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?

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.

But @SomewhatBored, you're over-simplifying hugely here. Of course it's easier to afford to live on one salary if you don't have children. Before I met my DH I was living in a little one-bedroom flat and I didn't run a car because I could manage to live the life I needed to by using public transport. Had a chosen to stay alone I would quite happily still be managing to pay for my little one-bedroom flat life and would likely be planning to continue doing so for the rest of my life. However, now, I have a DH and two children. We couldn't fit in my little old one-bedroom flat. So yes, we have a house, with 3 bedrooms. And a car, because it's really really hard to run family life without one. It's a 16 year old car, so y'know, not exactly luxury. And no, I couldn't have afforded this on my full-time pre-children salary. But the point is as a childfree person I didn't need to. I do feel that saying that women are "choosing to build a lifestyle on the basis of their higher-earning male partner's wages" is quite a women-hating thing to say and to imply that it's "lifestyle" i.e. frivolous, rather than necessity, just misses the blindingly obvious fact that having children results in higher living costs than not having children.

And no, I couldn't have afforded this on my full-time pre-children salary. But the point is as a childfree person I didn't need to. I do feel that saying that women are "choosing to build a lifestyle on the basis of their higher-earning male partner's wages" is quite a women-hating thing to say and to imply that it's "lifestyle" i.e. frivolous, rather than necessity, just misses the blindingly obvious fact that having children results in higher living costs than not having children.

It doesn't miss the point. Suppose your DH had been on the same salary as you - what would you have done? Not had children? Perhaps had just the one child so you wouldn't need a 3 bedroom house? You have chosen your lifestyle on the basis of the higher of your two salaries, not the lower one. Which is understandable, but while it keeps happening, nothing will change.

As a military wife, I don’t see the point in being married to somebody and not moving around with them and having a daughter who doesn’t see her dad. It’s not helped my career but then I’m not particularly career focused. The military does come before my job. If my husband deployed, I would have to pick up any slack at home as he can hardly refuse to go!

I don’t think I’m hard done by, we have a nice lifestyle but his career does come first. It has to.

@OhDear2200 it's just fundamentally unfair isn't it. I feel women always have to compromise and it keeps them in relationships, jobs, locations that aren't necessarily the best for them, but best for their children, husbands etc.
It's the myth of being able to 'have it all' .

Surely it depends on the job. Most slt in teaching seem to live at school. Def no flexibility there. A number of people who end up hods before kids tend to step down after, but I accept that hod is probably the worst role of all. I only started climbing again once the kids could fend for themselves.

Why do families not split the parent at home more 50/50? Whenever a woman (and it is always a woman) says "we thought it was important to have a parent at home" I always mentally rephrase this as "we thought it was important to have a parent at home and I was happy to give up my career and let my husband pay for everything"
In my experience this is very frequently spot on. Quite a lot of women aspire to that lifestyle.

DP earns twice what I do. During the first lockdown he did a couple of hours home schooling each day, took over evening meals for dc (previously only did 2 x week) and carried on doing his bit of the housework. But the home school was definitely under the radar with work. He would tell people he had another call to take / meeting to attend so he could do it. It was just assumed at his work that the wife would sort it.

I do think there is a sweet spot at management. I currently have 80-90% control of my diary. I arrange meetings so I choose a time that works for me, write the agenda and make sure it's efficient. My boss is due to retire soon and I've decided not to go for her job as her meetings are mostly with people senior to her, on a subject of their choice.

@Didyousaynutella

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.

This.

There are times when dh has earnt more and times when I have but his job has on the whole had a lot less flexibility.

In my office based job as long as invoices are types, payroll processed and various accounting procedures carried out by the deadline it doesn’t really matter what hours I did.

Whereas dh would leave a class full of students with no teacher and couldn’t reschedule a lesson or work late to make up.

@SomewhatBored at the point we decided to start trying for children I was earning 3 times as much as DH, not because I was particularly well paid but because he was in a notoriously low-paid precarious freelance profession where periods of non-work are the norm.
We discussed for 2 years whether we should have children - largely but not solely for economic reasons - and if we'd been earning any less, yes, we would have decided not too. Until our 2nd dc came along I was still the higher earner. Circumstances subsequently changed that around for us. But that wasn't my point. You were saying that if someone could afford their life on one salary pre-children they should be able to post-children. But it just doesn't work like that. Even when living frugally/sensibly children still greatly increase your outgoings, so saying "How were you paying your bills before you met your husband" might be relevant in the case of a couple with no children but it's irrelevant once children are in the mix.

Even when living frugally/sensibly children still greatly increase your outgoings, so saying "How were you paying your bills before you met your husband" might be relevant in the case of a couple with no children but it's irrelevant once children are in the mix.

It is relevant because we're talking about cases where a decision is made to sacrifice one out of two careers in order to have children, and that decision is being taken by relying on the higher earner to finance this choice. As I said in a previous post, suppose the man you wanted to marry was earning the same as you. You'd have no choice but to do something differently. You were both able, separately, to pay your bills before you met, so if you wanted to have children you'd either have to economise in other ways to meet the extra costs, or wait until one of you secured a higher wage.

But that's not what people consider to avoid a career sacrifice - instead they take the easy route of simply sacrificing the less well-paid job - this, nine times out of ten, seems to be the woman's job, which is why things are not changing for women - or if they are changing, the change is very slow.

@bluebluezoo with that comment, I would actually ask my husband to contact his HR department because that response to me is sexist and not acceptable when asking for flexibility. I do work for a big corporation though 90k+ employees and so does he, so I don't think anything like that would be said out loud. Both of us have been in our jobs for some time, so his colleagues know I have a career myself, his manager was at our wedding.

I think often for new parents, the "easy" route feels like the only realistic route available at the time. Balancing childcare and family life with work life is a tough one and I don't think most people realise how tough it is until they're in it and there's no going back. I think on the whole people make the best choices they can within the system that exists. There seems to be an undercurrent of blaming people (women, largely) for something that is a wider societal and economic problem. The undercurrent in a statement like "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" is placing the blame on individuals and specifically women, when really the criticism shouldn't be directed at the personal level - it's an issue with our workplaces, our politics, the way we determine the relative value of different aspects of our society. If it is possible for change to come on a meaningful scale it can only be through shifts in attitudes and policies at the level of governments and corporations, not just at the individual level. Parents of young families are often on just-getting-by treadmills which make big individual life-changes very hard to make, especially when they face obstructions and knockbacks at every step in the way when they try and request flexibility and family-friendly working arrangements.

I don't know how much this holds true in a wider sense, but among the other families I've known whilst I've been parenting, it has really struck me how most couples start off with the best of intentions and ideals in terms of sharing parenting responsibilities - going part-time, working flexibly, taking paternal leave, alternating the school run, and all the rest - and slowly, over time, those good intentions get worn away by the impossibility of actually making it happen in the real world. There have been a rare few I've observed managing to make it work, but these seem to be due to the specific careers the parents are in. Makes me wish I had based my career choices around the potential to achieve whilst also having flexibility - however no-one advised me 30 years ago when I was making my study-and-career-choices and if they had I probably wouldn't have listened because I didn't think I wanted children then

I think some aspects are generational (is that a word?). Where I work the younger guys, say under 40, at all levels have more parental responsibility using leave and flexibility to fit around their partners jobs.

The guys over 50 are much more old fashioned. One almost gloats that he has never changed a nappy (has 5 kids!) because he couldn't deal with the smell? They are definitely "that's a woman's job" attitude. I accept though that 50 year old men almost certainly grew up with a SAHM whilst their dad went out and worked long hard hours (industrial city).

Luckily the company has very family friendly processes and it's all taken in jest but there is a clear divide in attitude.

To add to that the younger guys expect their partners to work. I don't see the younger guys encouraging their partners to stay at home so they can progress their career, its just not necessary anymore in a modern company.

Interestingly, whilst my career has taken a back seat for years, as we made a family decision for me to be a SAHM and then work evenings while the kids were young, DH's job is more flexible so even though I'm starting over and have a pretty junior job, because my hours are fixed, DH picks up most of the parenting slack because his job allows him to catch up on emails etc at home in the evening and his boss isn't clock watching and is happy as long as the job gets done. I appreciate we are very lucky in that regard.

I agree @LooseMooseHoose - I mean, I've got sympathetic manager and DH does earn a lot more, but I am aware that I'm usually (not always) the one that caves when there are things to be done around childcare. DH is also paid by the day as a consultant, unlike me, so that affects things. In my case, even before kids, I never worked long hours because I don't have a very stressful job, and don't believe in working if I'm not being paid so I don't work extra hours unless I absolutely have to.

But yeah, it should be more normal for dads to leave early to pick up the kids etc, and I'm sure many employers could be better about it.

I'll admit I chose a career I knew was female dominated and family friendly, but also I'm simply not cut out for any high earning jobs and that's not because I'm a woman, I just lack the either the abilities or the personality necessary for finance, law or technology, for example.

Lifestyle wise, while DH earns much more, I have brought a lot of capital to the relationship - my money alone was the deposit for our first home and our current place (in both cases we agreed I legally 'own' 70% of the property because of that). He probably pays for more stuff on a day-to-day basis - it all comes out in the wash.

sacrificing the less well-paid job - this, nine times out of ten, seems to be the woman's job

Perhaps the problem is that the less well paid job is the woman's. Families I know where the woman was out-earning the man made the decision for the man to stay at home or go part-time when DC came along. So the question is, why is it that 9 times out of 10, the woman is in a lower paying job? I'm not actually sure this is the case statistically pre children, but is it the case that girls are picking careers which are less likely to lead to progression?

Tbh I think covid will absolutely destroy many women's careers. The amount of times I've head women say that their husbands' firms expect the wives to pick up home schooling, regardless of whether they work too, is ridiculous.

DP and I earned the same when I got pregnant with DC1. He had 2 payrises before I went back to work. I lost my job within six months of returning (full time) . My next job was about the same pay but no pay rise for 3 of the 5 years I was there. So by the time I went back to work after DC2 (about 5 years after getting pg with dc1), he had had multiple pay rises and my pay had stagnated.

Managers may wonder why their female staff are picking up the slack for childcare but are not so quick to encourage their male staff to share parental leave when a first child is announced.

Controversial I know, but I also think that year long maternity leaves don't help with this, especially when none is required to be shared with the non-birthing partner.

I took a full year each time and loved it, outside ds1's colic, but while I was ready for the impact of the time out on my career, I hadn't factored in that during that time as full-time carer, I had become so much more skilled with our babies, I had managed laundry and cooking and shopping during the day, I had built such a close bond.. that going back to work, I was still the one they wanted when sick, the one who knew where everything could be found in the food cupboards, the one who chose the nursery.

Yes, some men do more to overcome this, but it's an uphill battle. Forcing some of the leave to go to the other partner or be lost could be helpful.

@Apileofballyhoo

sacrificing the less well-paid job - this, nine times out of ten, seems to be the woman's job

Perhaps the problem is that the less well paid job is the woman's. Families I know where the woman was out-earning the man made the decision for the man to stay at home or go part-time when DC came along. So the question is, why is it that 9 times out of 10, the woman is in a lower paying job? I'm not actually sure this is the case statistically pre children, but is it the case that girls are picking careers which are less likely to lead to progression?

Actually, there's evidence that where the woman earns more, she actually does MORE than when both partners work but the woman earns less.

It's about making sure she is seen (by herself, by her partner and/or others) as fulfilling her domestic role, and not threatening his.

*more around the house that should be!

@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?

I think this definitely the case for some. My DH was paid almost three times my part time salary when ds was small but if an emergency/ illness happened on one of my 3 working days , more than 70-80% of the time DH dealt with it as he could work from home, rearrange most of his meetings etc. My job was PT but much less flexible on my work days as I was junior with very little control over my work and diary.

During the summer for about 4 weeks, I would do my 2 days at home and DH took 2 days a week leave and one day worked from home with in a 9am to 3pm type club so he could do 5hrs of work.

DH would then also book 3 weeks of leave overlapping with my two weeks so we still had a family break but he also covered an extra week himself. DH therefore did miles more summer care for DS every year in primary than I ever did . He also organised loads more things for them to do together than I ever did

Agree

the idea being that as you move further up the career ladder, you have more flexibility.

This depends on what industry your career is in. In my career, it is the exact opposite. You have the most flexibility at entry level. The more senior you get, the more indispensable and critical you are to the success of the whole team. A team can trundle along and cover for one junior engineer that needs time off or flexible working, but not without their leader. Also the higher up you get the more decision meetings you have to attend such that your schedule controls you, and you try to do work like answering emails and strategic planning outside normal work hours so your days are longer. You are working nights and weekends. You also have to travel more. I had at one time 4 executive assistants handling my scheduling, screening my emails and letters, vetting visitors and meeting requests.

In some industries it’s true that the higher you are, the more flexibility but I’ve not seen it work out well. Marissa Meyer for example became first female CEO of Yahoo before she had her children. She even remodelled her office to have a nursery next to it so she could bring her baby to work and breastfeed. But, she also was completely incompetent at doing her job and ran Yahoo into bankruptcy by going on a shopping spree and buying out worthless companies. So even though she used her power as CEO to make her job flexible, it ended up being a terrible decision and caused the end of the entire company and the loss of thousands of jobs.