DH and I have 2 DCs aged 5 and 4. DH has full time job, hours are 8:30-5ish. I am a full time PhD student (on a studentship, so I do contribute financially to the household), so my hours are flexible, but I tend to work 9-5ish most days. DCs are in school full time, and I do the school run every morning. Our am routine goes something like this: DH up at 6:30 with children, does breakfast, playtime, makes his lunch, irons his shirt for work. I am not a morning person, so I usually get up between 6:45 and 7, have a shower, get myself ready, then DH and I switch...he gets ready for work, I get DCs ready for school. We've done this for absolute ages, even when I was a SAHM; the idea then was that because I was home all day with two small kids, one of my 'breaks' was having a bit of a longer sleep in the morning, while DH got a bit of time with his children before heading out for the day. This all makes perfect sense to me!!
Conversation about this over Christmas dinner, and my in-laws think this is absolutely preposterous: I should be the one getting up with the kids, doing breakfast, et al for them, allowing for DH to prioritise sleep and getting himself ready, because his job is the one that provides for us and so is more important. They couldn't believe that I would even consider sleeping later in the morning than everyone else. These are not old people...they are only 5 or so years older than we are...what is going on here???
Is this actually unreasonable?? I know it shouldn't make a bit of difference, because we're doing what works for us, I'm just a bit gobsmacked that this would seem unreasonable to anyone!