to think my career shouldn't come second just because I'm the lower earner

[manglethedangle]

I was having a conversation with a friend. We are in similar positions, both work in the public sector, both have a young child, both have husbands who work in the private sector in IT with large earning potential.

I was saying that DH is currently job hunting, he got head hunted for a position but it involved a lot of travel so we decided he shouldn't go for it. I also said that we (DH and I) had discussed new jobs and made sort of 'requirements' list. She was absolutely aghast that I'd have any say in his career at all.

I explained that as far as I was concerned he could do any job he wanted, as long as most weekends were free and he's there to do bed time (some nights) and can pick up/ drop DS as required (e.g. I'm working early or late, have training etc) and it pays his portion of the bills.

She told me that as our DHs were higher earners (than us) I should be more willing to do more of the child care, more of the house work etc. So his career could progress and he could chase that 6 figure salary.

I trained hard for my job, it's a professional role requiring public body registration and regular training and accreditation. My salary is lower than his as it's a job which is pretty much only done in the public sector, so we have a clear progression scale and capped pay rises. But it doesn't mean my job is less important, less rewarding or my career is less significant than his.

If DH couldn't do a fair share of the household and childcare duties it would make my job very difficult and career progression limited. it's considered a high stress job, though I don't find it stressful. We agreed pre marriage and kids, that his commitment was to the family role before his professional one, and he left teaching partially to allow this.

FWIW we could meet all our financial commitments if we both earned my salary, I'm not exactly low paid.

AIBU to think that just because he earns more doesn't mean I have to sacrifice my career for the sake of his?

Chasing the six figure salary is clearly important to your friend, but she is BU to insist that it should be the same for you.

Everyone is different.
We started out earning the same full time and I ended up on 10x his earnings which I must say is really nice - I recommend it to all women! With money comes power and choice.

@Lucysky2017

Why do you want power over him?

lucy said she has power and choice, not over her husband, but in general! Sounds empowered to me.

YABU. He is doing more than you financially so why should he confirm ute equally domestically. If it is really so difficult why not suggest using his increased salary to hire help?

YANBU. You are dead right OP and I can't believe the conservatism here.

I am always amazed at how people meet these men who earn three times their salary. Well I'm not surprised about men earning more given inequality, but if you have a degree-entry job what kind of job earns three times that, and where did you meet them? (Given so many meet an uni or at work).

Yes, I get it, she's a strong, independent woman.

That certainly isn't how it sounded.

It's also a little strange to 'recommend' earning 10x her DH. If he's even full time on the national living wage, she's in the top 1% of earners. She should become a politician and recommend it to the poor.

ttbb because I don't want hired help (thought a cleaner would be lovely). I want family time, and time with my husband. No money can buy us that.

Ttbb what a horrible attitude. Making more money doesn't mean the person has worked harder that day. So a lower-earning nursery should come home from a long shift and then do most of the housework because the dp earns more sitting in an office?

nurse not nursery

It is perfectly possible for one partner to earn three times the other's salary.

It could be aggressively chasing promotions, instead of relying on flexibility of an employer to do childcare pick up. It could involve a commute, rather than a less well paid job locally.

DH and I do exactly the same job - both FT and have been qualified for the same length of time. He earns twice as much as me because he commutes to a higher paid area.

The thing is, if your DH was going for a job with lots of travel, late coming so no bed time with his dcs, it will be HIM who would be loosing a LOT first.
You could carry on with your career, with some juggling and a system of babysitters, family etc... like a lot of single mum do.

But he is the one who would miss on family life, his dcs and so on. I'd it really still seen as normal for men to do that? That for men, being successful is so much more important, that it's OK for them to miss on their chicken growing up, their family life etc??

What your friend is saying is raising so many issues, and not just about women shouldering the childcare by default.
It's also about the place of men in the family/society, the evaluation of anything with money (so better paid job with little job satisfaction=good but lower paid job that gives satisfaction and a career=bad), the role of women who always, always, should put themselves second etc...

:(:(

He is doing more than you financially so why should he confirm ute equally domestically

What the fucking fuck?

It sounds like OP works just as hard and for the same amount of hours as her DH, why should she have to work more at home just because her job is in a sector that pays less well than his?

Tbh, Jassy, how your employees divide up childcare responsibilities isn't your call to make, and I'm astonished you seem to think it is.

I don't.

Telling your employer that you (and therefore your place of work) is having to take the full impact of those choices because the other partner's job is 'more important' (and never making up the hours because of course you also have to do all the drop offs and pick ups) is a fucking daft thing to do when you are in a relatively well-paid job where your employer is flexible and understanding and doesn't generally ask you to take unpaid leave for these things.

It makes you look less committed to the role and the organisation (in a field where these things are valued) and it makes the organisation more likely to tighten the reins on the flexibility aspects of the job.

There are many good reasons where one parent may bear the brunt of the childcaring responsibilities, and many people in those situations have robust straegies for dealing with that situation, like one of the posters upthread. 'We don't value this job as much as his' is not a particularly good one in response to a gentle comment in a one to one that they have had an awful lot of time off to care for unwell children, inset days etc recently and their performance and delivery is affected as a result.

It really is still seen as normal for men to lose out on family time, RedPeppers.

It is often an expectation of their jobs and it is made clear that their careers will be impacted if they do not put career first. To a certain extent, this is likely to be a hangover from the situation where only the man worked and many more women were SAHMs in the 1950s, and it will gradually shift but it is not there yet.

Mistressiggi

We met in the business lounge in Heathrow. You have to earn mega-bucks to fly first but someone on £80k and £240k will fly business.

I'd suggest that people earning between £100k and £500 are likely to visit the same places and therefore meet. The amount you spend living won't be drastically different IME.

There's also an implication here that those who work harder (longer hours, weekend work) earn more. My DH doesn't work harder or longer than me, he just works in an industry that pays more. I could easily do double my hours and not be finished, it wouldn't earn me more or get me promotions faster though (salary not hourly rate).

You could carry on with your career, with some juggling and a system of babysitters, family etc... like a lot of single mum do.

And that generally involves a career hit because it invariably reduces your flexibility and availability.

One partner loses out at home and the other at work. That means both have to be up for a change to the status quo.

It's also a little strange to 'recommend' earning 10x her DH. If he's even full time on the national living wage, she's in the top 1% of earners. She should become a politician and recommend it to the poor.

This poster pops up on all threads like this to give the same 'advice' to women, seemingly oblivious that that kind of earning power is completely out of reach for almost everyone, let alone 'all women' (at the same time?).

People have different priorities. And some are prepared to make sacrifices others aren't prepared to make.

Some people both work and have a nanny. Some don't work.
Dh travelling wouldn't bother me, if it was the job he wanted. It bothers you. So these things can't be compared.

myredpepper thanks, a lot of your post is at the heart of my argument, I just couldn't articulate it.

I am always amazed at how people meet these men who earn three times their salary.

Why? Men are much more likely to go into well paid professions and women are more likely to retrain and take career breaks. My DH earns almost five times my salary... (And he doesn't work 60 hours, or weekends.)

I don't understand the attitude of your friend, but each to their own. Both dh and I made the decision to be parents and the extra work and responsibilities that that entails. He could potentially put himself into situations where he could be a 'high earner' but that would mean long hours and trips away..... He likes spending time with with his family though, so would prefer to be able to pick up the kids a few nights, talk to them, play with them and you know genuinely have a relationship with them. I guess he likes this more than the smart car and posh holidays a 'high earner' could afford. Plus I need to feel rewarded and stimulated in my job too. He earns well enough and so do I (though less than him, career break and pt hours), we are both happy and it feels very equitable which suits us. But some people want the husband's to earn money and want to stay at home/work less hours/in a very flexible job.... I personally find that depressingly 1940's stylee but if it works for them....

AIBU to think that just because he earns more doesn't mean I have to sacrifice my career for the sake of his?

YANBU. There are many reasons why one person may choose to make sacrifices, but it shouldn't be assumed simply because one earns more, the other one must always be the one to sacrifice.

And yes, this might well mean that both careers suffer somewhat because our society is still not geared up to accept that high earners/ achievers may also want to see their children or be available for emergency sick days. But hopefully it will change.

DH earns a fraction of what I do and is mostly a SAHD. For him to earn the money he does earn, it requires me to be flexible. I have to take time off work (I'm self employed) and make up that time at other times so that he can do his work when he needs to. I do this because it is important to him to still be contributing financially and to be doing the thing he is highly trained at and extremely good at. And the result is we both sacrifice - sometimes I have to make up the time on the weekend or the evenings and that means more childcare for him - but it's important to us. I would never want to be in a relationship where one person's job or career's value was only defined by how much money that person brings in.

Obviously, if you have financial worries etc, it might be that you have no choice but to let him shoot for the bigger salary. But that's a bigger issue and not directly related to what you are asking here.