 (Nick Galifianakis for The Post) | Adapted from an online discussion. Dear Carolyn: My spouse and I both work full time for now, but my spouse's parents have offered to support my spouse financially. This makes it possible for my spouse to stay home full time with our 11-month-old. (I am intentionally keeping our genders vague, because I don't want that to bias your readers.) Under that plan, I would still need to keep my full-time job. The problem I am having is that there was no discussion of doing it the opposite way, with my spouse going to work and me staying home, even though, theoretically, that could be a good and in some ways better option for our child. I brought this up to my spouse and was told my in-laws would not be willing to give us these monetary infusions if they were for my benefit, not my spouse's. I think that is a very narrow way to look at it, because whatever plan we come up with will benefit BOTH of us, plus, obviously, our baby. But perhaps I am just whining and should be glad my spouse will get to stay home and not worry about money, while I continue to toil? And just accept that people will always have stronger feelings about their own children than about their in-laws? — Forever an In-Law Read your responses to this week's reader questionWe asked readers to channel their inner Carolyn Hax and answer this question. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment