Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

138 replies

minipie · 09/07/2014 11:50

Bear with me, this is rather long winded. Inspired by a recent thread on the divorce/separation board.

Ok, so DH and I are both in jobs involving long hours. When we had DD it was clear that either one or both of us was going to have to take our work down a notch in order to do pick ups/ensure DD saw a parent at bedtime (we both agreed this was important).

Financially, it was much better for us as a family for only one of us to take a large step down and do most of the pick ups/bedtimes etc, with the other staying full time, rather than both of us take a smaller step down and do 50% bedtimes each.

I earn less. Mainly for this reason, it was me who went part time, reducing my earnings and shelving any promotion prospects, and DH who carried on full time climbing the promotion ladder.

Fast forward a few years and I can see that my career/earning power will be stagnant at best, while DH's will have gone from strength to strength.

If we stay together, that's all well and good. But what if we split? What if DH decides to waltz off into the sunset (BTW I have absolutely no reason to think this will happen but then nobody ever does, right?)

I gather there is no right to spousal maintenance any more. Ex wives are expected to support themselves, by and large. Therefore, if we split, there will be no recompense for the fact that I buggered my future earnings potential to look after our child, and DH did not.

This of course applies not just to me but to millions of women who take on the "main childcarer" role at the expense of their earnings - especially those who become SAHMs.

I kind of feel I should get some sort of acknowledgement/agreement from DH that I am compromising my future earnings in this way - ideally, I would get an agreement that he will make some sort of recompense to me if we do split. (I have no idea if this would even be enforceable mind you). DH on the other hand is pretty horrified by the idea - he agrees in principle, but hates the idea of having these sorts of legalistic/antagonistic discussions with his DW. I can see his point.

So, has anyone else considered this? Anyone else tried to protect themselves somehow from the long term effects of going part time/becoming a SAHM - in the event of a split? Or is the only true protection to ensure both parents do 50% childcare and take equal knocks to their earnings/career?

Thoughts?

OP posts:
Original poster
minipie · 09/07/2014 19:29

don't even give their DH a choice that does surprise me - I would have thought the DH would have to agree to support the family financially before the DW could give up work. Surely all these things have to be a joint decision?

I agree this thread only really applies to mothers (or fathers) who have reluctantly had to stop/cut down their work in order to ensure the children are taken care of. It doesn't apply to those who were delighted to become SAHPs and wouldn't have wanted to work anyway. But there are more of the former than you seem to think monty?

You're right that there may be more reluctant WOH dads than we think. Maybe lots of them are just itching to be SAHDs. I know my DH isn't though. He's quite happy with his lot - job he mostly enjoys, no pressure to get home to do pick ups, fun time with DC at the weekends.

OP posts:
PetulaGordino · 09/07/2014 19:28

but it's socialisation isn't it

we are socialised to value paid work above unpaid work, so paid work in general has a much higher status (unless of course it's a traditional woman's role such as care work)

SwiftRelease · 09/07/2014 19:28

Monty as you freely admit, you're not a parent so i dont feel you can compare the 2 experiences. For me, childcare is a chore, my job often deeply satisfying. I am not alone. I felt duty bound to be there for my kids, like many mums

AmberTheCat · 09/07/2014 19:23

I think part of the answer to the broader question is for employers to think less rigidly about working hours and patterns. If more employers were willing to enable their staff to reduce their hours without reducing their status (though obviously they'd take a hit on pay), more families would be able to achieve a better balance of work and childcare for both parents.

MontyGlee · 09/07/2014 19:21

We don't know mimipie. That's my point - we're saying blah blah blah about it when most of the mothers I know feel they want to be mothers first and workers second and don't even give their DH a choice. Meanwhile, I'm sitting here hating work and wishing I had a DH with a big fecking career that would give me the option to give it up. Yes, I accept the obvious point that I'd be a bit screwed if he then buggered off, but, to me, spending all that time with your kids is a huge privilege and people come on here saying it's an appalling chore and we should all feel sorry for the sacrifice they've made. Maybe you all know super-dooper bankers and rock stars or something, but for most people it's work that's the chore.

CrotchMaven · 09/07/2014 19:20

Monty, you jest. But that is still higher status in their eyes. Or, rather, perhaps in the eyes of their peers.

I do often wonder if mners (not just in fwr) actually know any men or listen to and observe them.

SwiftRelease · 09/07/2014 19:19

Indeed but they also get hugely pebalised for what were joint decisions re parenting. I for one had no idea that i seemingly have no right to %age share of dh's earnings as recompense for the years I've had out/working p'art-time looking after OUR kids. Genuinely think many other women are similarly clueless, it's not talked about as a risk!

PetulaGordino · 09/07/2014 19:14

i don't have children so accept that this may not be valid as an observation, but my impression from posts on here and comments in RL from sahp is that they often feel that it is the wohp who gets more of the "fun" time with the children, whereas they do much more of the daily grind gruntwork of parenting

so there may be arguments to be had about who is missing out on what

melissa83 · 09/07/2014 19:11

Its why I picked dh. I want a big family as does he but people like me arent meant to be at home and do the wifey stuff. I leave it to dh more as I like working and Im not really in to all the cooking or that type of thing. We have been able to both work with a couple of children but want 4/5 so dh is looking after them whereas I feel Iget the best of both worlds.

Original poster
minipie · 09/07/2014 19:11

Seriously Monty, if all the main breadwinner fathers out there were offered the option of being the SAHD or main childcarer, while their DW/DP worked full time, how many of them do you really think would take up the option?

I know some would but suspect not that many.

OP posts:
SwiftRelease · 09/07/2014 19:09

All those guys with status, money AND kids!

MontyGlee · 09/07/2014 19:01

All those guys fulfilling their childhood dreams of being an insurance salesman or senior spreadsheet compiler...

CrotchMaven · 09/07/2014 18:45

I think a lot of you are being very charitable. I know very few sahds and very few fathers who would be interested. Their identity is derived from the paid work they do, along with being a family man, as far as it goes in traditional terms. Albeit, being more involved than their fathers were. They are no mugs! I used to say that sahms allowed the father to continue their career. I don't now-sahms allow a man to be a father, with all the "normality" that brings, along with the career they would have followed if they were childless. Except they often do less of their own personal work.

BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure · 09/07/2014 17:40

Good point trapper.

BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure · 09/07/2014 17:40

One of the problems is that if the main earner is paying maintenance and running a new flat/house, there may not be much extra money for extra settlement.

Trapper · 09/07/2014 17:39

Mind you, the children won't be at home for ever, whereas the loss of earning potential will be long term. I was thinking of my position with a 2 and 3yo. But the SAHP of an 18 yo would be very much the worse off.

SwiftRelease · 09/07/2014 17:37

Isnt it a double- whammy? The mother's take a hit, the father is enabled to advance in his career with little/any regard for childcare. Obviously there are exceptions but dh &i are like this as are most of those around us. Our marriage is rocky, may well not continue. I suffer the consequences financially of OUR choices- having to move out etc, he doesn't in any appreciable way as high enough earner for child maintenance alone to have little effect.

PetulaGordino · 09/07/2014 17:34

i wonder whether something could be built into the financial settlement stuff for "retraining/career development" or something for the sahp? something that would cover refresher courses, tuition fees, apprenticeships, plus the necessary childcare etc that would better enable that parent to get back into the jobs market at a higher level more quickly

obviously it wouldn't completely level the playing field, but it might help?

ElizabethMedora · 09/07/2014 17:33

Yes exactly minipie. My situation is slightly different in that we had DC1 when I was 24 & studying for an MA, & DH was 26 & studying graduate medicine. & then it all defaulted from there - his earning potential higher, his career demanding in terms of hours & extremely inflexible in terms of location etc. But his career has continued as if he had not had a child in his mid twenties whereas mine has gone irrevocably off track. I have just resigned from my graduate scheme because it is incompatible with his job... Ho hum.

Original poster
minipie · 09/07/2014 17:31

Trapper that's true. I hadn't really thought about that - probably because I suspect my DH would be perfectly happy not to have custody (he is already used to being a "weekend dad" in many ways).

OP posts:
BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure · 09/07/2014 17:30

Trapper, indeed. Although that will vary with age of child and if child is old enough to express a view.

All arrangements should be regardless of "blame" anyway.

Original poster
minipie · 09/07/2014 17:28

Yes Elizabethe I have heard that spousal maintenance is still occasionally given and it tends to be to women like your DM ie long term SAHMs who are divorced late in life and have no real hope of supporting themselves. However women (or rather spouses) who are younger and can earn are expected to support themselves. There's no recognition of a middle position ie. "yes you can earn but your earnings are much lower due to having been the main childcarer, therefore you should get a top up".

OP posts:
Trapper · 09/07/2014 17:22

The working parent in these situations is also taking a risk. If the relationship ends in divorce they are unlikely to get custody of their children - regardless of blame.

Original poster
minipie · 09/07/2014 17:22

david I am still thinking about your point. It's pretty obvious how to recompense someone who has reluctantly decided, for the good of the family, to work less and reduce their earnings potential (you pay them money). I can't think of a good way to recompense someone who has reluctantly decided, for the good of the family, to work more and see less of their young DC. Any ideas?

Or do you think the appropriate recompense is the greater earnings potential, ie they should not have to make any payment to the childcaring partner?

OP posts:
ElizabethMedora · 09/07/2014 17:21

They haven't been to court - all agreed amicably. The solicitor did suggest my mum pursued my dad for some of his current earnings as he is still working but my mum felt that wasn't necessary. However I get the impression that was because she is 62 now & can't exactly go out & get a high paid job all of a sudden.