Anonymous wrote:15:11 again -- I wrote that your DH can absolutely participate equally in shopping for your kids' presents, but I want to add that you can also help him out with a present for your MIL. How hard is it to frame an adorable picture of your kids and order up a wine-and-cheese-of-the-month club membership? The real issue here is why you two aren't on the same team. That's the whole point of marriage, isn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is is why I SAH--so that there is always one of us available to make sure the kids are covered. On any given day, my DH can cover kid appointments/emergencies/activities, he just can't do it (on weekdays) with the regularity required when you have kids.

That being said, he does the majority of the kid stuff when he is home and has done about half of the Christmas shopping for the kids (Amazon makes it pretty easy).

This is also a big part of why I became a SAHM. Five years later, though, I'm really missing my career and want to go back to work, except the process of getting back into my old field while also being the default parent and having a biglaw partner husband who doesn't have a lot of flexibility is daunting at best.

I WOH but this is exactly why I never judge anyone for WOH, SAH or whatever. DH works and travels a lot but I have a ridiculously flexible job, and my parents are very, very, hands on. DD goes to preschool, and my dad watches DS and takes care of preschool pickup and drop off. On her days off of work, mom pitches in (and is retiring to help take care of the kids too). They often call on the weekends to ask if they can come watch the kids for a few hours in case we have things we would like to do. There is no way on earth we'd be able to manage without my work flexibility and my parents. Of course, I am still the default parent and it makes me crazy, oh well...

Thanks for this post. My DH is a big law partner and we have one 16 month old and another baby on the way. I have a Ph.D., but am now working just 10 hours a week for an old professor to keep my CV current. I can't tell you the number of times women have made a snide or dismissive comment to me about being a SAHM, mostly women that DH works with. But, I really don't think that I have any other choice given the fact that DH works 90 hours a week, we have no family that can help out, and we have to pay for (and arrange in advance) every minute that one of us isn't with our son. We could afford to just pay for tons of childcare and I could work full-time, but I would still be solo parenting most of the time on top of working for very little money after paying for childcare. Some of the women who have made mean comments to me have gone on to talk about how her MIL watches the baby during the day or her parents take the kids for sleepovers almost every weekend. I would work a lot more hours also if I had a back up system like that, so it feels extra mean spirited to pick on me for SAH without one. I wish people would think about the fact that the details of everyone's lives are different before they pass judgment on other people's choices. Good for you for your generosity.

Anonymous wrote:My husband is not big law, but has a very demanding job with a lot of travel and often is not home while the kids are awake. I was very upset when he took the job, knowing that it meant he wouldn't be there for his kids. What has made it work is me having an attitude adjustment. I just completely eliminated any expectations from him. I also have a pretty demanding career, but I am able to better manage my hours and I still oversee everything home and family-related. That includes buying all the Christmas presents for his family. We also have the most fantastic live-in nanny on the planet, which makes this possible. She and I now just have overtaken all the child rearing together, we don't even factor him in. And when he is around and can help, it's a bonus. It took an adjustment for me to get over my initial anger over his career choice. But he has his dream job and is proud to be a good provider for us (and he makes no where near the money that a big law partner would make, but he also doesn't have that kind of stress, just really long hours). Now I think it works out quite well and I feel very fortunate.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We have a good but not great nanny. I know he won't be the one going to doctor's appointments. The trigger for this was his asking me what I had gotten our child (and his mom) for Christmas. When I said I hadn't because I've been busy at work he said he ha no ideas and he'd leave it up to me since I was "better" at it. Our son likes trains, trains, trains, balls, trains, and trains. I also told him he could order a present for his mom if he felt so strongly about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says yes. I say no. I work full time and we have a two year old.

The summer my husband interned at a big law firm downtown, he realized that every male partner was on his second wife/family--none of their first marriages had survived. He decided to apply for the DOH honors program instead, because he wanted to be a parent more than he wanted to be a partner. Priorities.

I am guessing you mean DOJ, and mine did too, and works 70 hour weeks as a trial lawyer/deputy chief in a very busy section. I am the default parent at a big law job (part time). So -- one size doesn't really fit all, KWIM? Many type A people stretch a job to fit their ambition/comfort level. Not saying that is optimal, but your experience is not the gold standard. There is more than one way to "be a parent".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a partner, not senior associate, DH should have more control over his schedule. He will still work long hours, but is not at the back and call of a partner. Also, there are female partners who are still the default parent, in the sense that they are the ones who keep track of schedules, appointments, kids clothes, parties, presents, etc. sure, they have full time nannies, but they are still managing the household while being partner.

BTW, I know of big law male partners who still have time to coach their kids sport teams or volunteer on school committees.

Parenting is gendered, whether you are a big law partner or not. This means, OP, that if DH has enough time to get a coffee at Starbucks or had enough time to join a football fantasy league, or watch games on the weekends, he has enough time to go onto amazon and buy some presents for your kid. He just thinks he doesn't have to because it's a mother's job more so than a father's job.

No, he is at the beck and call of the clients, which is the same thing. Yes, OP's husband has time to shop online, but in the big picture, she will have to be the default parent unless he changes jobs.

Agreed. But this should be the topic of discussion between OP and her DH. Her DH should not depart from the assumption that she will work around his job, if that was not the express joint agreement.

This is crazy talk -- what is an "express joint agreement"? Unless she told him to decline the offer of partnership, she accepted the hours that come with it. The job is not flexible. If she is the higher earner, she should talk to him about changing his job to be the default parent. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^IDK, the big law wives I know, are well aware of the tradeoffs. But we married our DHs before they were big law and love them nonetheless.

And you understand that you are the default parent, right? OP does not. She wants her cake and to eat it too.

Actually, OP did not sign up to be the default parent. Her DH signed her up for that, without consulting her.

The underlying assumption for many people on this thread seems to be that OP must work around DH. That he dictates the terms.

And the assumption underlying that underlying assumption is that the mother is the default parent by default.

No, the assumption is that the spouse who works less hours is the default parent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^IDK, the big law wives I know, are well aware of the tradeoffs. But we married our DHs before they were big law and love them nonetheless.

And you understand that you are the default parent, right? OP does not. She wants her cake and to eat it too.

Actually, OP did not sign up to be the default parent. Her DH signed her up for that, without consulting her.

The underlying assumption for many people on this thread seems to be that OP must work around DH. That he dictates the terms.

And the assumption underlying that underlying assumption is that the mother is the default parent by default.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^IDK, the big law wives I know, are well aware of the tradeoffs. But we married our DHs before they were big law and love them nonetheless.

And you understand that you are the default parent, right? OP does not. She wants her cake and to eat it too.

Actually, OP did not sign up to be the default parent. Her DH signed her up for that, without consulting her.

The underlying assumption for many people on this thread seems to be that OP must work around DH. That he dictates the terms.

And the assumption underlying that underlying assumption is that the mother is the default parent by default.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a partner, not senior associate, DH should have more control over his schedule. He will still work long hours, but is not at the back and call of a partner. Also, there are female partners who are still the default parent, in the sense that they are the ones who keep track of schedules, appointments, kids clothes, parties, presents, etc. sure, they have full time nannies, but they are still managing the household while being partner.

BTW, I know of big law male partners who still have time to coach their kids sport teams or volunteer on school committees.

Parenting is gendered, whether you are a big law partner or not. This means, OP, that if DH has enough time to get a coffee at Starbucks or had enough time to join a football fantasy league, or watch games on the weekends, he has enough time to go onto amazon and buy some presents for your kid. He just thinks he doesn't have to because it's a mother's job more so than a father's job.

No, he is at the beck and call of the clients, which is the same thing. Yes, OP's husband has time to shop online, but in the big picture, she will have to be the default parent unless he changes jobs.

Agreed. But this should be the topic of discussion between OP and her DH. Her DH should not depart from the assumption that she will work around his job, if that was not the express joint agreement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He says yes. I say no. I work full time and we have a two year old.

The summer my husband interned at a big law firm downtown, he realized that every male partner was on his second wife/family--none of their first marriages had survived. He decided to apply for the DOH honors program instead, because he wanted to be a parent more than he wanted to be a partner. Priorities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^IDK, the big law wives I know, are well aware of the tradeoffs. But we married our DHs before they were big law and love them nonetheless.

And you understand that you are the default parent, right? OP does not. She wants her cake and to eat it too.

Actually, OP did not sign up to be the default parent. Her DH signed her up for that, without consulting her.

The underlying assumption for many people on this thread seems to be that OP must work around DH. That he dictates the terms.