To be annoyed at the situation we've ended up in?

[twolittleboysonetiredmum]

I should have seen this coming but genuinely didn't.
We have 3 chn born in the last 5 years. I was taken on part time approx a year before our first was born and have remained so since whilst my husband has worked full time. This was the only way we'd have been able to afford to live with childcare fees etc and as I was already part time (and breastfeeding etc) it made sense to stay so.
Our jobs have always been on a par financially and responsibility wise so any days off for appts/sickness etc have been shared between us.
However, my DH is now applying for the next step up in his job and I'm really pissed off at the idea of it.
It's going to mean my job, again, will have to take a back seat. (I've been trying to return full time as being part time in or profession = no career progression) his promotion will mean he'll be home later and less so I'll have to do more at home. It'll also mean that I'll have to take on all the sick days, appts etc
I should've seen this coming when I stayed part time for the kids but I'm still really irked at the fact he can get moving in his career and I'm frozen, or actually going backwards in the sense that I'll have to focus more on the family again than trying to push ahead and make up for lost time. I'm not expecting a solution just ranting at my stupidity at a standard situation for lots of parents I'm sure

Go full time. Discuss with your husband how you will separate life-tasks kf he should take the promotion.

Twolittleboys i get where you are coming from; i feel exactly the same. I am so fed up of thinking of, shopping for & cooking meals and loading & cleaning up after every meal that dragging my feet into the kitchen feels like climbing a mountain.
I disagree with crumbs i think it is detrimental to a relationship for one party to progress their career at the expense of the others; far better to both work part time. You don't necessarily need to keep earning more & more money; children appreciate time rather than stuff.

the diswasher

...and i also have a 19 year old as well as 2 younger dcs; so it's not a case of "when they're older you'll wish you spent more time with them..." in my case.

Presumably at some point there will be extra money from your DH taking a step up. If go, that's extra family money that can be invested in extra help with the DCs to ensure you can step up in your career.

I'm afraid that I agree thaI agree that choosing to have three children does mean more school runs, more lunches, more household tasks. And somebody has to do them whether it's a paid help or you or your partner. It is true that working part-time and doing the bulk of household tasks and sorting out children is sometimes the short straw.I think you have to take the longer term view and do what's best for everyone even if it means compromises.

Compromises for both partners just to clarify.

So you job share with another teacher, but do all the admin/planning and marking? Why? Why are you doing a significant part of someone elses job?

Either stop that now, and make the other teacher do all of their job, or go full time because by the sound of it your workload won't increase much.

If he doesn't apply this time, will he be able to apply in a year or two? If he can make that sacrifice for the sake of the family, so that you can increase your hours and get your foot back on the ladder, then very soon you'll bothbe able to progress in your careers while also sharing the responsibility for everything else.

I totally agree with BeyondThePage I also think it depends on what having it all means to you.
When I stayed at home for preschool and worked part time during primary school I really felt (and still do) that I was 'having it all' because I was able to make that choice. I left my well paid career and had time for everyone including me, I did the majority of the housework and enjoyed my role.
I also feel that it is wrong that cooking, cleaning and the traditional 'female role' is viewed as negative, we are a team. I was his equal and valued and it wasn't a sacrifice, I loved it. Yes my OH concentrated on moving on with his career but he recognized that I enabled him to do this and his time at home was with us not doing chores.
I have a career, I retrained, however my retirement will be delayed due to the career break I took..... so having it all, for us women always seems to have consequences somewhere.

What scope is there to buy in more help? I think the PP who suggested a nanny had it right. Nanny, cleaner, a couple of lean years while he moves up his payscale and then you'll both be where you want to be?

I read this thread, relating to a lot of what you are saying but then I just have a job. Teaching IS a career and you're still keeping your hand in by working part time.

However, I DO get your point. WHy should all the home stuff default to you, as a woman? When you think of progression, you have to consider who has to do the cleaning, home administration and he's already said he can't /won't do sick days and absolved himself of that responsibility.

I'd say like the others to go for it but I think you'll burn yourself out as some other teachers friends have a similar situation

Go full time get a Nanny or housekeeper depending on age of children - if you are paying assorted childcare for 3 it won't be alot different.

But also have the discussion around this with DH - he needs to acknowledge he is not a completely free agent - there are still industries that completely ignore this fact

There's a reason that men have traditionally gone out to work while women have just done all the "stuff" unpaid (while being expected to be grateful for their board/lodgings), it's because it's the better option.

I think there is a lot More to it than that:
Historically women have been lower earners than men so it has made sense for the men to be the breadwinners . Hopefully This is slowly changing.

Biologically, men cannot be pregnant, give birth and breastfeed so at least short term there is a reason that it makes sense for the women to be the ones to take a career break. Although in America where paid maternity leave is almost non existent many women return to their jobs soon after giving birth and express milk for their babies if they want them to be breastfed. Personally, I think the option of having a few months off with some pay after having a baby is a better option than what America have.

I feel quite saddened that some people see being home with the children and Having less / no career progression as a lesser option than women staying in work full time in order to have progressive careers. For some people the career option is their preference whilst for others being with the children more is their preference - both preferences are valid and neither is superior to the other.

Of course it's not a lesser option if that's what you want to do. But the op has said it's not, making the "count your blessings " and "enjoy the time with your children" comments particularly frustrating.

I think you should discuss working full time now with your husband. Work out how much childcare will be, and whether both of you being FT is feasible. It's not just for your piece of mind, but added security. Would you be ok if your DH was to lose his job or fall ill?

I could have become a SAHM but for my career I've gone back to work. I'm using up annual leave so will be part time now until end of this month.

It worked out to be the best decision as DP lost his job,, largely due to stress and anxiety issues, and he is not emotionally ready to look for another job. Luckily, with me working full time, I can keep a roof over our head and keep us fed.

Unfortunately, whichever way round it is, this situation arises all the time (kids or not) due to incompatibility of many jobs/locations - and taking a break doesn't really align with 'taking turns', in most cases one of you will always have to 'take the back seat' technically speaking, but it can work out well. It depends on the fields you work in to a large extent.

My DH has very specific skills and can only work in certain areas of the world whereas I'm more generally brilliant and can work many places, so because of this we uprooted to follow his career and combined with having a child it's exacerbated the 'inequality' as he's sailed ahead. I in no way begrudge this, it's the logical outcome of our areas of work and with more men working flexibly it's working well for us at the moment (with 1 young DC).

*Of course it's not a lesser option if that's what you want to do.^

I agree. But when the OP is saying that men go out to work because it is the better option she is generalising. It isn't the better option for all men and all women. It might not be what she wants but sweeping statements about it being the better option are not accurate.

Obviously there is no such thing as having it all. It's a state of mind, not a reality. What one woman might believe is having it all is another woman's idea of being too blinkered to see what you are missing out on, or getting all your priorities wrong. A perfectionist who isn't much good at delegation, because others won't do things in the way they "ought to be done," will definitely never, ever be able to "have it all."

What you are experiencing is a potential mismatch between your family's resilience to stress and and your desire to do something that will make your lives more stressful. If as a family you can only cope with your husband's promotion or you going back to work full time, then in all honesty, which of the two options do you think will make you all the least stressed and least resentful, bearing in mind that feeling resentful is in itself stressful? Don't listen to others telling you what their personalities and family dynamics could cope with - what is your family's stress threshold? How unhappy is your dh in his current job? How unhappy are you in yours? What would be the risk to both of you in testing out the stress threshold, by both going for what you want, career-wise, rather than playing it safe?

Looking backwards from the point of view of being retired now, I do not regret the 5 years I took out of my career to devote to tiny children, not the subsequent years of part time to fit in better with school etc. My career took off after that when the time was right and I do not think it held me back in the final analysis; I just stepped up a bit later, bringing with me the wisdom and life skills that are gained from parenthood.

My advice to you would be to enjoy these years when the children are small and do not regard them as holding you back. This time passes in a flash.

nor

Another issue which could arise in the future is if he holds back from applying due to understanding you are unhappy with the situation, what happens if you do go back to work full time yourself and get a similar opportunity to progress your career, where you would need to work longer hours with your DH having to take up the slack; would you be equally understanding and turn the opportunity down?

You could work full time but choose not to. That's not your DHs fault.

Of course household tasks will naturally fall to you, nothing to do with gender but if you are working less then it should be expected as you have far more free time.

I hear you OP.
I work part time because we want the kids to spend time with a parent after school and do activities etc.

Some days I feel incredibly lucky to work part time and have so much time with longed for dc.

Some days I resent dh for being able to crack on with his career knowing all the childcare and house shit is covered, while mine has gone stagnant and I am bossed about at work by people with far less experience and frankly ability.

I don't see it as unfair that he doesn't apply this time. It's a recognition that it will significantly change the structural set up of the family to your disadvantage. If he's agreed to pass on it this time, then do that and look for ways you can both pursue your careers.