Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse makes 1/20 of big law partner salary but works the same hours. She is a scientist. The society is really really fair. What does big law partner contribute to society? Do they generate new knowledge?

DH helps protect American workers and industries. To me that’s a contribution, but I’m not sure the need to compare. It all depends on who your client is. There are scientists who make bank. There are also govt lawyers who don’t. Also, I might argue that a lot of science is behind paywalls, so it doesn’t always benefit the public.

We definitely need good lawyers in many field including immigration. But most of these big law partners seem only to cater to rich people. I found the salary insanely inappropriate. They outsource childcare to black and latino nannies. What a great life!?

This is a thread about spouses married to big law partners. These women often don’t work.

For the women who married rich men and don't work, what do they want their daughters to be? Educated at GDS/Yale and marry someone rich? So 1950s?

Truly wealthy people, like women married to a Wacthell partner who has done well in the market, have trust funds already established for their daughters. They want them to be kind and happy and pursue meaningful work. They have the luxury of getting a degree from Yale and then staying home with their children if that brings them the most fulfillment.

Exactly. It gives our kids the luxury of choice. They start life with no loans and can pick a career based on what they want to do.

Sounds very boring.

And stay at home moms of rich men.... are not good role models for girls.

Ridiculous statement

+1 there is nothing wrong with little girls being taught and modeled for that marrying a rich man should be their life goal. They can go to college just to say they are educated but the long term objective should be to marry rich. All the smug SAHMs on this board exemplify that traditional patriarchal norms actually do make women happy.

I think it is more that having a financially-secure, not stressful life is what makes women happy. SAHM-ing with a wealthy husband gives you that. But honestly, if all I needed to focus on was my job (knowing that spouse was taking care of 100% of the family and home related responsibilities), I'd be happier and more relaxed too. My husband is a pretty active and supporting partner, but I don't believe he would actually step up to a 100% household contributor if he became a SAHD.

Yes, this arrangement is best for men too. Religions had it right. Men go out to work and women take care of the family at home. This is the Christian tradition but it’s also the Islamic one I was brought up in: a woman is the lord of her home. Amazing to me that after rebelling against that for years I finally came full circle.

Oh good lord.

Anonymous wrote:Actually I’m not sure if the tradwife life is what the young girls want or if that is what the young men want in a wife. Maybe both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse makes 1/20 of big law partner salary but works the same hours. She is a scientist. The society is really really fair. What does big law partner contribute to society? Do they generate new knowledge?

DH helps protect American workers and industries. To me that’s a contribution, but I’m not sure the need to compare. It all depends on who your client is. There are scientists who make bank. There are also govt lawyers who don’t. Also, I might argue that a lot of science is behind paywalls, so it doesn’t always benefit the public.

We definitely need good lawyers in many field including immigration. But most of these big law partners seem only to cater to rich people. I found the salary insanely inappropriate. They outsource childcare to black and latino nannies. What a great life!?

This is a thread about spouses married to big law partners. These women often don’t work.

For the women who married rich men and don't work, what do they want their daughters to be? Educated at GDS/Yale and marry someone rich? So 1950s?

Truly wealthy people, like women married to a Wacthell partner who has done well in the market, have trust funds already established for their daughters. They want them to be kind and happy and pursue meaningful work. They have the luxury of getting a degree from Yale and then staying home with their children if that brings them the most fulfillment.

Exactly. It gives our kids the luxury of choice. They start life with no loans and can pick a career based on what they want to do.

Sounds very boring.

And stay at home moms of rich men.... are not good role models for girls.

Ridiculous statement

+1 there is nothing wrong with little girls being taught and modeled for that marrying a rich man should be their life goal. They can go to college just to say they are educated but the long term objective should be to marry rich. All the smug SAHMs on this board exemplify that traditional patriarchal norms actually do make women happy.

I think it is more that having a financially-secure, not stressful life is what makes women happy. SAHM-ing with a wealthy husband gives you that. But honestly, if all I needed to focus on was my job (knowing that spouse was taking care of 100% of the family and home related responsibilities), I'd be happier and more relaxed too. My husband is a pretty active and supporting partner, but I don't believe he would actually step up to a 100% household contributor if he became a SAHD.

Yes, this arrangement is best for men too. Religions had it right. Men go out to work and women take care of the family at home. This is the Christian tradition but it’s also the Islamic one I was brought up in: a woman is the lord of her home. Amazing to me that after rebelling against that for years I finally came full circle.

Oh good lord.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse makes 1/20 of big law partner salary but works the same hours. She is a scientist. The society is really really fair. What does big law partner contribute to society? Do they generate new knowledge?

DH helps protect American workers and industries. To me that’s a contribution, but I’m not sure the need to compare. It all depends on who your client is. There are scientists who make bank. There are also govt lawyers who don’t. Also, I might argue that a lot of science is behind paywalls, so it doesn’t always benefit the public.

We definitely need good lawyers in many field including immigration. But most of these big law partners seem only to cater to rich people. I found the salary insanely inappropriate. They outsource childcare to black and latino nannies. What a great life!?

This is a thread about spouses married to big law partners. These women often don’t work.

For the women who married rich men and don't work, what do they want their daughters to be? Educated at GDS/Yale and marry someone rich? So 1950s?

Truly wealthy people, like women married to a Wacthell partner who has done well in the market, have trust funds already established for their daughters. They want them to be kind and happy and pursue meaningful work. They have the luxury of getting a degree from Yale and then staying home with their children if that brings them the most fulfillment.

Exactly. It gives our kids the luxury of choice. They start life with no loans and can pick a career based on what they want to do.

Sounds very boring.

And stay at home moms of rich men.... are not good role models for girls.

Ridiculous statement

+1 there is nothing wrong with little girls being taught and modeled for that marrying a rich man should be their life goal. They can go to college just to say they are educated but the long term objective should be to marry rich. All the smug SAHMs on this board exemplify that traditional patriarchal norms actually do make women happy.

I think it is more that having a financially-secure, not stressful life is what makes women happy. SAHM-ing with a wealthy husband gives you that. But honestly, if all I needed to focus on was my job (knowing that spouse was taking care of 100% of the family and home related responsibilities), I'd be happier and more relaxed too. My husband is a pretty active and supporting partner, but I don't believe he would actually step up to a 100% household contributor if he became a SAHD.

Yes, this arrangement is best for men too. Religions had it right. Men go out to work and women take care of the family at home. This is the Christian tradition but it’s also the Islamic one I was brought up in: a woman is the lord of her home. Amazing to me that after rebelling against that for years I finally came full circle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m jealous of their money. Not jealous of their spouses. Most of my law school classmates who stayed in big law are honestly the most obnoxious and insufferable people I know.

+1 I think it takes a huge ego to make it in big law. Would be tough to be married to that.

+1 and they think they work harder and are more important than anyone in the whole wide world. I have never met people who complain about work more than big law attorneys. You would think they were working in a coal mine. Could not be married to that, especially if I were single-handedly shouldering 95% of the parenting, which is basically a given. I will take my and my DH's middling but adequate non-profit pay any day.

OK but your post is off. Yes they think they work harder because they do. Your coal mine example is nonsense. Yes I would rather be a Biglaw Partner than a coal miner. Of course. But the Biglaw Partner is working way more hours at a much higher stress level for bigger stakes. And they are more important that most people. And today in 2024 who gives 95% of the parenting to the stay at home wife? Almost no one including Biglaw partners. Is it more than 50% on the wife? Sure. But most Biglaw partners are pretty heavily involved in children's lives. This is not 1970 or 1980.

Do you truly think a big law partner is "important than most people?" Gross. Unless you count paying for stuff as parenting, I absolutely know people whose big law DHs do almost no parenting. Let's say 90% is on the wife. I am thinking of a dad who does not see his kids in the morning, does no shuttling around weekday evenings, doesn't eat dinner with his kids, and never puts them to bed. Maybe he takes them to soccer on Saturday but works half the weekend. You really think this isn't happening?

I see posts here about it every other week!

Do most people argue cases before the Supreme Court? Do most people negotiate multi billion dollar deals? Do most people receive $3000 per hour to think about things and give advice?

What planet are you on? Yes, big law attorneys do important work. That's why other people are willing to pay them millions of dollars.

NP and in biglaw myself — let’s not conflate capitalistic necessary evils or per hour payment with importance. The vast majority of big law attorneys, myself included, are not doing work that is important or contributing positively to the world in a meaningful way.

Most people are not doing work that is important. Is the group of big law partners doing work that is, on the whole, less important than what normal people do for work? Give me a break.

Regarding your take on capitalism, why do big law attorneys get paid big if the client didn't think the work was important? Cuz the client hates having money?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse makes 1/20 of big law partner salary but works the same hours. She is a scientist. The society is really really fair. What does big law partner contribute to society? Do they generate new knowledge?

DH helps protect American workers and industries. To me that’s a contribution, but I’m not sure the need to compare. It all depends on who your client is. There are scientists who make bank. There are also govt lawyers who don’t. Also, I might argue that a lot of science is behind paywalls, so it doesn’t always benefit the public.

We definitely need good lawyers in many field including immigration. But most of these big law partners seem only to cater to rich people. I found the salary insanely inappropriate. They outsource childcare to black and latino nannies. What a great life!?

This is a thread about spouses married to big law partners. These women often don’t work.

For the women who married rich men and don't work, what do they want their daughters to be? Educated at GDS/Yale and marry someone rich? So 1950s?

Truly wealthy people, like women married to a Wacthell partner who has done well in the market, have trust funds already established for their daughters. They want them to be kind and happy and pursue meaningful work. They have the luxury of getting a degree from Yale and then staying home with their children if that brings them the most fulfillment.

Exactly. It gives our kids the luxury of choice. They start life with no loans and can pick a career based on what they want to do.

Sounds very boring.

And stay at home moms of rich men.... are not good role models for girls.

Ridiculous statement

+1 there is nothing wrong with little girls being taught and modeled for that marrying a rich man should be their life goal. They can go to college just to say they are educated but the long term objective should be to marry rich. All the smug SAHMs on this board exemplify that traditional patriarchal norms actually do make women happy.

I think it is more that having a financially-secure, not stressful life is what makes women happy. SAHM-ing with a wealthy husband gives you that. But honestly, if all I needed to focus on was my job (knowing that spouse was taking care of 100% of the family and home related responsibilities), I'd be happier and more relaxed too. My husband is a pretty active and supporting partner, but I don't believe he would actually step up to a 100% household contributor if he became a SAHD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse makes 1/20 of big law partner salary but works the same hours. She is a scientist. The society is really really fair. What does big law partner contribute to society? Do they generate new knowledge?

DH helps protect American workers and industries. To me that’s a contribution, but I’m not sure the need to compare. It all depends on who your client is. There are scientists who make bank. There are also govt lawyers who don’t. Also, I might argue that a lot of science is behind paywalls, so it doesn’t always benefit the public.

We definitely need good lawyers in many field including immigration. But most of these big law partners seem only to cater to rich people. I found the salary insanely inappropriate. They outsource childcare to black and latino nannies. What a great life!?

This is a thread about spouses married to big law partners. These women often don’t work.

For the women who married rich men and don't work, what do they want their daughters to be? Educated at GDS/Yale and marry someone rich? So 1950s?

Truly wealthy people, like women married to a Wacthell partner who has done well in the market, have trust funds already established for their daughters. They want them to be kind and happy and pursue meaningful work. They have the luxury of getting a degree from Yale and then staying home with their children if that brings them the most fulfillment.

Exactly. It gives our kids the luxury of choice. They start life with no loans and can pick a career based on what they want to do.

Sounds very boring.

And stay at home moms of rich men.... are not good role models for girls.

Ridiculous statement

+1 there is nothing wrong with little girls being taught and modeled for that marrying a rich man should be their life goal. They can go to college just to say they are educated but the long term objective should be to marry rich. All the smug SAHMs on this board exemplify that traditional patriarchal norms actually do make women happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m jealous of their money. Not jealous of their spouses. Most of my law school classmates who stayed in big law are honestly the most obnoxious and insufferable people I know.

+1 I think it takes a huge ego to make it in big law. Would be tough to be married to that.

+1 and they think they work harder and are more important than anyone in the whole wide world. I have never met people who complain about work more than big law attorneys. You would think they were working in a coal mine. Could not be married to that, especially if I were single-handedly shouldering 95% of the parenting, which is basically a given. I will take my and my DH's middling but adequate non-profit pay any day.

OK but your post is off. Yes they think they work harder because they do. Your coal mine example is nonsense. Yes I would rather be a Biglaw Partner than a coal miner. Of course. But the Biglaw Partner is working way more hours at a much higher stress level for bigger stakes. And they are more important that most people. And today in 2024 who gives 95% of the parenting to the stay at home wife? Almost no one including Biglaw partners. Is it more than 50% on the wife? Sure. But most Biglaw partners are pretty heavily involved in children's lives. This is not 1970 or 1980.

Do you truly think a big law partner is "important than most people?" Gross. Unless you count paying for stuff as parenting, I absolutely know people whose big law DHs do almost no parenting. Let's say 90% is on the wife. I am thinking of a dad who does not see his kids in the morning, does no shuttling around weekday evenings, doesn't eat dinner with his kids, and never puts them to bed. Maybe he takes them to soccer on Saturday but works half the weekend. You really think this isn't happening?

I see posts here about it every other week!

Do most people argue cases before the Supreme Court? Do most people negotiate multi billion dollar deals? Do most people receive $3000 per hour to think about things and give advice?

What planet are you on? Yes, big law attorneys do important work. That's why other people are willing to pay them millions of dollars.

NP and in biglaw myself — let’s not conflate capitalistic necessary evils or per hour payment with importance. The vast majority of big law attorneys, myself included, are not doing work that is important or contributing positively to the world in a meaningful way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m jealous of their money. Not jealous of their spouses. Most of my law school classmates who stayed in big law are honestly the most obnoxious and insufferable people I know.

+1 I think it takes a huge ego to make it in big law. Would be tough to be married to that.

+1 and they think they work harder and are more important than anyone in the whole wide world. I have never met people who complain about work more than big law attorneys. You would think they were working in a coal mine. Could not be married to that, especially if I were single-handedly shouldering 95% of the parenting, which is basically a given. I will take my and my DH's middling but adequate non-profit pay any day.

OK but your post is off. Yes they think they work harder because they do. Your coal mine example is nonsense. Yes I would rather be a Biglaw Partner than a coal miner. Of course. But the Biglaw Partner is working way more hours at a much higher stress level for bigger stakes. And they are more important that most people. And today in 2024 who gives 95% of the parenting to the stay at home wife? Almost no one including Biglaw partners. Is it more than 50% on the wife? Sure. But most Biglaw partners are pretty heavily involved in children's lives. This is not 1970 or 1980.

Do you truly think a big law partner is "important than most people?" Gross. Unless you count paying for stuff as parenting, I absolutely know people whose big law DHs do almost no parenting. Let's say 90% is on the wife. I am thinking of a dad who does not see his kids in the morning, does no shuttling around weekday evenings, doesn't eat dinner with his kids, and never puts them to bed. Maybe he takes them to soccer on Saturday but works half the weekend. You really think this isn't happening?

I see posts here about it every other week!

Do most people argue cases before the Supreme Court? Do most people negotiate multi billion dollar deals? Do most people receive $3000 per hour to think about things and give advice?

What planet are you on? Yes, big law attorneys do important work. That's why other people are willing to pay them millions of dollars.

NP and in biglaw myself — let’s not conflate capitalistic necessary evils or per hour payment with importance. The vast majority of big law attorneys, myself included, are not doing work that is important or contributing positively to the world in a meaningful way.