To wonder why SAHPs enable their OH to 'do long hours' and 'travel a lot'

[ChristmasPlughole]

OK so it is a thread about a thread but on the SAHPs don't earn the income, their dps do thread, lots of mners are saying 'dp can only earn lots of money if I stay home with the kids so they can travel/ work late'. And the implication is that's OK as they earn lots of money.

But why? Would't you rather have less money but bring your children up together?

What is the extra money for?

It's an honest question, I have friends who are almost 'single parents' during the week and their dps travel a lot too. And they have lots of money. But it seems such a lonely existence.

(I am asking about couples who choose to have one high earning parent - not couples who work all the hours god sends to survive).

I don't get it. I love dp and would hate him to do long hours and have two weeks go past before we spent a nice evening together.

It seems so Victorian.

I am surprised at the number of women who have stopped their career to enable their husbands to thrive in theirs. No wonder women are so woefully represented at senior mgmt and board levels. We all vanish off to leave the men to it.

What is the extra money for?

At the moment we save it, (how boring) dh is adamant our children with have a university fund, and if we can help them out in the future we will. He also has a very good pension, we have shares and savings. We both want to be comfortable in retirement. (dh has always said he is retiring at 50) Many of our friends havnt thought long term yet, apparantly It's a life time away.

Coral, often the other option is to not have a partner and definitely not have a family. Men can, mostly, take it for granted that they can have both.

I was never going to be in senior management, but I loved my work. I also love my husband. But these threads do make me think twice about children.

coraltoes, a fair number of the women on this thread and on the previous one were working and their partners were at home.

I do think there's a real problem, which is that most jobs (certainly most "careers") work on the unspoken assumption that there's someone at home to pick up the slack. Women, for all kinds of reasons, are less likely to have that backup than men are. Look at all the threads on here where women are trying and failing to get their partners to carry their share of the domestic load. The only way that the working culture is going to change is if men as well as women are persistently saying they have to leave on time to pick children up from nursery or whatever, but very few men want to be in the vanguard of that, because it is a hard thing to do.

It's actually pretty hard - not impossible, if you've got a fortune to spend on childcare or have family around to help, but hard - to keep two serious careers going in one household. And when we came to make the decision, DH reckoned he'd rather give up altogether be at home with DS than do some tedious job locally that only used a fraction of his skills. That helps me enormously, financially and emotionally, to do mine, because I work with a bunch of men with stay-at-home wives who never have to think about domestic stuff.

It's crap that for so many people the choice is FT, decently-paid, interesting work with long or unpredictable hours or travel, or either nothing or a minimum-wage job where you get treated appallingly by the management, but let's not pretend that that isn't often the choice. The OP simply frames the question in the wrong way and seems to blame families for making the choices they do, rather than looking at why those choices seem to so many people to be the only viable ones.

I met DW when she was 18 and I was 19. We had no idea what our furure jobs or life would be.

She would dearly like to still have her previous career that would by now involve a lot of foreign travel at short notice. I would like her to still have it too. It can't happen now and never will but it would make her very happy and I would be happy for her and happy to take the strain at home.

I dont think it is possible for two people to have high powered jobs that involve a lot of travel at short notice or unpredictable hours - unless you want you children brought up by a team of 3 full time nannies. Someone has to put their career on the back burner so teh otehr can pursue theirs.

Sometimes it just simple economics. The higher paid earner keeps their career and the lower paid partner stays home. Sometimes it is personal motivation about what you each want out of life. In our case, it was a bit of both.

Destroyed.
Depending on how you feel about childcare there are other options. Obviously not as lovely as having mummy or daddy at home but still safe and caring options.

I work in a team of men. All of them have SAHP yet kids are now all of school ages. These women are BORED, with no kids at home, too many years out of work to qualify for anything now that they fancy plus not quite the economic environment to job hunt! They spend their time spending money and decorating their homes repeatedly. I am not exaggerating, I wish I were.

My male colleagues could not believe I was returning to work. Somehow to them, despite my years of study, hard work, high pay they thought I'd happily retire to a life of staying home and playing with stacking cups and spending DH money. It is amazing how some people are programmed to assume that is your natural path in life despite what you have done before kids!

I don't know what sort of work you do, but many firms now offer flexible working arrangements (for fathers as well as mothers) so kids need not be that career ending decision you fear. It just shocks me how few men take that option to adapt their work around children, and how many women are forced to.

I work longer hours than DH. I get home after 8pm, Sometimes work away.

I could be a SAHM but I love my job, I was a SAHM for a year and we were skint, I was worrying constantly about money and I wasn't happy.

Yes I would love to be able to be home in time to bath the kids or make dinner but we just can't afford to, We are lucky that DH is home early afternoon to do the school run and we don't have to pay for childcare.

I don't feel like I am missing anything, And to be honest I am a bit greedy and like just having the extra money and not have a worry hanging over my head.

I always always make sure I attend plays and parents evenings etc but my DC don't know a life any different.

My dh travels and works away during the week. He is a high earner but it's not solely about the money.
5 years ago he worked fairly locally. But was made redundant. We were lucky as he was headhunter and offered a job before he left the last one.
I don't think he would have applied for the job as he probably thought it was beyond him. He didn't see his true potential.
He started the job and doubled his salary overnight.
So now we are in the position of not being able to earn the same amount locally. We live in yorkshire and the salaries are not as high as his company is based in Reading.
I would rather he worked locally but he doesn't and I am used to being on my own. We make the best of the time we have together.
I worked part time and run the house and look after the dc. I don't expect dh to do anything in the home and he spends a lot of quality time with the dc.

I didn't give up my career to stay at home with the kids.

I have never really been that ambitious. I like getting paid but have no real interest in any particular field. I am good at organising shit so I do that when I am working and get paid very well for it. I turn up, I do the work, I get paid, it isn't unpleasant but I don't get any real joy from it like DH does, so why put myself out too much when I would rather be at home with the boys mostly, DH can make enough money where that is comfortably possible etc.

As for what we do with the money, we are hammering down the mortgage on our beautiful home in a wonderful suburb, hopefully we will be mortgage free by our 40s. We also travel, and if I can't travel in style then I don't travel at all.

Not quite a SAHM, I will be going back to work part time, because even though we could probably afford not to we would be on such a tight budget that there wouldn't be much room for anything fun.

My job pays well, but on the days I will work I will work very hard and for very long hours, at the detriment of seeing my DD.

Our reasoning is that this will enable us to save up for things like holidays, a university education for DD if she wants it, rainy days, etc and it means that we can afford the odd treat like a family meal out .

So OP, as far as I am concerned it is not about money as such, it is about what you do with it.

Tadlow, yes but they are still very much the minority.
A massive culture shift is needed, with acceptance that men too need flexible options and shouldn't be ashamed in requesting them! It is not girly or weak or unambitious to say I will arrive at 9.30 every day after the school run, or will leave at 4 to see my children in the evening. If you get the work done that is all that should matter.

I just don't get this idea that outside Monday-Friday 9-5 childcare is not available.

DH and I both worked, doing shift work that involved (unpaid) overnight stays away on a weekly basis, night shifts, early starts and late finishes. Both full time and we fitted in around each other. One of us was always home for the kids (rarely saw each other but you pays your money and takes your choice).

Other colleagues did the same but had more some paid childcare as well, and still others went part time with a mix or partner/parental and paid childcare.

Approx 1/3 of my 250 staff are part time and they all do the full range of shifts unless they are medically exempt and they all find or create childcare outwith "normal" hours stated.

It's not just us police, NHS workers, airline workers in fact anywhere you imagine is open 24/7 or odd hours is not just staffed by childless people or people with f/t partners or nannies at home.

I know I always sound preachy but there is another way apart from SAHP when one's partner works long hours or is away. Bizarre hours childcare is possible, it may not say that on the first advert in the yellow pages, you might have to work at it or even create it e.g. you and a friend from ante natal classes set it up between yourselves.

I didn't give up my career to stay at home with my children either. I changed jobs. I consider bringing up children to be important and whoever does it- parent, nanny, child minder, grandparent, whoever- is doing a vital and valuable job. Shame the importance is not recognised financially but hey ho.

Oh and op our money goes on everything life has to offer. University funds, amazing holidays, big house with a big garden In pretty much central London (as a kid I lived in a flat with no outside space and I longed for a garden all my childhood), private education, private healthcare, the ability to say yes to pretty much anything that takes our fancy, great dinners out, lovely food for the home, fab clothes, and LOTS and LOTS of fun!

None of this is more important than our love for our family, and without it our love would be there still. It just makes life so much easier and more enjoyable when you don't have to worry about ££.

YABU if it means that it pays the mortgage, puts food on the table and the bills than so be it! Its hard to get a job as it is, so if you have one you tend to keep it.

Seeker, I think the price of a nanny shows that actually it is a very valuable profession!!

OH travels a fair amount because he is a specialist in his field. Since the recession started there has been very little work for him in the UK and more of it in the far East, so he travels. He isn't away most of the time and I do work so it isn't exactly as you describe, but I think you are being unreasonable to assume that all the OHs can find local jobs with short hours.

When OH isn't away he works from home so DD probably sees a lot more of her dad than most children.

In our case it isn't to earn ££££££ to pay for luxuries, but ££ to pay for being able to live comfortably.

Coraltoes - spending my life decorating the home is my idea of hell. Especially if everyone around me thought I was supposed to be grateful for it as well, because not working in a career I loved (after 6 years of studying and 10 years of experience), not earning money, saving, contributing to pension etc. is such an extraordinary good position to be in, thanks to my husband who "supports" me.

We have no family around to help with childcare. Sure, we could throw some money at the problem, but it does bring up the question why have children if neither of us can/want to look after them.

My husband can't "adapt his work" to fit around children. Certain jobs are not adaptable, you are either responsible for something or you aren't. You can't mix and match at your convenience. Sure, he could quit and take an easier job, like...what exactly?

For us it wasn't as cut and dried as DP working long hours for extra money - he makes enough to pay the mortgage, run a car and the occasional holiday without us having to scrimp and save, but there's no extra... It's just that it made the most sense for me to be at home.

He's a skilled tradesman in an industry that requires a certain amount of unsociable hours, unplanned call outs and some working away, his training isn't transferrable to any other job. So to be at home more he'd have to take an unskilled job at minimum wage or not much more.

I was unskilled when we had the DC, so to get a similar amount of money coming we'd both have had to work full time and to have used childcare, which means that while they'd have seen DP a bit more, they'd have had less parental time overall. Of course I could have worked during hours that you can get childcare for, but I'd have paid more than I would have made and the jobs I was qualified for aren't the sort you stick at for career progression.

What we did was that I stayed at home while the DC were young and then I studied because I could fit that round school, so now I'm about to graduate and they're at a point where me going to work shouldn't cause a childcare issue.

A lot of what Morloth says resonantes with me too.

I'm a SAHM and DP owns his own business. The work is basically never ending - if he has any free time, he works and he does various trips abroad each year. I had kids before I was established in a career so don't feel I've given up anything but I do think I enable DH to devote time to his business and be successful because he doesn't have to worry about anything here for the most part.

There are benefits to me from that. He earns very well so my life as a SAHM is far from drudgery. I have a cleaner, can afford activities for the kids, etc. I am also studying something I love so I get fulfillment from that too. His salary also means we can afford a decent home in London without a crippling mortgage and live near our family and friends. All of these things give us a nice quality of life.

I could work but someone would have to look after the kids in the evenings, school hols, etc and we find it makes more practical and financial sense for that to be my job

'I know I always sound preachy but there is another way apart from SAHP when one's partner works long hours or is away'

Yes, but it so hard. We both worked, and dh was posted near to our home in UK. I was due to go an a history trip to Belgium, and dh was going to deal with the school run for a week. He got bounced and had to go to sea at very short notice (and there was no-one else who could do it; he was the boss and had to go), and my Mum couldn't have ds for the week. I had to put ds into board at school for a week which he didn't enjoy. Dh was posted overseas after that, and trying to do it all without support wasn't easy, and so, when the chance came for me to move abroad with him and be a SAHM I took it, and haven't regretted it. I don't think any of us have.

"Seeker, I think the price of a nanny shows that actually it is a very valuable profession!!"

Really??

JaJas Brdgrl was using that as an example to dig at the op then I think, she's pointed out you can't judge from the outside
I really do apologize if I appeared to be having a "dig" at the OP. To me, it was not clear (and still is not) how one can judge the motivations of a couple where one works and appears to have put money "first", since there may be factors that others know nothing about.
I don't think I said anything that qualifies as a dig, and wasn't making a personal attack on the OP. I did say she was BU and making assumptions, and I will stand by that.

What you have to consider is that the alternative to long hours and travel for many (especially in the current climate) is no job at all. I'm sure most would rather their partner was their more often but homelessness and no money for food isn't a nice concept.