I had a higher paying but stressful job that I could be doing right now away from my loved ones in a bigger, more expensive home, wearing fancier clothes and ordering expensive food from a restaurant because we don't have time cook." Never, not once!

That’s awesome you are so fulfilled professionally and don’t feel the need for a large home, fancy clothes, restaurant meals etc. Most people aren’t like you. I want a nice,‘comfortable home and I enjoy dressing well. Same for nice dinners out with my family.

The same capitalism you criticize is what allows you to post on this message board with a phone and has resulted in many other technologies and advancements that make modern day life comfortable.

But I get it. You’re not an ugly American who wants a big house. You’re much better than the rest of us.

I’d be careful being so judgy and smug because plenty of people would think YOU are materialistic with your large home and fancy lifestyle. You just can’t see it because you’re smug.

I wasn't writing to be smug. I was responding to a comment that asserted the kind of life I am leading makes people "miserable." While there may be people who are miserable in this life, I am not one. I wrote to describe how my life works and is set up, and how I feel about it, which is good. Unlike the PP, I didn't project my own assumptions on how other people feel about their lives, and only wrote of my own experience. If you view that as judgmental, you might want to take some time to ask yourself why.

Thank you PP. That's how I interpreted your response. I appreciate your level-headedness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't eat out as much because the food is no good. I don't know what happened, but Covid started it and then the past year or two restaurants cut costs and everything is gross. Same with shopping. I don't really purchase anything anymore.

This is e as well.. Quality went down and prices went up during COVID and retailers and services have keep prices up. We are only going out to parks and libraries and museums at this point, and making all meals at home except for special occasions.

But now its just greed. They never went back down even when the supply chain recovered.

[Anonymous]

I am laughing typical dcum call a person that is happy and content smug because they don’t care about keeping up with Jones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am laughing typical dcum call a person that is happy and content smug because they don’t care about keeping up with Jones.

Totally. And the post clearly outlined the tradeoffs -- it was like yes I have less money and my house is small but I've traded those things for more time with my family and less stress overall. This is only threatening to someone who doesn't understand the very obvious tradeoff to high paying and time intensive jobs, which most people do.

It's funny how people are like "capitalism is awesome because there is so much choice!" and then if you are like "ok, I choose to work less and be happier," they are like "no no no not that choice, shut up." Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am laughing typical dcum call a person that is happy and content smug because they don’t care about keeping up with Jones.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

In my friendship group the SAHMs with a high earning spouse were happier when kids were young. But it has now flipped in our 50s once kids leave home and that focus has gone. Those that pushed through professionally in those years are now cruising in really senior roles that are highly paid and flexible. They seem to be having a lot more fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

In my friendship group the SAHMs with a high earning spouse were happier when kids were young. But it has now flipped in our 50s once kids leave home and that focus has gone. Those that pushed through professionally in those years are now cruising in really senior roles that are highly paid and flexible. They seem to be having a lot more fun.

I am a SAHM of teens and I agree with this. I do work very PT now for something to do, but I was definitely happier when my kids were younger. I never had joy in working so I don’t know if staying would have helped me, but I feel lonely and lost now. I’m somewhat introverted and don’t get much out of surface-level friendships so I spend a lot of time alone. I adore my children and they seem to have turned out well, so I take some solace in that. But I have no idea what’s next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

In my friendship group the SAHMs with a high earning spouse were happier when kids were young. But it has now flipped in our 50s once kids leave home and that focus has gone. Those that pushed through professionally in those years are now cruising in really senior roles that are highly paid and flexible. They seem to be having a lot more fun.

I am a SAHM of teens and I agree with this. I do work very PT now for something to do, but I was definitely happier when my kids were younger. I never had joy in working so I don’t know if staying would have helped me, but I feel lonely and lost now. I’m somewhat introverted and don’t get much out of surface-level friendships so I spend a lot of time alone. I adore my children and they seem to have turned out well, so I take some solace in that. But I have no idea what’s next.

I don't think you can generalize. Not every person is going to wind up in a high paid, flexible, senior role. Obviously anyone who does get to that point is going to feel validated in having pushed through in their career. But statistically that's a small minority of people. Most people, men and women, plateau professionally in their 40s. Perhaps women in that situation are also glad the pushed through instead of mommy tracking or staying home -- there is a lot to be said for getting to midlife and just feeling good about the financial security of having worked consistently for 20-30 years and have a comfortable amount of money in retirement and savings, and knowing you have something to keep you going as kids grow up. But some people will be burnt out and sick of work. It depends on the person and the job.

I've also know women who mommy tracked or stayed home and then went back to school or started businesses when their kids were in HS and their "second act" has been deeply fulfilling, and don't regret the time they spent at home when their kids were young.

I know people love the old SAHM v. Working Mom debate but it's not binary at all. I find it so weird when people talk in these cliches on this site when very few real people I know actually fit into those stereotypes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like some of this is women being pushed out of their jobs by RTO. And that's awful. I wouldn't frame it as a willing "downshift."

I see a bit the opposite. We are leaning more heavily into in person socializing, some of it's hosting but also going out to meet up sometimes, or driving to visit family. It's comforting.

It is awful, but on the other hand, “careers” have been somewhat overhyped, and women’s work in the home has been so devalued that one feels worthless without a career. Which I think is bull$hit - what is really more important than caring for your family? It sucks because in order for that to work, the other spouse has to be earning a lot, at least around here. But after having done it all, and seeing my teens so much better off mentally with a parent who is able to be fully present in a way that few jobs offer enough flexibility for, I am starting to understand why so many teens are having mental health issues. Re: the teen-ternity posts from a couple of years ago.

It is grossly oversimplifying (and unfair primarily to working mothers) to blame the teen mental health crisis on both parents working jobs that make them less than "fully present."

While I agree we should definitely not just be blaming working moms, I think it's worth talking about whether the current model of two professional working parents and kids in childcare and activities most of the day every day, is working for everyone.

Questioning that model does NOT have to mean advocating for a system where women don't work or are discouraged from working. Most men I know would love to scale back working and spend more time with their kids or doing things around their home. A system where the adults in a household must both be ended in for-pay work 40 (or more) hours a week in order to even afford to have kids, and then much the traditional family system is outsourced to paid providers (many of whom are also parents, whose parenting is then also outsourced elsewhere) has some deep flaws.

I'd really like to normalize: parental leaves and sabatticals for both parents, not just with infants but at various points in a child's development; shorter work and school/activity days that leave more time for family connection in the evening; and part time work at various points for both parents. And all of this would necessitate rethinking the family economic model, and the American imperative toward maximal consumption (largest house you can buy, multiple cars, every modern convenience, outsourcing household tasks, big expensive vacations.

I have no interest in being a SAHM, but I don't particularly like having a full-time job in a dual income family where we can either afford to outsource most childcare and household upkeep or we flounder because we don't have the bandwidth to do that any our jobs. It's not better, it's probably worse, and we should be able to come up with a better solution.

My Northern European friends are living your dream model of part time work, lots of vacation and co-parenting. Guess what? They are miserable! It essentially means both spouses have mediocre jobs and they don’t make enough money to outsource. The women are all pushed into PT work because their labor laws require the option and the burden is on women. This just means an even more aggressive form of mommy tracking. However with their high taxes and strict labor laws, their spouse can’t make enough money to support the family.

Really the answer is for women who care about equality to not have children. This is happening.

My happiest friends are SAHMs in more conservative circles with a high earning spouse. Most miserable are co-parents in very progressive circles. Of course this is anecdotal.

I am living your "Northern European" model in the US and am not miserable. I work part-time, DH works FT but in a job that allows for balance (no late nights or weekends, easy to set boundaries). We are not wealthy. We get lots of time with our kid (we only had one) and both feel we have good work life balance. You are right we cannot afford to outsource a lot. We are fine with that, as we do not mind cleaning our own home or taking care of our own child. DH likes to cook, I am handy around the house. I feel our life is a really manageable scale.

I don't think either of our jobs are "mediocre." They are not high powered or high paying, as neither of us want the kind of job where you are on call 70 hours a week or that is very high stress. I am a consultant and can be selective about clients and projects, so I choose things that interest me and work with people I like. DH is salaried but selected his position because he likes the culture and the work. We are both professionally fulfilled, though neither of us views our job as the most important part of who we are. We both value being parents and investing in our family and community more than work. Work is for money and to be useful to society, but it's not everything.

I cannot imagine not having a child. I respect anyone who chooses not to have kids, people should only going into parenthood enthusiastically, but for me it is an essential part of my life and the human experience I have found most rewarding and fulfilling. Forgoing motherhood in the name of equality does not sound like equality to me. It sounds like a prison of its own.

I think the key to our happiness and fulfillment is in rejecting hyper-capitalism and the idea that we can be made happier with more money and more stuff. I have found the opposite to be true. Most days, my happiest moments are sitting on my couch reading library books with my daughter and my husband in our small but happy home. I have literally never though in those moments, "If only I had a higher paying but stressful job that I could be doing right now away from my loved ones in a bigger, more expensive home, wearing fancier clothes and ordering expensive food from a restaurant because we don't have time cook." Never, not once!

That’s awesome you are so fulfilled professionally and don’t feel the need for a large home, fancy clothes, restaurant meals etc. Most people aren’t like you. I want a nice,‘comfortable home and I enjoy dressing well. Same for nice dinners out with my family.

The same capitalism you criticize is what allows you to post on this message board with a phone and has resulted in many other technologies and advancements that make modern day life comfortable.

But I get it. You’re not an ugly American who wants a big house. You’re much better than the rest of us.

I’d be careful being so judgy and smug because plenty of people would think YOU are materialistic with your large home and fancy lifestyle. You just can’t see it because you’re smug.

I wasn't writing to be smug. I was responding to a comment that asserted the kind of life I am leading makes people "miserable." While there may be people who are miserable in this life, I am not one. I wrote to describe how my life works and is set up, and how I feel about it, which is good. Unlike the PP, I didn't project my own assumptions on how other people feel about their lives, and only wrote of my own experience. If you view that as judgmental, you might want to take some time to ask yourself why.

Thank you PP. That's how I interpreted your response. I appreciate your level-headedness.

I agree, my experience with our friends who live in Northern Europe is the complete opposite- the families seems happy and thriving and have pretty much the same kind of life we do as UMC americans . the only measurable difference is that they aren't estate planning to leave or help their kids with down payments or large inheritences- other than summer homes or families in France who have to get around restrictive inheritance laws.
The ones who have "big" jobs like gc, head if business of a fortune 100 in EU/MENA are doing very well for themselves. admittedly, most of the families we know move out of the major cities to smaller villages/towns or the suburbs in order to purchase these sfhs. or if they are in Paris, Oslo or stockholm they'll move into a flat in the 16th, out on the archipelago or something but that is still pretty nice! it is true that there is lot of pressure on women who have the "big" jobs and the gender equality for mothers is often a myth-- very hard to make partner at a firm as a young mom but that is true in the US as well?? so people who are happy with a 200-400k lifestyle will be very happy and there is less worrying about paying for college, saving for retirement, saving for kids' down payment etc despite the taxation b/c it is provided for.

[Anonymous]

id also add that they are satisfied with much less "stuff' and are less materialistic, ppl aren't ripping out perfectly good kitchens/bathrooms to change with the trends, will buy used clothes and furniture. they are stylish but more capsule wardrobe and aren't splurging so I guess in that way, yeah the life style is less lux but they do get to see their kids! and families dont eat-out all the time like they do in the USA. i do know some people who would love to. move to the us b/c they'd get paid so much more and could afford a more lux lifestyle so it really comes down to what you value and it is perfectly ok to like nice things!!