To prioritise my husbands job

[Yellowsun11]

Back ground is I have a decent degree , but due to mental health issues proberbly haven't gone as far as I could . I'm
Not particularly interested in a career . Iv had jobs I like but my priority is balancing my home life while children are secondary age and younger . Part because husband earns a fair bit more than me but also because the strain of us both doing full time with my health and family is to much . A couple of friends are horrified by this and have hinted it's not the done thing in this day and age ! Just wondered others views -and situation . I surely aren't the only woman to work round her husbands job? If I could earn as much as him I'm sure he would be part time , - but I can't. And we want one of us to be home for them ( the majority of the time )

Kerala I agree with you.

Men are not out there hounding each other over their choices. As far as I can see women in British society are bearing the majority of the decision making guilt/ stress over how to balance family life.

"Personally detest how women seem to have to justify themselves to other women on either sides of the fence. Why? To make themselves feel better? To make others feel lesser? Are men doing it? If not neither should we."

This is missing the point I've been trying to make.
I am not critical of women not working but I am questioning as to why women consistently and often put themselves last in terms of their intellectual, independent needs and desires.

I would turn round your statement and say I certainly don't see men doing that never mind discussing it.

And yes, it is up to women to push back on this status quo, men aren't going to change, why would they?

I've found your posts on the thread really interesting, Givepeas.

Hmm maybe, just maybe because they reject the phallocentric male corporate structures which would take them away from seeing their DC much when they are young so given the opportunity they reject it? Its not putting themselves last they don't want to do it.

DH was at Cambridge most of his law dept friends were women. Met up recently. NOT ONE was a partner at the magic circle firms they all started at. And these were academically and socially the best and it was quite a big group. They were teachers, singers, PSLs, SAHMs, working for themselves. They had all to a woman rejected the traditional career path. IMO its a combination of traditional ingrained conditioning and in our bit of the profession anyway a pretty family unfriendly unappealing working structure combined which does it IMO.

But KERALA, if it's a family unfriendly unappealing structure then why are men so easily able to succeed at it? Can you at least agree that if more men were willing to equally share both home and professional life, a lot more women would be able to succeed at the "traditional" career model (and in fact this model would likely be reshaped in any event)?

Men don't say they have a family, a career and hobbies because it's a given.

DH says he has never ever been asked how he 'manages' his life as a working father. No one comments on his hobbies or asks when he sees his children.

The tone of conversations about working mothers is always more problematic, with people giving very firm statements as we've seen on this thread.

If some women can say, well actually I am able to have a good balance, it is possible, surely that's a good thing? Why should all positive voices be seen as boastful?

I wish for every woman to have a family, career and hobbies...that's all

This "it's not possible" thing is only true if you are prepared to let it.

Also without wanting to sound too Katie Hopkins, kids are much more capable than we give them credit for. I see a lot of Deeply Engrossed Parents who seem to think they are responsible for constantly entertaining their kids.
I don't see myself as a kids entertainer. There is a balance to be had and some responsibility is put on my kids to entertain themselves and do things for themselves. E.g. If they want to go play with someone, they have phones, they can organise it...why do I have to do it all?

givepeas

I am not critical of women not working but I am questioning as to why women consistently and often put themselves last in terms of their intellectual, independent needs and desires.

I totally agree with this, I know some very driven career women who do this, it isn't reserved for sahm.
I know of plenty sahm who put themselves first for their intellectual, independant needs and desires, why wouldn't they? I have done this throughout my married life and life would have been pretty dull just raising dc, housework and a trip to the gym/tv

I often feel on this type of thread that some see sahm as some pre determined role that is set in stone with defining roles and responsibilities that one shouldn't deviate from that we all do the same, have the same goals in life.
Maybe that's because some women who work do have to do the same type of work everyday, with the same pre determined roles and responsibilities and answer to other people. Now, I'd find that so boring and would be hard to be motivated into getting up everyday if my life was like this.

And this is where it's political. 'Family' is code for 'women' when it's used in terms like 'family-friendly'. Which is why childcare, family-friendly working policies, etc, are generally categorised as 'women's issues' in politics (and often sidelined accordingly).

Why should childcare be a women's issue?

The legal thing is interesting, Kerala- that's my background. I know that all the big firms are aware of this and that they're desperately trying to change it- many firms recruit more than 50% women at TC stage but still have something like 80% men at partner level, including new partners.

I think things are changing, but slowly. At present not many firms will make up partners who work PT and there is still a somewhat outdated approach that equates chargeable hours worked with achievement (despite the fact that many clients now prefer to be charged for the job, not by the hour). So 12-14 hours + working days remain the norm and I think it remains the case that there are more fathers who are willing (or feel unable to decline) to work hours like that than there are mothers (and it's very hard for both parents to work like this). And a big brake on change is client expectation- if you are paying £800+ per hour for your lawyer you expect them to be available when you want them, and if X won't do then Y at another firm will.

I also think that there's an issue re the advice given to women in these circs. I have been to lots of 'women in law' type events where an emphasis has been placed on women creating their own career paths, whether it's through taking time out as a consultant, switching to being a PSL or whatever. And that's all good. However, what none of that does is address the fundamental structural reasons why there are few women at the top in City law: it helps the firms by enabling them to keep that woman's skills in their inventory but it completely misses the issue that partnership (and the money, power and prestige that go with it) still requires the sort of hours that mean many women rule themselves out.

Had to pop in and see where 500+ messages on the topic ends up

After having my son recently, I'm totally thinking that women aren't going to feel the same way about how motherhood should fit into/around our lives. I'm on maternity leave but, surprisingly, I'd give up work in a flash to be with my son until school starts. This wasn't what I was saying before he was born. At the end of the day, we are all good mothers. That's all that counts if what we do as mothers makes us happy.

" I love working as much as I love my children. "

Very sad.

Jaydot500 please do not generalise. I have a gorgeous 6 month old son. I've not loss one shred of my interest in my discipline and profession and am as dedicated an a researcher and lecturer as I am a mother. Indeed, as are all the women in our 40 string department which produced 9 babies last year.

Jesus Christ pearlymum you've taken out all your tentacles now haven't you.

JayDot500
You are in the exact position where it becomes really easy to 'throw away' what until 9 months ago you had worked your whole life for (school and qualifications)

I genuinely don't think women are warned at this exact stage you are at that if you jack in your job now, it will affect you for the rest of your life.

The question to ask may well be "how is my partner going to support this family now? What are BOTH of our needs and desires?"

These next few years are the most high input in terms of manual labour but they pass so quickly and you will have another 30-40 years of having to be economically secure and such a big decision must not be taken lightly. I would hazard a guess your partner is not even considering giving up his job -why? Even if you look at the most scare mongering attachment theories, it is fine for the father to be a Primary Care Giver

After having my son recently, I'm totally thinking that women aren't going to feel the same way about how motherhood should fit into/around our lives. I'm on maternity leave but, surprisingly, I'd give up work in a flash to be with my son until school starts.

I felt that way when DS1 was 6 months old. By the time he was 12 months I was glad to be able to balance work and motherhood.

tangerino my DH is a lawyer.

The industry is definitely changing. Yes, partners have to generate a lot of fees, but how they do it, is less of a concern. And since so many firms are now huge global entities, it's pretty impossible for the powers that be to keep tabs on where and how people are working. Provided the fee income is high, no one worries too much.

Culturally, it is still common for people to do all their work in the office, but it's not strictly necessary. DH works from home a lot. He has partners who almost never go in.

Obviously, some areas of law lend themselves to this more than others.

I agree that different areas of law lend themselves to working from home more than others.

I'm amazed to hear about firms not tracking hours though- IME more and firms (inc my firm and my DH's) are switching to an at least partial "eat what you kill" model for equity partners, so not only are partners' hours tracked 100% but all fee earning hours (whoever works them) are attributed to specific partners.

Bring back lockstep

DH's comp is worked out by the board.

He basically submits a Why I Am Ace statement, which does include his hours, but more importantly (in terms of renumeration) includes fees generated, including all work done by other members of staff on his files, work done for his clients by other partners, time spent on client relations etc.

I don't think I could love anything as equally as my children, except for dh of course.
I suppose if you are career minded it sort of takes over, becomes a big part of your life.
Man or woman though if your career/ job is your life's work, you'd do it for nothing then I can see how it would be an equal in your life.
It's like this for my dh, it wasn't like this for me when we had dc, I just didn't feel this anymore.

Also includes management responsibilies.

I don't mean to give the impression that DH doesn't work many hours BTW. He does.

But he works them as and when he likes and where he likes (mostly).

*Jemapple I didn't generalise, I said that we should do what makes us happy. I meant that mothers will not feel the same way as other mothers.

GAHC- that's so much better than how things were when I was starting out (as lawyer rather than a partner) where it was basic pay then a sliding scale of bonus depending on how many chargeable hours you did in excess of an (already ridiculous) target. I do think firms probably need to track hours though if only to assess profitability, although perhaps not in 6 minute slots

DH is paid according to an incredibly complex system relating to fees generated based on his work, other people's work (which he supervised), other people's work (where he is client partner), ditto (where he is referring partner), element of lockstep, blah blah blah. Confusing.

I want to work where your DH does

(Am shutting up about law now.)