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 )

I think a lot of men work a lot of unnecessary extra hours to conveniently escape the hurly burly of family life. This creates a presenteeism culture that makes it doubly tough for women to combine a career with seeing their family. So I am not impressed by your husband's long hours. He does it because it suits him, but it does not help women and the drive for equality in the workplace. Choices are not exercised in a vacuum.

Why does this type of discussion always focus on what the woman does? Until it is socially and professionally acceptable for men to scale back instead of/as well as women, employers will always prioritise their male employees. In most companies it is career suicide for men to take a 2 year break.

kitty I definitely see your reasons but for me personally, it's about having the choice that my mother never did. So I will support my DC whatever path they choose. I'm a former financial trader and it's not something I want to go back to. I'd like to retrain at some point as I used to be a maths wizz. I don't mean to denigrate others by saying we don't sit on our laurels. I probably am generalising specific to my social circles that we do have incredibly high academic expectations and we are probably archetypal tiger parents.

Having the option to take 5 years out of work not having to worry about money is a real luxury I know not every has that choice.

Why does this type of discussion always focus on what the woman does?

Actually, my post also focussed on the unnecessary long hours many men choose to work and their impact on women's choices and opportunities. I don't let men off the hook.

What exactly are your "horrified" friends saying?

I know some SAHMs who spend ages justifying why they stay at home when the kids are at school. I know other WOHMs who justify why they go to work. A lot of people feel judged for their decisions and a tiny part of them probably feels a bit guilty.

I'm similar to Capricorn, both dh and I work and earns very high salary (not "good" as Capricorn put it, £150k is a huge amount). I work four days and dh does full time but we both do the flexing if need be. I find it difficult and need to employ a new cleaner plus we have a nanny which should make it easier. The biggest thing for me is not having time to myself and for the children as well. In my dreams being a SAHM would help but we'd have less money and I do not like the idea of being financial dependant on someone else in case it goes wrong

I don't go with the feeling sorry for the poor men who have all the pressure of earning a living for the family. There are plenty of single parents like me that have demanding work and have to do all the childcare and household jobs and are disadvantaged at work compared to the men who have wives doing the domestic stuff for them. E.g. we are have to rush out at lunchtime to buy a book day costume or a birthday present for a party, or we have to take calls from the school or pick up a sick child or arrange medical appointments, we can't stay late and we can't easily pick up an urgent piece of work overnight because there's only us to take the DCs to clubs, or feed them, or deal with the latest teenage trauma etc. It would be an absolute luxury to be able to pretty much guarantee my work week is not going to be disrupted by something or other and I can react to whatever happens, which is what men with SAHPs have and I have watched them moving ahead of me career-wise en masse whilst mothers step back whether they want to or not. IMO only work arrangements that make it normal for both parents to share work and domestic arrangements more equitably will ever change this. I don't really know why work is shared out so unevenly, it doesn't need to be like this.

Having said that OP you need to prioritise your mental health and balance that with other factors. It's the system that needs changing and until it is we will be left with imperfect choices.

Would you feel the same if your sons made the same decision?

I am nowhere close to a 6 figure salary as a teacher. I see some wonderful young people day and daily who have so much to offer the world and I'm not even in a super selective grammar and would be disappointed if all my male pupils went on to fabulous careers and the females ended up staying at home. This is supposed to be an age of equality. These young people have the potential to contribute positively to society as a whole not just their own families.

Another one here who, by default, ended up prioritising DH's career. When we met we earned the same... Then came DC1, maternity leave, going back to work part time, DC2, more maternity leave, moving house for DH's work and deciding it "wasn't worth it" for me to work because I'd just be working to pay the childminder. Kids started school, I got a low paid, term time only job.

Fast forward a few years, 'D'H had an affair and I kicked him out, I'm now a single mum raising 2 kids on a lowly school admin worker's salary, his career has gone stellar and he can afford luxury holidays and a brand new car while I'm taking the kids camping on holiday and driving a knackered old banger.

I feel like I sleepwalked into this situation without really thinking it through. It all seemed to make sense at the time. I have a first class degree and an MA, just going to waste. I'm angry at myself, and I will be advising my DD when she is older to never, ever get in a situation where she is dependent on a man for money.

I think a lot of men work a lot of unnecessary extra hours to conveniently escape the hurly burly of family life. This creates a presenteeism culture that makes it doubly tough for women to combine a career with seeing their family

Exactly this.

Throughout my career I've been amazed by the number of men whose jobs require them to work longish hours but generally allow just enough leeway to enable them to get home in time to kiss the kids goodnight. That leeway somehow doesn't exist when it comes to being home in time for pickup, bathtime, and all the other tougher bits.

I run large teams now. And I make it clear that I view presenteeism - regularly working long hours as the norm - as a performance issue to be fixed. If people have too much work to be done in working hours, it's up to them to raise the issue. If I and the managers on my team aren't managing and sharing workloads properly, that's a performance issue for us.

In reality, I've found that most people without childcare responsibilities can get their work done in the same hours as those who have to collect kids from childcare. It's a high-pressure high-profile role and there are often times people have to do work outside the normal hours to get the job done. But I have two principles - first, we offer flexibility about how the work gets done (eg at home if possible/necessary) and second, we offer flexibility at other times (leaving early for appointments or even a weekend away, etc) to reflect people's efforts.

It's a lesson I learned from a (male) boss who had to get home for childcare at least as often as his wife did. And I'll be damned if people use me and the team's work as an excuse to opt out of family life.

Threads often seem to focus on the top 5% of the population - as Believeit points out, 150k is a huge amount.

A household with 2 adults, 2 children under 13, and a council tax bracket of 2500 a year is in the top 2% www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/step4.php?adults=2&incomeadj=2828.759373262&child%5B%5D=0-13&child%5B%5D=0-13&x=63&y=19

I run large teams now. And I make it clear that I view presenteeism - regularly working long hours as the norm - as a performance issue to be fixed. If people have too much work to be done in working hours, it's up to them to raise the issue. If I and the managers on my team aren't managing and sharing workloads properly, that's a performance issue for us.

This. Aiding and abetting a work culture that doesn't reward work, but the ability to stay till 7, is a choice to shit on others who don't share that privilege. Men who "don't want to rock the boat", when the "penalty" for them saying "actually I know X is always out the door at 5 but she works damn hard" is miniscule or nonexistent, are choosing to shit on X even though they are not directly involved in deciding that she doesn't get a payrise, promotion, selected for redundancy.

I find Jessy's post very heartening. If there were more bosses with that attitude maybe we would start to see real societal change.

We're not super-rich, but my income alone puts us in the top 10% of households, before DH's income is even factored in. I don't work long hours at all, and have a very hands-on relationship with my dd.

I manage quite a few guys who probably tell their wives that they couldn't possibly work flexibly or leave the office at a reasonable time. I guess it's convenient for them to maintain that facade, but it's patently untrue.

Well put, slightlyglitterbrained. All these men who have wives to prioritise their careers I am sure as shit are not champions for women in the workplace. Why should they be, they can stay as long as they want? This is how a feminism based solely on 'choice' can negatively impact and corrode other women's opportunities.

Just to add, the one guy I know who does work flexibly around his kids is my boss.

So does the fact that all these men actively avoid getting home earlier mean that mothers actually do have to step back from careers to pick up the slack? And that we can blame inflexible employers forever when the actual issue is that lots of dads don't want their careers to be affected by parenthood?

My DH has a job that works on a 24/7 basis. He's not and never has been a 9-5er. I also had a job in the same business so obviously it wasn't going to work with kids. He earns more, a lot more, and in this business, always will. So it made sense for me to row back from it.

If anyone thinks I'm doing a disservice to women by doing that, knock yourself out.

Quite, Broken. I have some peers whose wives have "chosen" to downshift career-wise. Apart from one, they could all go home at lunchtime and we'd probably get more done without them prancing around.

Fortunately I have other peers who don't break their arms patting themselves on the back when they do bathtime.

As I said before it's jointly up to parents to meet their dcs' physical, emotional and financial needs (as well as their own of course). How they choose to divide those responsibilitis is up to them but I don't agree that feminism means that women get to just decide they're opting out of the financial aspect.

I find it so depressing how many men I know who just assume they will marry somebody who stays at home and facilitates their career. Most men in my profession are so successful because they have this support structure. They may work from home occasionally and take family holidays, but they know they will never need to miss an important meeting to take the DC to the doctors and they would never dream of taking more than a few weeks off as paternity leave.

I am slightly resigned to the fact that it is very unlikely now that I will ever meet a man who wants to share things equally. I hope things will be better for our daughters' generation, but I think it will actually take several generations before women truly are given a choice (and to be clear, there is no real choice if the majority of eligible men still prefer a woman to be a homemaker and to take on the lion's share of childcare responsibilities).

Cleo - that there's a really common pattern of men taking the piss/doing facetime doesn't mean there aren't professions that make it fucking hard to be a parent.

I know a couple who are junior doctors. They've had serious conversations about one of them quitting or stepping off training, because getting childcare to cover a shift change in the middle of the night is impossible.

In most families I know the choices seem to be made on the basis of maximising the families overall income, rather than balancing both. When you have bills to pay that seems like a sensible strategy.

In our situation DH is a contractor. he doesn't work particularly long hours but has a longish commute. Therefore I work less hours in my permanent job to pick up DS from school a few days a week.

For us both to earn the same as each other, we'd both have to work in a permanent position to support school pick ups etc, and we'd both work more or less full time. Oh and our overall income would be less than it is now. Oh and DS would be in wrap around care so he'd be in school from 7.45 - 5.45 5 days a week.

But hey we'd be equal.

If the conversation is around why is it me taking the step back rather than DH then absolutely let's have that discussion, but if it's why aren't we both knocking our pans in to earn less money just in case we might get divorced 20 years down the line, then I feel it's less valid.

I know a £150k a year family income isn't average however, 4 years ago I changed career and took an entry level job at £28k which was a big salary drop. In fact most of my wage went on childcare, it was quite depressing but I took the short term hit as I knew it wouldn't be that way forever.

I wanted to move up the ladder quickly and my DH helped me do this in a number of ways. Firstly he had enough of a rep and goodwill at work to be able to cover most sick days and emergencies (luckily for us this has been rare) , nursery/school drops off and pick up etc meaning I could focus on moving up the ranks..quickly. I am very driven and knew if I could focus and be in a position to take opportunities I could earn more. 4 years and a couple of promotions later and I'm on £60k. My DH is on board to do what he needs to do to ensure we both do well at work so we can hopefully both retire in our 50s.

DH could've probably earned more somewhere else but we agreed to work for our current employers because they offer flexibility such as working from home and work life balance and because we both have that we can both work FT.

DH and I are a team and now I have built up a good rep at work and goodwill I'm in a position to be more flexible so DH and I do everything equally. At times when one is busier at work, the other does more of the non-work and child related duties.

If your DH is willing to be a bit flexible you can also have a career if that's what you want. Many employers allow some level of flexibility, it's up to men to ask for it.

Cookie dough are you really an Oxbridge graduate ? DS goes to a super selective, far more mothers seem to work in professional ft roles than at the state primary he attended. In fact I don't think I know any Dcs at the superselectives with a SAHP, maybe co--incidence or genetic basis of intelligence or modelling of work ethic ? I work ft btw and I hope and am given to believe that Dd is likely to get in also.

If your DH is willing to be a bit flexible you can also have a career if that's what you want. Many employers allow some level of flexibility, it's up to men to ask for it.

Completely agree. The problem is that I think your husband is a surprisingly rare find!

Mm mm interesting , I don't think I gave dh much choice ( in choosing to participate in the whole childcare thing). Does it matter what people's pre-conceived ideas are ? Surely they can be challenged and changed ? I think it aactually helped that we were relatively young and DS was unplanned, so it was more like " how are we going to work this out together?"