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

It's still a choice to marry men like that who expect their careers to be the one that always comes first. I wouldn't have married a man like that.

Of course I know that not all couples have comparable salaries and hours. In my marriage, both careers are always equal.

@catcafeatno10 that's fine if it suits the couple.

We're all different; no way would my dh have wanted a hellish job that took him away from family life even if it did provide mega bonuses. And I wouldn't have wanted our children seeing us with polarised roles like that either - me stopping work to facilitate dad doing some crazy hours big earning job.

But if it suits some couples that's their business. The issue with the OP is that she's gone along with the situation and is now moaning about it

Well you don't have to do anything @SouthLondonMum22 . But clearly, there are women who are married to men who don't do what you might call 'regular' work - eg. I know men who have done certain finance-related jobs which are pretty hellish, but the family make a decision that he will do it for a few years. When he makes millions in bonuses - obviously, in a marriage if shared finances, that is the wife's money too. It puts the kids through schools, uni, all sorts of options the family would never have had if she had refused to let him do that role. Or couples where one has a business that gets sold for life-changing amounts of money - same thing. Or what about if your husband / wife got a ridiculously paid role in a movie, or the theatre or in a sport. Not all couples work in offices with comparable salaries and hours.

*wouldn't climb the ladder

@catcafeatno10 not all women want their work life to take second place to their partner's and they make decisions (jointly) to avoid that. You talk about couples where one person earns 500k or millions... well some of us actively choose, as a couple, to not have one partner having a jet setting high octane career earning megabucks if it means they'll barely be home and the other partner will have to do everything with the kids and house.

I've already said, dh and I decided that we both wanted interesting, good careers but we would climb the ladder to the extent that it would be incompatible with family life. We both wanted to earn but also have time with the kids, share nursery drops, cooking dinner etc That's a choice. It didn't happen out of nowhere. The kind of situation you describe with a sole earner on mega bucks can mean that parent has very little time at home. They may carry a lot of stress, they may be at risk of burn out. In my view, it's not worth one parent being home full time if the other parent barely gets a look in. We wanted to bring our children up seeing mum and dad both working but also both doing nursery pick up, and seeing whoever was home first cooking dinner.

It's still all about choices though.

I wouldn't have had children with a man who refused to either negotiate regular travelling down to at least occasional travel or if that wasn't possible, get a new job that involved occasional or no travelling.

I also wouldn't have had children with a man who didn't consider my career to be equal with his. I'm the higher earner, DH could easily be a SAHP but his career is important too and it would be the same if it was the other way around because no matter how much or little I earned, becoming a SAHM was never going to be a choice I would make.

I'm not permanently exhausted or running myself ragged in the evenings, I'm not sure why that would change if I was the lower earner. Of course it's hard, especially with very young children but nothing in life worth it comes easy and it's absolutely worth it to not only continue my career but to carry on progressing too.

, "it’s the woman taking the hit 99.99% of the time."

It depends what you mean by "taking the hit."

Ok she might not keep the job / career she had. Whether that's a 'hit' or not depends on how she felt about the job and what her longer-term plans are.

I would never recommend not financially protecting yourself and your children indefinitely.

I'm just saying that there are some circumstances where not prioritising the 'big job' in a family would be counterproductive.

No not specifically you @SouthLondonMum22 or @lolly792 . Just the way the threads go. People say 'Oh mine were in childcare from 10 weeks old' - as if that's all there is to it.
My point was - firstly, most women would not want that anyway and second, if you have a husband who is away a lot or who doesn't work regular hours, then you would still doing it all outside of nursery hours anyway. And if, eg. you earn £50k and he earns £500k or millions or whatever amount that would make
you're earnings seem irrelevant (as all money is shared anyway) - would you really put your kids in full-time childcare and be permanently exhausted doing a full-time job for money the family won't miss, plus running yourself ragged in the evenings? It's not hard to imagine why some families might organise differently. It just depends.

pp was talking about me but pretending that she wasn't for whatever reason. I have said in previous threads that I've found the baby stage boring and that I went back to work full time at 12 weeks by choice.

@catcafeatno10 speak for yourself, I never found being with my children boring. They were delightful and have grown into wonderful adults who have a close relationship with dh and me. And yes, they were in childcare from a few months old because long mat leave wasn't a thing until relatively recently. Some of us enjoy our children and have careers we enjoy too. The two things aren't mutually exclusive

If you are talking about me, why don't you just say so?

Why do I need to relate to having a DH who is a very high earner and the reality of it when it's in fact my own reality because I'm the higher earner in my marriage? I was able to negotiate regular travel down to occasional travel due to my seniority. Irregular hours still happen but less often in the evening now because I wake up at 5am and do some work then instead.

To add to @SouthLondonMum22's post, there are different ways of doing things. I did breastfeed, long term, and as this was in the days of 3 month mat leave, it meant a lot of pumping, as well as night feeds still. If I'd had twins like @SouthLondonMum22 then perhaps that's something I'd have had to rethink, as obviously twins is a lot harder. We all operate within limitations; everyone has their own circumstances. But honestly, living in 2025 when year long Mat leave is an option, as is transferable parental leave, as are significant free childcare hours from age 2 (and from Sept this year it will be 30 free hours a week from 9 months upwards) - these are all things I'd have chewed off my right arm for! So when you have a poster bemoaning her husband earning almost 100k and claiming that as the reason she can't take her work seriously, well - forgive us if we don't all fall over each other commiserating.

Meant to tag you above- thanks for the response! <3

That’s a good setup. It’s such a balance on timing- mine came earlier than I thought. In my profession, you only get that senior spot age 37-40. Many wait and end up using IVF and surrogates which is great when it all works out and when it doesn’t I’ve seen women adopt, another beautiful thing if it all lines up. Those who had kids my age rightly or wrongly seem to take a significant hit and with one or two rare exceptions I see them drop out one by one. I’m still in the game but have had three long mat leaves. My husband has earned enough to be happy so may pass the run fast baton to me again at some point and then I’ll be all in again.

The conversation around how marital power gets shared is why I’m in this post. It’s interesting to hear how people do it but solidarity to OP for wondering/fantasising about how the balance can be tweaked. I guess the answer is to always play the long game, communicate well, and stay adaptable.

Thanks also for the tips- there are some good ones including 5 AM weekends. Need to start that!

The thing is, there are one or two posters who come on these threads almost weekly, arguing there is no need to compromise anything career-wise when it comes to babies. But the fact is, these posters, by any measure, have actually made massive compromises! No least, they have put their babies in full-time nurseries at 12 weeks old. This is something most women would never contemplate. They have often not allowed themselves to bf, due this timescale. Also, they have totally separate finances from their husbands, so could never rely on him anyway. Plus, by their own admission, they don't like being with their babies day in day out anyway because they find it boring.

They don't relate to the turmoil other women feel about using childcare, etc. They also can't relate to having a DH who is a very high earner and the actual reality of that - eg. travel, irregular hours, etc. They also don't comprehend shared finances in a family unit.

So it's like comparing apples and pears really.

Honestly, a lot of the decisions are ones I made before I had them or are unpopular choices that many women won't want to make.

I got myself in a senior role before having them, this meant that I could be more flexible, have a large influence on my own diary and in a position where WFH is possible.

DH and I have equal careers. No ones comes first, this was the same when we earned the same amount and remains the same now that I'm the higher earner.

I didn't breastfeed. This was mainly because I made the decision to have a shorter maternity leaves (two maternity leaves, I have twins) the main reason for that is because I knew I'd get left behind if I took a year out, especially twice.

I never considered going part time.

DC's go to nursery. A nanny isn't necessary due to the flexibility I have but I also wake up at 5am every weekday to get some work done which means I can get DC from nursery at a decent time and I rarely have to work evenings.

It's hard, especially right now as they are all under school age but it's worth it because I'm thriving in my career and like I said, having them hasn't held me back at all.

How do you do it? I also have 3. Do you have a live in nanny? I think my rate limiting variable has been my husband won’t allow a live in.

What? I don't know a single person who has a live in nanny. And almost all the couples I know have two full time workers. You just use after school club or a childminder. The occasionally a babysitter.

Your "rate limiting variable" is your own lack of ambition.

If you work within daycare available hours and don’t ever have to work out of hours,

It's not about never having to work out of hours, which will be part of most professional jobs. It's that it's absolutely fine and arrangeable around on those occasions - either your partner collects the kids that day or you use a babysitter that day. If you are saying that one person has to have some sort of second rate career during school hours only just in case there is ever a tricky situation where you need to think creatively about who will pick up the kids on the perhaps once a year occasion where both you and your partner are unavoidably working away from home on the same date...then my friend, you are shooting yourself in your own foot. What a pity!

We all come from our own perspective (mine was having kids back in the days of 3 month maternity leave and no free childcare hours) plus high interest rates.

I've absolutely no doubt every generation has its pressures, every job has its particular pressures whether travel, high accountability, unsocial hours...

However, there is also a degree of choice. The OP has chosen to have two children in a situation where very little wrap around childcare is available and where she says she wouldn't leave her kids with the ones she knows anyway. She won't move. She admits she likes the lifestyle her dh's 100k salary brings. She doesn't work full time. She's now complaining that she married a man who earns too much! It's understandable why many posters think it's a bit bizarre

How do you do it? I also have 3. Do you have a live in nanny? I think my rate limiting variable has been my husband won’t allow a live in. Do you have any top tips?

It really doesn't have to be like this!
When me and DH got together and I was pregnant with DS he worked away 4 on/4 off. I told him I wasn't happy with this and wanted us to be equal partners.
He subsequently got himself a new job where he's home and flexible, he earned twice what i did so after DS was born I returned to University part time whilst also working, also had our 2nd child in the middle, and I very nearly now earn the same (DS just turned 7) in another year I imagine we'll be on the same money.