Anonymous wrote:You need another adult in the house helping you parent. Yes, I know single parents do it, and maybe you grew up in a place where SAHMs had a passel of kids and a husband who was always gone--but that's a formula for despair. We can do better and we should.

Hire a full time nanny now. if the baby is not sleeping well, also hire a night nurse. When the baby is one year old, you'll know what you want to do next, whether that is have more kids or stop at one.

If you have the kids spaced closely, hire one nanny per kid. Outsource cleaning and meal making. This is the way.

I'm sorry but I find this so gross. I have a friend who has this exact set up. And I dont understand what the point was of having kids if you are going to outsource every aspect of child and domestic life. Are the kids there for photo ops? For holiday get togethers? Just to have checked the box to have a child?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread but I actually recommend NOT giving up your career and staying home. Round-the-clock care of little kids is just more energy draining than work plus having an excellent nanny. We were not wealthy and I couldn’t afford to stay home anyway. But I could tell, even on days when I had to drag myself to the office and was missing my kids badly, that, energy-wise, I had it easier than my SAHM friends. You just get more mental and physical breaks when you work.

+1

+2. If you have money, throw it at the problem. Night nurse for the baby stage. Nanny for when you work.

Also, coming from a mom who thought I'd have 2 and has 1 by choice: Really examine why you want multiple kids and if you don't have specific, concrete reasons, consider the benefits of only one.

I don’t disagree, but I also really want to challenge the “throw money at the problem” mindset of parenting. And I say this as a working parent who has no problem with daycare and aftercare. Kids, particularly older kids, really do best with their parents. If you plan your family around “needing” morning, evening, and weekend help for years past the toddler stage, then kindly, you’re planning on too many kids and a lifestyle that’s not in anyone’s best interest.

DP and I agree with this post - though I think it applies to all stages of parenting, not just past the toddler stage. I'm all for childcare during working hours (and work FT myself), but relying on night nurses, weekend nannies, etc., with very young kids isn't in the best interest of kids, either. I genuinely don't understand the purpose of having children if you plan to outsource 90%+ of their care, at any point in their childhoods. Seriously - why?

PP. To be clear, I don't believe round-the-clock outsourcing is good; was just saying that if there's an isolated stage that stresses you as a parent and that's the ONLY thing keeping you from expanding the family, it might make sense to gather (or hire) a village of support. I hate the baby stage but if my mom lived next door I might consider having another kid. Sounds like nighttime sleep deprivation is a big factor for OP and that's a temporary problem that can be addressed with spending some money.

Also I'm DCUM-poor and never had a night nanny -- just a good sleeper and occasional Grandma help.

I understand, as the PP you're replying to. I'm all for hiring reasonable amounts of help and share your concerns. There does seem to be a belief on DCUM that infants and little kids don't "need" their parents, and I'm not sure where that comes from. I mean, newborns can recognize their mothers by scent. Again, we used daycare, we've had babysitters and I am NOT a martyr by any stretch. I just think the whole "babies don't notice if you're around" is BS.

And yes, older kids do need available parents, but I think the village approach is useful then, too, with trusted adults such as teachers, coaches, scout leaders, etc. Kids need their parents all the way through, ultimately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread but I actually recommend NOT giving up your career and staying home. Round-the-clock care of little kids is just more energy draining than work plus having an excellent nanny. We were not wealthy and I couldn’t afford to stay home anyway. But I could tell, even on days when I had to drag myself to the office and was missing my kids badly, that, energy-wise, I had it easier than my SAHM friends. You just get more mental and physical breaks when you work.

+1

+2. If you have money, throw it at the problem. Night nurse for the baby stage. Nanny for when you work.

Also, coming from a mom who thought I'd have 2 and has 1 by choice: Really examine why you want multiple kids and if you don't have specific, concrete reasons, consider the benefits of only one.

I don’t disagree, but I also really want to challenge the “throw money at the problem” mindset of parenting. And I say this as a working parent who has no problem with daycare and aftercare. Kids, particularly older kids, really do best with their parents. If you plan your family around “needing” morning, evening, and weekend help for years past the toddler stage, then kindly, you’re planning on too many kids and a lifestyle that’s not in anyone’s best interest.

DP and I agree with this post - though I think it applies to all stages of parenting, not just past the toddler stage. I'm all for childcare during working hours (and work FT myself), but relying on night nurses, weekend nannies, etc., with very young kids isn't in the best interest of kids, either. I genuinely don't understand the purpose of having children if you plan to outsource 90%+ of their care, at any point in their childhoods. Seriously - why?

PP. To be clear, I don't believe round-the-clock outsourcing is good; was just saying that if there's an isolated stage that stresses you as a parent and that's the ONLY thing keeping you from expanding the family, it might make sense to gather (or hire) a village of support. I hate the baby stage but if my mom lived next door I might consider having another kid. Sounds like nighttime sleep deprivation is a big factor for OP and that's a temporary problem that can be addressed with spending some money.

Also I'm DCUM-poor and never had a night nanny -- just a good sleeper and occasional Grandma help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread but I actually recommend NOT giving up your career and staying home. Round-the-clock care of little kids is just more energy draining than work plus having an excellent nanny. We were not wealthy and I couldn’t afford to stay home anyway. But I could tell, even on days when I had to drag myself to the office and was missing my kids badly, that, energy-wise, I had it easier than my SAHM friends. You just get more mental and physical breaks when you work.

+1

+2. If you have money, throw it at the problem. Night nurse for the baby stage. Nanny for when you work.

Also, coming from a mom who thought I'd have 2 and has 1 by choice: Really examine why you want multiple kids and if you don't have specific, concrete reasons, consider the benefits of only one.

I don’t disagree, but I also really want to challenge the “throw money at the problem” mindset of parenting. And I say this as a working parent who has no problem with daycare and aftercare. Kids, particularly older kids, really do best with their parents. If you plan your family around “needing” morning, evening, and weekend help for years past the toddler stage, then kindly, you’re planning on too many kids and a lifestyle that’s not in anyone’s best interest.

DP and I agree with this post - though I think it applies to all stages of parenting, not just past the toddler stage. I'm all for childcare during working hours (and work FT myself), but relying on night nurses, weekend nannies, etc., with very young kids isn't in the best interest of kids, either. I genuinely don't understand the purpose of having children if you plan to outsource 90%+ of their care, at any point in their childhoods. Seriously - why?

Please don't just assume your two (or three) kids will play with each other and distract each other. Your kids may not get along, or they may just be very different people who, as they get older, participate in entirely different activities and don't have an interest in the same things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread but I actually recommend NOT giving up your career and staying home. Round-the-clock care of little kids is just more energy draining than work plus having an excellent nanny. We were not wealthy and I couldn’t afford to stay home anyway. But I could tell, even on days when I had to drag myself to the office and was missing my kids badly, that, energy-wise, I had it easier than my SAHM friends. You just get more mental and physical breaks when you work.

+1

+2. If you have money, throw it at the problem. Night nurse for the baby stage. Nanny for when you work.

Also, coming from a mom who thought I'd have 2 and has 1 by choice: Really examine why you want multiple kids and if you don't have specific, concrete reasons, consider the benefits of only one.

I don’t disagree, but I also really want to challenge the “throw money at the problem” mindset of parenting. And I say this as a working parent who has no problem with daycare and aftercare. Kids, particularly older kids, really do best with their parents. If you plan your family around “needing” morning, evening, and weekend help for years past the toddler stage, then kindly, you’re planning on too many kids and a lifestyle that’s not in anyone’s best interest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread but I actually recommend NOT giving up your career and staying home. Round-the-clock care of little kids is just more energy draining than work plus having an excellent nanny. We were not wealthy and I couldn’t afford to stay home anyway. But I could tell, even on days when I had to drag myself to the office and was missing my kids badly, that, energy-wise, I had it easier than my SAHM friends. You just get more mental and physical breaks when you work.

+1

+2. If you have money, throw it at the problem. Night nurse for the baby stage. Nanny for when you work.

Also, coming from a mom who thought I'd have 2 and has 1 by choice: Really examine why you want multiple kids and if you don't have specific, concrete reasons, consider the benefits of only one.

I'd have another when first is old enough for preschool. But not three.

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread but I actually recommend NOT giving up your career and staying home. Round-the-clock care of little kids is just more energy draining than work plus having an excellent nanny. We were not wealthy and I couldn’t afford to stay home anyway. But I could tell, even on days when I had to drag myself to the office and was missing my kids badly, that, energy-wise, I had it easier than my SAHM friends. You just get more mental and physical breaks when you work.

+1

No way would I have more than one in your case. I say this as a fairly high energy person with 3. It’s exhausting.

Anonymous wrote:Don't be a SAHM. That requires much higher energy than if you were to work at an office job full time and get a nanny.

It requires a different type of energy. Being a sahm parent is exhausting and hard, but it’s also hard to balance all of the things you can’t/don’t want to outsource in raising your kids plus the drain of a full time career. I wfh full time, have a nanny and two young kids, and balancing it all is a LOT. Even with childcare I am still doing all the shopping, cooking, most of the cleaning (cleaners clean every two weeks), holiday planning, activity planning, school stuff, packing whenever we leave the house, plus working full time- having to intellectually focus on that each day- plus spending the time I genuinely want to spend, fully available, for my kids. Forget taking care of myself bc that’s on a total back burner. I also thought I wanted three but balancing two has been a lot.

Op would probably do best quitting her job for awhile and getting some help with young kids regardless of whether it’s 2 or 3.

I haven’t read the whole thread but I actually recommend NOT giving up your career and staying home. Round-the-clock care of little kids is just more energy draining than work plus having an excellent nanny. We were not wealthy and I couldn’t afford to stay home anyway. But I could tell, even on days when I had to drag myself to the office and was missing my kids badly, that, energy-wise, I had it easier than my SAHM friends. You just get more mental and physical breaks when you work.

Two max. There’s such a difference between women who have 2 and 3. The third often ruins the mom’s career and body for good. Although sounds like you don’t want or care about your career? Even with a big law salary the third will make kids even more expensive. But you come across as though you want to punish yourself.

I just had my 3rd at 36 with biglaw DH and I would not even consider having 3 in your shoes. The exhaustion is much worse with 3.

Stick with 2. I was high energy pre-kids, i.e. pretty demanding job but ran marathons and did a distance-learning LLM in my "spare time". Kids when I was 37 and 39. We have full-time daycare and my husband is flexible and does probably 60/70% of the kid stuff, but we looked at each other over lunch yesterday (ate out, too tired to cook) and asked ourselves if everyone else was as exhausted and tired as we were.