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?

In OPs specific case, as her job is public sector, there's a good chase for considering the pension, defined progression and possibly greater stability in their calculations too. Money is only part of the picture.

Honestly though, the friend is playing a mug's game taking that approach unmarried unless they've factored that into their personal arrangement. I don't just mean both joint tenants for the home, that's a bare minimum. But also things like pension contributions, more savings in her name etc.

I think your friend is an idiot. It's fine for women to give up the careers or have less of a career than their DHs if that is what they want but to suggest that your career is of less importance and that you therefore should make all the sacrifices rather than share them just because you are the lower earner is ridiculous.

(Sorry for the long quote that follows, the thread has moved on and I wanted to reply to Jassy)

'
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.'

'Never making up the hours' is obviously a different thing. In my employed post I 'gave back' for the flexibility by being happy to do something urgent on a Friday night/at a weekend etc now and again where needed, work evenings where needed (not every day but at some point most weeks), interrupt my annual leave to hold a conference workshop etc. and quite simply by being very, very good and fast at what I do.

I'm not sure what use a 'gentle comment' of that sort is going to be, though? Either she pulls her weight/is valuable overall despite a spate of absence (what if it was sick leave her her? Stress?) or she doesn't, which then needs addressing.

Oh FFS. I meant 'what if it was sick leave for her?'

No of course you shouldn't compromise your career just so your DH can peak in his. (Unless that's what you jointly choose).

However there are scenarios in which yes, the lower earning career is secondary. My scenario for instance. I always wanted and planned to work, however DD has SN and it recently became clear one of us needed to be a SAHP. (Both of us cutting our hours back wouldn't have worked). DH earns 6x my earnings and whilst we could have survived on my earnings, we'd clearly be a lot more comfortable on his (and be able to support DD better in various ways in future). Guess which one of us is now the SAHP... It isn't what I want personally, but in this case that is IMO outweighed by DD's needs, for now at least.

I'd love a cleaner, but I want us to be parents, so whilst DS is in full time nursery, I wouldn't want him then collected by a nanny. I want us to have family time. That can only happen with a good work/life balance.

minipie that's quite a different situation, however in that situation we would have to make sacrifices in other areas so dh could be the sahp. I'm a shit mother when full time at it.

So am I mangle believe me - unfortunately DH would be even worse I suspect

Do you enjoy your job and are you keen to process? Then don't obviously sacrifice your career. It's not only job satisfaction but security, pension, independence.

I would never give that up.

I'm not sure what use a 'gentle comment' of that sort is going to be, though? Either she pulls her weight/is valuable overall despite a spate of absence (what if it was sick leave her her? Stress?) or she doesn't, which then needs addressing.

I tend to take the approach of trying to get to the bottom of what the issue is before going in all guns blazing with people I manage. It gets better results. Ditto for repeated illness or other performance issues. I don't know people's full stories unless they tell me.

So with an employee who's been taking a lot of emergency leave for her kids, I want to understand of their are any underlying issues - does one of her kids have a chronic health issue, or is there a worrying pattern being investigated? Is she equally frustrated by a bad run of illness? Does she need help and advice on options for emergency childcare, which our advice service can help with?

The next steps will depend on what the response is. 'This job is less important to us than my husband's, so I take all the time off when the kids are unwell' got a reasonably robust response making it clear that the individual needed to come up with a plan for managing her children's illnesses that also ensured her work got done on a regular basis and didn't jeopardise our flexible and family-friendly policies (which we had fought extremely hard for) for everyone else.

No right answer.

I was happy to ditch my career when kids came along.
Would have been hard to juggle, OH always worked away a lot we both wanted our kids to be cared for at home by a parent and doesn't feel suited to being a SAHP.

Hackney I want trying to belittle sahm. I said I find it depressingly 1940's because as a feminist I find it depressing that the the overwhelming setup is for the sahp to be female and the high earner to be male. Not to say that there are not acceptions to that pattern, just it's heavily skewed. I think that are structural and social things that keep that in place. Attitudes to family, parents and sensible/flexible working hours are not great in many many sectors. The only people I know who earn 6 figure salaries work very long hours and have to prioritise work-there is no balance. It's a very definite split.
There's less crossover in worlds too. One person's world is that of work, the others the domestic. This is fine when it works, but when there is pressure or stress I think it can be harder to be understand the other person's experience. When marriages breakdown it must be a steep learning curve for both partners to take on more of the other role. I dunno..... Maybe I'm just a cynic, but the other part for me personally is that I'd never want to leave myself and my kids that vulnerable..... If dh, got crushed by a bus or left me for someone I'd step up my job and we'd be fine. I guess life insurance and investments cover the first option for higher earners, but running two households post divorce is always going to result in less disposable income for all.

On the earning thing. For me it's always been a money/time thing. Earn more but have less time at home (because it requires long hours). Or work in a sector/industry that is more 9-5 and earn less. It appears for some people they have found a job that is 9-5 and pays £100,000 (or did I misunderstand?) which is great for them/their family. But I'm not sure there are very many of those.....

The awful truth is probably that most men (not all) are fine and dandy focusing on their careers and spending less time with their kids. Its not even necessarily about money - status and job satisfaction is often enough.

The vast majority of primary carers and part-time workers are women - Would that still be the case if men were chomping at the bit to spend more time with their kids and do the housework?

I'm sticking at a (well paid) 4 day a week job so I can pick up dd from school one day a week and have at least a day a week with her in the school hols. Its not essential, dd would be fine without it, but its important to me. I'd be happy for dp to do it.

Dp isn't bothered that he never picks dd up from school and has less time with her in the school hols. He isn't insisting I do it, he just isn't bothered about using childcare 5 days a week and has no intention of ever going down to 4 days. (He's home for 4-5 bath/bed times a week, not many dads we know are to be fair).

We equally share drop offs/pick ups/sick days/childcare fail days etc - because I insist, not because dp is desperate to do it.

And honestly? He's still a more engaged parent than many dads I know.

(Incidentally, the couples we know with a huge disparity in salaries are either because one is a SAHP or working (very) part time. Most were comparable earners before they had kids.)

In a solid unit, it can make sense for one person to 'sacrifice' their job for the other's career. However, lower paid doesn't always mean just any old job - you've described yourself as having a career. That being the case, you need to invest in your career too - it's just good planning.

One of you may leave/die/become ill - having a second career in the unit to make the main breadwinning one is always a good idea. If you were doing NMW stuff that didn't require any training, I would agree with your friend, but it sounds like actually, you've had to work damn hard to get where you are and deserve a bit more respect.

hett I find it depressingly 1940's because as a feminist I find it depressing that the the overwhelming setup is for the sahp to be female and the high earner to be male. Not to say that there are not acceptions to that pattern, just it's heavily skewed. I think that are structural and social things that keep that in place. Attitudes to family, parents and sensible/flexible working hours are not great in many many sectors. The only people I know who earn 6 figure salaries work very long hours and have to prioritise work-there is no balance. It's a very definite split.

I agree. And women trying to hold on to careers and juggle everything while OH works long hours is the shitty end of the stick.

It would be lovely if both partners stepped down to 25 hours a week so they could parent equally time wise, but career progression is usually hugely limited and pay far worse for part timers,

Yes it's the structural and society that keeps the systems in place, parents have limited choices for day care, often using none is not an option.

For me giving up my career totally to care for kids was a choice I wanted to make.
I was able to support my OH in giving 110% to his career.
Sexist? Anti feminist?

Well it worked for us. 20 years down the line we are in a better financial situation than if I had continued my career)

Part of that is luck. But then I don't mind taking risks in life.

Having been widowed in the past, homeless- despite my meticulous planning I know that life can take some sideswipes.

hettie

I think you've missed the point of feminism - well, my idea of it anyway. It isn't about quotas and every woman having to earn an identical amount of money and spend an identical amount of time at home as their husbands. No need to be Ms and refuse to take your DH's surname.

It's about choice. We're all just animals and paternal instincts are different to maternal instincts. It isn't conditioning; it's about millions and millions of years of evolution and biology.

Feminism is about choice and you saying that it's depressing that SAHP-ing isn't done in equal numbers suggests you've missed the point. If women want to work then they should be able to. If they want to support their husbands careers and spend more time being a parent then that's fine too.

I think you've missed the point of feminism - well, my idea of it anyway. It isn't about quotas and every woman having to earn an identical amount of money and spend an identical amount of time at home as their husbands. No need to be Ms and refuse to take your DH's surname.

You might want to rethink both your straw man 'quotas and women forced to earn identical incomes to their male partners' comparison and your idea that feminism is some kind of cure-all ideology to justify whatever decisions you make, however reactionary.

Feminism isn't about choice, it's about women not being treated worse than men. Women can and do make choices that are entirely unfeminist, that fuck other women over, even.

Which I don't think SAH or going part time necessarily does, I work part time myself actually. But no, the point of feminism isn't choice and something doesn't become feminist merely because a woman wanted to do it.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. Both my DH and I scaled back a bit at work when DD came along (both went 0.8 FTE and were less likely to volunteer for the more high-profile projects which require overtime, late hours etc). We also share all pick ups, drop offs, sick days etc.

The thing is, from a financial perspective, I actually think we'd have been better off having one person take a proper back seat (work very part time and pick up all the slack at home) leaving the other to chase a full time, demanding career, get the promotions/bonuses/pay rises etc.

I suppose for most people career is about more more than money but it does make me wonder what the best approach is. I guess it's very personal and I can totally see why some people think like your friend.

Baby - Far more women than men live in poverty. Is this evolution too? Or just the natural state women need to accept [hmmm]

SenatorBunghole

What's an unfeminist choice? Like becoming Mrs Dh's-surname?

I did say that choice was my view of feminism. I felt the caveat was important. You may have a different view. I think that ny idea of choice ncompasses yours though. Have a choice to vote, go to uni, carve your own future. Women have the same opportunities in life as men. There are few countries where they aren't offered the same education, salaries, healthcare etc. They have the choice to make of their lot in life what they will.

dameofdilemma

Not sure what you mean. If we were all subsistence farmers with no state intervention then evolution / natural state would mean men can better feed themselves and would likely outlive us. Our ancestors discovered though that through biological differences, we were better when we paired up. Eye, hip, brain, muscle differences made us more adept to looking after the 'nest', raising children and gathering and men better at hunting. As a team we achieve more than as individuals.

I suspect that in countries where women in poverty outnumber men (it's the other way around in the UK by quite some margin) there is less state intervention.

Perhaps it is the natural state. That doesn't mean we can't look to change it though.

There is no right or wrong answers to this, so don't worry about your friend and what she thinks. Each to their own.
Family time is important yes. However, not all families are happy to "plod along" financially-speaking, not if there is an opportunity to make life-changing amounts of money. What about the self-employed or entrepreneurs, like my DH? Not everybody works set hours or is on a salary scale anyway.
In our case, it made practical and financial sense for me to be a SAHM and let DH go for it. His work infiltrated our evenings and weekends yes, but now he can retire at age 45 - school / uni fees sorted for the future, all DC have trust funds and we can live comfortably off the interest on invested money into old age. If I had insisted on working and him being equally available at home, it would have taken a lot longer to get to this position and a lot more stress for all of us along the way. But I was happy to be a SAHM. You recognise you are not, so that's that. It totally depends on the job, the opportunities and the personalities involved.

I think that there is a right and wrong answer in that whilst people are welcome to give up their own career if they want, it is wrong to think that other people should sacrifice their careers for their higher earning partner. Even if this means they might have more holidays and live in a bigger house as a result, that won't outweigh the benefits of having a good career and being financially independent for many people. I also want to set a good example to my daughters. If money was more important to me than I satisifying career, I wouldn't have have become a health care professional in the first place and would have chosen a higher earning but (for me) ultimately less satisfying career.

It all depends on what you want as a family. My husband and I have both made sacrifices in our careers but he likes his job more than I like mine so I am part time and he is full time. If we came into money I would give up my job and be a SAHM but I wouldn't expect my husband to change his job to earn more to facilitate that as he has a great work life balance and he is very active in our children's lives.

Surname taking, hmm, it's not a feminist choice but i don't know that its out right unfeminist. It does have a potentially negative impact on some other women I guess, but personally I set the bar a bit higher than that. So actively shitting on other women.

Fundamentally though, something doesn't become feminist because a woman chose to do it and feminism isn't about choice, it's about improving things for women. They may overlap but they're not identical.