Women taking on the "main childcarer" role at the expense of their earning potential

I would love the arrangement you have, Amber.

When DH (who works 50hr+ weeks with variable shifts) applied for part time working, he was offered 30 hrs a week plus all on calls equivalent to being full time

I agree, Sillylass. When we had children my dp and I both reduced our hours to 28 hours a week contracts. We've had various configurations of what those hours means in terms of working patterns (initially 4 full days each, now more flexible to better work around school hours), but we've stuck to those basic hours for 10 years now.

This is an arrangement that works really well for our family. We've both been able to pursue interesting careers, we have two decent salaries coming in, one of us can usually do school drop-offs and pick-ups every day, we both get to spend decent amounts of times with the kids, and they see both of us working hard at jobs we enjoy, but also valuing the time we spend with them.

I realise we're very lucky, in all sorts of ways, but I also think as a society we need to challenge outdated assumptions about work. I don't believe that jobs all magically come in 35/40/60 (delete according to workplace culture) hour sized packages, and I think both employees and employers need to start being more open and creative about how we enable people to contribute effectively in the workplace and lead fulfilling home lives.

Yy mini pie.

I know it's not your/dp's fault but surely that kind of employer attitude breaks sex discrimination legislation?

Is it in the contract that employees have to be available 24/7?

We aren't going to get wider equality until these kind if contracts are banned.

Mini pie- what do the women in your dh's job do when they have DCs?

I don't buy this 'he'd have to quit his job'. Really?

If you died would he quit work or get a nanny?

Employers / clients that demand or have a culture of very long hours make it difficult for anyone not able or willing to do the slog to get or continue in some jobs. People with children, people with health conditions, caring responsibilities.

I live in wealthy commuterville, lots of (well paid) men have these kind of jobs, as did their wives pre-DC. It is always, always the women who after DC do paid work PT or not at all. I only know of one man who has taken a big career "hit" (his wife was/is a high earner).

Would be interesting if large organisations published their diversity profiles, including the proportion of male/female people at each level with DC.

Exactly. I also was on nearly £50k 10 years ago. Now earn 50% of half that. Ie a decade on, I have 1/4 of the independent means i had to support self and kids, not even allowing for inflation.
I know many women in similar circs. Maybe i was naive but pre-kids, i think most people are so clueless about the reality of having kids that it would be a very rare thing to have a meaningful conversation which sets in stone who would do what re future childcare. Plus life happens! Many prople move for schools/larger houses which limits job options/lengthens commutes. How can all this be foreseen?

Do take on board the point about privilege, but a postgraduate-educated woman working for a low wage (TA?) because it is the only thing that will fit in with her family's needs is still a woman on a low wage. The route there is different, but she has still ended up in the same place.

I had been paid £50k before maternity leave but I was still shocked at the limited options and poor rates of pay available to me once I no longer wished to work 60 hours plus per week in my 'full time' role.

Privilege, whoops and sorry for other typos.

Completely take the point about financial context, earnings, assets etc (not sure about class quite though!). Guess it's a case of "check your priviledge" so yes, in my case i am a masters-educated professional with reasonable earning power with a fairly high earning spouse BUT as a woman and a sahm for several years I still have a disadvantage if we divorce. My assets earned off my own graft were considerably more than his when we married, these have all been earadicated absorbed in a series of ill-chosen moves. Yes, our doing but i no longer have access to what i had. Our assets divides are still less than i originally brought! In our case, all "our" potential is in dh's income

bigmouth I agree the class aspect is important, not a bad idea to post at all.

I grew up in a working class family, as an adult have always been low income, and so I admit I can't really relate to the whole 'gilded cage' syndrome, or when people with healthy family incomes talk about not having options. I'm not saying their feelings aren't valid, just that for me, it's literally incomprehensible.

But, I still think their problems can be very real. The way I conceptualise it is to think of a spectrum of disadvantage. A wealthy white woman might be at the more privileged end of the spectrum, with the ability to insulate herself from some aspects of sexism -- but she can never get off the spectrum completely.

Or as Basil pointed out, Obama can be at the most privileged end of his spectrum -- but there are still people doing monkey chants on the White House lawn. Unbelievable as it is, he cannot completely escape the spectrum either.

Reminds me of the pasting Naomi Campbell got when she pointed out that there is racism in the fashion industry.

Everyone was up in arms about a rich, privileged woman complaining about racism.

But she's right - the fact that she's richer and more privileged than most people in the world, doesn't alter the fact that she is less privileged than her white model peers simply because of her skin colour.

Just because you are in a privileged position vis a vis most people, doesn't mean the systemic disadvantage which affects you can be dismissed.

An even more interesting example of this is Obama. I am certain that one of the reasons his political enemies have blocked and undermined his electoral mandate on an unprecedented scale, is because they don't believe a black man really has the right to be president - they don't have the same respect for him in that role, that they would have for a white man. If Hilary Clinton ever becomes president, I think she'll suffer the same lack of respect for her because of her sex. Even the most powerful people in the world can be seriously affected by systemic disadvantage and it's just not good enough to dismiss that systemic racism/ sexism etc. because they're doing OK in one area. It's no more valid than pretending that because white people aren't subjected to racism, it doesn't matter that they're subjected to systemic class disadvantage. And tbh, it's a bit stupid.

I think the situation is very tough for SAHM women divorcing later in life - children are grown up so no CM, no pension, sketchy work history...their chances of getting a mortgage are slim to nil, but will half of the family home buy a place outright?

Yet when they were young parents all the cultural, societal and structural forces were pushing them towards being a SAHM. Even the availability of childcare was vastly different.

i do agree bigmouth that it's important to remember the privileges that come with education, class, race etc

but my understanding is that if those things are taken into account, in general it will be the women of that group who are the more vulnerable

I mean by career hungry, that you have a thirst to work. It doesn't matter in what capacity but you do. I read a thread on here about a woman who was starting to resent her husband because he wouldn't push himself into another role so she could work part-time with the children. She obviously is not wanting to work full-time for her sanity. Me on the other hand, I have to. I would feel suffocated otherwise.

Don't underestimate that a lot of men actually find it an awful pressure to be expected to go out and earn the money so his wife can look after the kids. Certainly my DH had that with his ex, and when she gave up work because she wanted to be nearer the kids they got themselves in a bit of debt. And I am sure that is when the rot set in. He resented her for making him sole earner and she resented him for not earning enough so she had to go back to work.

I remember my mother doing the same when she had to work when my dad became redundant. She never forgave him for it, like he had any choice.

Some people are happy not working at their full potential to look after their children, some people are happy in their jobs which may not be high flying but let them have some kind of work/life balance. Others want to push themselves up the ladder. Quite a lot though have no choice. But if you have the choice, then really you should be true to yourself and think about this long before you start having children. A little bit of forward thinking will save a lot of heartache.

Raising families and being married is full of hard work and compromises as well as good times and love. But you need to know which compromises you are both willing to do before you embark on the venture.

I really don't think either that once a marriage ends in divorce either party ends up better off than when they were married. Not unless one party has hid millions or is extremely well off, which is not many people. You think scraping by when married is hard, try putting a roof over your head when supporting your children. That goes for men and women. Especially if you have a mesher order on the former matrimonial home. Divorce is not a bed of roses for either party, and not all divorces happen because one person has been unfaithful. Sometimes it's a both-to-blame situation. I don't want to drag feckless fathers into this either because most men would not want to see their children go without.

Personally I feel people don't communicate enough. We should also educate our sons and daughters that being the breadwinner or caring for children is not anything to do with your gender. And hopefully these internal assumptions will die out and our children will not feel under pressure to be or do something they don't feel comfortable with.

bigmouth, class is important, you're right. Though I don't think MC women are less likely to be financially abused by partners than working class women.

As it happens, I was thinking last night after I'd gone to bed that my post was very MC-centric. But the long hours issue is an issue for almost all parents, just for different reasons - if you're on NMW you can't earn enough to live on in 35 hours a week, unless you live in a very cheap area, so you end up taking a second job and don't see enough of the children.

captainproton, there are plenty of people who want to work and value their jobs, but aren't "career hungry", whatever that means. I love my work, I wouldn't want to be the SAHP. I have no guilt about working. It doesn't mean I want to work 60 hours a week or that I'm focused on zooming up the ladder. I want interesting work, decent pay and the chance to get home for bedtime some days of the week. I think lots of parents, male and female, want that.

I strongly believe that before you get married you should have the, 'do we want kids,' talk. I also believe that you should have the, 'who is going to be the main carer,' chat.

I've been engaged 3 times and married DH because he was happy to take 6 months paternity leave, change his role to family friendly hours, and we do 50pct of the childcare between us.

My ex partners had me pigeon-holed as mummy/wifey at home and that is just not me.

To be fair my father was the parent who I remember being there for me the most owing to my mum being an alcoholic so I always knew that children can form equally and if not stronger bonds with their fathers.

I am DH'S second wife, his first gave up her city job to be sahm and then a teaching assistant. She ran off with a co-worker, she kept the house, car, and children because she was the main carer. DH ended up on his brother's sofa bed for 2 years fighting for a decent settlement and contact schedule.

I think MN needs to stop generalising that it's the poor SAHM who always get abandoned by their toe-rag city boy husbands.

Anyway DH has no contact with the step-children he provided for for 11 years and eow contact with his son.

It's precisely because of this that he wanted to be active in raising our children. If we split up we would raise the children 50/50 because that is what they are used to.

DH is also 15 yrs older than me and it didn't take a genius to realise that I've got a greater career potential than him. He's passed the mid-way point now and on the descent towards the path to retirement.

So if you want a bloke to be hands on dad and not the sort to put career at the top of their priorities, because you both can't do it, then stop searching for the alpha male our mothers and grandmothers sort out and cast your glances at mr average job.

You really can't keep blaming men for everything, you are either an alpha personality (a born leader and career hungry) or you are not. I just can't see how a marriage between 2 alpha types, with children and for them to decide one parent MUST stay at home/ career sacrifice for the kids is going to work. Your only option is to get a nanny and ignore any guilt you may have at not being there for your kids.

I suppose, actually, people in general. We all talk out of our backsides, but I suppose the issue is how much people acknowledge it; the more committed someone is to something, the more they seem to convince themselves that they are immune from distorting things to suit themselves. Big fish small ponds too... And whilst I'm at it, yes, it annoys me that the privileges of respective genders are talked about ad nauseam with barely a nod to the issue of money, which has far more of a bearing. People waffling on about their six-figure salaries and calling themselves victims of the system.

What I find interesting about this entire issue and this discussion is the class aspect, there are entire communities where the relative earning potential of either person in a relationship is a moot point. In areas of social and economic deprivation in a family - the woman may well bring in more income and control the outgoings. They is little stability and if a relationship breaks down the partner who leaves may well be worse off in terms of housing and eligibility for benefits than the partner who retains custody of the children.

The issue of articulate, well educated MC women not reaching their full earning potential just doesn't fire me up the way that poverty, deprivation and low expectations in entire communities does - which probably why I will always identify as a socialist before I do as a feminist, though they are both important to my interpretation of the world.

sorry to butt in and meander off topic - I am tired and have spent my entire evening detoxing my laptop - bad mood post - probably a vv bad idea.

Who exactly is bullshitting monty? People in general? Feminists in general? Feminists who post on MN specifically?

I just have a strong aversion to bullshit. We come up with all these things that society isn't supposed to say or do and then do it ourselves. There's no consistency. We moan about privilege and entitlement and yet have an academic elite that consider themselves above challenge or accountability and sneer at newcomers and juniors like in an Enid Blyton sixth form. It's a joke.