Millennial SAHD who graduated from UVA, but my wife is a transplant surgeon. Once she eventually became an attending, my time was better spent with our kids than working. No I could have never seen myself being a SAHD, but it's the best option for our family.

I do also run marathons lol, but a fast 5k/10k is better than just finishing a marathon imo

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Like attracts like, people. Such high-achievers, whether men or women, are not the norm. You are perhaps most likely to run across them in educated and wealthy areas, of course, but if you're so intelligent, surely you understand that you belong to a rarified strata of society?

I agree about like attracts like. The OP has a group of friends who are all very similar. At the same time as her friends are working day and night to keep up materially, there are at-home super moms out there who had no intention of working full time when their children were born. That’s my “cohort”. We occasionally travel together, we take our kids to do things they wouldn’t be able to do if we worked. We carpool in the summer when a lot of our kids go to arts camp. We live our lives in a way that feminists scoffed at. OP and her friends decided to work and have children which is not unusual.

Looks like the OP is trying to make “high achieving millennials” happen as if it’s some new phenomenon.

Umm... I don't know only SAHMs, except high school acquaintances who went to state schools. OP is talking about the generations of women born around 1990 who went to elite schools. Pretty much all of us are working. And those of us who are non-religoous never dreamed about staying at home.

The OP is stereotyping a large group of women from all over the country and world based on her small group who live in a specific area of the country.

You wrote “Pretty much all of us are working”. Who is this “us”? You can’t be stupid enough to think that since the very few women you know from elite schools represents all women from elite schools. You’ve also managed, in your stupidity, to separate religious women and put them in their own little box. They aren’t like the rest of women.

And you might want to lose the “Umm….” at the beginning of your sentence. It makes you sound stupid.

Anonymous wrote:End of gen x here (younger end) and I do think we are the last gen of the stay at home mom. With flex work it just makes no sense to minimize income that will affect kids financially down the line.

I admit that I’m jealous and wish my job allowed flex work. A lot of people don’t have that option in their line of work!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m reminded of when we lived in Scarsdale, where dual high-income families were commonplace. I was eavesdropping on some high school boys having lunch in a local deli. They were talking about another boy, and how his mom is a doctor who works overnights at a hospital so he never sees her. And they all had such genuine sadness for him over that fact. I just have to wonder what’s the point of having such a big job that you don’t ever see your kids.

I’m a mom who works overnights in a hospital so that I CAN be there for my kids. I’m sleeping, but home during the day if there is any kind of emergency at school or sick child who needs to stay home. I pick my kids up at school every day, drive them to extracurriculars, help with homework, make dinner, and read them stories before bed. Then I take a quick nap and go in to work at midnight.

Working nights is not a “big job.” No one is working nights and doing hospital administration or getting big research dollars. Doctors working nights are taking care of sick people who need emergent care. I don’t know how you can’t see the point of that.

Sorry about the rant.

I agree with you, OP. My sister is 10 years younger than I am, and she is about your age. I have noticed that there are very different expectations of her husband at home. I’ve seen this with my residents too. I’m not a surgeon or in any high intensity field, but over the last 10 years or so, I’ve started seeing expectations shift, and men with kids are expected to take leave when their babies are born, to need to leave on time, and to take occasional sick days to take care of children. 10-15 years ago, the expectation was that men had no responsibilities outside of work, and their wives (or someone?) would handle everything.

Old millennial here. Culture has changed but so have workplace policies. With my first, who's almost 10, my husband got 3 weeks paternity leave and only took 2 so he could have one "just in case" when I went back to work. He had just switched jobs, and when we were previously at the same employer, the benefit was 8 weeks...for the primary parent only. As in, we had to declare one of us "primary" and only that person got the crappy leave.

Then I was a fed when I had #2, less than a year before paid parental leave passed. We have only had paid parental leave for government employees for 3 years. That's a HUGE change. The culture has changed around it too. New parents I know try to use their paid leave plus vacation/sick time to extend leave to 4-6 months. Anyone who tried to do this with unpaid FMLA before got a really hard time about it and sometimes outright rejection.

Anyway, I think generous leave policies for both parents are part of the shift, and they're REALLY recent.

Agree. This has been a huge change, and my kids are 10 and 13 years old. My DH took 2 weeks of sick leave with each new baby (which was considered generous). I was a fed and could only have 12 weeks off total (mostly unpaid).

+3 (or 4?).
There is also a change of generation in administration. 15 years ago it was all boomers and older Gen X who had a chip on their shoulder about young mother’s being in the workforce. Even, or maybe especially, other women. It was like they wanted to prove that you couldn’t hack it.

LOL, most of my managers have been childless Gen X scared to touch any discussion of leave with a 10 foot pole. I've been horrified by how little HR knows about how benefits work though, I've literally had to quote and send them links to OPM guidance when they've said "I don't know if you can do that" (e.g. take intermitten FMLA, a thing I would think most HR people had gotten training in). We have to be our own best advocates.

I think one of the major differences now vs 10 years ago, or 20, is that we CAN do that, whereas the older Gen X and Boomers didn't have the benefits and had a lot more likelihood of retaliation or being passed over for opportunities. If men use their benefits too, then it makes discrimination based on parental status less likely as well.

This is such a great point, and I remember thinking this as a young woman as well. Every time I interviewed for a job, I know they were wondering if I was going to get pregnant and ask for leave.

I wonder if some of the younger women on this thread can chime in on whether that has gotten better.

Definitely better. Men are now expected to take their paid full leaves which is often between 4-12 weeks in white collar jobs sometimes more.

If a man leaves his job for 12 weeks to take care of a baby, he either 1. does not have a real job or 2. his office has zero respect for him. I live in a rich neighborhood and men who have serious careers won’t leave for 12 weeks to take care of a baby even if their company offers it.

The world is changing. Most people have no respect for men who don't take 12 weeks off to take care of a baby. Shows he doesn't know what his true priorities are.

Only a woman could believe this.

Anonymous wrote:I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

I see the opposite. Esp now that it’s been shown that epidurals are safer and better than going without and thus the shame has been stripped away.

Anonymous wrote:Born in 1985. One child, SAHM married into extreme wealth. No interest in working and not at all ashamed. Don’t use social media. Yes to marathon running.

Excellent troll post

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m reminded of when we lived in Scarsdale, where dual high-income families were commonplace. I was eavesdropping on some high school boys having lunch in a local deli. They were talking about another boy, and how his mom is a doctor who works overnights at a hospital so he never sees her. And they all had such genuine sadness for him over that fact. I just have to wonder what’s the point of having such a big job that you don’t ever see your kids.

I’m a mom who works overnights in a hospital so that I CAN be there for my kids. I’m sleeping, but home during the day if there is any kind of emergency at school or sick child who needs to stay home. I pick my kids up at school every day, drive them to extracurriculars, help with homework, make dinner, and read them stories before bed. Then I take a quick nap and go in to work at midnight.

Working nights is not a “big job.” No one is working nights and doing hospital administration or getting big research dollars. Doctors working nights are taking care of sick people who need emergent care. I don’t know how you can’t see the point of that.

Sorry about the rant.

I agree with you, OP. My sister is 10 years younger than I am, and she is about your age. I have noticed that there are very different expectations of her husband at home. I’ve seen this with my residents too. I’m not a surgeon or in any high intensity field, but over the last 10 years or so, I’ve started seeing expectations shift, and men with kids are expected to take leave when their babies are born, to need to leave on time, and to take occasional sick days to take care of children. 10-15 years ago, the expectation was that men had no responsibilities outside of work, and their wives (or someone?) would handle everything.

Old millennial here. Culture has changed but so have workplace policies. With my first, who's almost 10, my husband got 3 weeks paternity leave and only took 2 so he could have one "just in case" when I went back to work. He had just switched jobs, and when we were previously at the same employer, the benefit was 8 weeks...for the primary parent only. As in, we had to declare one of us "primary" and only that person got the crappy leave.

Then I was a fed when I had #2, less than a year before paid parental leave passed. We have only had paid parental leave for government employees for 3 years. That's a HUGE change. The culture has changed around it too. New parents I know try to use their paid leave plus vacation/sick time to extend leave to 4-6 months. Anyone who tried to do this with unpaid FMLA before got a really hard time about it and sometimes outright rejection.

Anyway, I think generous leave policies for both parents are part of the shift, and they're REALLY recent.

Agree. This has been a huge change, and my kids are 10 and 13 years old. My DH took 2 weeks of sick leave with each new baby (which was considered generous). I was a fed and could only have 12 weeks off total (mostly unpaid).

+3 (or 4?).
There is also a change of generation in administration. 15 years ago it was all boomers and older Gen X who had a chip on their shoulder about young mother’s being in the workforce. Even, or maybe especially, other women. It was like they wanted to prove that you couldn’t hack it.

LOL, most of my managers have been childless Gen X scared to touch any discussion of leave with a 10 foot pole. I've been horrified by how little HR knows about how benefits work though, I've literally had to quote and send them links to OPM guidance when they've said "I don't know if you can do that" (e.g. take intermitten FMLA, a thing I would think most HR people had gotten training in). We have to be our own best advocates.

I think one of the major differences now vs 10 years ago, or 20, is that we CAN do that, whereas the older Gen X and Boomers didn't have the benefits and had a lot more likelihood of retaliation or being passed over for opportunities. If men use their benefits too, then it makes discrimination based on parental status less likely as well.

This is such a great point, and I remember thinking this as a young woman as well. Every time I interviewed for a job, I know they were wondering if I was going to get pregnant and ask for leave.

I wonder if some of the younger women on this thread can chime in on whether that has gotten better.

Definitely better. Men are now expected to take their paid full leaves which is often between 4-12 weeks in white collar jobs sometimes more.

If a man leaves his job for 12 weeks to take care of a baby, he either 1. does not have a real job or 2. his office has zero respect for him. I live in a rich neighborhood and men who have serious careers won’t leave for 12 weeks to take care of a baby even if their company offers it.

The world is changing. Most people have no respect for men who don't take 12 weeks off to take care of a baby. Shows he doesn't know what his true priorities are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

You don't live in the District of Columbia, though, right? Or if you do, you and spouse clear +$1million/yr and pay the college-educated native English speaker nanny >$90k and probably live in Wesley Heights. Even with 2 "big jobs," that set up is unusual.

As of 2023, that's the going rate for the type of full time, 5day/week nanny I describe in DC/Bethesda/Arlington/Potomac. I employed one as a medical assistant, and she left to be a full-time nanny for a pair of Potomac doctors. She had a bio degree from a place like GW, was planning to return to school for OT, and the full-time nanny gig was a known temporary bridge.

Most college-educated young American women don't want to babysit for a living, so I'd be skeptical of anyone who asserts that this type of full-time nanny is easily found.

I don’t live in DC, but I’m in Maryland. I agree that type of nanny is not easy to find but they are out there and I found a few of them! Nannying was a temporary gig of a few years for both of them, not a lifetime job. Both also had prior childcare experience when I hired them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m reminded of when we lived in Scarsdale, where dual high-income families were commonplace. I was eavesdropping on some high school boys having lunch in a local deli. They were talking about another boy, and how his mom is a doctor who works overnights at a hospital so he never sees her. And they all had such genuine sadness for him over that fact. I just have to wonder what’s the point of having such a big job that you don’t ever see your kids.

I’m a mom who works overnights in a hospital so that I CAN be there for my kids. I’m sleeping, but home during the day if there is any kind of emergency at school or sick child who needs to stay home. I pick my kids up at school every day, drive them to extracurriculars, help with homework, make dinner, and read them stories before bed. Then I take a quick nap and go in to work at midnight.

Working nights is not a “big job.” No one is working nights and doing hospital administration or getting big research dollars. Doctors working nights are taking care of sick people who need emergent care. I don’t know how you can’t see the point of that.

Sorry about the rant.

I agree with you, OP. My sister is 10 years younger than I am, and she is about your age. I have noticed that there are very different expectations of her husband at home. I’ve seen this with my residents too. I’m not a surgeon or in any high intensity field, but over the last 10 years or so, I’ve started seeing expectations shift, and men with kids are expected to take leave when their babies are born, to need to leave on time, and to take occasional sick days to take care of children. 10-15 years ago, the expectation was that men had no responsibilities outside of work, and their wives (or someone?) would handle everything.

Old millennial here. Culture has changed but so have workplace policies. With my first, who's almost 10, my husband got 3 weeks paternity leave and only took 2 so he could have one "just in case" when I went back to work. He had just switched jobs, and when we were previously at the same employer, the benefit was 8 weeks...for the primary parent only. As in, we had to declare one of us "primary" and only that person got the crappy leave.

Then I was a fed when I had #2, less than a year before paid parental leave passed. We have only had paid parental leave for government employees for 3 years. That's a HUGE change. The culture has changed around it too. New parents I know try to use their paid leave plus vacation/sick time to extend leave to 4-6 months. Anyone who tried to do this with unpaid FMLA before got a really hard time about it and sometimes outright rejection.

Anyway, I think generous leave policies for both parents are part of the shift, and they're REALLY recent.

Agree. This has been a huge change, and my kids are 10 and 13 years old. My DH took 2 weeks of sick leave with each new baby (which was considered generous). I was a fed and could only have 12 weeks off total (mostly unpaid).

+3 (or 4?).
There is also a change of generation in administration. 15 years ago it was all boomers and older Gen X who had a chip on their shoulder about young mother’s being in the workforce. Even, or maybe especially, other women. It was like they wanted to prove that you couldn’t hack it.

LOL, most of my managers have been childless Gen X scared to touch any discussion of leave with a 10 foot pole. I've been horrified by how little HR knows about how benefits work though, I've literally had to quote and send them links to OPM guidance when they've said "I don't know if you can do that" (e.g. take intermitten FMLA, a thing I would think most HR people had gotten training in). We have to be our own best advocates.

I think one of the major differences now vs 10 years ago, or 20, is that we CAN do that, whereas the older Gen X and Boomers didn't have the benefits and had a lot more likelihood of retaliation or being passed over for opportunities. If men use their benefits too, then it makes discrimination based on parental status less likely as well.

This is such a great point, and I remember thinking this as a young woman as well. Every time I interviewed for a job, I know they were wondering if I was going to get pregnant and ask for leave.

I wonder if some of the younger women on this thread can chime in on whether that has gotten better.

Definitely better. Men are now expected to take their paid full leaves which is often between 4-12 weeks in white collar jobs sometimes more.

If a man leaves his job for 12 weeks to take care of a baby, he either 1. does not have a real job or 2. his office has zero respect for him. I live in a rich neighborhood and men who have serious careers won’t leave for 12 weeks to take care of a baby even if their company offers it.

Anonymous wrote:End of gen x here (younger end) and I do think we are the last gen of the stay at home mom. With flex work it just makes no sense to minimize income that will affect kids financially down the line.

Gen X are not a monolith nor are millenials. I know millenial sahms. Often religious though not always. Also I know lots of moms of both generations who stayed at home for a few years with little kids and then went back but often in a flexible or part time capacity. This is really common (though not among super high achievers of course but certainly include people with grad degrees or who went to top colleges). I fall in this boat -- was a sahm for a while and then went back to work but no longer prioritize work the way I did pre-kids even though I have a pretty prestigious grad degree and leave money on the table by choosing to stay in a very flexible position

I also know Gen X and millenial dads who have take breaks from working and become primary parents (definitely not a phenomenon that existed much at all when I was a kid) as well dads with the flexible and lower-paying job so they can be primary parents while their wives work more demanding and higher paying jobs.

I think the big difference between now and when I grew up is that there is more variety in how people choose to set up their families and their lives. Yes more women work and there are fewer sahms overall. But that doesn't mean everyone is in a dual income family with two hard charging careers. In fact that set up seems pretty uncommon because it's really hard unless you have both lots of help (family or paid or both) AND very specific personalities that enable you to do that without going nuts. It seems like most families wind up with at least one person (if not two) who prioritize family over work even if they still work and there is increasing acceptance of the idea that raising kids and taking care of the house really IS a full time job... though due to financial constraints more families now either outsource or split this job between them rather than just having a sahm. But some still have sahms!

I also see high achieving women doing mostly natural births.

Anonymous wrote:End of gen x here (younger end) and I do think we are the last gen of the stay at home mom. With flex work it just makes no sense to minimize income that will affect kids financially down the line.

I agree with this. I work a part time, flexible job as do the majority of my mom friends who do not work full time. I know very few SAHMs who are truly bringing in zero income.

Anonymous wrote:End of gen x here (younger end) and I do think we are the last gen of the stay at home mom. With flex work it just makes no sense to minimize income that will affect kids financially down the line.

So weird how everyone thinks WFH jobs 1) grow on trees or 2) eliminate the need for paid childcare.

End of gen x here (younger end) and I do think we are the last gen of the stay at home mom. With flex work it just makes no sense to minimize income that will affect kids financially down the line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

Exactly and why is a mom better equip than someone who actually has a degree in early childhood education? I’m educated but not in that! I wouldnt know how to handle my 2 year old at home- she was way better off with people who knew how to entertain her / teach her with age appropriate lessons at preschool.

This is truly an insane argument. By all means use childcare to enable you to keep working but the idea that it is not possible to care for a young child unless you have a degree in early childhood education is absolute nonsense. First off I will take a nanny with years of practical experience raising her own kids and caring for other people's kids over a fresh graduate of a ECE program any day and so will most other sane parents. Because you don't learn how to take care of children by reading books. But also a nanny is only with kids 8-10 hours a day. You still have to "handle" your 2 year old at home unless you intend to never be alone with your child until the nanny has properly gotten them through the difficult phases. Do you intend to never spend an evening or weekend with your kids without the nanny or never go on vacation without the nanny? That's bonkers.

Also (and again this is not an argument for all women to be sahms which I don't believe in anyway) but there ARE things that parents offer kids that paid caregivers absolutely cannot give them. Children need to develop love and trust and rapport with their actual parents and not just with a nanny or other caregiver. And moms don't need degrees in ECE to provide it. You just love your kid and care for them and if you make some mistakes with logistics like potty training or sleep training it is honestly not that big of a deal compared to not providing your child with a loving and supportive home environment where they know they are welcome and safe. There is no replacement for that and it does not require special training.

Considering the number of parents who end up doing this incorrectly, maybe it would be better if they received special training. It's not like just because you have a baby you magically know how to raise it.

DP but there’s a wide divide between the kids who get put in special ed because their parent was unaware of expectations going into kindergarten and spent all their days at the park and pool, and kids who are in special ed because they don’t see their parent 21 out of 24 hours of the day. “Special training” for parents is not going to affect the kids at the bottom, because those parents just don’t care.