Anonymous wrote:This was a good thought provoking article. I haven't been a fan of David Brooks latest stuff but this was pretty decent. It reminded me that as much as I bitch and grip about having to find help with the kids because of a lack of extended family in this area, I am fortunately to even have the option to afford to outsource any of this. Many many others are not so fortunate and must face levels of stress trying to keep the family afloat I can't even comprehend. No wonder so many marriages fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about people who don’t have extended family support regardless?

Seriously. Some of us are from super crappy families and whether they live 15 min or 15 hours away, are not helpful, loving or supportive. Yes, of course having a loving, healthy extended family would be helpful for all involved sigh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure his statistics make sense and I don't think his conclusions drawn from them make sense.

The Scandinavian countries are the "happiest", also do not have large extended families living together, and are wealthy. Also, most Americans who moved here over the past centuries were loners, single, or maybe a married couple. They obviously didn't bring a large family with them.

In Scandinavian countries, society has taken place of the extended family. Young families are supported. Childcare and family leave is subsidized by the government, and work-life balance is valued and prioritized.

What's valued and prioritized here is the almighty dollar and working yourself to death. People are actually proud of working crazy hours. Many employers don't want to hire mothers or mothers to be. Men are considered emasculated and shamed if they want to take parental leave to bond with and care for children. Women are expected to work as if they don't have kids and parent as if they don't work. If you say you're having a hard time, you're told that you shouldn't have had kids in the first place if you can't afford (or don't want) to quit your job to care for them. If you do quit, that you're an affront to feminism and a burden on your husband. Of course the nuclear family struggles, given these conditions.

Great post. Thanks. So true.

I have relatives in Sweden. They take off work all the time to be with the kids (sick days, personal days, family vacation, etc). Almost everyone they know has two parents working and almost all the kids go to daycare/preschool but the hours are generally a lot shorter than here in the U.S. My brother or sister in law take turns picking their kids up from school around 2-3pm each day. They also take turns with school drop off so that the kids are usually only at daycare/school for 6-7 hours per day including commute. They take at least 6-8 weeks of paid vacation per year as well as many sick/personal/mental health days. Both got 12-15 months parental leave when each kid was born. Women are more equal in the workplace there than almost anywhere else in the world in terms of equal pay, access to jobs/likelihood of getting hired/promoted, etc. Men are praised and rewarded for taking time off with kids and being involved parents. I am so happy for them that they live in a place that really supports families, women, and kids. I’m really sad for myself and anyone else living here in the U.S. that we don’t have and will never have a society like that.

Anonymous wrote:A good compromise is living in the same town but in separate houses. Plus, raising kids gets so much easier the older they get.

I like my privacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure his statistics make sense and I don't think his conclusions drawn from them make sense.

The Scandinavian countries are the "happiest", also do not have large extended families living together, and are wealthy. Also, most Americans who moved here over the past centuries were loners, single, or maybe a married couple. They obviously didn't bring a large family with them.

In Scandinavian countries, society has taken place of the extended family. Young families are supported. Childcare and family leave is subsidized by the government, and work-life balance is valued and prioritized.

What's valued and prioritized here is the almighty dollar and working yourself to death. People are actually proud of working crazy hours. Many employers don't want to hire mothers or mothers to be. Men are considered emasculated and shamed if they want to take parental leave to bond with and care for children. Women are expected to work as if they don't have kids and parent as if they don't work. If you say you're having a hard time, you're told that you shouldn't have had kids in the first place if you can't afford (or don't want) to quit your job to care for them. If you do quit, that you're an affront to feminism and a burden on your husband. Of course the nuclear family struggles, given these conditions.

You nailed it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure his statistics make sense and I don't think his conclusions drawn from them make sense.

The Scandinavian countries are the "happiest", also do not have large extended families living together, and are wealthy. Also, most Americans who moved here over the past centuries were loners, single, or maybe a married couple. They obviously didn't bring a large family with them.

In Scandinavian countries, society has taken place of the extended family. Young families are supported. Childcare and family leave is subsidized by the government, and work-life balance is valued and prioritized.

What's valued and prioritized here is the almighty dollar and working yourself to death. People are actually proud of working crazy hours. Many employers don't want to hire mothers or mothers to be. Men are considered emasculated and shamed if they want to take parental leave to bond with and care for children. Women are expected to work as if they don't have kids and parent as if they don't work. If you say you're having a hard time, you're told that you shouldn't have had kids in the first place if you can't afford (or don't want) to quit your job to care for them. If you do quit, that you're an affront to feminism and a burden on your husband. Of course the nuclear family struggles, given these conditions.

Anonymous wrote:What about people who don’t have extended family support regardless?

Anonymous wrote:This is why my parents moved where DH and I found jobs. I like that solution a lot more than people staying put. My parents had no other family in the city they raised me in and they were retired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure his statistics make sense and I don't think his conclusions drawn from them make sense.

The Scandinavian countries are the "happiest", also do not have large extended families living together, and are wealthy. Also, most Americans who moved here over the past centuries were loners, single, or maybe a married couple. They obviously didn't bring a large family with them.

In Scandinavian countries, society has taken place of the extended family. Young families are supported. Childcare and family leave is subsidized by the government, and work-life balance is valued and prioritized.

What's valued and prioritized here is the almighty dollar and working yourself to death. People are actually proud of working crazy hours. Many employers don't want to hire mothers or mothers to be. Men are considered emasculated and shamed if they want to take parental leave to bond with and care for children. Women are expected to work as if they don't have kids and parent as if they don't work. If you say you're having a hard time, you're told that you shouldn't have had kids in the first place if you can't afford (or don't want) to quit your job to care for them. If you do quit, that you're an affront to feminism and a burden on your husband. Of course the nuclear family struggles, given these conditions.

Anonymous wrote:Juggling two full time careers is stressful on both parents, but not always enough to want to bring the grandparents (both parents and the in laws) into the mix if there are boundary issues, a history of abuse or dysfunction. There is a willingness to cut the nuclear family away from the extended relatives that has a solid basis to it. In previous eras, parents were stuck with those relationships that may have not been healthy mentally even if they were beneficial economically.