Who is living life the right way?

@cosima4 I share your feeling about social media and as a working parent it is much harder to police this. This is one of the reasons why lockdown was such an unmitigated disaster for children's mental health. I found being expected to work while my child was sitting in an adjacent room watching endless YouTube one of the most painful experiences of my life. Which is partly why I can't tolerate the guff some people come out with about how wonderful lockdown was.

But I also don't think having a parent at home is a panacea for this. I have friends who are SAHMs whose kids are struggling with mental health and pretty much all teenagers spend too much time on social media. We're all struggling with it in various ways. But even a SAHM can't stand over a child 24/7 keeping it off social media. Nor should they, really.

Imagine @Thepeopleversuswork, if you had a husband, but you had say, a 14 year-old who is a school refuser. Perhaps also a 13 year-old with an eating disorder and and 16 year-old with SEN doing GCSEs. And all you get with them is two hours in the evening? Sometimes it just all gets too much and something has to give and at that point, you're not going to be worrying about which parent is the one to reduce hours or what 'most' men / women may or may not do. You just have to do what's most practical.

Well families will still try to do the best they can do, whatever that means to them. @Thepeopleversuswork - you say you are a single mum to one DD so that's your context. I'm in my 50s now and have seen / am seeing how parenting (particularly teens) is harder than ever. I can't see this improving until something is done about social media. If you have several teens, it can be a total minefield. The govt obviously push for the default of two parents working all hours and using paid childcare because that's three sets of taxable income. But nevertheless, the strain on families can get too much. So many teens who go down social media rabbit holes - if you have several children you're unlikely to escape unscathed.

@Ineffable23

I guess I would say "it's not ideal" to anyone who told me they worked 60 hours a week every week, including every evening 8-11pm and over weekends. Whether they have children or not, a partner or not, whatever the circumstances. Because whether it's seeing your kids, seeing your family, seeing your friends, playing on your local netball team, crocheting a blanket or reading a book there are a million things to do that mean you don't just think about work. I wouldn't suggest most people just crochet blankets all day every day either - for me it's about balance, and never having an evening isn't balanced.

It's not ideal of course and its perfectly legitimate the question whether it works for you. But as I mentioned to the PP very few people are able to parent in an ideal way and "work/life balance" is something very few people can afford without significant trade offs in other areas of their life.

What I slightly bristle about is the suggestion that a working mum is always the "least ideal way" and that a woman stopping or reducing work is always the best trade off to make.

Yes I did. Not every day of the week but I'd do a day like that on average 1-2 days a week. I still sometimes do, although I'm now senior enough that I have the flexibility to be able to delegate a lot of this so its much rarer these days. But this pattern doesn't sound unfamiliar to me. And I was lucky because I was and am well paid for this.

The reality is that life balance is a luxury for a lot of people. Not only working mums and not only single mums. It's a luxury for most working class people and indeed for most of the world's population. I get that its a great aspiration. But the suggestion seems to be that if you don't have work life balance you can't be a good mum. I think that's a very luxurious position to take.

I guess I would say "it's not ideal" to anyone who told me they worked 60 hours a week every week, including every evening 8-11pm and over weekends. Whether they have children or not, a partner or not, whatever the circumstances. Because whether it's seeing your kids, seeing your family, seeing your friends, playing on your local netball team, crocheting a blanket or reading a book there are a million things to do that mean you don't just think about work. I wouldn't suggest most people just crochet blankets all day every day either - for me it's about balance, and never having an evening isn't balanced.

Also @Thepeopleversuswork - this woman has 3 children. Life is a lot more complex with 3, than with one child as you have, as I'm sure you can appreciate. Different circumstances, different decisions.

But @Thepeopleversuswork - did you have to drop your DD off at 7.30 every morning, pick her up at 5.45, then start working again at 8pm until late? Every day? There is working, and there's working.

This thread is not about working mums per se - it's about one particular woman questioning HER own life balance.

I understand that this is the OP looking for opinions on her circumstances and that's totally legitimate.

I'm just posing a separate question which these threads always prompt for me: it's not only that "men do it so why can't women?" (although I do think that's an entirely reasonable question). It's more the implication that its OK to do it as a single parent when you have to do it but its not OK when you have the option not to. I find this highly problematic:

I don't think a child makes an inherent distinction between whether the care delivered to it was given by a single or a coupled parent. A child doesn't think "my mother was on her own so it's OK but if she wanted to work that would be bad". A mother (or father) can work long hours and still be a good parent, regardless of whether or not they have to work. A non-working parent can be a bad parent. This is anecdata, but I've spoken to my teenaged daughter about this and she never felt disadvantaged by me working long hours: she feels grateful.

But I've read literally hundreds of these threads where someone poses a dilemma about hard work and parenting and the trade-offs. And every single response will be something like: "It's not ideal. Can't you reduce your hours or go part time?" You can almost hear the wincing and tutting judgment from behind the screens. Then someone (like me) will point out that this isn't an option for many of us. And then people will say: "Oh but it's different if you're a single parent."

Why, though? Why, philosophically is it different? If a parent can be a good parent while working hard, why can't a working mother in a marriage also be a good parent? (spoiler alert: they can and many do).

It just troubles me that the default position, despite everything, is that most posters will advise a woman in a marriage who works hard to reduce her hours, regardless of the circumstances. There are so many factors involved in this decision, financial, emotional and otherwise. But still we default to the assumption that a working mother who doesn't need to work is failing her child.

The thing is @Thepeopleversuswork , OP is not a single mum. She is asking for opinions on HER circumstances, not yours or anyone else's.

Aldo, in always reducing every parenting scenario to a competition about 'men do this, why can't women?' - it just misses the point. The fact is here, in this set-up, the DH already had a day with the toddler in the week and does the school runs.

One person working all day, plus evenings and only seeing their child 5.45-7.30 during the week is only really sustainable if there is another parent picking up the slack. I know this because my DH always worked like that and it was me picking up the slack. The longer you carry in like that, the more it becomes 'locked in' as normal. The OP is questioning whether this is the life she wants to lead. That's fair enough. It has no bearing on anyone else and just because 'some men do it' - so what? Doesn't mean it's right for her.

I think you have to be careful - kids are only little for such a short period of time. You’re missing it

As @SouthLondonMum22 says, this trite argument is only ever leveled at mothers. No one questions a man working hard to provide for his family.

Also as someone who worked (and still does work) this hard not through choice but who has come to appreciate it, I can look back and definitely say my daughter has benefited from it.

I provided our family with financial security which would otherwise have been absent. I have enabled my daughter to do things she would not have been able to do if I was part time. I did this without making either of us financially reliant on a man. And critically I was always ruthless about ring fencing the time I had with her. I firmly believe quality is more important than quantity. Yes it’s important to be physically there as much as you can but all the time I have with my daughter is precious. I know that I haven’t failed her.

I read these threads full of subtle judgment of working mums couched as “concern”, and there will always be a caveat tucked in somewhere about “of course it’s different if you’re a single parent”. Why is it different? It seems a little bit like the flawed logic employed during COVID when you were allowed to meet six people outside but not seven (or whatever). As if the virus “knew” to not infect people playing by the rules.

Well I am a single parent so thanks all of you for giving me the judgment loophole but why should I be judged differently from a working mother who doesn’t have to do it? The quality of the parenting and the bond with the kids isn’t impacted by whether or not the mother has a choice.

So why should it magically be OK if the mother doesn’t have a choice? Should a single mother be allowed pity as opposed to judgment? And will a child whose mother is pitied as opposed to judged turn out better? And will a child automatically forgive a father who works hard for being absent because he has a Y chromosome?

The logic here is often completely without intellectual rigour or consistency. Bottom line is a lot of people still want to put the boot into working mothers but not fathers. Almost always from the smug comfort of being supported by a spouse.

And before this gets wheeled out: this isn’t about jealousy. It’s just dismay that we are still having to trudge through this judgment.

Neither but sister b more as she spending time with her children....that time is so short. Also sister a sounds horrible buying up homes. However it's just a different way of living.

There is no one right way to live, it's not a competition and what's right for one person is not right for another. As long as both sisters and their children are happy and healthy. I think in parenting the younger years are so important though, so my priority would be as much time as possible with my children at nursery age rather than planning the future at that point.

Can you stop the evening work?
It must be destroying your health.
What would happen if you just stopped it?

Op also says she's civil service where working these hours is very very unusual. So there's literally thousands and thousands of other jobs she could do.

Unless she's incredibly senior

It depends on her career. OP has already commented that it’s just how it is in her line of work so cutting it down might not be an option, it might be carry on or switch career directions.

@SouthLondonMum22 there is no difference. The Op and her husband can both work full time and still have a successful careers and still have time with their kids. The op works very long hours. You can't have it all. I have not said OP should give up her career, but if she wants to spend more time with hers kids compromised may need to be made.

Both wrong! Both missing out on lots of things!

Thanks, but sadly Not in her OP though where it would be of most use......

It may involve having to give up her career and never getting back to the level she’s at now. It would certainly involve her not retiring in 10 years and having time with her children at arguably a more pivotal age.

OP may also be the breadwinner. Men are the breadwinner and work long hours all of the time. What’s the difference?

@SouthLondonMum22 , only because she is the one doing excessive hours and is questioning if she is missing out. What's wrong with OP working the same hours as her husband and seeing more of her children.

It only ever seems to apply to mothers though.

@flowergirl24 are all the hours you work for the one job. If yes why such long hours. Nothing wrong with your sister being a stay at home mum. But there is not one that is right and one wrong. But you blink and all of a sudden they are 18 and 21 and you wonder how did that happen. Maybe you need to work a little less and spend more time with the kids if you feel you are missing out. Sometimes when yiu decide to have kids, you have to make sacrifices and compromises.

It's good that the DH here has one day with the nursery child per week, so the child does 4 long nursery days, not 5. Even so, 7.30 to 5.30, 4 days per week? It would be lovely if OP could also have at least a day in the week with her pre-schooler.

I assume the older kids also did several years of 7.30 to 5.30 in childcare? It's good that your DH can now pick them up from school though.

OP, I'm in my 50s now and my three are 20, 18 and 16. Honestly, the time flies and they slip through your fingers. I remember a health visitor telling me this when my eldest was a few days old. But it's true.

My husband is kind of a workaholic and he's always been self-employed - involved in about 10 companies at any one time, vey successful, made multi-millions through company sales, IPOs, investments etc. He was rarely in 'off work mode'. This is his personality. He never knew how to 'switch off.' With 3 DC, I balanced all this out by SAH, which I loved (which was just as well)! Some may say this was a risk, but I didn't see it that way because, even if we had divorced, I would have walked away from the marriage with far more than I came in with. Also, all our money and assets were always for the family, no separate bank accounts and that type of mentality.

We now have 2 at uni and when the youngest DD got a boyfriend recently, this seemed to trigger DH who got quite upset and said that he feels he's missed a lot of time with them that he can never get back. He says he wished he'd been more involved in the day-to-day stuff - helped them with homework, friendships, etc or just 'been there.' But the thing is, he is not that type of personality to just 'be there' - he's too hyper. We talked it out and I reassured him that his role has definitely been as important as mine - not least as he financially facilitated it! So yes, I put a lot of energy into their education, including certain things more recently that almost certainly gave them an edge in terms of Oxbridge applications, but it was his money that paid for their schools, at the end of the day. And which means that they won't have student debt and we can help them into the property ladder. So many opportunities facilitated by his hard work. He sees this of course, as do the kids. So there's no 'right or wrong' - just families adapting to their specific circumstances. But, if you're not happy at this stage, OP, talk with your DH and have a plan together to see if you can make some changes. Don't just plough on, feeling as if you are missing out (if that's how you feel), because you will be surprised how quickly two years becomes ten years and so on. If my DH had ever indicated he felt he was working to much, I would have encouraged him to shift gear. In fact, I tried many times over the years to get him to take on less, but as I say, you can't change people unless they actively want to change.

I think you have to be careful - kids are only little for such a short period of time. You’re missing it. It would be one thing if you HAD to work that many hours a week but it sounds like you are just doing it to retire early. You realise your kids will be grown up and much prefer to spend time with friends etc rather than you? Also you don’t know what will happen in the future. My mum and dad saved every penny whilst we were growing up (for the future). My mum go early onset dementia when I was 22. All their plans were ruined. Wished we had gone on more family holidays and just spent the money then