to think working parents don't 'do all the things SAHPs do plus work'?

[Sampanther]

I've heard this response an awful lot, particularly to that awful 'being a SAHM is the hardest job in the world' advert. I have worked outside the home and been a SAHM and I do not feel that working meant I did all the parenting plus work on top. For example, as a SAHM parent I'd deal with squabbling, tantrums, discipline, naps, take them to parks/soft play etc and help them to play nicely with other children, cook with them, do painting and play doh and so on.

As a working parent I had an hour of getting them ready in the morning, dropped them off at childcare, then an hour of winding them down and putting them to bed at night. I could eat and go to the toilet in peace during the day, the house was tidy and needed little cleaning as we were rarely in it and I had very little to do with discipline etc.

I'm not trying to say working parents don't parent, because obviously they do but AIBU to think parents who work fulltime don't 'work and do all the parenting as well'? I don't get why working mums respond that way and think they're right but if a working husband came home and said to his stay at home wife that he does just as much parenting as her then I'm sure mumsnet would not agree.

I'm trying!

It just gets me it's not an equal playing field...

And likewise for men parenting sometimes!

Yes, childcare can easily cost the equivalent of one salary ( been there, with two pre schoolers in nursery) but for all the reasons described above, it is not the same as one person not having an income.

I'm not saying that as any argument either for or against SAHM/ WOHM btw- just stating a fact. You are almost certainly not going to get the same career progression or pension if you stop working, as if you remain in work.
I know first hand that even just reducing to 3 days a week for 5 years (out of a career of about 25 years so far) has knocked a fairly hefty chunk out of my pension. I pay into an AVC and have done everything I can to mitigate that, but the fact remains.

Like I say, each to their own, it's up to families to decide whether to have a SAHP or not, but it niggles me too when people talk in terms of all the womans income paying for childcare. No it isn't. It may be the equivalent of the woman's income ( or the mans) and if so, in the short term, there won't be immediate financial gain from both partners working, but when you look beyond that, it's a different picture

Me too.

The biological father of my eldest two got to wander off and bathe in alcohol, using self-employment as a mechanism to finance luxury cars and holidays whilst avoiding CM. And this was a DH who badgered for babies for years.

It's structural and it is multi-layered and it stinks.

(well 3 years)

The thing is janey it often is actually the woman who pays. It shouldn't be, but it is.

I've come to think that if the Equal Pay Act finally got fully enforced (after thirty-what years?!) and then reinforced, the childcare cost debate would crumble considerably.

Ditto Child maintainence and any number of other bumps and gradients in the playing field.

Of course it shouldn't be the woman who pays. But it's an argument I've heard women trot out regularly on MN... 'If I go back to work, all my wages will go on childcare, therefore there's no point'.

Like I say, if a family decide that the best thing for them is for one parent to give up work, then fine. And sometimes the cost of childcare is part of the decision making process. But my point is that it's often women themselves who reinforce this idea that the childcare is 'their' cost, rather than a household cost in the way that any other bill would be

I will be losing more than one wage soon on childcare for a limited period but its worth it to us as a couple as we are young and the money and prospects we have at the end will be worth it. Its going to be tiring and very hard work but we are both thinking long term.

Just to be clear, I was very much talking abut the short term as I think anyone who is saying "I can't afford to go back to work as everything I would earn would be spent on childcare" is themselves thinking in the short term. Nothing wrong with that, it's just how some people (have to) view their finances.

If, as we were able to, you can hold your breath and hang on for a few years whilst childcare eats up almost all of one person's salary, then the financial rewards are much greater.

Perhaps I just read these posts in a slightly different way to others. I assume that when someone writes 'If I go back to work, all my wages will go on childcare, therefore there's no point', they mean 'There will be no benefit to my family as everything we gain financially by me working will be spent on childcare'^.

When I went back to work after Dc2 most of the equivalent of my wages were spent on childcare.
Why should it be me who stops work rather than him if that was the choice available?
DH earns more than I do (as is the case in most mixed s
Couples) . So in purely practical terms if one of us stopped working it should be me.
Plus, I have the sort of career tht would be easier to move in and out of than his.
It's hard to separate these practical issues from the social ones but I would have fought tooth and nail to be the one who had time off (maternity leave or a more extended sahm time) rather than him. Ebf would have been very difficult if I'd turned to work at 3 months (although possible) and I definitely saw/ see my role as a mother as different from his, as a father, whether biologically based, or because of the time already spent with them, or a mixture of both. That's not everyone's experience of course. He's actually a berry "hands on" father btw.
In "choosing" a husband his ability and willingness to "provide for" a family was a consideration.
Omg I know that sounds awful to some people.

berry . Very.

I get the argument that if childcare equals one wage, or even a substantial part of one wage, then is it worth staying in work when you think it would be beneficial to have one parent at home. But I don't get the consequence that this means one person, usually the woman, then should give up work. Unless there is a massive disparity in wages, there are ways around that, say both partners dropping some working hours etc. That is not a criticism, just a thought.

I think there are two sides to this. My situation would be recognisable to others who know me, so I have to be careful in what I post. I wanted to explore all the options for splitting working hours/childcare to enable us to both be at home some of the time; I discussed going part-time, all of this was met with no support, and my ex used the argument that I should not be economically dependent on him; that it would damage my career etc. I was pretty much doing everything due to circumstances and was ill, but he was not willing to countenance changing the status quo, so that our family could function. There were a number of things which could have been done, but he was not willing to subsidise me financially, even though I was clearly subsidising him domestically. So, there is a very clear practical question about equal input into a partnership and also, the family needs to function, which should cover both financial and domestic input. A mother who is exhausted trying to maintain financial parity and do everything else is under enormous pressure and that is hardly good for anyone.

The other side of the coin is the vulnerability you have if you are not earning. Quite simply put, the decision that if I had to earn my keep and do everything else as well, then I could do that myself was a no-brainer. So, it is not just about what happens if he dies, or loses his job or all those things, but your ability to leave a damaging situation.

There is not an easy answer, and there won't be until men more generally take on a comparable amount of domestic responsibility, and I mean properly.
It is like the classic thing you see now; the numbers of men who are pushing the buggies and prams at weekends you think that is great, there was a time when men would not have pushed the pram. Go out during the week and it is still all the women. It is almost like they have the best of both worlds; women still need to get there, which is why this debate rumbles on.

TheRealAL I'm not sure it's that true these days to say in most couples before children women earn less than men. 60% of new graduates are female and women under 30 earn more than men in the UK on average. I earned many multiples of my other half. However I agree that some women do marry a man who earns more more often than a man marrying a woman who earns more although it is changing.
If you earn £40k and your husband £20k is it unlikely to be the husband going back to work and you giving up your career these days. You both might work and pay half childcare costs each or he might give up work.

The career progression argument when say both husband and wife earn £20k a year only works if they are in a career where they may progress. If they have few qualifications and are likely to be working on the Tesco till for the next 40 years then the danger in women going part time or giving up work is not so great. If however she might have risen to store manager or is in a career with likely increase in pay over time, good pension and other rights then if she takes the time out she loses a lot as does the family financially longer term. You need to look to the longer term and the bigger picture.

Sorry, Amanda, I crossposted with you, hence my opening question was posed without reading your post.

I just came back to say the language of subsiydy was how mh ex would have seen it, so I don't mean to offend anyone. In an ideal world, you decide how best to use the available financial and domestic resources of both partners, to the best interests of DC and each partner, short and long term, I think.

Final point before I get on with the day, the fact that in most couples, the woman earns less, therefore it is the woman who gives up work, drops to part-time, is self-reinforcing. For as long as women continue to be the ones who make professional sacrifices, they will do less well professionally. Personally, I don't think material success is the be all and end all, but the fact is that I will earn less and have fewer opportunities as a woman with children.

The phrase "... because [DH] can earn more than I can", which I see time and time again on MN, is one that fills me with despair for womankind.

Enforcing the Equal Pay Act would certainly improve the situation for some people but that would only be the tip of the iceberg. Far more damaging is the lack of equality of opportunity where, almost without exception, the higher up you get in any profession/business, the more male-dominated it becomes. The problem is two-fold - those doing the appointing tend to favour male candidates and believe that women won't be able to perform so well, and, perhaps much more damaging, many women believe it themselves. This is something women (girls) are conditioned to believe by society and it gets reinforced over and over again.

I'm a Brownie leader and I hope, in some small way, I can counteract the idea that boys are tougher and more capable than girls. These are girls who have chosen to be Brownies with other girls, rather than go to Cubs with the boys. Some of them already think that they can't do some of the things boys can do. I want to teach them that girls can be just as tough, adventurous, and capable as the boys can (whilst also doing enough craft stuff to keep them happy!).

Oh, and I work f-t and earn substantially more than my husband does. Lead by example, I say!

permanently, of course, if I am sole carer to DC and juggling their needs with my job, I can't perform as well as a colleague, male or female, with no domestic responsibilities and I won't progress as fast. It is a non-starter to suggest otherwise. But I still perform bloody well and I still want to progress, even if it takes me longer. And by doing so, I contribute experience which goes beyond the traditional career model and I hope expands other people's opportunities over the longer term.

Oh, and I work f-t and earn substantially more than my husband does. Lead by example, I say!

Me too. :)

I think organisations really need to change, too, so that both men and women can work more flexibly without being viewed as less effective or less committed. I'm fortunate in that sense, as I work for a fairly enlightened employer.

I can work very flexibly in a relatively senior role, and I'm lucky enough to have a (male) boss in a very senior role who also works flexibly, so that he can do his fair share of the childcare. This flexibility is extended to staff at all levels, including those who don't have kids, as there is recognition that they may have other responsibilities, such as caring for elderly parents etc.

This flexibility translates into real loyalty and commitment from staff. Obviously, not all jobs lend themselves to such flexibility, but many do. It would be so much easier for people to combine home and family life without making such difficult choices, if only employers could think in a more open-minded and creative way.

Me to soon by a substantial amount. My mum always outearned my dad by 1000s.

This whole discussion is interesting. So many people's views on what a family situation SHOULD look like. Each person has that image in their head, and is willing to make sacrifices to ensure it happens. I just couldn't work and leave my DC in the care of someone else. I hated every minute and just wanted to be at home with my child. Instinct can be a very powerful thing, and we are each made differently. It helps that once DC2 arrives, childcare costs in our area would be substantially more than my salary was. I don't judge people who work, but I couldn't do it. I tried, for nearly a year, but it wasn't right for me and was incredibly stressful.

The phrase "... because [DH] can earn more than I can", which I see time and time again on MN, is one that fills me with despair for womankind

As much as i'd like to be up there, burning my bra and and going against the grain...for some this IS true. No need to get knickers in a twist about it.

DH's salary is roughly double mine. He has ten years experience in mid/upper-level management, his CV reflects this, as do his job opportunities.

When we had the dc, I took 15 months maternity leave with each and have recently dropped to part time (28 hours) to fit around school drop offs. For him to have done that would have been nonsense, and have hugely impacted our family financially, which i'm not about to do to try and prove a point.

system I strongly disagree. I think this is precisely the sort of thing that we should be getting our knickers in a twist about. Pay inequality is one of the most insidious and disgraceful elements of sexual inequality. My brain finds it hard to compute that it could actually could still be going on in 2014.

System, without a doubt it is true for many. Equality means just that. Not that women should always outstrip men.

Maybe I exaggerated a bit about how much despair I feel. My knickers aren't actually in a twist about it. However, there does often seem to be a certain amount resignation and futility coming across in these posts which seems sad to me.

I didn't have babies until I was 37. I wasn't sure I wanted them but I did fall for the fertility-nagging-concern-trolling that is current in the mainstream misogynist media - I believed that by delaying I might be nixing my chances altogether, and I would not have, if I had thought that having children was the number one priority in my life.

Had I thought that, I would have taken steps to have them sooner, and would effectively have killed my career, as a variety of factors kind of stalled it in my late twenties to mid thirties, and it was only hard graft and consistent determination over a crucial few years, where some opportunities came up and I threw myself at them with everything I had, that set it on an even keel. By the time I had my first baby at 37 I was in a permanent job with maternity rights and a salary that put me well in the black after childcare. This was my absolute first time in my life that I was in this position.

If I had had children in my late twenties or early thirties I would be financially dependent on a man (actually some shit man, given who either the fathers would have been) and / or the state, and in a bit of a hole about getting a career started again. I can see how it happens and it really sucks.

and we have to be careful not to blame individual women for this. it is systemic.

I haven't read "Lean In" but I really don't think I want to. having read the intro (kindle sample) and several reviews and the odd discussion of it on here, I think I would find it an extremely annoying book, because its argument seems to be to accept a lower reward:labour ratio if you are a woman. Its thesis appears to be that if you are a woman, things are stacked against you and therefore you must work harder and be cleverer. This is absolutely wrong. It totally shits on those who have no more to give.

I come at this very much from the angle of a person with medium to low stamina. I accept that some top jobs demand the utmost stamina, I know that some people in law etc get used to working 17 or 18 hour days sometimes for long stretches, and I will never be one of those people and can't expect to be paid as such. BUT I do resent the implication that everyone could, that energy is infinite, that the answer, as Boxer thought, is "I will work harder". look what happened to him.

I am at a really difficult time in my life with competing demands and no support, including or especially at home (although I theoretically have a partner) and I could cry at the disparity between what I can see could be done, by me, and what I can do.

allhail, totally get what you mean about having nothing more to give. This does not mean that you are giving nothing.

FWIW, I found theoretically having a partner worse than not having one. On your own, the situation is obvious.

Allhail - Thats only ok if you want a small family.

Bitoutofpractice

My example does not demonstrate 'pay inequality' - on a 'role' basis, if that's what you're getting at.

DH earns £X. If I were to do his job, that's what i'd get paid.

He gets paid double my salary because his job is better. Not because he gets paid more to do it because he's a man.