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

Did I just read that correctly................"But sometimes I wish I had the luxury of working more".

You sound incredibly ungrateful. A lot of women would love to be in your position.

when u marry for money itr causes problems who knew

If it is a setup everyone's happy with, why would such men be despised? I don't see that should be the case, and I am a professional woman, mother, who has childcare and who earns approximately the same as her DH.
If it suits a couple for one to be at home, or part-time, and the other to earn most of the money and not do as much of the at-home-stuff, more power to them. Whatever suits a particular family sounds good to me.
My parents did do this - my mother has both a good degree and post-grad qualifications (not all that common for a woman now over 70) and she and my Dad both wanted a big family with my Mum at home for some years. It suited them then, it still suits them now. Crucially, though, they have obviously always regarded every penny as "their" money not "his" money.

I'm self-employed, as is DH, so the world of paid parental leave, tax breaks for childcare and so forth is all out of my experience, to be fair.

Women do need to take some responsibility for the choices they make. It isn’t inevitable, it’s a choice.

You don’t have to have children with a man who travels all of the time
You don’t have to give up your job or go part time when you have your first baby
You don’t have to live in a rural area where childcare is limited.

No one arrives out of the blue in this situation, two children down the line. Choices are made.

In the OP's situation, aside from anything else, she could have returned to work after the first child, when incomes would easily cover one set of childcare costs. Seems she chose to reduce to part time and have another child and is now complaining her dh earns too much!

I agree with the above.

Looks like the OP sleepwalked into this situation and has just woken up. It is always harder to unravel rather than plan ahead.

The fact that the OP and her dh now find themselves in this situation is because OP did not prioritise her career all along the way. Even now, OP still does not have the drive or motivation to take steps to dig herself out of this hole, dismissing advice from posters on this thread.

So OP is doomed to fail and can continue to whinge into the ether.

@InfoSecInTheCity that sounds like what dh and I did. There were several years when both of us working gave no more immediate income than if one of us had stopped work and not pajd childcare. What it did mean though is we both kept up with our careers and pensions. Some couples choose not to do that and that's fine too, but it's not true to say there's no point.

My point is that people make choices which lead to any particular point in their life. And they can continue to discuss and make other choices.

But hey, let's not get what I've written in the way of frothing

Why bring it up then? Irrelevant to the OP. Start up your own hobby horse thread blaming women for men not stepping up. It's our fault apparently because some women are nitpickers.

And the options you suggested for her don't work for reasons she's explained. But you carry on being snug.

@Needanewname42 it doesn't make zero sense to pay more than you bring in.

It's frustrating but it's also short term and with a long term gain.

Childcare for full time nursery, let's say it's £1000 a month per child under the age of funded hours, then it drops to £700 a month per child when you factor in add ons and the weeks not covered by funding. So by the time the child is about 2 years old your costs have reduced £300 a month and you've had a year or so to apply for promotions and increase your income, so overall your financial situation is better.

Then nursery ends and primary school begins, your childcare costs are before and after school club and come to £400 a month, so your costs have decreased another £300 a month and you've had 2 more years to increase your salary and build reputation/flexibility in your role.

Your financial situation is better, your career has progressed, you have the flexibility to do school drop offs and attend events, you have ongoing opportunities to continue to progress and your need for childcare will continue to reduce over time. You've been paying into your pension in ever increasing amounts and you're used to higher outgoings so could switch those spends into savings accounts without noticing so will be building your savings.

It may not be the obvious choice, it may be hard to fit everything in, it may be stressful at times, but it doesn't make zero sense. It's just a different choice with a different outcome.

Sorry to be a bit blunt but you and DH need to own your choices. High earners are so because they are needed and difficult to find. They have a lot of negotiating power in a workplace and can demand life balance if they want. Your DH has chosen not to because you have allowed this with the choices you too have made and your anti-feminist expectations. If you really wanted a stimulating job and career you would have one (low paid or otherwise). You sound wistful for a rose tinted idea of what you could be and very ready to make excuses for yourself.
it’s possible to have 2 (even high) earners in fulfilling careers who see their kids lots but it takes strength of character, strong desire for it, and commitment to that goal. If you have that - Go for it - because it is possible.

Another thing is hitting the 40% tax bracket if hitting that plus childcare costs means it makes more sense for one of you to reduce hours thats what you do.

Well it makes zero sense to be paying out more than your bringing in.

MN has one weird logic that you both pay the fees equally but if that means together you end up with less income than you would with one of you being a SAHP then why would you put yourselves through that amount of stress?

Stress of work, stress getting two kids out the door, long days in childcare for them, trying to get them into bed early to get them up early.

I didn't specifically say that the OP is possessive over their children. I said that it's something that crops up regularly on MN: mums who want to work less and have the lion's share of caring for the children, in some cases sidelining their partner and thinking that no one else can do things exactly the 'right' way.

What we know for certain is that the OP has allowed her career to take second place. There are other options which she and her husband could choose.

I have always out-earned my husband but his work was also crucial. What determined who carried domestic load when, was the amount of control we each had over our diaries and locations, which fluctuated over time and role. Certain employers are more family friendly and the occasional need to leave early for a sick child etc would be accommodated without repercussions. So for me it's not about who earns what, but how much scope each has for picking up the domestic slack.

Agree with this. What are the components of all this that you can most readily change? And where more of you would benefit?

• your DH' s job
• your job
• where you live

Where you live is the best starting point. Your reasons for not moving are a bit weak - your oldest hasn't started school yet but will soon! By that logic though you won't be able to move for the next 20 years. Whereas a move when they, or only one, is in primary will be easier. It would also make it faster for your DH to get home from work/travel and give you a better choice of jobs and childcare. Once you have teens they will prefer a more urban setting anyway and it'll lessen the burden on you to drive them to everything. You haven't said you like where you live. A move would be upheaval but very much worth it.

I also think it'd be worth you changing career given that you don't like your job, you can't wfh and full time would be more awkward. Surely there must be related sectors, or even something completely different, you could start the move into? How much worse could it be?

That sounds miserable. I strongly recommend you find something you enjoy and motivates you for reasons other than money, life’s too short to spend it killing time.

I only value my work by what it pays me.

No matter how much I enjoy a role, it is just a job. It doesn’t factor into my self-worth, it doesn’t define me, it is never the thing I most want to be doing. Work is a prison for me. I’m trapped until we can afford to retire.

Unless it’s a job that you have to travel for e.g a pilot, international arms dealer etc I call bullshit on no flexibility and always having to go somewhere at the drop of a hat.

So many women prioritise the man’s career at the expense of their own and are left fucked when he decides he wants to be with someone new. Don’t be a passenger in your own life. Live somewhere less desirable but with more options. Your dc won’t wither if they spend time in childcare. And if he won’t compromise when things are in theory rosy and good what’s he going to be like when things aren’t going great?

The issue you often get with a higher earning partner is that it creates gaps in the relationship.

The higher earner sees their career as more important,they have better opportunities than the lower earner;this attitude nearly always applies to men unfortunately.

The gaps we then see is that the lower earner (the women) is expected to make herself less of a priority and she's expected to carry the parenting/domestic/mental load at home and have less leisure time.

We also see it a lot on here where the higher earner is a selfish twat about the division of money;the lower earner ends up with no spare money and the higher earner does and happily spends it on selfish shit or squirrels it away only benefitting themselves.