To hate how mums always have to sacrifice their career...

Personally, if either I or my husband had had a job that only broke even with childcare, we'd have seriously considered taking a career break for a few years.

As it happened, we wanted a bigger family, and lived where there was a significant commute and we weren't willing to leave the kids in care for that long of a day, so I left my work for a number of years and stayed home and did some differernt pt work over the years. Eventually I went back ft into the workforce in a differernt area. Dh has retired so he holds down the fort at home.

Lonliness at home is a real thing, but it's possible to find ways to get involved in things with other people that can be satisfying.

As far as your situation op, it strikes me that both jobs are of a type that you could likely find other similar things later if you want to. I's probably not the case that you'll never find opportunities like that again.

We don't have to give up our careers! Take maternity leave then go back to work, you don't have to quit. A lot of workplaces are open to going back pt, which I did 3 days a week, so didn't have to stop my career.

My reason to have them close together was neither of the ones you listed. I just wanted to do the sleepless nights of babyhood all in one go if at all possible & I wanted to have both kids able to do similar activities, go to same schools majority of the time. I suspect maternal age is a big factor too. I was 34 when I had my first and I’d have been reluctant to wait too long just in case. I know lots of women with kids close together but they all went back to work. While it’s expensive that way I do think it makes logistics easier.

Thanks @Sissynova That’s really interesting as that is totally not the case in my experience among my friendship group, mid/late thirties middle class women or in my work with families and children in a deprived area.

That is, unless there are more siblings, which would skew the data.

Both of my parents are 5 years younger than their siblings because my DGP waited until they could afford a second child.

@HeartDP Having a bigger age gap is a very simple, sensible solution to this (If maternal age allows obviously). But not one that most women are keen to take seriously. There are 2 reasons for this, firstly it’s seen as ideal and it’s what most other people do, that is a very important driver. Personally I was very much an outlier with a 5 year gap.

It is a common line on mn that 2 years is an 'ideal' or even average age gap but actually in the UK the average gap between kids is much closer to 4 so clearly most people are spacing their kids out, whether that is choice or not.

@HeartDP I think because the average age for first time mums has increased a lot over recent decades, perhaps women are keen not to spread out child bearing over too many years. I can see the sense of what you say though, and I have friends who've done similar, waiting for the eldest to be in school or at least qualifying for 30 hours care before embarking on another child.

Myself, I actually have 3 kids and had them close together! But then I was back at work sooner than nowadays so I had a decent stretch back at work before taking the next mat leave. We took a real hit with 2 in nursery and one in wraparound school care, and again during the Uni years - at one point we were topping up all 3 kids' maintenance loans as eldest did a Masters! Tough going!

There's no 'right way'; but the important thing is that we keep moving (hopefully more and more quickly) towards a society where there's a true balance for mums and dads and it's acknowledged that both can earn and care equally well.

Yup.. 100%!

I went to university for 4 years, worked hard and got a graduate job. I don’t want to give that up for 3 years, when pension age 60+ and rising. It seems shortsighted to do career suicide for couple years when maternity leave is 1 year. Pregnant and screwed help a lot with their campaigns.

Thank you for this, it’s exactly what I meant and you’ve written it perfectly!

Having a bigger age gap is a very simple, sensible solution to this (If maternal age allows obviously). But not one that most women are keen to take seriously. There are 2 reasons for this, firstly it’s seen as ideal and it’s what most other people do, that is a very important driver. Personally I was very much an outlier with a 5 year gap.

Secondly, many women don’t seem to be happy to say that they wanted to be a SAHP. I’m not sure if that’s because they feel guilty? Especially in an age where so many women are going to university? So the “childcare is more than my salary” narrative is convenient for them to have a get out clause.

You have got to know that childcare for 2 under 3 year olds is going to be astronomical before you have your second surely? I know not all pregnancies are planned but most are. Childcare for 2 under 3 would be more than my salary, and I earn a good salary. That’s why I waited until DC1 was in school. It makes so much sense (if possible) and is very handy in the university years also.

Tbh what any individual's family set up is, is not the issue here. We're all agreed that families all over the U.K. make their own decisions based on a range of factors and within certain limitations. I think the more enlightened of us also see that it's the outcomes for the children which is paramount - and that it's perfectly possible to raise children into happy, well adjusted and successful adults whether their parents work or not!

The real issue is that despite the massive advances in legislation and working practices, it is still the default position that the woman is the one who gives up work or takes a back seat. It's a fact that despite achieving better than males at school and university, females statistically earn less, hold fewer senior positions and are far less likely to be financially comfortable in their later life. I'm heading towards 60 and I see it around me among many of my peers... women who remain 'underemployed' doing jobs that are low paid but fit around the school run. Or women who never return to full time work after having children and realise too late that part time work = part time pension.

Those are the issues we should be concerned about. As a mum who gave birth 30 years ago when things were very different (my dh was back at work the day after the birth as there wasn't any paid paternity leave, and I was back at work 3 months later) I really hoped that things would have progressed further. The structures are in place now for it to be easier for mums and dads to share the load and it's a shame all round (for mum, dad and the children) that we are still in a position where the default is that mum will give up or step back in the workplace

Everyone makes choices and that’s fine, is their decision. I just don’t want to be sideline at work or on the mummy track, that’s all.

@SouthLondonMum22 that's insane.
@anonymousxoxo actually we didn't choose to have them so close in age and I had been going back to work when we fell pregnant with our second so our plans changed. Tbh, I could have gone back to work after mat leave with our second but really didn't think it was worth it when essentially one of our wages would have been swallowed up and I'd rather spend the time with them.
I appreciate not everyone wants to stay home with their children.
But also our situation is different from others I guess, in that we're not doing it so my DH's career soars. If we'd chosen to formula feed then DH may be the one staying at home instead of me.

Well, you know what childcare costs were and chose to have 2 children close in age - for twins I can understand. My point was simply women are being supported to stay in work, maternity leave and flexibility etc along with hybrid/remote work. Women don’t have to leave their careers and do low paid jobs in schools while their dh career soars.

We pay £2302 a month just for one 7 month old!

@anonymousxoxo doesn't really help parents who have young children right now though as childcare costs are astronomical.
I have a 2 year old and a 6 month old and it would cost over £2000 a month to send them to nursery.
I did give up work, although it could have been DH who did. The reasons we agreed for me to is because I am breastfeeding and I also wasn't enjoying the job I was in so it seemed like a good opportunity to stay home and help me decide what I'd like to do going forwards when the kids are a bit older

It’s going to start next year which isn’t too far away!

@anonymousxoxo "Also from 9 months women can claim 15 hours free childcare then 30 hours."

Pretty sure the 15 hours free childcare isn't something that has started yet so at the moment you can't claim any free hours until your child is 3.

My younger sister also left a job that was 3 days office potentially 4, has a remote contract now. She does 9-5 though as she prefers it.. Then, again she’s in a similar industry to me!

Tbh I am in stem/technology, so that plays a part. I left my old job because they wanted 3-4 days office, I easily found a new job with better flexibility. There is a lack of women in stem/technology, that probably plays a part also. I’m the only woman in a direct team of 6!!! Lol

Tbh, this is why public work is suffering and they can’t recruit well. Pay isn’t good and then there’s no hybrid working. Office work is the best for flexibility. I would never choose shift work or go into public sector, I’d advise my children/family against it also. Unless, it’s well paid.

I don't agree with mothers being the default by any means but you're also being a little disingenuous with your comments on office work. I actually consult in hybrid strategies for businesses and your statements are actually far from reality. The most common contract is 9-5:30 now, with 9-6 not being uncommon. 8-4 is considered a flexible work arrangement by many employers and needs to be approved, it is by no means standard.
1-2 days in the office is the real low end of hybrid and definitely doesn't apply to most roles.
Many many business enforce 3 or even 4 days in the office and there are still plenty that don't allow flexible working and have gone back to 5 days.

I have never been a sahp and i do recognise that many office roles are now more suitable than ever to keep work going.

Not everyone does office work. Lots of work is shift work or does actually require your physical presence, sometimes away from home both men and women in these fields can still find it a challenge.

All of this and hybrid working is the normal, even for male colleagues! Majority office roles are 1-2 days office. There are a few 3 days a week, but been that is better than what it was before…

Also from 9 months women can claim 15 hours free childcare then 30 hours.

So, I really don’t understand this talk of giving up work for few years when they’ll be at school anyway?

Majority bar travelling office jobs are standard 8-4 (9-5), I opt to work an hour earlier so I can finish at 4 and do pick ups!

@whatkatydid2013 that's a good post, but it's worth adding that in fact the huge advances of the last 25 or so years mean that parental rights have never been better. Mums now don't need to return to work before their child is weaned - statutory ML is long now, and many women take additional leave on top and don't return til their child is a year old. Plus there is the option of transferring some of that leave to the child's father. We also have free hours for childcare kicking in at age 3, with some families being eligible from age 2 and with plans for it to begin from a year. Plus of course, everyone (not just women) has the right to request flexible working.

However, despite all the above it's depressing that so many people still see women as the 'default' parent to give up work, to take on the bulk of everything child related, domestic chores and mental load. None of the parental rights listed above existed when many of us were returning to work 30 or so years ago! It was tough, working with 3 month old breast fed babies, but things are a lot easier now so it's a shame that things haven't progressed further.

Of course, there will always be some families who choose to have mum at home and dad as sole earner - and that's fine as long as it's a joint decision both are comfortable with, and the woman protects herself financially. But the reality is that overall, women are still massively disadvantaged financially compared to men, and are not equally represented in the workplace, which is a pity when they're just as capable as men (and men are just as capable of looking after kids and doing the school run!)

@norestguests

I have also ‘put a lot’ into supporting my children’s education and I work.