Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:17 you don't have to get nasty. And again, you miss the point. It's how people spend their time off, not how much they spend at work that matters in most cases. Yes, ideally parents are home by 4 PM like your DH and have dinner with the kids and put them to bed after listening to what's on their minds and then, once the kids are asleep, have wild, passionate sex with interesting, stimulating conversation every single night. But since that's not the reality for most of us - including, apparently, big law partners and their spouses, it does make sense to focus on how a working spouse is spending their time at home. If it's making breakfast for the kids, or at games on the weekends, or on family vacations, or time late night when they're home from work. And so if you have to choose, it is absolutely quality over quantity.

I didn't get nasty, and I didn't miss the point, and I never said our life is perfect in the way you describe.

I do agree that if you must choose, quality is more important than quantity. But I disagree that quality is enough, by itself, if the quantity is not there.

So true, but those pursuing the golden ring at all costs like to rationalize that "trade offs" (as mentioned by at least one PP) are necessary and acceptable.

By the same token, those who prattle on about how much better they are because they get home at 4 every day and how they simply couldn't bear to be apart from their children are often rationalizing their inability to achieve more success and pull themselves out of the drudgery of their daily existence.

(I don't really think that, I'm just trying to be as condescending and holier-than-thou as you and the PP. How'd I do?)

Anonymous wrote:Do you understand the scope of the difference in pay between "reasonable" jobs and what some partners make? My DH's compensation pays for much, much more than luxury items. Our kids and three of their cousins have college paid for, two family members who live in another country have been able to buy homes (which they'd never otherwise have been able to do and renting is unstable there and quite overpriced), my husband's parents can live a much more comfortable lifestyle than they had been (things had been paycheck to paycheck in the best of times). Our retirement savings are well, well underway. These things are important to us, and it is much more efficient for us to have him work long hours and have me take care of most of the family work. Our kids understand why we have this division of labor right now, and it's something that we are proud to explain to them. It may be in part because I'm first generation American, but I think it's admirable to work long hours, and to give up some family balance, in order to secure a more solid financial future for your kids, parents and other extended family.

I should have noted that I'm a pp (23:49). Wanted to say how we use the money, which has been a great help. It's not the reason for DH going into the profession, but it has been a darn good reason to stay in it and make the trade-offs.

Do you understand the scope of the difference in pay between "reasonable" jobs and what some partners make? My DH's compensation pays for much, much more than luxury items. Our kids and three of their cousins have college paid for, two family members who live in another country have been able to buy homes (which they'd never otherwise have been able to do and renting is unstable there and quite overpriced), my husband's parents can live a much more comfortable lifestyle than they had been (things had been paycheck to paycheck in the best of times). Our retirement savings are well, well underway. These things are important to us, and it is much more efficient for us to have him work long hours and have me take care of most of the family work. Our kids understand why we have this division of labor right now, and it's something that we are proud to explain to them. It may be in part because I'm first generation American, but I think it's admirable to work long hours, and to give up some family balance, in order to secure a more solid financial future for your kids, parents and other extended family.

Anonymous wrote:One thing I feel that some of the more critizing posters are missing about having a spouse in these jobs and saying how important family time is etc, is that several of us are able to be home with our children because of our spouse's income. My kids get me all day everyday, they get my husband every morning (and I get his help) and we spend most weekends together. Yes he misses dinner with the kids, but he and I normally eat together. There are plenty of trade offs in life, but if you're argument against having a spouse in these jobs is not spending quality time, then remember that my kids get their mother (who is thrilled to be able to) home with them, and we don't need to rush around every morning, put them in day care and then race home for the magical family dinner. Don't get me wrong - that is very important, but I feel lucky to be able to give them my time and we get lots and lots of time as a family AND as a couple - we make it a priority AND I think his firm is a tad more family friendly, so maybe that helps.

Others of us are able to spend time together as an *entire* family because our spouse is not pressured to make a super-high income to enable us to stay at home. Our spouses can work reasonable hours, secure in the knowledge that their partners are rowing the financial boat, too, so that both parents can be at home at a reasonable time.

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that people who don't spend time with their families do so as a matter of personal choice? There are spouses who regardless of their occupations spend a significant amount of time away from their families. It can be boys night out, girls night out, the annual golf trip, season tickets to any number of local sports teams. My point is that there are many ways to avoid being at home if that's what an individual desires. Also, a person can be home, but if they are disengaged from their family they might as well be gone. It's not the job it's the choices people make in their relationships.

You've made many good points here!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:17 you don't have to get nasty. And again, you miss the point. It's how people spend their time off, not how much they spend at work that matters in most cases. Yes, ideally parents are home by 4 PM like your DH and have dinner with the kids and put them to bed after listening to what's on their minds and then, once the kids are asleep, have wild, passionate sex with interesting, stimulating conversation every single night. But since that's not the reality for most of us - including, apparently, big law partners and their spouses, it does make sense to focus on how a working spouse is spending their time at home. If it's making breakfast for the kids, or at games on the weekends, or on family vacations, or time late night when they're home from work. And so if you have to choose, it is absolutely quality over quantity.

I didn't get nasty, and I didn't miss the point, and I never said our life is perfect in the way you describe.

I do agree that if you must choose, quality is more important than quantity. But I disagree that quality is enough, by itself, if the quantity is not there.

So true, but those pursuing the golden ring at all costs like to rationalize that "trade offs" (as mentioned by at least one PP) are necessary and acceptable.

I am very proud of my husband's work at a law firm. He works for people and entities who are doing remarkable, socially helpful work. And he's very good at it. He works long hours, and is compensated very well. He doesn't do it for the money. He does it because he believes he is doing good, because his work is intellectually engaging, and because he enjoys his co-workers, professional friends, and clients. I worked in a similar area of law for about 15 years and also found it very rewarding, for the same reasons. All this to say that law firm partners aren't all in it just for the money (there are many, many far easier ways to make money), and some believe (and their spouses believe) that they are doing socially useful work that is worth supporting, whether by taking on more of the hands-on parenting responsibilities or otherwise.

DH is a fed leaving for biglaw. As a government trial atty, he works hours as long as, if not longer than (during trials) as biglaw partners on this thread and travels often. The work is arguably more meaningful, but the pay is 1/4 of what he will be making in biglaw.

For all the naysayers on this thread, does it make a difference that DH is working for the govt as opposed to biglaw? That he puts criminals away instead of hashing out corporate disputes? Should this sort of public service, which requires long hours, only be done by adults who have no children?

Well, at least the work itself is important and helps to protect and serve society and it's children.

if you Sell your soul to the devil for money and long work hours don't be surprised when your family time suffers

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I feel that some of the more critizing posters are missing about having a spouse in these jobs and saying how important family time is etc, is that several of us are able to be home with our children because of our spouse's income. My kids get me all day everyday, they get my husband every morning (and I get his help) and we spend most weekends together. Yes he misses dinner with the kids, but he and I normally eat together. There are plenty of trade offs in life, but if you're argument against having a spouse in these jobs is not spending quality time, then remember that my kids get their mother (who is thrilled to be able to) home with them, and we don't need to rush around every morning, put them in day care and then race home for the magical family dinner. Don't get me wrong - that is very important, but I feel lucky to be able to give them my time and we get lots and lots of time as a family AND as a couple - we make it a priority AND I think his firm is a tad more family friendly, so maybe that helps.

This is my fa,mily too.

Same here

Anonymous wrote:

I do believe that there are some families this works for - where the wife has no serious career goals, does not need tons of timd with her husband, and finds staying home and the money rewarding, and the husband does manage just enough time home so the kids know him. But they aren't in the majority. And let me tell you, it is very hard to see a dad working 80 hrs a wek with a newborn. It really does make you wonder.

OMG. Really? How's the view from up there? Just do what you think is best for your family and teacher husband or whatever. We'll do what we think is best with our law degrees. But please, don't waste the brain power you have "wondering" about my family and how we make it work. We're doing more than fine. I promise you.

I have seen it happen in my own extended family (brother) and it was really sad. You are in denial about the law as a profession - while I agree there may be a small number it works for, by and large biglaw is brutal on most families. Most people, hell, you don't even need to have kids. For the small number who are content and flourishing at home and at work with 2hrs/night and half a weekend day off - more power to you, but you are a minority.

Anonymous wrote:17:17 you don't have to get nasty. And again, you miss the point. It's how people spend their time off, not how much they spend at work that matters in most cases. Yes, ideally parents are home by 4 PM like your DH and have dinner with the kids and put them to bed after listening to what's on their minds and then, once the kids are asleep, have wild, passionate sex with interesting, stimulating conversation every single night. But since that's not the reality for most of us - including, apparently, big law partners and their spouses, it does make sense to focus on how a working spouse is spending their time at home. If it's making breakfast for the kids, or at games on the weekends, or on family vacations, or time late night when they're home from work. And so if you have to choose, it is absolutely quality over quantity.

I didn't get nasty, and I didn't miss the point, and I never said our life is perfect in the way you describe.

I do agree that if you must choose, quality is more important than quantity. But I disagree that quality is enough, by itself, if the quantity is not there.

Anonymous wrote:

I do believe that there are some families this works for - where the wife has no serious career goals, does not need tons of timd with her husband, and finds staying home and the money rewarding, and the husband does manage just enough time home so the kids know him. But they aren't in the majority. And let me tell you, it is very hard to see a dad working 80 hrs a wek with a newborn. It really does make you wonder.

OMG. Really? How's the view from up there? Just do what you think is best for your family and teacher husband or whatever. We'll do what we think is best with our law degrees. But please, don't waste the brain power you have "wondering" about my family and how we make it work. We're doing more than fine. I promise you.

While money is very important, I know firsthand how sad some kids are knowing they never see their parents. I am teacher married to a teacher. And although we're not making loads of money, we do spend a lot of time with our two children. We can't do mornings b/c of our hours, but one of us picks up the kids almost everyday, and I'm usually able to volunteer at least once a month at their school.

Our afternoons are not rushed. I have time to help with homework and to make dinner. Granted, we spend quite a bit of time planning for the next day, and grading does take up time, too. But the trade offs are great. Holidays are spent together, and I'm not forced to place my kids in camp during the summer months. A week of camp, in fact, is enrichment for them and not daycare.

I cannot imagine having an absentee spouse, nor could I handle spending so much time at work that I'd miss out on time I'd spend with my children.

When you die, you don't take it with you. And I'd hate to think that I put money over my own kids.

So I do feel sorry for some of you, but you had to know what you were getting into. I most certainly did.

17:17 you don't have to get nasty. And again, you miss the point. It's how people spend their time off, not how much they spend at work that matters in most cases. Yes, ideally parents are home by 4 PM like your DH and have dinner with the kids and put them to bed after listening to what's on their minds and then, once the kids are asleep, have wild, passionate sex with interesting, stimulating conversation every single night. But since that's not the reality for most of us - including, apparently, big law partners and their spouses, it does make sense to focus on how a working spouse is spending their time at home. If it's making breakfast for the kids, or at games on the weekends, or on family vacations, or time late night when they're home from work. And so if you have to choose, it is absolutely quality over quantity.