It just seems depressing that the default setting is so often that the woman has to make the sacrifices for the sake of her husband's career.
I don't think that is how it goes, though, piefacerecords. Or, at least, not in quite the way you express it. You decide as a couple that you want to have a child/children. You look at the options available to you. Put crassly, the more money you have, the more options are open to you. If you have very little money, the cost of childcare is prohibitive, so one of you needs to do it. You'd probably go with the lower earner, but, as (obviously) it's the woman who is pregnant and gives birth, she's the one who requires at least a couple of months out, so it often does fall to her. Come all children being at school, then yes, she does have between 9 and 3.15. But do these jobs exist?
If you have a lot of money, the chances are you work in a long hours, high stress sort of job. I can only comment on City sort of jobs, but I suspect you'd be in a similar position if two of you are consultant medics, for example. If you work in the City/corporate law, you are expected to work 12+ hour days as a matter of course. And travel at a moment's notice. Very few people took their full holiday entitlement and were constantly in touch via email etc when they were away. If two of you work in that kind of environment, you require a full time, live in nanny....plus probably a nanny to cover the nanny. The lady up thread who said her friend's childcare bill was over £60k? It would be.
Both of you do that? You'll have a hefty childcare expense, but you can afford it. But you will see very, very little of your children. So many people choose not to; not sure how representative a sample it is, but if I think about it, I can only think of one person I worked with who had kids where both parents worked. (And she was made redundant!). People say the City is sexist and in many ways it is, but not in this regard as, ultimately, it's ruthlessly meritocratic. I've met some very senior women...but if they have kids, their partner is at home. Just the same as the senior men. I can think of only a couple of exceptions to this - and their kids were at boarding school.
So - it's a pretty stark choice. See basically nothing of your kids when they are small because you will not be home when they are awake in the week and will be travelling/going into work for a good chunk of the weekends. Or one of you stays at home, effectively squandering your own economic potential, because once you're out...you're out.
Now - it's a reasonable question why it was my job that went by the wayside and not DH's. Answer? He earned more. I wanted to do the childcare more than he did and I wanted to feed the baby myself. (Don't forget there's a lot of pressure on women to breastfeed; if you're going to go back/share parental leave in one of these jobs, you really have to do it within 3/4 months and so it's just not possible. I don't care if the law says there has to be a room and a fridge etc etc. It just wouldn't happen!)
This is hugely long winded, for which I apologise! I suppose while I agree that it's the woman who usually ends up at home, it's driven by economic factors (and maybe a bit of biology - try as he might, a father cannot lactate!) rather than any societal, anti-feminist "woman's place is in the home" thing.