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.

Ah that’s because you’re still relatively young. The third kid usually comes in the later 30s. Especially the baby girl with two older brothers. I’m 39 and there’s a lot of “2 close in age and then a 3rd when the younger is around 4-5.”

The “two careers” thing is common with only one kid but by the time kid 2 or 3 enters the picture, someone is ready to lean out to a part time job, or to government from private industry/Biglaw. All the rest is extremely true and is also true of older Millennials. There is also a lot of family financial support going on. Even in higher earning couples. Grandparents help pay for an additional nanny or private pre-K-12 and contribute the max to the college savings account.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marathon running and new construction homes.

-another “high credential” millennial mom (1989)

Just wait until their kids are in high school and college and you are hearing all about them running marathons WITH their kids or attending their D1 athletics or whatever.

If this is triggering for you (it is for me) you need to mute or develop a strong level of detachment from social media generally early on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Probably the grandparents. Which I think is the best of both worlds for those who can make it work.

Hard disagree. I have top 1st percentile parents, and they are wonderful with the kids. But the kids still need us (their parents) to spend time with them, talk to them, arrange things for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Probably the grandparents. Which I think is the best of both worlds for those who can make it work.

Hard disagree. I have top 1st percentile parents, and they are wonderful with the kids. But the kids still need us (their parents) to spend time with them, talk to them, arrange things for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Probably the grandparents. Which I think is the best of both worlds for those who can make it work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Probably the grandparents. Which I think is the best of both worlds for those who can make it work.

As long a the grandparents are enjoying it. Otherwise the situation sounds like a modern version of Willa Cather's short story Old Mrs. Harris where (according to Cather) sourthern grandmothers basically worked themselves to death keeping house for their daughters who were expected to basically be showpieces and keep up the family social life. Cather painted an incredibly depressing picture; I wouldn't want to put my mom in that situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is like marathon training, though. It's about proving to yourself and others that you can do it.

I see a lot of pro-natural birth chatter online but IRL I only know one person who actually wanted to try it (it was not successful). There seems to be a lot of misinformation spouted about epidurals too, like overstating the risk of complications and suggesting that you won’t be able to move or have control over your body.

I was interested in getting a epidural but I did what the doctor said would be best for my deliveries. They didn’t want the possibility of slowing down the birth of my son so no epidural or drugs. I was induced with my daughter, excruciating contractions but i wasn’t far enough along to get an epidural. This went on for about seven hours of the most painful contractions. When I was finally ok’d for an epidural the baby started making fast progress and she practically flew out.

So no epidurals and I had two natural pregnancies. So what.

What's a natural pregnancy?

It’s the term some use for a pregnancy with no medical intervention.

No ultrasounds? No NIPT? No blood pressure or blood sugar readings taken? Pretty barbaric and nothing to be proud of.

But they probably actually just mean they are picking and choosing what they are counting as “medical intervention” for some arbitrary status.

Anonymous wrote:Of course millennials aren’t becoming sahms. With remote work, they get paid for more of the time they spend parenting.

Anonymous wrote:Op here. I wanted to clarify some things. At my ivy, I was part of a religious group and many, many of the women assumed they would stay home so I've been surprised by how many have continued to work while having several kids. There are two waves of child-bearing- the more religious are ahead of the curve and are on baby 3 or even 4.

My more nonreligious friends are just starting but I anticipate will likely end up with more in the next few years (in talking with them they want big families). Even the nonreligious people I was friends with had kind assumed it would be very hard to balance a career with their future husband's high profile job and the common understanding was that they may need to take some time off when their kids were young. Now the people making those comments have like 1-3 kids and work full time (one is a CEO!). I think the flexible work arrangement is a big part of this.

I do think that if you are SAHM w/ a rich husband (prior goal/ status), you are at a disadvantage. I'm estimating that most of my friends have dual incomes exceeding 250 but I assume most are making between 300-500k + combined.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Probably the grandparents. Which I think is the best of both worlds for those who can make it work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Probably the grandparents. Which I think is the best of both worlds for those who can make it work.

Anonymous wrote: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.