Is this a ‘Soft life’

[Wellthatwasabrupt]

And would you want it?

Has Dh, one young Dc and dogs, lives overseas by the beach and countryside, nice house with pool and sea views.
Works 6 hours per week from home. Does all drop offs and pick ups, food shop, dinners, majority to do with Dc and sorting bills. Has a cleaner.
Dh works Mon-Fri -finishes 4.30, no one works weekends.
Days are free based around Dc school drops, coffee with friends, Pilates, yoga, studying or reading if you like, watching Netflix all day if you like, shopping, beach, pool, garden

Would you call this a soft life? Would you like it, be honest?

You don’t need to be career driven to be a driven person though.
Being a driven and motivated person isn’t limited to paid work, surely? Otherwise it’s only money driven.

If raising a child is so important, more dads should share the work. Especially this trad dad who wants a trad wife.

For the first few years can you not think of your own needs and if it’s’Boring’ or not for you, to think of what’s best for the child?
That is not being with other caregivers you pay! We all know that in our hearts, it’s fairly obvious

No they need a living caregiver.

So do you think that women should give up their jobs and not restart until they are at least 3? Like I said, who pays for that? Should people only have children if they have enough cash to take three years out?

If you have several children a couple of years apart, that can be 10 years or more just child rearing, meanwhile your brain is atrophying and you aren’t keeping up to date with the latest developments.

I have no skin in the game but it seems pointless for people to unwillingly have to stop becoming economically productive just because they want to reproduce.

Im not sure it is. Its one thing to see a parent taking on a challenge or working towards a goal as part of a bigger plan/journey and entirely another to see them flit from one project to the next, seemingly aimlessly.

What you describe is being a mostly sahp in a coastal setting, with a couple hours work/studying. Thats a role in itself with its own purpose. If it works for you and your family then great. It wouldn't be for everyone, not for me in any case but as long as it works for your family you really shouldn't need to spend this much time trying to get strangers to validate your life choices online.

I don’t know what a soft life is though? My dc are well into school and I’m p/t. Have a month of in the summer and still send dc to clubs etc. I like my job though.

Some caregivers aren’t paid - they can be loving family members.

Your way just makes women more dependent on their partner or on the state. What is the point? Why are we dividing women into mothers or workers? There was a very small window of time when mothers didn’t work.

It’s not really a role in itself, but if it makes people feel better than great.

It the ideal.
Obviously it’s not always possible financially and that is awful and something that desperately needs to change in society
Another caregiver is getting paid, they do not love the child, hopefully they are kind and enjoy their role and are caring and responsible, sadly many aren’t
No one is better for the child in those early years than their mother (obviously providing they are mentally healthy) to dispute this point is pointless
There are many years later on to show the children how ambitious, clever and hardworking mummy is, of you want to of course, this is not the be all and end all in life, neither is making lots of money.

Man, you are just Andrew Tate pretending to be a woman.
I do dispute your point.

My parents & in-laws helped with my dc & I still used a childminder.

I don’t think there was ever a time it was normal for a mother to do sole child care for years was it?
Rich people would have had help, other people would have had family & mothers had far more dc & less domestic appliances & convenience so didn’t have time to spend all day with one dc.

There is so just research showing infants and young children do best with a primary care giver and do not see any benefit from childcare settings until past 3, unless from the most neglectful families to begin work.
Plenty of countries recognise this which is why they have much longer parental leave when the child is young.

It’s immature to just close your eyes to the evidence and cry “Andrew Tate”.

And why can't the primary care giver be the dad?
Do you think the OPs repeated posts here asking for validation are those of a woman? It's the husband!

And if the caregiver is a loving family member?

And how does society fix it? Presumably pay women to stay at home for the first three years of their child’s life? Which is great and all but needs to be paid for, which is harder if you have fewer people working and paying tax.

And it’s not about ambitious or hardworking- it’s about normalising women working outside the home and being economically productive members of society.

whats Best for the child is a happy loving family. With every member of the family living towards being the best person they can, fully using all the gifts they were born with.

they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes , they function in all sorts of ways.

and certainly by the time they are in school you don’t need a lazy mother modelling an idle life at home.

Life is so much more. Take it and live it because you never know when it will be taken away

I think for many parts a dad can be a primary carer which is why I specifically stated parental leave, but you’re so keen to just jump on posts that you aren’t even reading them properly.
Biology obviously pays a huge role in the mother being the primary care giver for the first year or two though.

You’re striving though. You’re studying a Masters , are you going to use it or is it an expensive hobby ?

100% true

It would be stupid to dismiss the idea that it’s not the woman who is nearly always served best to do this, it’s nature and not a bad thing! Why wouldn’t a loving mother want this if it was possible

It’s the very opposite of a lazy mother!

In your utter selfishness and defensiveness, this is all you can reply with

I think that the "soft life" description is a pejorative title someone has nailed on a person. Of itself it means nothing. People might say I had a soft life because I worked part time and flexibly at a senior job that I found massively easy and enjoyable....think building and designing new systems and patient services and being my own boss. It didn't pay well but my husband subdidised me.
I didn't care if anyone else thought I had it easy....I knew I had it easy.
I am not sure why the OP cares what others think regardless of whether they are the person or the critic.

And how is that financed? It is hard enough for women to be taken seriously at work when employers think they need to be prepared to give a year of mat leave etc. So if you make parental leave two or three years, that potentially makes things harder.

If you want to sit at home with your child for the first few years and you can afford to, great. But a child is going to be happier with a mother who is content with her life and if that means her working while leaving the child with someone then fine.

Also in the case of single parents, the child is going to be happier with food on the table and clothes on their back.

Because not everyone is content sitting at home looking after the children. Is that a difficult concept.

If people want to be ‘mummy martyrs’ and make a point of reluctantly putting their lives on hold to rear their children then that’s okay. If you think the child won’t pick up on that reluctance then you are kidding yourself.

Of course I do. I've been a charity trustee for many years and have volunteered since I was a teenager in every country I've lived in. My parents also did the same so it's always been a very important part of my life.

It sounds not too dissimilar to my life.