[thinkski]

It’s interesting, the grass is perhaps greener on the other side. My wife is planning on staying home with the kids when we have our second, and there’s a part of me that envy’s that freedom from worry on having to provide, being able to spend hours with our daughter while I may get a couple hours a night, our daughter is much closer to her mom already. In twenty years, the software I’ve written will likely have been long replaced — the bond invested in our children will be there forever.

[fxtentacle]

I believe the article is correct to criticise the indoctrination that the LDS church targeted at her. But I also agree with you that grass is greener on the other side. Many of the comments cited in the article could be summarised as: I'm jealous that someone I knew 10 years ago is much more successful now.

I personally also know a few people from university where if I superficially look at their situation now, I'd think "that could have been me". And I'm a guy so in my case it wouldn't highlight a man/woman difference. But then, looking at the details, some of them made sacrifices that I would be unwilling to make. Or their starting position wasn't that similar, after all, e.g. I just didn't know 10 years ago that they were trust fund babies.

[dwaltrip]

Comparison is the thief of joy.

[aaplok]

It's not too late for you to decide to spend more time with your daughter and less time working. You both could go part-time. If you are afraid that your career won't wait, remember that neither will your children. You might need to discuss with your wife about this, but it is a decision that you should make together, not her or you alone.

My wife and I have taken about equal share in raising our kids and honestly I am prouder to have managed to spend time with my children growing up and to be married to a woman who doesn't have to rely on me to survive than of anything I could have done in a slightly more successful career.

[kuerbel]

It's what I would be in favour of too. I also wonder, do full time carers not worry? What if tragedy strikes, it's not that uncommon - an accident during commute is enough to render someone unable to work? Also I wouldn't want to put the pressure of being the sole breadwinner on my partner at all. To me it wouldn't feel like an equal relationship somehow.

[Aeolun]

> What if tragedy strikes, it's not that uncommon - an accident during commute is enough to render someone unable to work?

A very good insurance policy? We pay a lot of extra money on our house loan to ensure it's immediately void should something happen to me (or gets cut in half if one of us becomes seriously ill).

[II2II]

I once knew a couple, the man was a teacher and the woman a scientist. He could work virtually anywhere in the world. In any country. In anything from a tiny isolated town to a megalopolis. Her career would ultimately lead her to one of a handful of places. Teaching is also a career where one can pick-up their roots and reestablish themselves somewhere else at very little cost to their career. Science is usually a career where one must plan their next step carefully, else risk facing major setbacks in their career.

I bring up this story because, in the end, they ended up splitting up since he was unwilling to exploit the flexibility of his professional life to allow their relationship to flourish. I bring it up since I was to raise the question, a question that thinkski's comment triggered even though it is by no means directed their way: how often do we consider the aspirations and potential of our wife when deciding who is going to be the "breadwinner" and who is going to be the "care giver"? I am not saying that it is impossible to be both, but the reality is that compromises to a greater or lesser degree often have to be made for the sake of the family.

[em-bee]

how often do we consider the aspirations and potential of our wife

this, for me is the key to any relationship. generalize it to partner, since it is important for both sides. when i met my wife i carefully considered whether i would be able to support her goals as well as tried to figure out whether she was supportive of mine. fortunately, working in IT meant that i had a lot of flexibility and so in our case the chances of a conflict in our goals was small, but i would not have married her otherwise.

[politelemon]

I don't agree that it's a case of grass being greener, the difference is that you as a family are able to make that choice, after having had the opportunity and privilege earlier in life.

> the bond invested in our children will be there forever.

It is entirely possible to bond with our children and still maintain a career. These are not mutually exclusive the way you've implied.

[david38]

I’m a father and can tell you yes, there is stress, but when I look at life without children, I see mostly lives of temporary self indulgence.

Parties, skiing, Hawaii, toys, consoles, cars, motorcycles, vacation homes, etc.

Over time, most people I know grow tired of them. They have more friends yes, but even my friends know their “good time friends” wouldn’t stick around through hardship.

Kids aren’t the only way for sure. There are plenty of causes, but they are one thing that lasts longer than a few product cycles.

[oulipo]

I don't think that's generally the case, many women put their career in parentheses in order to care for the family, which is unpaid and sometimes ungrateful work (it IS a real work).

Then if there is a dispute with the family provider, the person not working will be in a position of fragility: if he/she leaves, she has no career, no way to support herself, she has to abide by what the providing partner asks her to do, even if he is sometimes abusive

[croes]

>the bond invested in our children will be there forever.

That's not guaranteed.

[indigo0086]

Peak hackernews comment lol

[croes]

At least not a unproven generalization.

[rijoja]

Yeah but if women go to work, the amount of available workers will more or less double, so if you where to apply the theory of supply and demand you'll find that this will make wages decrease, which is very good for extremely rich people ...

[m1n7]

just that the problem there is not with women working, but missing regulation. you shouldn't have to spend half your income on rent.