1983 so older than OP. Know lots of dual big-law partners with 3 kids from my graduating class alone. It's definitely a flex. No idea who is raising them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Hopefully you were able to ignore the insults of people from state schools. Just some trolls. Your wife is lucky to have you.

I'm lucky to have her - it's a great partnership even it wasn't what I envisioned when I was younger. Now that the kids are getting older, it is clear this was the best decision for our family.

Look at the man here promoting the tradwife bullshite. Expect more of this as we get closer to the election. This is part of the foundation of Project 20whatever the exteme right wing has come up with. They want girls married off early so they less chance for education. Like abortion rights, they are coming for our jobs and our right to vote.

LOL what the hell are you talking about? I'm a SAH DAD and my wife is a transplant surgeon. Guess it's too hard read what you are responding to.

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. [b]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. [/b]

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.

As someone who is a parent and has worked in well regarded DC independent schools...this is absolutely true. The striver moms do not know or do not want to know that the teachers can tell who had an engaged mom at home during the early years. The key is engaged. Because many of the SAHMs also have nannies while they played tennis and volunteered all around town in lieu of developing their children. So it isn't just a working mother problem.

Even if this is true, it could be confirmation bias. Also, maybe some of those differences are the result of daycare. Daycare between the ages of 0-3 has been shown to have negative impacts on kids: https://criticalscience.medium.com/on-the-science-of-daycare-4d1ab4c2efb4

Furthermore, maybe the kids with SAHMs had wealthier families, or maybe wealthier SAHMs care more about emphasizing poise and good personality to their kids. My immigrant parents only cared about academics, not poise, personality, or sports.

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. [b]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. [/b]

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.

As someone who is a parent and has worked in well regarded DC independent schools...this is absolutely true. The striver moms do not know or do not want to know that the teachers can tell who had an engaged mom at home during the early years. The key is engaged. Because many of the SAHMs also have nannies while they played tennis and volunteered all around town in lieu of developing their children. So it isn't just a working mother problem.

As a mom who works, this makes me really sad. What are the things you notice?

Don't fall for it. This is something that sad sack stay at home moms have to tell thsemselves to feel better about their miserable lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1990 here, also Ivy grad. I've observed One And Done -OR- no kids actually. I had a kid at 30 and was the earliest one in my friend group.

I don't think of one and done or no kids as a flex. Three kids is very common in my area (Greenwich). That's the flex. Everything on the initial list is accurate. The running marathons is not something that I see (and I'm a former college runner so these are my people) but being very fit is definitely a flex.

PP here. I wasn't trying to say it's a flex. Just that it's the trend I see in my cohort. I'm 34 and I don't know anyone with 3 kids, a few with two kids, and quite a lot with one kid or no kids.

b/c you are only 34! most people have one kid at that age, i'm surprised you know some with 2 unless its a toddler & newborn. the only people i know who have kids before age 30 are south asian doctors- most people arent even married before then!

Yes but the OP is also only 34. We are both 1990. But she says her classmates all have 3+ kids. I was offering a different perspective.

I had three kids by 35 (I’m 36 now). I know a fair amount of high achieving mom millennials with three kids. I think it’s pretty common to just go for it and have kids close together in your early 30s. There is a lot more awareness and transparency about fertility issues, many of which are exacerbated by age. I know multiple older millennial moms who conceived their first two kids fairly easily between 33-36 but then hit a wall trying to conceive their third at 38+. There is a lot of discussion about 35 being the cliff but I think the cliff starts at 37 and easily conceiving at 35 or 36 gives women a false sense of security that the statistics about fertility decline don’t apply to them.

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. [b]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. [/b]

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.

As someone who is a parent and has worked in well regarded DC independent schools...this is absolutely true. The striver moms do not know or do not want to know that the teachers can tell who had an engaged mom at home during the early years. The key is engaged. Because many of the SAHMs also have nannies while they played tennis and volunteered all around town in lieu of developing their children. So it isn't just a working mother problem.

As a mom who works, this makes me really sad. What are the things you notice?

PP why are you sad? The other poster is pulling stuff out of their butt. What bs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Hopefully you were able to ignore the insults of people from state schools. Just some trolls. Your wife is lucky to have you.

I'm lucky to have her - it's a great partnership even it wasn't what I envisioned when I was younger. Now that the kids are getting older, it is clear this was the best decision for our family.

Look at the man here promoting the tradwife bullshite. Expect more of this as we get closer to the election. This is part of the foundation of Project 20whatever the exteme right wing has come up with. They want girls married off early so they less chance for education. Like abortion rights, they are coming for our jobs and our right to vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff was right. This thread is effing weird.

where did jeff weigh in on this thread?

Np. It’s summarized on the front page web log. Click the logo at top, then scroll down to this thread’s date.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? I’m an elder millennial who has noticed that phrases like Trad Wife, Passenger Princess, and Soft Life are trending on TikTok.

Again PPs are missing the "high achieving" part of OP's title and post. We are talking about a subset of millennial women.

The OP was talking about a minuscule group of women she’s calling high achieving and giving their pregnancy histories. It veered off in another direction but it’s actually been more interesting to hear about a bigger variety of women.

I notice they drink alot of wine and think they know everything.

Anonymous wrote:Really? I’m an elder millennial who has noticed that phrases like Trad Wife, Passenger Princess, and Soft Life are trending on TikTok.

Again PPs are missing the "high achieving" part of OP's title and post. We are talking about a subset of millennial women.

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. [b]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. [/b]

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.

As someone who is a parent and has worked in well regarded DC independent schools...this is absolutely true. The striver moms do not know or do not want to know that the teachers can tell who had an engaged mom at home during the early years. The key is engaged. Because many of the SAHMs also have nannies while they played tennis and volunteered all around town in lieu of developing their children. So it isn't just a working mother problem.

As a mom who works, this makes me really sad. What are the things you notice?

pp stop.
don't fall for the clickbait/ kids of working moms suffer bs. ESPECIALLY in a world where we are wfh half the time anyway. It's just a misogynistic tool used principally by other women to validate their own decisions not to work. Do not click, do not feed the beast.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff was right. This thread is effing weird.

where did jeff weigh in on this thread?

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. [b]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. [/b]

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.

As someone who is a parent and has worked in well regarded DC independent schools...this is absolutely true. The striver moms do not know or do not want to know that the teachers can tell who had an engaged mom at home during the early years. The key is engaged. Because many of the SAHMs also have nannies while they played tennis and volunteered all around town in lieu of developing their children. So it isn't just a working mother problem.

As a mom who works, this makes me really sad. What are the things you notice?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1990 here, also Ivy grad. I've observed One And Done -OR- no kids actually. I had a kid at 30 and was the earliest one in my friend group.

I don't think of one and done or no kids as a flex. Three kids is very common in my area (Greenwich). That's the flex. Everything on the initial list is accurate. The running marathons is not something that I see (and I'm a former college runner so these are my people) but being very fit is definitely a flex.

PP here. I wasn't trying to say it's a flex. Just that it's the trend I see in my cohort. I'm 34 and I don't know anyone with 3 kids, a few with two kids, and quite a lot with one kid or no kids.

b/c you are only 34! most people have one kid at that age, i'm surprised you know some with 2 unless its a toddler & newborn. the only people i know who have kids before age 30 are south asian doctors- most people arent even married before then!

Yes but the OP is also only 34. We are both 1990. But she says her classmates all have 3+ kids. I was offering a different perspective.