I dont want to work

[LadyOfPleisure]

I have moved heaven and earth, done extra studying, to return to work in a fulfilling and interesting career. I should pat myself on the back, and be bloody glad, but I am not. I am earning reasonably well per month, and it is not full time but 60%. In a standard week I will work from around 11.30 three days per week, and from 7.30 two days per week, until 16.30 all days. So two long days, and 3 short days.
I am a well educated woman, with a bachelor and two master degrees. Still studying modules, to add to my qualifications. Being an airbnb hostess because I like to have guests to broaden our horizons, and I like the extra income.

Dh travels a lot with his job, I do the lion share of after school activities and sports. My two dc are different ages, and they do the same sport but at different times, in a different place twice and three times per week. The older one can cycle, or take the bus, the younger one cant. They need to have dinner before they go, as activities are around 6pm, lasting 60-120 minutes. The older play at regional level. This will mean that ds1 (15) will need to sort dinner for the two of them at least once a week.

My dh earns more per week than I do per month. We dont need me working to make ends meet. I took a long career break when the dc were small. I felt it is my turn now, before I get too old. I have retrained, and worked hard, and I am enjoying my first proper summer holiday in years. I dont want it to end. Part of me want to continue just doing what I want! Relax, chill, enjoy my kids. I go back to work first of August, and I just want to .... resign. I want to STILL be there when they get home from school, cook their dinners, get them to their sports, and be there. I know it is silly.

The feminist in me is angry with myself. The lazy gobshite in me wants to raise my glass to egocentricity. I want to go to the gym when it is empty, go for coffee, go shopping....
All my friends work, so it will be lonely...

Dh is happy for me. He says I should absolutely go out there, enjoy adult company, have good colleagues like he has, and not waste my brain at home.

Only, reality is that he wont be around to help with much. He tries, but he has a demanding job. At his level, although his boss is flexible, he is working with both the US office and the UK, and his hours are long when he is home. He cant just cut a conference call to the US and say "sorry chaps, got to take my kid to sports, my wife is knackered".

First world problem, I know. And I am 45. It is now or never. So why am I so sad, and why do I dread going back to work so much, I spent the last 8 years moaning that I am "nothing but a mum and have no life at all"!?

[redphonebox]

I think in the majority of professions it is possible to manage your workload around your family in the way a PP suggested with the conference call example.

There probably are a minority where it genuinely isn't possible. But in most cases it's just a case of culture and it being "frowned upon" to not be available 24/7.

The only solution is to be assertive and/or leave and find a more family friendly company. And this might mean the DH making career changes. In the same way that women are expected to modify their approach to work once kids come along.

Obviously if the DW is happy with the situation and likes being a SAHM/is happy to be the default parent then crack on. I just mean in situations where that isn't the case.

[famousfour]

Erinaceous - agreed up to a point. If you are very senior or very excellent there is always going to be greater scope to shape your working life. For the merely moderately senior and moderately excellent in service industries you can only inconvenience your high paying clients so continuously and so far regardless of the working culture internally. Things happen and calls or meetings may be required at inconvenient times. That makes it difficult to be the default person at home.

Of course there is a bigger picture choice whether to change roles and jobs to something which is structurally more family friendly / regular.

[TheLuminaries]

This thread has made me feel quite sad - irrespective of tax take, career success, financial ambition and watching your back in your relationship, are there really so few people who prioritise their families and family time?

Fantastic bit of sanctimommy there. Yup, no one else but you gives a shiny shite about their families, you win sainted mother of all time, your children will rise up and called you blessed, as you gently lament everyone else heartlessness, have a gold star and a paper crown .

[Murpher]

Haha - 'sanctimommy' - brilliant. Why do women do this to each other? Why don't we support more? The early years with my 1st born were made miserable by women like this. One in particular at an NCT group commented that I didn't actually manage to have the baby myself as I'd had an emergency C-section! Wtf!

Sorry OP, I digress but I did post way back with some suggestions.

[TheLuminaries]

I know, as individuals we are all just getting through life trying to do what is best for ourselves and our families. However, I do think it is appropriate to point out the larger context in which 'decisions' and 'choices' are made, as part of an analysis as to why women's 'choices' so often leave them without access to longer term career progression and decent financial reward. That is not the same as judging SAHMs, I've been one myself, far from it, it is recognising how loaded the dice are against women having a high status, high pay job and children, compared with men, even when the children have long left home, because short term 'choices' have long term impacts, on individuals and society.

[Babbitywabbit]

Murpher - totally agree that women should support each other. But that last post was in response to an unpleasant passive aggressive post expressing 'sadness'for people who are allegedly prioritising money, ambition, 'stuff' over their children.

I have never, ever come across any parent who doesn't prioritise their children first and foremost. It's nothing to do with whether they work or stay home. Sadly a tiny percentage of parents don't prioritise their children and neglect, or abuse them emotionally or physically- again, that has no correllation with whether they are WOH or SAH.

It's a particularly unpleasant (not to mention weak) tactic to imply that parents who work aren't putting their children first. Of course we do. My children are way more important, in a different league- to my career. My work life is just another important aspect of my life- not as important but something I'm good at, I enjoy, so I've kept it up.

I've noticed that a few posters have been quite scathing about WOHM and then go on several posts later to cite their own particular circumstances which render them
Unable to work- health issues, children with SEND, or simply only ever done low paid work so they can't afford childcare. That must be really tough, but please don't take it out on those of us who are able to work.

It's not a competition fgs. My children have grown up healthy, happy and successful in their education and work lives so far AS HAVE their peers who had parents who worked full time, part time or stayed at home. Surely that's what matters in the long run?

[Murpher]

It's just a fact of life and we need to get over it. If we choose to have babies inevitably we'll be the chief carer and our careers will suffer. Most of the most high achieving women, don't. And are often single too - but that's another thread right there!

I do know a few instances where the mum is a much higher earner and the dad picks up the slack at home but it's rare. I would always assume that economics take priority as we all need food, shelter etc therefore the highest earner needs more support in their career. Of course this leads on to the pay gap - yet another thread!

As Betty Boothroyd once said when questioned on this; if a woman wants a career and family she needs a great nanny or a great granny, prefereably both!

[Babbitywabbit]

It's not inevitable for the Mother to be the chief carer. Many choose to be, but it's not inevitable. And there are many permutations in how parents choose to manage things.... maternity leave can be from a Few weeks up to a whole year, part of the leave can be transferred to the baby's father, either parent can make a flexible working request. Again, I'm not saying these things are always easy but a lot of them weren't even possible In the past.

[Murpher]

I'd like to see a brickie in a small building firm make a flexible working request. Or the legions of newly self-employed small start-ups. Who do they request from? There are a lot of working environments and employers who won't or can't offer that type of flexibility for fathers.

[RainbowBriteRules]

YY Murpher. But on here it is assumed that almost all jobs are flexible, and office based.

[Butterymuffin]

Murpher that's very true. Though the majority of husbands on here who are described as 'unable to work shorter hours' seem to be in some unspecified, but very important, office-based job.

[Murpher]

Uh-huh, I know all about those sort of jobs, my ex was veeeery clever and veeeery important at work. Not so effing important and clever when they binned him.

One thing that no-one has touched on is just how much work we put into looking after father's needs/wants even when we're keeping all the other plates spinning. After my divorce I found looking after my DC so much easier. I didn't have to factor in the fact that he'd be late in a meeting and couldn't make parents night or his plane was delayed so I had to cancel whatever, or his golf was taking longer than expected in the bar.

Much easier.

[MaybeDoctor]

OP, it seems to me as if you are perhaps having a little bit of cold feet about the new routine. Can you do fewer hours and perhaps ease in a bit more gently?

On a general note, I think it is worth highlighting that there isn't necessarily a direct relationship between how well paid a job is and how much stress or demand it carries. Some quite demanding and in inflexible jobs can be not very well paid, especially in the public and voluntary sectors. All sorts of factors can combine to mean that it is not 'worth' going back.

[Cailleach666]

murper- you speak sense.

We don't all have cosy ( however high powered) office jobs that lend to flexible working and predictable hours.
When I worked full time ( and I did until I was 38) the hours of my job were unpredictable and often long. Sure I could sometimes have the morning off, but that too was unplanned and unexpected.
Stopping in the middle of what I was doing and going home could be potentially dangerous and destroy weeks of work.
Some jobs just like that.
My OH has a job with unpredictable hours- supporting systems that make sure that our electricity always runs smoothly.
When there are systems failures he can't just turn and walk away.

To those who suggest that we should all get nice flexible predictable jobs when we become parents- then who will do these jobs?

[Cailleach666]

murpher

[Babbitywabbit]

You said earlier that you and your dh wanted to have one parent home all the time so presumably you would have stopped work anyway, regardless of
Whether your job was flexible, high powered and cosy or not

[Cailleach666]

Yes, I don't see that makes any difference.

I'm simply using my job ( and OHs job) as examples of positions that don't have cosy flexibility.

[HappyPixie]

Babbitywabbit I'm not sure why you presume I feel sad about your situation - why would I? It sounds like you and your partner did prioritise family time, so I'm not sure why you've read my post as an attack on you or families where both parents work? I was perfectly clear that there are lots of different ways to skin a cat and that my post was NOT an attack on WOHPs.

Also, I didn't say that anyone who makes different decisions to my family does so from a negative perspective of "what ifs" - I said was:

"To be clear, what I find sad is more that lots of people seem to be making decisions at least heavily influenced by negative considerations"

[HappyPixie]

The question of how best to arrange your family isn't a woman's issue and constructing a fake battle between women who work and women who don't is such bullshit I don't even know where to begin.

This is a people issue.

[Babbitywabbit]

"This thread has made me feel quite sad - irrespective of tax take, career success, financial ambition and watching your back in your relationship, are there really so few people who prioritise their families and family time?"

• not sure what you're basing this on then. I think people do prioritise their families. They might just do it in a way which is different to how you do it

[HappyPixie]

Babbitywabbit Here you go - this is from the first page of this thread.

"I'm in gone same position but the husband not taking responsibility is wearing thin."

"I'm looking ahead 9/10 years when both your kids have left home and you've got an empty nest. You may regret throwing the towel in on your job."

"If I could with no financial worries I'd be at home with my kids. It doesn't make you a bad person to want to be around your kids"

"I am a SATHW - boring as hell. DH earns a tax free 5 figure sum per month and I have every opportunity to do the classic 'go out for coffee, shop till I drop and do sod all else' - guess what, I do not because I find it boring."

"Totally understand how hard it is to keep ontop of everything while dh works long hours away. I left my career because of it, and like pp, find the interminable sahm role mind numbing at times."

"Working is about much more than money. It's about self-worth and being a contributing member of society as a tax payer."

THIS is what I was talking about and certainly not WOHPs per se.

I'm glad you have only met good parents, but I'm afraid it simply isn't true that all parents prioritise their children - I'm not pointing fingers at anyone on this thread, but I know plenty of families where the children are a long way down the priority list. And plenty of other posters have mentioned people hanging around at work to avoid going home to their families, or refusing to compromise their work life in favour of their personal life, or complained about partners not pulling their weight.

I am trying really hard to avoid making gendered comments, but it has to be said that the selfish parents are more likely to be of one gender and the parents whose personal lives are sacrificed on the altar of family and children tend to be the other.

[HappyPixie]

It isn't just about selfish parents, either, to be clear - it's also about a society and workplaces that don't support and encourage parents to spend time with their families. I'm sure there are loads of families where the working partner would love to work less, but can't, and the non-working partner would love to do some work outside the home but can't. Isn't that sad?

It's about having the flexibility to choose a set up that suits your family AND then choosing accordingly.

[Babbitywabbit]

Fair enough you've explained your point of view a but further now. Your earlier post did come across as quite judgemental, as if it's somehow the 'ideal' for all families to have one parent (ie mother) at home full time.

TBH I think it's about carving the life you want as a couple, within the parameters which you're able. I was absolutely clear that I didn't want a partnership with polarised roles - life is there for living in all it's aspects and I didn't want to work at the expense of my children, or be at home full time at the expense of my career. Neither did my dh. You make your choices and
Then get on with it- like you, I've little sympathy for people who partner someone who's jet setting around the world earning mega bucks and then complain that they're never around to see the kids, or have unpredictable work patterns.

[HappyPixie]

I most definitely do NOT think that it is categorically best for the mother to be at home. That's what happens to suit our family, but that's just us. I think that each family should decide what suits the family best and go for it - obviously that's going to be different depending on the family in question and the time of life etc.

I just wish people weren't so constrained in their choices by social expectation, financial pressures, unhelpful workplaces and gender roles. And, sometimes, misplaced ideas about what matters in life.

[WomblingThree]

Reading this thread, I actually think it's a lot easier being poor, in crap minimum wage jobs, with no career or financial aspirations.

DH and I both worked full time when DS was a baby, but we never needed childcare as my shifts fitted round his. We were both in industries with flexible-ish hours and both had understanding bosses with their own children. It was never an issue for one of us to start early or late to fit round school events or sick kids. When eventually I was the boss, I made sure that my staff had the same opportunity.

We had a tiny house (which we could afford on one wage), an old car and no fancy holidays, but we never had the stress either. Work was fun, being at home was fun. I don't think we were ever cut out for the high powered life!