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

"I agree there are loads of women who are delighted to become SAHMs, but there's plenty who have become SAHMs (or gone part time, or taken a less demanding job) because that works best for the family even though it's not their personal ideal. Can we have that engraved in three foot lettering and hung somewhere prominent?"

Of course, provided that we can engrave in the same place that there are plenty of people who have become the major wage earner because that works best for the family even though it's not their personal ideal either.

I think about this a lot. My parents just divorced after 30yrs. When they met & had me my mum was a temporary contract academic & my dad was a doctor. Guess whose career rocketed during the course of their marriage & 3 kids? Fortunately my mum is entitled to half of my dad's generous pension, & there is no way my dad would have made the name for himself that he has if my mum hadn't been there managing the home (she never worked full time again except one year when I was about 8).

I have just resigned my job because it is not financially or logistically viable as a family for me to continue. DH has 3 x my earning potential in the next 3 years & around 4/5 times in the future. However, if we divorce 5 years later I will be 35, kids in tow, a patchy work history & an ex husband who is only where he is because I was at home.

So, yes, I would like to see this sort of situation taken into account in the divorce courts.

interesting bill and mini, and at that age too if you did decide to look around for another job you might find yourself up against some misogynist employers avoiding hiring women who might be looking to start a family and taking maternity leave fairly soon. so your options for moving around may become more restricted by that assumption

i am 28, in a long-term relationship though not married and don't yet have children. i've been told explicitly (in social situations, not professional) by men running businesses that they wouldn't hire me based on my age

...point of maternity leave to influence the decision about who goes part time.

"But also why they choose partners who earn more. The connection between those two things is quite interesting too."

The mean age gap at first marriage has been decreasing over time and is now around 1.9 years.

However, your 20s when most people are pre kids is probably the time of sharpest rises in salary for "career" jobs as people do a few years here, move for a better offer, complete training, are free to travel etc.

Women start thinking probably a year before TTC whether to stick where they are and start or make one last move and delay a year or so. Men don't.

So even a small age gap and the above perception gap can lead to a couple working at the same salary when they started out being different enough at the po

"I just find it odd that anyone would actively prefer to dump their kids at a nursery so they can spend 8 hours sitting at a computer. There always seems a presumption in this discussion that work's a privilege while being a housewife is the essence of martyrdom."

If you're referencing Xenia with this, she certainly adopts a view at the far end of the spectrum.

Your use of "dump" puts you at the other end of that spectrum.

Squizitia do you also get comments about your DH being 'under your thumb'? Because choosing to be the lower earner is obviously not something a 'real' man would do voluntarily

But also why they choose partners who earn more. The connection between those two things is quite interesting too.

There is a bizarre amount of prejudice out there about this. I can see why many women wouldn't consider it having never had it presented as 'normal'. DH and I met as students/casual work aged about 21.

Since then, I've ended up earning more: the reactions have sometimes be mortifying. From claiming DH is a 'failure' (perfectly good job, I'm just a machine at work LOL ...not really, but I happen to have made management), not a real man, to calling me unromantic and unnatural ("don't you want someone you can look up to?" Erm I want someone who I respect not just for their wallet, there's more to life ), to suggesting he's homosexual, to out and out laughing.

This is from middle-class left wing 'open minded' people at odd moments.

I agree there are loads of women who are delighted to become SAHMs, but there's plenty who have become SAHMs (or gone part time, or taken a less demanding job) because that works best for the family even though it's not their personal ideal.

Can we have that engraved in three foot lettering and hung somewhere prominent?

Please

When I had DD it was DH who, despite earning (slightly) more than me who took on the full time carer job. While from my career perspective it was great, I've gained another degree and diversified during the years he was a SHAD, I also had to factor into the equation the risk of the relationship ending. If that happened I had to accept that, as the main carer it was likely that he would end up with DD spending most of her time with him, he would end up with the property and I would miss out in terms of time with my child and my established home.

Fortunately that didn't happen and he's gone back to work though in a reduced role. He's the one who gets to go to the school plays and recitals while I can rarely manage to get away in time.

Certainly with me, the main reason I earned less than dp at the time was pregnant was that I was 6 years younger (we work in the same field).

But beyond that i had a very strong drive to be at home with the children when they were babies (I did go back to work full time after ds1 whilst dh and my mum covered child care and hated every minute of it). I don't feel entitled to be compensated for something that was fundamentally my choice (although have always made sure that a proprtion of savings/the car etc were in my name).

You can ask why women earn less. But also why they choose partners who earn more. The connection between those two things is quite interesting too.

Agree at looking at women's wages and why women generally earn less (although I think some of that is the age imbalance between couples- eg even if you were on exactly the same career path if DH is 4 years ahead of DW then he will be earning more- and there is often an age imbalance) - But even if things were equal before children maternity leave itself causes problems - a year or even 6months out would put an equal earning woman behind in terms of career - a couple of children and you would be two years behind;

This is a vicious cycle, though, isn't it? One of the reasons women earn less than men and find it harder to get hired even before having children is because it is expected that they will have less long-term commitment to their jobs once they start a family. So they earn less, and the decision is made when they do have kids that they will be the SAHP/work PT. Which just reinforces the whole notion that women are less committed to their work in the long run, enabling lower pay.

The only solution I can see is to enforce a 50:50 split or for it to be the man who becomes the primary career, regardless of income.

Maybe my views are coloured by finding work a financially-necessary chore rather than some wonderful opportunity. I just find it odd that anyone would actively prefer to dump their kids at a nursery so they can spend 8 hours sitting at a computer. There always seems a presumption in this discussion that work's a privilege while being a housewife is the essence of martyrdom.

I'm a sahm now. Was City worker. At the peak of my career I earnt half of dh. On no practical sense was it viable for me to return and him be at home. I requested all pat rights. Refused. Appealed, success, then redundant. Imagine my surprise....!

My role required 8-8 min hrs, no overtime pay but ot expected, blackberry all hours. It was impossible to do. And effectively, regardless of rank my job boiled down to admin of a variety. Just office crappola. Returning to the pre mat leave firm made sense. Sourcing a new corporate for it to be the same was in our view insane.

So I'm sahm. I wonder similar stuff op. Unless you find a feminist knowledgeable lawyer I guess we would be fucked....

Yes to looking at womens wages and maternity leave.

Monty, if that was at me, my point was that your statement was a massive generalisation.

That's a great point, Peter. I have seen probably hundreds of threads on here with the line, 'DH had more earning potential so we decided I would be the one to stay home with the kids'.

Obviously many women love being SAHM but many others are doing so purely on the basis of this very simplistic financial calculation.

I think it's much more fair for both parents to take a hit -- and in some ways, even sensible, because then the family will be better off in case of redundancy or divorce or death (i.e., won't depend on just one breadwinner).

Of course, making childcare actually affordable would go a long way to improving women's choices as well. I live in a country now where we pay practically nothing for FT childcare, it makes a huge difference.

I don't think DavidJr's analogoy to time with children is relevent.

The idea of compensating for lost earnings on divorce isn't about compensating for the earnings that were not earned during the time you are married and looking after the kids instead of concentrating on a career, but for the earning potential you now cannot recover in order to provide for yourself once you are divorced.

When it comes to time with children - someone who has "missed out" on the "delightful" younger years will have "missed out" on the same thing whether they divorce or stay married. And if they don't want extra "difficult teen" years then that's more time the financially less capable parent is going to have to spend dealing with that "difficult teen".

davidjrmum i could have written your post, particularly yesterday afternoon when I couldn't get the afternoon off for DS' sports day. We had intended to both go part time, 4 days a week, but DH had a hellish commute (120 miles a day) as we moved house to be near to my job and he couldn't get a job nearer home and my request for reduced hours on return from maternity leave was turned down so I got stuck with the full time work. DH has no intention of ever returning to full time work (we discussed it if we moved back to where he works as it would give me more flexibility to find a job over there) as he'll be nearing retirement age when DS leaves school.

Maybe your question needs to be about why these woman are the lower earners in the first place, so there's less of an impact on the family income if they go part time, rather on why they take on the childcare.

All men with SAHP would rather go to work than stay at home with their kids? As a statement that's as valid as 'All women want to be SAHMs rather than go to work". What generalising bollocks.

It is tricky- DP is a p/ul t SAHD and although it does make it easier for us in many ways thats not the reason he is doing it - I would be perfectly happy if he got a job. I would be really resentful if I had to compensate him/pay for him to continue in his life style if we splt up - he has chosen to stop working - i haven't objected- but he hasn't lost out on anything. We're not married so it would be a less likely scenario but I do have emails on record where I tell him that i would be fine with him working its his decisions etc!
So I guess what I am saying is that it depends on the situation