Who is living life the right way?

I want a career. I don’t want to be a SAHM and I don’t want to work part time either, not all women want the same things.

Children are cared for by women in childcare again because of sexism. Have you seen some of the threads on here about men working in nurseries? They are met with suspicion and ridicule because society sees childcare as woman’s work.

I agree with @Thepeopleversuswork that you sound as if you think most women want to stay at home. I think that’s a fairly problematic assumption. I don’t. Having a child hasn’t made me less ambitious. I don’t think I know many women who do — the SAHPs of either sex I know have been so because of children with illnesses or additional needs, or being a trailing spouse, or just difficulty finding work. Equal pay, women’s careers not being seen as optional after they have children, flexible working hours and high-quality, low-cost childcare works to the benefit of all.

@cosima4

The only way to truly fight sexism is to consider how women may want different things to men. Put what women want front and centre for a change and then structure society around that.

I don’t disagree with the principle here and I certainly am in favour of family friendly work policies but there are a lot of questionable assumptions particularly: a) that wanting to spend less time at work is what most women want, b) that childcare is inherently unhealthy and damaging. And c) not stated in your post but implied in previous ones, that parents working is a direct cause of poor mental health in children. I don’t accept that all of these are true.

What is absent from this discussion is money. The reality is that long periods of time at home mean less money and therefore less economic freedom for women. That may not be the primary consideration in the examples you have given (of mental health issues). But it’s pretty important for most women. And it matters for the long term outcomes of children. Much more than whether or not their mum was at home when they were 2. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that being in good quality childcare harms children despite decades of attempts by social conservatives to prove that it does.

You talk about wanting a society shaped around “what women want,” but what does this mean in practice? It sounds as if you are saying women want to stay at home.

Plenty of individual women may want this and that’s their prerogative. But I don’t accept that all women want this.

The only way to truly fight sexism is to consider how women may want different things to men. Put what women want front and centre for a change and then structure society around that. That's how more family-friendly, child-centred systemic change will be achieved imo, and this is in the interests of women, men and importantly, children. As opposed to the increasing status quo of children doing long days in childcare (cared for by underpaid women, what a surprise) and families run ragged in far too many cases. Nothing will change unless women push for flexibility on their own terms, not on men's terms.

Because the comments always go along the lines of attempting to make the OP guilty for having a career and it needs to be pointed out every time that it’s sexist.

I’m the higher earner. If anyone was to quit their job, it would be DH but it would always be a last resort.

My principles stay the same no matter how hard life gets.

I don’t think he’d be told that at all. He’d be told by some people that real men provide for their families, there’d be concern that the mother would possibly have to either go back to work or work more hours which just isn’t there with men working more hours.

Mum guilt is sexist in itself because society expects mothers to feel guilty for daring to have a career. The pressure isn’t there for men so they aren’t generally going to feel the same.

It just seems to me that whenever an individual woman is considering her particular work/life balance on MN, there is always a contingent who are unwilling or don't seem capable of commenting with anything beyond the 'would a man do that / think like that / want that' trophe - regardless of the individual circumstances described. We all know that real life is nuanced and unpredictable. And why hold up 'what men are more likely to do or think or want' as some kind of gold standard anyway? Why define or measure yourself against men at all?

@cosima4 Of course, of course. And who could judge any family for adapting as best they could to a crisis of this nature.

But (and maybe this is a side issue but I feel really strongly about it) I also don't feel that "feminist principles" are just a fashionable stance that people adopt to make them sound more interesting at dinner parties but which can be quietly dropped when the chips are down (which is what your post sort of implies).

Feminist principles have allowed me the right to work in the job I work in, to be paid at parity to men, to be able to divorce an abusive man, to be able to open a bank account to pay the money I earn into etc. None of this obliges any woman to work when its against the interests of her children's welfare. But its not an a la carte indulgence which can be decoupled from discussions about work and childcare.

I understand that @Thepeopleversuswork. My point was, that when crises hit, families have to adapt as best they can with the means available to them. What women are not going to be prioritising, in such situations, are generalised abstract notions of 'would a man do this?' You just do whatever you need to do within the options available.

@sandyhappypeople

it's not 2-3 years of a childs life though is it? Wraparound care can 12-13 years in some cases.

Well but all children (apart from those who are home educated) go to school from the age of five. Even if for the sake of argument you accept that its "better" to be at home full time with them before they go to school, and given that most maternity leave is roughly a year, it's still at most four years out of their lives. As against nearly two decades out of the workforce. It's not nearly as clear cut as a lot of people make it.

@cosima4

Honestly, god forbid if one of your children were ever ill or suffering serious mental health issues, but at that point, feminist principles or whatever most men may or may not do, now or historically, will not be your priority and this is obvious.

You just won't care! You will do what you need to do to keep your children safe and well.

I mean this with all kindness as the situations you are describing here are horrific and I don't want to in any way minimise this, but "doing what you need to do to keep your children safe and well" is a luxury which some people simply can't afford.

I couldn't "do what I need to do to keep my children safe" and just throw my job in if, God forbid, my child had anorexia. Life isn't like that for a lot of people.

If you are the sole breadwinner you need to work to support your children. That comes before everything else. I've had to deal with mental health issues in my child (thankfully less serious than this and thankfully resolved) and I took appropriate action, but chucking my job in just was never an option here. Think this through: if you throw your job in you can lose your home, ultimately be unable to feed these children.

Well I can only speak for myself and I would give the same advice to a man that I would a woman, I can't speak for the whole of MN so maybe you are right, mum guilt is a thing and maybe women automatically transfer that on to other women?

it's not 2-3 years of a childs life though is it? Wraparound care can 12-13 years in some cases.

I know someone who put their child in wraparound care from 6 months old, throughout their whole school life, to be able to both work full time, it hasn't made a jot of difference in reality, they aren't savers, so the extra money made has never made a difference to their long term plans, they were both working too much to have decent/frequent holidays, and yes, she has progressed in her career and earns well, but she is unhappy in her job and resents the stressful relentless nature of it, so was it really all worth it in the end?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I think "creating a better standard of life for children" being better than "being present for them more" is not something you can say with absolute certainty, every family is different, but if you are in any doubt like OP is, then don't let those doubts turn into regrets, explore any options you can, while you can.

@SouthLondonMum22 - your children are still very small. I don't know how old you are, but maybe you're in your 30s now? It's not that hard to imagine being mid-40s to 50s with three teens and associated issues. Honestly, god forbid if one of your children were ever ill or suffering serious mental health issues, but at that point, feminist principles or whatever most men may or may not do, now or historically, will not be your priority and this is obvious. You just won't care! You will do what you need to do to keep your children safe and well. If that means your DH taking time off / reducing hours, so be it. If it means you doing the same, or both of you, so be it. But you won't be prioritising your feelings about the patriarchy, that's for sure.

Like right now, I have a close family member who has had to leave work because her teen DD almost died from anorexia and has recently come out of an eating disorder unit and needs constant monitoring and support. The last thing in her mind is - 'why should I leave work and DH stays on. Is this fair. Why should I do this and he does that.' She can get another job, but she'll never have another daughter. It happens that her DH is the higher earner, but even if he wasn't and it was him to give up work, I still think she would have wanted to be around more.

I have a friend whose child has gender dysphoria. Try coping with that working 60 hours plus a week.

I was a SAHM and even then it's hard enough with 3 teens because you never know what they are looking at online. You feel like you're always playing catch-up. Even less life-threatening situations like bullying at school are very stressful. It's one thing after the next.

@sandyhappypeople

I disagree completely, I think if OP was a man coming on here to question if their working pattern was the best thing for their family, and was obviously worried about whether they were doing the right thing (as OP is) they would be told exactly the same things, you only get this time once etc...

Come off it. You might get a bit of "well done, it's great that you're considering your family's needs" and a pat on the back. It would be seen as a sign that you're a great progressive to even be thinking about it. Whereas a woman gets those comments where you can almost hear the worried intake of breath and the underlying assumption that she must be a really hard-nosed ballbreaker to be working those hours. Even if people aren't actually rude enough to ask why you bothered having kids if you want to "farm them out" to childcare (I've heard all of this).

I particularly loathe the "you'll never get the time back" argument. It's breathtakingly stupid and patronising. What are you supposed to be able to do in practical terms about not getting the time back? I'll chuck my job in tomorrow, let the house fall into repair and get a time machine shall I? Problem solved.

Particularly because we're only really ever talking about 2-3 years of a child's life, as a trade-off against 18 or so years. Obviously one on one time with a carer in your early years is important but I just don't buy the idea that spending eight hours a day with your kids watching TV and clearing up toys for five years is ultimately more beneficial than working to create a better standard of life for them.

To return to the OP's original question, I don't think either scenario is inherently "right". The OP is being perfectly reasonable to consider whether the life she is living is right for her. But I dislike the default assumption that cutting hours or downgrading her career must always be the automatic solution.

He isn’t met with “they are only little for such a short time”, “you can’t get that time back”, “money isn’t everything”, “it isn’t ideal” etc.

I disagree completely, I think if OP was a man coming on here to question if their working pattern was the best thing for their family, and was obviously worried about whether they were doing the right thing (as OP is) they would be told exactly the same things, you only get this time once etc...

It's not about double standards, it's about one specific person realising that their 60 hour working week, which they always assumed was the best cause of action for their family in the long run, may not actually be the best in the short term and wanting to explore that.

Now this part may be sexist, but I don't think men value 'time being present for their kids' in the same way that women do, so as a whole, aren't as affected by inherent 'mum guilt' like women are, so I don't think you are wrong in saying it is a woman's problem most the time, but on a case by case basis my advice would be the same whether they were male or female.

Both sisters are “doing it right” using different methods…

I totally agree with you @SouthLondonMum22.

2 and 8 month old twins.

It doesn’t miss the point though. It just shows the double standards and sexism that are still prevalent in society because as @Thepeopleversuswork said, it always seems to be women working that is seen as less than ideal.

When it is the woman working less or not at all and picking up the slack from the man working long hours. He’s a provider, he’s a hard worker and he’s viewed in a positive light.

He isn’t met with “they are only little for such a short time”, “you can’t get that time back”, “money isn’t everything”, “it isn’t ideal” etc.

How old are your children though @SouthLondonMum22?

I have 3 children too. I still agree with@Thepeopleversuswork

No having a SAHP is not a panacea and nobody is immune from anything. I'm just saying every family has its breaking point.

Maybe she is incredibly senior. If she is the breadwinner, she’ll also have to consider the financial impact.

That sounds like a difficult and incredibly painful position and I have huge compassion for anyone in this position.

But becoming unemployed or reducing your hours doesn't necessarily square this circle either.