To wish I hadn’t married a man with a well paid job

Why would you say this?

I have no need to make anything up. There are families in all kinds of circumstances with all kinds of set-ups. This is hardly news to anyone.

In London, some parts particularly, there are a lot of ex pat families or international families who have settled here. Millions of people. The schools my kids go to are full of them. Parts of London are also full of finance types, ex finance types or self-made business people because this is the only way you could buy the housing in many parts of Central London (unless you inherited and there are lots of that type of family too, though we know less of them). Any comparable city is the same. If your husband (or you) had a certain type of career or business interests, you will know other families that are similar. A lot of them have a spouse who doesn't work. Where two parents work, they generally have a nanny. Many people have nannies anyway, even with a non-working parent.

Whether any individual knows families where dad receives life changing mega bucks and is such a jet setter that he needs a woman at home to facilitate it is pretty irrelevant.

The facts and statistics speak for themselves. Women as a group are far more financially vulnerable than men. Mothers are more likely to have less well paid lower status jobs than fathers (despite equal level of ability and qualification.) And when they get to their 50s/60s way more women than men realise they have massively underfunded their older age, with hugely inadequate pension provision.

These things are a massive societal concern. The fact that a few people have trust funds or a premier league footballer hubby to support them are exceptions to the rule. It's not most people's lived experience.

Women valuing their work life as much as they value their husband's (and of course husband's valuing their role as a parent and taking on domestic responsibilities) is what we should aim for at a societal level. It's certainly what I aspired to for my sons and daughter. And if on a personal level I hadn't - if for example I didn't value my own job equally, and if I raised my sons to believe they should be primary or sole earners as adults, and I raised my daughter to believe her work life was of lesser importance - well, even if I had done those things, I would hope I'd have the self awareness to know that might have suited me, but is not best for society as a whole.

This actually happened to me. Not in a wild way but 2024 standards to just do housing and school is like woah lottery win. I cried and cried because I gave up a lot for about 5 years, but I didn’t slam my husband’s career too hard (his job is more 9-6 mine is more 7-7 PM or on unfortunate days even 7-10 PM). However the only good part is that he then transitioned us out of comparative financial instability when a startup did well (again this is still our lives are basic 2024 standards but stability is a luxury these days).

It seems to me one setup that works best for equality is when two people are both in the same profession eg two lawyers two doctors two engineers because then each understands the rigours of what is required in each profession. I see a lot of successful and equal couples in this scenario.

If two people are in different careers then you have differing expectations and to like share power and trade because different people have different opportunities and demands at different times.

My husband loved my career when we were dating and there were zero problems he was a super supportive boyfriend and I loved coming home after a big week for him. It was when our two needs started clashing post baby and mat leave that it became really hard and I- by the exact unconscious or semi conscious default we are taking about- sleepwalked into being the one who absorbed the change.

My friend who is in an ideal position I would want to be in professionally paradoxically has financial challenges because although her and her husband have stayed equal, it’s really really expensive where we live. So this goes back to the conundrum of OP: if you let husband take the front role, you’re somtimes (not always!) financially better off for it. If my friend would have allowed her husband to take an opportunity abroad he’d be on 500k albeit working 80-100hr weeks but she didn’t want that, she wanted to keep her own career and stay near family.

I think the thing that’s helpful in talking about all of this is there’s not ever really very often realistic information out there about how women actually do it all. Women face harsh judgement from other women if they admit to a short mat leave; Wheras the reality is your husband will accelerate beyond you and you’ll become defacto parent on a long mat leave. If you go back to work hardcore hours, you need someone who is willing to show up at your house at 7 and also who maybe lives there. One faces judgements if you say you need live in, the reality is if you’re getting home at 10 PM, someone else has to cook dinner for your kids who are asleep when you get home. So there’s sort of a secret world of skills on how to run a household if you’re not there that needs to be deployed effectively if you’re actually going to have the big career and the kids.

This is why I’m always asking for tips!

Cue women saying if you want a big career don’t have kids 🙈

I know a lot of families like this. It's not far-fetched at all.

Sure you do.

Funnily enough, the pp I was responding to.

For example, we frequently see posters stating that they went part time as it made financial sense due to their partner earning much more. However, in many cases this is a choice and they could still perhaps have got by sending their kids to a state school, living in a smaller house/less desirable area, and driving older cheaper cars, holidaying in the UK, etc.

Who has even mentioned private school? I don't even know anyone who have two children in private school. I know two families with single children in private school, one being funded by grandparents!

Lots of couples have their mortgage based on two incomes and no childcare.

Along come children, maternity leave, then nursery fees, lack of wrap around school care. If a couple are looking at the best way for them to manage finances and it works out better for one to reduce hours that's most likely what they will do.

Because remember the mortgage still needs paid. The other long term benefits of both trying to work full-time like pensions become secondary to the mortgage at that point in time.

Nannies, au-pairs, private school are a complete pipe dream for so many people who still need to juggle children jobs commuting and pay the mortgage.

We also see posters acting like paying for childcare is only their responsibility because they are women. If their DH's are such high earners that they can afford private school on one salary, they can afford to pay nursery fees too.

And I also feel like part of the issue is that people will often (understandably) prioritise their own family rather than doing what's best for women as a whole.

For example, we frequently see posters stating that they went part time as it made financial sense due to their partner earning much more. However, in many cases this is a choice and they could still perhaps have got by sending their kids to a state school, living in a smaller house/less desirable area, and driving older cheaper cars, holidaying in the UK, etc.

Of course many prefer a higher quality of life in material terms and that's fine but it arguably perpetuates the dynamic/expectation of the man being the main provider and the woman being the default carer. But any individual knows that their personal contribution is likely to be pissing in the wind so it's a big ask to suggest that people should make big sacrifices to uphold a principle when their doing so probs won't really make a tangible difference.

Therein lies part of the issue IMO. It's like how a lot of people want others to pay more tax but don't want to stump up themselves.

I wish I saw working as a luxury!

For me the main point would be maintaining my financial freedom and not becoming vulnerable, but I'm pretty doubtful most women would be pushing their career if they won the euromillions.

But I may of course be wrong. I certainly feel like many women place more self validation in their jobs whilst men just want the money.

You're explaining how a small minority may do that. The vast majority who give up their careers are leaving themselves financially vulnerable.

I'm not saying it's common. I'm explaining how and why families might structure themselves like this. Where I live, it's not that unusual.

@catcafeatno10 while there may be some cases where the family are genuinely better off in the long term by sacrificing one partner's career, this must be very much the exception. What's far more likely (you see this frequently on MN) is that women believe that their husband can only manage his career if she sacrifices hers to facilitate it. I suspect some men are quite comfortable to perpetuate this belief.

Anyway, as you say, it may be a scenario which some families choose but it certainly doesn't seem the norm in the 21st century, and for that, I'm very glad. If one parent can only manage their career by the other parent having to sacrifice theirs, it must be extremely demanding, probably takes them away from the home a lot and means they can't be nearly as hands on with the children.

You probably know a lot of families like that because you are a family like that. Do you seriously think it is common? It really, really isn't.

Where did I say women shouldn't have careers? I'm not suggesting that even remotely.

I'm simply telling you why some families might decide to prioritise one person's career. It's not rocket science! In some cases, families would be stupid not to. I know a lot of families like this. It's not far-fetched at all. It's how it is in our family. I have no less 'financial independence' as a result - in fact, it's the opposite. If prioritising his career had reduced my financial independence, I wouldn't have done it. It's as simple as that. More to the point, I wouldn't have risked my children's futures if I couldn't be sure they would be ok if we split.

Some cases? A minority of cases. About as likely as your footballer example.

In reality, it is rarely the case.

What world do you live in? This far-fetched scenario is why you think women shouldn't have careers? Get an actual grip.

"How can you have financial independence in the event of a split by prioritising one person's career? Do you understand what financial independence is?"

Yes. Surely you can understand that in some cases, if one person is freed up to make the most of an opportunity- or particular skill or talent they may have and they make a life-changing amount of money, then that money is invested, in your name as well as his and your children's. It then provides passive income. You also invest in your home, or other properties, which are 50% yours. Your children's education is paid for and you invest for their future as well. The DH maybe retires in his 40s if he wants, or just takes on roles / projects that interest him. You can also take on roles or projects, either paid or things you're interested in. Life changes. This is why it might be worth it. I'm not suggesting giving up your career to live off 'his' income indefinitely - it's about how you plan and invest as a family over the years. I'm my experience, people who make the most money and buy themselves and their families the greatest 'financial independence' are not salaried, or tied to a particular company career path. They are risk-takers, on the whole, so you weigh up the options.

. Not all women find it easy to use childcare

I noticed this too. Once again, it's associating women with childcare, as if it's an issue which affects only women. It affects parents. My dh is an equal parent. We visited various nurseries together, discussed the benefits of each, make joint decisions.

Of course you can. You stop before it goes that far because you know you can't see a future with someone who travels regularly or you do love them but you absolutely aren't sacrificing your career for them and they don't want to change career so you end the relationship, it's painful but they clearly weren't the right person for you.

Been there, done that.

It's all very good saying I wouldn't marry or have kids with someone who travels. But sometimes you can't help who you fall in love with.

Reality is lots of work places a standard day is 8.00-5.00 or 6.00. Not every work place can manage with people appearing at 9.30 after the school run.

Not every school has early morning care, or if they do its only from 8.30
Same with wrap around at the end of the day. Where I am one of the afterschool providers went bust during covid. The other is seriously over subscribed. Last year there were about 6 spaces available between the intake for 4 primary schools (about 200 kids)

I think this is all fine (although why do you say 'not all women find it easy to use childcare' instead of 'nor all parents'.

The concern is it appears the 'compromise in terms of their career' is currently the women the majority of the time so realistically how conscious is that decision always? Hopefully as more and more children are raised in households were their mother didn't compromise their career and dad did half the pick ups and cooking etc, or even was a SAHD, their will be less automatic choice of the women stepping back and things will become fairer.

Which was my point all along, it's a choice. It isn't something that just happens.