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:
museumum · 09/07/2014 13:14

I believe there's such a thing as a 'post-nuptual agreement' - I dont' think they're enforceable in english law but i think they are taken into consideration.

Personally we decided that despite it probably being better financially for me to compromise my career entirely and dh not at all, it was important for us to both participate so we have chosen to both take a bit of a hit. I believe in choice in all matters regarding family life but I think you have to take some of the pitfalls of choosing for one person to take all the career hits rather than sharing them. Just as those who share the drops/pick-ups etc take the pitfalls of that approach.

MontyGlee · 09/07/2014 13:13

I don't disagree minipie... but 'personal ideal' is something that's beyond most people's reach anyway. Ok, if you love your job and earn shed-loads, then whoopy-doo. But what relevance does that have for most people? Children require compromises. Full stop. I get a bit irate when we start talking about 'having it all' because that implies compromises don't have to be made. That's just not life though - unless you're the 1%.

This is off-thread, though. Clearly when a couple separate, historical sacrifices should be considered in terms of settlement.

Original poster
minipie · 09/07/2014 13:09

Food for thought davidjr.

I guess I am envisaging a main breadwinner parent who doesn't actually mind having seen less of his/her children when young (my DH is quite up front that he wouldn't want to be the main childcarer) whereas you clearly do mind. Not sure how you would be compensated for emotional distress though. How do you put a value on being home for bedtime?

OP posts:
Original poster
minipie · 09/07/2014 13:05

All the men with SAHPs... and me... I am much happier at work than being a SAHM!

OP posts:
davidjrmum · 09/07/2014 13:04

"In theory the way to compensate for that would be for any hypothetical "agreement" to say that in the event of a split, the main earning partner should have more time with DC than the courts might award (in the same way that the main childcaring partner should have more money than the courts might award). "

I'm not sure that getting to spend more time with your possibly now older and difficult teen is necessarily much compensation for missing the delights of seeing them more when they are younger!

I've been the one going to work for the last 15 years and my dh has been the sahd. As there is virtually no likelihood of dh recovering his previous earning potential I'm basically stuck being the main breadwinner whether I like it or not. If my dh would be entitled to compensation for lack of earnings then I'd like to be compensated for emotional distress at missing out on key events in my dc lives and for all the times I've been stuck in a job I hate because my family is depending on my income.

BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure · 09/07/2014 13:03

"Who wouldn't rather stay with their kids? You don't get that time back."

Well, all the men with SAHPs on this "finance blind" plan!

Original poster
minipie · 09/07/2014 12:58

Monty hmm I don't know.

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.

For example, all the women who are not able to go back to work because their salary doesn't cover childcare - that is a family decision in the sense that, as a family, they could afford to pay the childcare, but they would be worse off. So the woman has given up her earnings in order to make the family as a whole better off.

At the other end of the earnings scale, high earning women who like their careers and don't particularly want to be the primary childcarer, would prefer to do things 50/50, but have ended up accepting more of an 80/20 split with them as the main childcarer, because they earn less and/or because their job is more flexible and/or because as a woman they feel more able to ask for flexible working.

OP posts:
Original poster
minipie · 09/07/2014 12:47

Yes I see that bluegrass. In theory the way to compensate for that would be for any hypothetical "agreement" to say that in the event of a split, the main earning partner should have more time with DC than the courts might award (in the same way that the main childcaring partner should have more money than the courts might award).

The difficulty with this solution is that time with DC isn't an impersonal "benefit" in the same way money is - the DC's interests come first and it may (in some cases) be in their best interests to spend most of their time with one parent.

Or I suppose you could compensate with money but there's something rather grim about putting a money value on time with DC.

OP posts:
MontyGlee · 09/07/2014 12:46

I've seen this dilemma a lot and, with very few exceptions, there hasn't really been a 'family decision' as the mother is the one that feels strongest about wanting to be with her child. I've seen very few decisions made on financial / pratical bases; (if financially viable) the mother stays at home because that's what she wants to do. Maybe there's some wonderful jobs out there where people just love to go to work every day, but I've not come across many of them. Who wouldn't rather stay with their kids? You don't get that time back.

Bluegrass · 09/07/2014 12:34

Looking at it from the other angle, one partner (of either sex) agrees to give up time they could have spent with their children to focus on earning for the family. On divorce they may still get to spend much less time with their children as they gave up the right to be considered the primary carer.

They too may feel they have suffered a loss, a loss of time with their family that they can never get back. Should that not be taken into account as well? Otherwise the "cost" of one person's choice could end up being compensated, but not the other's, even though the sacrifice may feel just as real to them.

Primrose123 · 09/07/2014 12:21

I've been thinking about this lately OP, we must have read the same thread!

Like you, I am not expecting split up, but I did sacrifice a few years to stay home with the children. While this was completely my choice, I wasn't aware of how difficult it would be to go back to work, and now DH has a much higher earning potential than I do, and I don't think I could ever catch up. I used to have a good job, but any time not working seems to mean that I could only look at basic admin jobs, despite the fact that this is not what I did pre-children. I ended up retraining as a teacher and start a new job soon. It took a few years to train and then actually find a job though. I was lucky that DH could support me financially through that, though it hasn't been easy.

I agree that this should be taken into account, but I don't have any suggestions about how we should go about it.

Original poster
minipie · 09/07/2014 12:10

Thanks Lurcio. I agree - it's about compensation not alimony per se.

At present I believe the divorce courts don't approach it that way. So I'm wondering how a woman (or indeed a man in the same position) would ensure she does get that compensation?

OP posts:
LurcioAgain · 09/07/2014 11:54

I have long thought that while alimony is wrong (rooted in a 1950s idea that women had no independent financial life, but took on marriage as a "career" and hence needed an income if the marriage failed), compensation for lost earnings is absolutely justified - and already done in other parts of law (e.g. where someone is disabled in a workplace accident).