Help me defend DH's decision to cut down his hours to do childcare for DD

DH and I have both worked 4 days each since DD was born and its been brilliant. I feel as though we're a much closer family as a result of having completely equally shared parenting.

Much as I think this should be the norm, I wasn't under any illusion when we started that it was a bigger deal for DH than it was for me, simply because it's not expected and it's made me much more appreciative of him.

It was easy-ish for him though. He works on a major project in the publicly-funded sector that was looking to square the circle of cutting costs without losing key members of staff. There are no promotion prospects (the project ends in 2 years) to worry about and he has a very understanding boss. But for me the wider issue we had to face as a family is that he might not keep the job (fairly safe now, but obv not in the long term) and thT he might struggle to find as good a salary in the future. So it makes sense for me to keep my hand in so that I can step up if I have to.

Also he's going back full time when igoon mat leave later this year so we won't have such a hit to our income from me not working.

I don't think it matters what sex you are - the ease with which you can balance work and home life depends on your boss, your role and your industry.

My dp did this, private sector, I did it in the public sector. It's been quite cosy committing joint career suicide together - this way I don't have to resent his career taking off while mine stagnates, which I would have found very difficult if it had been just me cutting my hours and career prospects.

It has affected his career, 11 years now of working part time, and my career is also not exactly stellar. but we have a lovely, fairly relaxed life and dp has a great relationship with the dc. and most importantly for me as a feminist it feels like an equal relationship with two co-parents. Which is really very pleasing, before kids I was not sure that would be possible.

ach I'm coming back just to append a caveat that of course having less money makes lots of things harder (especially as I reassess my own budget after changes in earning patterns), particularly if there are no safety nets there for you.

but the hope is that the gains you make - not least being less likely to need expensive relationship counselling/divorce lawyers - make it all worth it...

when people make comments I tend to counter with either well it's his child as well or would you be asking that if the situation was reversed. I worked (stopped last week :)) with a lot of male colleagues who had SAHM and they would often ask after DH worried about his happiness, whether he was bored etc. and I pointed out that they didn't ask these questions about the other wives and asking 'well why wouldn't he be?' or similar

It hasn't effected my DH at all. He's just taken a year out and had no problems getting back into the work force. Somehow I don't think it would have been as easy for the majority of mothers returning to the work force.

Lunatic - that's great to hear and your DH is obviously a great asset to the company. However, the initial 'no go' decision does still demonstrate that wanting flexibility is still seen as 'a problem'.

Glad they saw sense and in fact as HerBeX rightly pointed out they wll get a far more mature (and loyal) employee than some bloke who has no sense of reponsibility and much more likley to defect to the competitor at the first sniff of a promotion or pay rise.

In fact, I think employers really miss a trick by not being more accomodating. It tough to find good flexible employers that don't treat parents and childcare as a nuisance. True family friendly policies and attitudes can be a real potential attraction and way of retaining good employees.

It can be hard though. I was 35 when I had dd. I had years of very little money, no holidays, struggling to get by and pay all the bills - much like everyone else. I finally reached a point where, after all my hard work I had SPARE cash. It was nice. I was buggered if I was going back to being poor again just because I had a baby! When it wasn't necessary to do that. And I do plan that "Good Life" experience at some point in the future. Living on little.

To some extent, it depends how much you already earn and how much you could potentially earn.

If you are in the top 10% of earners or potentially could be there and your partner is a low earner it never makes sense financially for the high earner to give up work or go part time.

There really is more to life than money - but for most people the mortgage and credit card bill still needs paying so their choice is very limited.

OP i suppose I might say: is your career the most important thing in your life then? Or is that code for 'but you'll have less money'?

Perhaps they need to be reminded that THERE IS MORE TO LIFE THAN MONEY.

And that a simple solution is at hand, if your income falls due to a change in working patterns is that you might choose to BUY LESS. They might have forgotten that it is possible to live cheaply as all those millions of people on or below the UK average wages (£25k) do. They may have a smaller wardrobe, go to a cheaper hairdresser, own fewer aspirational brands, have a smaller house/move less often, take less swanky holidays, and run a cheaper car, but they won't die of malnutrition or exposure.

Some people on low incomes even manage to send their children to university I hear.

Good luck Snorbs.

I was talking with DW about going back part time lecturing today and working part time at home so its quite a current topic in our house.

HerBeX - "If you'd done the conventional male thing of not allowing the fact that you had children to alter your working patterns and leaving all the day to day parenting to your partners, your cards wouldn't have been marked, .."

Yes that is the more accurate description of the phenomenon.

I guess I made the mistake of believing that having children naturally tended to lead to an expectation of doing some childcare. Most bosses are men and most bosses don't do much childcare so I guess that is why it tends to happen although I have to say that women I worked with also seemed to have a bit of an attitude about it too.

Yes I'm not sure if I'll ever want to go back to full time work.... or if I could!

My cards were marked because I was the main carer. So I did the doctors, sick days etc.

My ex's career has gone on in leaps and bounds and she outearns me, she didn't pre children.

I don't really think I want a long hours career anymore, I've seen the light! The futures less hours more happiness.

Best of luck with your new job Snorbs .

My DH has decided to stay home - the decision was initiated by injury, but he's always wanted to be a SAHD so we are looking on it as an opportunity for both of us - I'm going to be starting my first job in 4 years soon.

He's very popular in the local area because of his job, and loads of people have expressed sadness that he's not going back to his job. However nobody has been negative about the fact that he's not working, quite the opposite - everyone we've told has said it's lovely. The only weird reaction has been envy and shock that my DH actually wants to spend so much time with his DCs - apparently that makes him a rare catch?!

Truck I think lots of men would like to work less and spend more time with their DC's.

They need to be braver about doing it, as you and the other male posters on this thread have been. Until loads more men join you and you get a critical mass so that the workplace has to change, men who do will suffer the discrimination you have. But it's difficult to do knowing that as Betadad says, you are buying into a much less affluent life than you would otherwise have had. OTOH, lots of people deliberately choose to do vocational jobs (like teaching etc.) which mean that they will earn less over their lifetimes than they could do, but they are brave enough to choose that, so in a sense it's not that different.

"So basically you were discriminated against on pay or to put it more bluntly 'your card was marked' for having children. "

No your cards were marked for trying to establish a good work life balance. If you'd done the conventional male thing of not allowing the fact that you had children to alter your working patterns and leaving all the day to day parenting to your partners, your cards wouldn't have been marked, in fact, you would probably have been seen as more responsible and grown up and looked upon more favourably - research shows that fathers earn more than non fathers, not just because they are older and more progressed in their careers, but viz their same age non-father peers. It's women who have their cards marked purely for having children, even when they go back full time (which is one of the reasons I decided to go part time - I knew my career was fucked anyway, just by becoming a mother, so I might as well have a good quality of life).

I'm not trying to minimise what you lot have experienced, but I think it's important to be accurate about the dynamics.

I'm back full-time with flexible hours (my boss is brilliant) believe me it shouldn't cause problems with your relationship with your children. I assume you'll still be hands on?

In danger of being not a manly-man and being very aware of which section I've stumbled into but I think there are a lot of dads missing out not being as involved as they could be.

They don't know what they're missing. Or maybe they do and would like to work less.

The minute I started working part-time marked the moment when I changed from having a career to simply having a job. There was no chance of any career progress after that point and I was the first one to be made redundant in my team. I don't think these things are unrelated.

On the plus side, the fact that I got to spend lots of time with my children (and even more after I got made redundant, of course) means I have a fantastic relationship with them. I have had two or three of my male friends say that they envy the closeness I have with my children.

I've just (today!) started work again and it's going to have to be full-time albeit with some flexibility with hours. I'm dreading the thought that this will damage the relationship I've built up with the little blighters