Anonymous wrote:I have A and wouldn’t really want it any other way. Dh and I are best friends and we’re a team with equal duties. We love each other deeply, there is no resentment, and we make enough money to live very comfortably (~250k). I wouldn’t want the weight of the household on my shoulders, financially or physically. We carry each other’s burden. I’d love full time help I guess but honestly having a totally equal and committed partner, tons of time with one another and our kids…what more could we ask for?

This mirrors our relationship, and I enjoy it as well.

Option A

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a or b is best for parents and kids so best for overall family mental health/happiness.

Agree. The other two might meet the needs of the adults (might) but with kids involved can create a lot of deficits.

Nannies and housekeepers are wonderful but do not actually replace parents. No child prefers a nanny and housekeeper to parents. Or if they do, that parent has broken something incredibly valuable. And this increases as kids get older. They need less of your total time but the kind of time they need cannot be performed by a nanny— they need parental love, support, guidance. There is no substitute.

Choosing not to have children is a valid, good choice. You don’t have to have kids.

This is BS. C is an ideal scenario.

Housekeeping can absolutely be outsourced without any negative impact to kids.

Didn't say housekeeping can't be outsourced. Just that a housekeeper does not replace a parent. Nor does a nanny. You cannot outsource parental love and attention. That doesn't mean parents can't or shouldn't work (I work). Just that I know for a fact that you can't outsource parenting no matter how much money you have. You have to be present. With C, one parent cannot be present and the other has to be the primary parent while working a full-time job. Even with help, that's hard. Sometimes your kids just really, really need you, and to not be able to lean on your partner, plus to have to balance it with work (even a flexible job) is really tough.

If one parent is working super long hours, traveling, working weekends, that means the other parent is doing everything else. On top of a full time job, albeit a flexible one. It might be okay for a while, but then both kids will get sick within a week of each other. Someone develops a special need. One of your parents dies and you need a mental health break. And that parent with the demanding job is not stepping back to help. You have help, right? Your job is the "easy job" right? I'll try to be home by Saturday. Meanwhile you are coordinating with the nanny, the housekeeper quit and you have to hire a new one, your grieving for your mom, and you still have to do dinner and bedtime with the kids and then check work email since you left your "flexible" job early to take one kid to soccer while the other was with the nanny.

There are things you can't outsource. Parenting is easiest with a partner, but barring that, at least a SAHP could focus on one thing at a time (and still outsource when needed thanks to spouse's income).

C and D both sound like hell to me -- tough on kids and parents.

Anonymous wrote:B. I’ve been both the SAH partner and the working partner. We have tried other things, but this is the best setup.

Same for us. Best for the kids, best for the marriage, and in all ways best for the family. However, all of these choices are only for families that are economically well off. We are not talking about two parents working to pay bills.

B

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think is the most ideal family set up?

A. Both parents work flexible jobs and share parenting duties roughly 50-50

B. One high earner and one stay at home parent. Stay at home parent can outsource as needed

C. One big career and one flexible job. Have full time help.

D. Two big careers with high quality nanny plus full time housekeeper

Dh and I could be any of these categories. We are currently B. I feel like D gets the most respect.

A few comments.

A. It’s not shared duties. It’s shared bonding. The problem with B and C is one parent misses out on raising their child.
B and C. You need to understand the value of missing a child’s life = the value of caring for a child. One gives up a career one gives up being a full parent. Nobody’s sacrificing more. If a divorce ensues one person gave up money the other gave up being a fully bonded parent.
D if you can ensure both parents are binding in some way because the outsourcing allows you tons of time to bond great but often you just give that up.

I do see parents who work a ton miss out on their kids’ lives. But that’s not everyone. My husband works a lot but most of his spare time is spent with his kids. They never feel like they’re missing out on a relationship with their dad.

The problem is that it’s hard to tell how somebody will be with their kids before they have kids.

Yeah, but his kids get whatever spare time is left over. I’m guessing he can’t clock out at 5:00 every night for dinner and evenings together. Can’t make every soccer game. Can’t take the kids to the dentist. It’s just about what kind of relationship they (and you) expect a father to have with his kids.

Anonymous wrote:A or C would be my preference — I want a flexible job and lots of time with my kids; whether my partner wants that or tons of money is up to them.

+10000000

I want to be the flex partner in A or C. My DH can choose to partner me in A or C and I would ok with both.

A - both parents have flexible jobs with a good work life balance.

I think families thrive when BOTH parents can be present. Mom and Dad both showing up the games, recitals or field trips.

IMO high earners bring more problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a or b is best for parents and kids so best for overall family mental health/happiness.

Agree. The other two might meet the needs of the adults (might) but with kids involved can create a lot of deficits.

Nannies and housekeepers are wonderful but do not actually replace parents. No child prefers a nanny and housekeeper to parents. Or if they do, that parent has broken something incredibly valuable. And this increases as kids get older. They need less of your total time but the kind of time they need cannot be performed by a nanny— they need parental love, support, guidance. There is no substitute.

Choosing not to have children is a valid, good choice. You don’t have to have kids.

This is BS. C is an ideal scenario.

Housekeeping can absolutely be outsourced without any negative impact to kids.

Kids do best with both parents engaged. One very engaged parent doesn’t make up for a parent that is absent or distracted. And what about your marriage? Maybe it’s different values, but my marriage is a partnership and DH is as much of a daily parent as me. We split almost everything 50/50 and that keeps us functioning as equal peers, plus is the dynamic I want to model for my daughters.

B nobody else should be raising your child more than you

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think is the most ideal family set up?

A. Both parents work flexible jobs and share parenting duties roughly 50-50

B. One high earner and one stay at home parent. Stay at home parent can outsource as needed

C. One big career and one flexible job. Have full time help.

D. Two big careers with high quality nanny plus full time housekeeper

Dh and I could be any of these categories. We are currently B. I feel like D gets the most respect.

A few comments.

A. It’s not shared duties. It’s shared bonding. The problem with B and C is one parent misses out on raising their child.
B and C. You need to understand the value of missing a child’s life = the value of caring for a child. One gives up a career one gives up being a full parent. Nobody’s sacrificing more. If a divorce ensues one person gave up money the other gave up being a fully bonded parent.
D if you can ensure both parents are binding in some way because the outsourcing allows you tons of time to bond great but often you just give that up.

I do see parents who work a ton miss out on their kids’ lives. But that’s not everyone. My husband works a lot but most of his spare time is spent with his kids. They never feel like they’re missing out on a relationship with their dad.

The problem is that it’s hard to tell how somebody will be with their kids before they have kids.

We’re A with one school aged kid and a high enough income ($260-275) to afford cleaners, lawn service, camps, vacations, etc. It truly is the best for kids as long as you can afford to outsource when needed. We can chaperone field trips, be home for regular school pick up (no aftercare), coach sports teams, and still have relaxed family dinners every night. Seeing how good it is for our family, I would not want either of us to trade for a job with travel or more demanding schedules. We simply know more about our kid and their life than friends that outsource parenting to a nanny or au pair. Not worth it to me, but to each his own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a or b is best for parents and kids so best for overall family mental health/happiness.

Agree. The other two might meet the needs of the adults (might) but with kids involved can create a lot of deficits.

Nannies and housekeepers are wonderful but do not actually replace parents. No child prefers a nanny and housekeeper to parents. Or if they do, that parent has broken something incredibly valuable. And this increases as kids get older. They need less of your total time but the kind of time they need cannot be performed by a nanny— they need parental love, support, guidance. There is no substitute.

Choosing not to have children is a valid, good choice. You don’t have to have kids.

This is BS. C is an ideal scenario.

Housekeeping can absolutely be outsourced without any negative impact to kids.

Anonymous wrote:What do you think is the most ideal family set up?

A. Both parents work flexible jobs and share parenting duties roughly 50-50

B. One high earner and one stay at home parent. Stay at home parent can outsource as needed

C. One big career and one flexible job. Have full time help.

D. Two big careers with high quality nanny plus full time housekeeper

Dh and I could be any of these categories. We are currently B. I feel like D gets the most respect.

A few comments.

A. It’s not shared duties. It’s shared bonding. The problem with B and C is one parent misses out on raising their child.
B and C. You need to understand the value of missing a child’s life = the value of caring for a child. One gives up a career one gives up being a full parent. Nobody’s sacrificing more. If a divorce ensues one person gave up money the other gave up being a fully bonded parent.
D if you can ensure both parents are binding in some way because the outsourcing allows you tons of time to bond great but often you just give that up.

Anonymous wrote:What do you think is the most ideal family set up?

A. Both parents work flexible jobs and share parenting duties roughly 50-50

B. One high earner and one stay at home parent. Stay at home parent can outsource as needed

C. One big career and one flexible job. Have full time help.

D. Two big careers with high quality nanny plus full time housekeeper

Dh and I could be any of these categories. We are currently B. I feel like D gets the most respect.

Only A or C meet the needs of adults and kids in the family.

B and D are recipes for disaster.

Anonymous wrote:I'd say D is the worst case scenario. I know families with it, and they are just fine. But it's not for me. We are an A. On purpose, that's how we planned our lives.

The families I know with it are not fine. One thing I notice, though, is that the families in this situation obviously value achievement very highly. And their kids are high achieving (or at least some of them are). But they do not value mental health almost at all. A very "suck it up and deal" ethos. Which is why I say they are not fine. Some kids seem to do okay with that (though I question how they will feel about it when they are 35), but every family I know like this also has at least one kid who has major issues. And their response is universally, "yes it's really too bad that Larlo was predisposed by brain chemistry to anxiety, nothing we could have done to avoid this, we will just have to charge hard on medication/therapy until it's fixed." It... doesn't work. Those kids need a slower pace, less pressure, real downtime, and connection with their parents.