Is this another way women are inadvertently disadvantaging themselves at work?

[LooseMooseHoose]

I keep reading on various threads on MN that an OP's partner cannot possibly help out because they are more senior at work, are paid more and therefore their job is more important and the family must do anything (ie OP pick up all the slack) to avoid him potentially loosing his job. But is this just yet another way women are being conditioned to continue as primary carer and housekeeper?

Sheryl Sandberg's quote of "don't leave before you leave" really resonates with me, part of the idea being that as you move further up the career ladder, you have more flexibility. People will reschedule meetings for the most senior invitee, they will accept a senior person starting an hour later because of unforseen circumstances. Or indeed accept a short-term dip in performance and availability due to a global pandemic affecting childcare..!

But both the previous paragraphs cannot be true. I accept some men (and women!) will have jobs where this simply does not apply. But I can't help thinking that the average manager-bloke in the office, has much more flexibility than either they believe, or allow their wives to believe?

@OhDear2200

What if a mother wants to spend time with their children when they are young? Is that bad?

My mum went back to full time work when I was 5, I went to wrap around care for most of my primary and I hated it. I don’t want that for my kids (a personal choice not a judgment on others) and wanted to be with them.

Why is that seen as negative?

What if a father wants to spend time with his children when they are young?

If the mother chooses to spend time with the children, it's not 'good' or 'bad' - but it's choice with consequences. Usually that her career falls behind.

We can't keep complaining about the pay gap between the sexes, yet go on and on making decisions that perpetuate it. It's not the 1970s anymore - we have choices now.

£100+ salary, senior management, there's not much flexibility except working from home, you have to always be available.

Depends on the job, industry.

Also if you have a lot of employers where the senior people with children are mostly unaffected by homeschooling, it’s going to filter through the whole culture. “I don’t see why we need to offer any more flexibility for working parents, Dan and Stan and Barry all have primary-aged children and they’re all putting in a full day’s work, what’s the issue?”

(full disclosure, DH did more of the childcare/homeschooling than me in Lockdown 1 because of my Very Important Job. But I still did a lot of it, I didn’t shut myself away upstairs all day every day and let him take the hit.)

I’m not so sure it’s about earning capacity.

30+ employees in my company. Quite flat in terms of hierarchical and salary structure. Maybe 50% parents - probably more women are higher earners. It’s the women who are struggling with the homeschooling and childcare, not the equal in status and salary men.

[quote BumbleBiscuit]**@SomewhatBored* While woman choose to enjoy the lifestyle offered by a husband's higher salary rather than focusing on building their own careers, nothing will ever change*

THIS! Women are themselves to blame for their position in life![/quote]
I think this single sentence might be the most offensive thing I've ever seen on MN that (probably) doesn't break talk guidelines.

I'm the main earner. DH used to be, but wanted to be a SAHD. I was all for it. Until the baby arrived. Health Visitor insisted on only visiting if I was home, wouldn't speak to him, other services wouldn't acknowledge that he was the main caregiver. PILs keep asking DH when he's going to get a job and seem to think he's unemployed (he's actually working part-time too) because the whole concept of him being a stay-at-home-dad is wasted on them. It's been really frustrating for both of us trying to cut through all those stupid preconceptions.
Of course I enjoyed us having some money in life from when we were both working, but WTF, why, WHY does the man need to be the main earner? Both the above comments just show how people assume women are a) paid less and b) have no ambition.
Fuck that shit with a ten foot barbed wire cactus, I want a career.

While woman choose to enjoy the lifestyle offered by a husband's higher salary rather than focusing on building their own careers, nothing will ever change.

I'm sorry, I have to agree with this. As a woman that does have a career, always kept working outside of maternity leaves and now is the higher earner - the struggle to get here was always against perceptions based on the above statement - because it was "the norm"

Is changing now and I really hope it will no longer be seen as the norm in younger generations.

Dh was at every sports day, every parents evening bar 1, every nativity, every school play

He sometimes had to answer the phone but he tried his hardest to be there for everything

He was also good at being around to take the children places for events, couldn’t do everything but he tried

But conversely emergencies would be difficult sometimes as he couldn’t get out of some meetings

So the higher he got the more flexible...with notice...he could be

@OhDear2200

What if a mother wants to spend time with their children when they are young? Is that bad?

My mum went back to full time work when I was 5, I went to wrap around care for most of my primary and I hated it. I don’t want that for my kids (a personal choice not a judgment on others) and wanted to be with them.

Why is that seen as negative?

I’m sorry you need to expand? A negative by who?

Your husband? Your family.? Your friends?

I think the men have to want to change, DH has done most of the homeschooling here and is sorting out DS2s nursery place for after lockdown. He earns 3x what I do and works more hours (but his job is more flexible).

In return, I think about some of the 'stereotypically male' stuff to...like our finances.

OhDear2200 What if your DC want something different, DS1 nags us to go to afterschool club (when the school were open!) even though we could get by without it.

@WalrusWife

DH is a middle ranking military officer. His work does comes first. If he is moved to the other end of the county, I have to leave my job and go with him. I’m civil service so I can easily apply for internal jobs. He earns around twice what I earn.

There is no “have to” it’s personal choice. Your post would say if he moved, I would choose to move with him. Pretending it’s not a personal choice doesn’t make it not one. Plenty of military wives don’t move with their husbands.

It was purely a matter of economics who stayed at home with the children when I had them - my DH literally grieved going back to work and leaving them but he was the higher earner and therefore his wages paid the bills. He would’ve stayed at home (and loved it) if the roles were reversed

This is exactly the choice I am talking about. 'His wages paid the bills' - OK. How were you paying your bills before you met your husband? What's changed that you couldn't have gone on paying them while your husband stayed at home?

Yes, this might have involved a drop in your lifestyle - and that's what I'm talking about. Women choose to build a lifestyle on the basis of their higher-earning male partner's wages - and nothing ever changes, the cycle continues.

Of course there are exceptions. I am one myself in a way - I am significantly the higher earner in my marriage, but then I don't have children.

@Wearywithteens

It was purely a matter of economics who stayed at home with the children when I had them - my DH literally grieved going back to work and leaving them but he was the higher earner and therefore his wages paid the bills. He would’ve stayed at home (and loved it) if the roles were reversed.

I do think however, that women are the last people who want to discuss increased parental rights for men and many people inherently believe the female is the ‘natural’ primary parent.

Many women are more than happy with this status quo so it does make me raise an eyebrow when they complain, through the prism of the pandemic, that all the shit falls to them and men get off Scott free! Women really are their own worst enemy sometimes. This social media driven competition of being the perfect mother, housemaker and all round domestic goddess really has fucked it up for both women and men. Raising a family should be a partnership but women have to concede some of the ‘primary parent’ role for that to happen.

Could you not afford child care between you? Is that why it was economics. You were forced to stay home?

After 16 years in the City, I chose to become a SAHM for 8 years - I was burnt out and desperately wanted to fulfil my life long ambition of being a mummy. However the reason I could do that was because I had worked my socks off for 15/16 years, owned my own house in a nice part of London and in our first few years together was able to financially support DH through his early years post pupillage. His career took off as my first career was ending.

I had the most wonderful 8 years at home, fully supported DH and took all the domestic load. I was professionally qualified at 48, but continued to take the domestic burden working locally because DH was by then earning more than 10 times my salary. But I love work as much as I loved being a SAHM.

My second career took off because I was very very reliable and always did a bit extra so I was covered if DC were ill.

@pinbinpin

While woman choose to enjoy the lifestyle offered by a husband's higher salary rather than focusing on building their own careers, nothing will ever change.

I'm sorry, I have to agree with this. As a woman that does have a career, always kept working outside of maternity leaves and now is the higher earner - the struggle to get here was always against perceptions based on the above statement - because it was "the norm"

Is changing now and I really hope it will no longer be seen as the norm in younger generations.

I only encounter people who think it’s the norm on here — the women I know in rl would never consider their careers as any less important than their spouses’.

DH outearns me multiply because, while I stayed in the field we both trained for, he switched fields completely to something entirely different almost immediately. He’s the CEO of a big organisation these days, and remains a full and equal partner in child rearing and housework. He would be taken aback if my job were not my priority.

He’s also a force for sex equality in a huge male-dominated and very traditionally macho field in that he will get up at the end of the time scheduled for a board meeting if it’s running over and say he’s picking up his child and they will continue next day. I hope he’s modelling the idea that the work of male CEOs is not invariably enabled by the economic self-sacrifice of SAHMs.

@NoOneOwnsTheRainbow we just had that argument with our HV service as well. I made it very clear to them that DP due to his compressed working hours will be the one they will be dealing with.

DP actually is the one who can walk out of his job for emergencies and his employer won't bat an eyelid. However it really depends who I'm working with whether I can do that.

Oh and half my siblings, the woman is the higher earner. In many cases this wouldn't have happened if the men hadn't taken up the slack plus were supportive and helpful when they were studying.

The problem with Sandberg is she's incredibly privileged. It's much easier to 'lean in' when you have a nanny or two, cleaners, a PA, gardener, personal shoppers etc etc. While gender pay inequality exists and a gender pay gap, women often will have to make a decision to secure their family with the higher salary than to push for a career where they'll likely lose out. It's a vicious cycle. Also academic work contradicts Sandberg's stance and the widely held belief that women are just under confident and not proactive enough
Women DO lean in and they are confidenr, they ask for better pay and promotion but they are actively excluded from senior ranks, are told 'no' when they ask for pay rises etc. It's easy to blame women, but we need to look at more systemic and interpersonal barriers.

It does depend on the type of job surely. I am nhs clinical. There is literally no flexibility in my job at all. I work part time but on the days I am at work DH picks up all of the slack with the kids. If one is sick, there is a parents evening, etc etc he deals with it. He does earn a lot more than me in a consultancy role. But he has the flexibility that goes with that so no he doesn’t use his high earning power against me and he does his share. On the days I am off he makes up for it working longer hours.

I think flexibility is more about the role you are in rather than the pay or seniority. Like a building site shuts down if the person in charge of on site safety goes home so thats not a flexible role. No one gives a stuff if you do tomorrows presentation at 8pm tonight.
I think women specifically seek out more flexible roles than men when they have dwpendent children. I dont think that is a problem. I think men should do that too.

@SomewhatBored

It was purely a matter of economics who stayed at home with the children when I had them - my DH literally grieved going back to work and leaving them but he was the higher earner and therefore his wages paid the bills. He would’ve stayed at home (and loved it) if the roles were reversed

This is exactly the choice I am talking about. 'His wages paid the bills' - OK. How were you paying your bills before you met your husband? What's changed that you couldn't have gone on paying them while your husband stayed at home?

Yes, this might have involved a drop in your lifestyle - and that's what I'm talking about. Women choose to build a lifestyle on the basis of their higher-earning male partner's wages - and nothing ever changes, the cycle continues.

Of course there are exceptions. I am one myself in a way - I am significantly the higher earner in my marriage, but then I don't have children.

No of course you don’t have children.

What changed? Probably having children, and the costs associated with that. In our case, twins, both disabled and health issues myself, not a desire for a lavish lifestyle (which we never had anyway).

What changed? Probably having children, and the costs associated with that.

Yes - so the lifestyle decision to have children has been made on the basis of the husband's higher salary. An instance of a woman not being willing to live within the lifestyle her own salary would afford, for long enough to give her the chance to progress to a better salary.

@Bluntness100, I appreciate that some military wives, or the spouses/partners of other people who have to relocate for work, do chose to live separately; but I think for most people keeping the family together is a central assumption to the life they have decided to create together - it's reasonable for @WalrusWife to feel that she has to relocate when her DH does, even if it has negative impacts in other areas of her life. My DH is a minister of religion and relocating is difficult and has impacted very negatively on the career I had, but I don't feel that a reasonable "choice" would have been to separate the family for several years at a time in order to keep my career going. For most people with young children I think living apart at opposite ends of the country would not feel like a realistic or desirable option for their family life.
Although clearly there are women in both the military and the clergy these days, it does feel that in the professions that require relocating for work it still tends to be women relocating for male spouses - and taking the career hit that this often brings - rather than vice versa.

@SomewhatBored

What changed? Probably having children, and the costs associated with that.

Yes - so the lifestyle decision to have children has been made on the basis of the husband's higher salary. An instance of a woman not being willing to live within the lifestyle her own salary would afford, for long enough to give her the chance to progress to a better salary.

What utter, utter bollocks. They may be on similar salaries - the idea that women are just rushing to get pregnant because their husband earns well is so ridiculously sexist and problematic.

You do know that a significant proportion of pregnancies are unplanned, right? And even if you establish how you will afford a child while both working, unexpected things can occur - like having multiples, having one or more disabled children, developing health issues yourself, etc etc.

These comments reek of a lack of understanding of those on lower incomes - for some people (male or female), the idea that sticking things out a bit longer means higher salaries and more flexibility in unrealistic to a large proportion of the working population. I suppose they should not be allowed to breed.