To put my career before my child

[Madisonthecat]

Before I get started I’ll start by saying I think I am but really need some advice from the wise women (and men) of Mumsnet.

Currently not working and have been offered two roles which is fantastic, know I’m really lucky.

Role 1 - three days a week, 9-5, public sector job. Pretty straightforward and could do it reasonably comfortably in the time allowed with little requirement for overtime I think.

Role 2 - amazing opportunity, great pay (£15,000 more than role 1) and amazing benefits. BUT.... it’s full time only, will probably require lots of overtime, travel and be pretty stressful day in day out. It’s a sector I love and would really enjoy getting back into.

What do I do? I would love to do role 2 and if I was childless would take it in a heartbeat. But I have a 3 year old and a partner who works long hours in a demanding role too and can’t help feeling that it’s really not in the best interests of my child to take it. My partner will do a few things around the house (cooking) but I definitely do the lions share of housework and 95% of childcare currently. My previous role after mat leave was 3 days a week and worked well for us as a family as I was happy to pick up the slack. We have no family support at all.

This time I guess I feel conflicted because it’s basically a dream job and I feel sad that as a Mum it feels seems you’re forced to choose between a varied, interesting and well rewarded career or putting your children first and taking something less challenging and with less pay but providing a much better work/life balance.

I will miss my child hugely if I take role 2 as it’s also a fairly long commute (1 hour each way) and would have to accept hardly seeing them on weeekdays. What would you do??

Btw I’ve put this in AIBU as I’m after quick responses. Need to confirm either way tomorrow. Help!

Might as well have pets if you never see them, you think this holds some truth...
The statements are cliche4u.com soppy sentimentality that certain types trot out
They hold no value for me,and no I’d not base a significant decision on that sentimental schlock

@highhorse1981 I've offered for DH to be a SAHP and he's considering it.

Because you are not married, I think you should take option 2, the full time job. Keep your career going because you need that financial security.

If you were married I would say option 1, because you would get spousal maintenance and a share of DPs pension if your relationship ended.

No, spousal maintenance is not an automatic given anymore. Increasingly judge will look at ex wife health,ability to earn etc

When you prepare to die when you are old and grey, will you have regrets? What will they will?

Never seeing your children grow up, or being too rushed and busy to really enjoy life with them

or will you regret the new car/holiday that you will buy with role 2 that meant you lost so much not spending any time with your dc.

How can it be worth it?

Whenever there is an important decision to make perhaps fast forward thirty years and what you will think looking back

For me, this is not a difficult decision because I love my children deeply and want to spend my time with them.

Role 2.

I went back to work part-time after I had my children but when my company moved offices I handed in my notice because I worried that the commute would mean my children were in childcare for long days. I actually started a post like this on an internet forum at the time and the majority of people thought that was the right thing to do.

I've always worked (most of the time self-employed) but never managed to earn much and over the years I've lost my confidence. I've been working in a part-time job for the last 18 months and am now earning less than I did in my first job 25 years ago. It's also an admin role that doesn't require any decent qualifications but I have a degree and am sure I could do better but feel it's too late now.

My kids expect me to be available as I always have been so they've not enjoyed the fact that my new part-time role means they have to stay late after school every day (no public transport home in our area).

My husband's career has gone from strength to strength as I've always been available to do everything child related. I'm not saying he's a bad dad or doesn't do anything round the house, he does loads, but he's never had to worry about a child being ill, whether he can go to a meeting or travel etc. He's just taken on a new job which means he leaves at 06:30 every day and gets home at 20:00. He loves his job and doesn't mind the long days but it means I'm left with all the day to day stuff.

The balance would have been more equal if I'd stayed in my job.

I know my situation and yours are not identical but I think you should take the role that you'll enjoy, that will challenge you and give you career progression. If it's too hard I'm sure they'll be other Role 1's out there you can fall back on.

I took role 1, many years ago. No regrets, as such, but now I am back full time I see the very real hit to my career. My boss & my bosses boss are both female. One has children & a SAH husband & one doesn't have children. So neither had to take time out from their career (other than maternity) and I will never catch up. Which both sucks & explains the gender pay gap.

If you aren't married don't even consider sacrificing your career, as he could benefit from all your years of child care then swan off when it is no longer required with no legal obligations. It happens. Don't let it happen to you.

Take role 2 and insist he steps up or take role 1 and get married. Don't take role 1 without protecting yourself and your child's financial future.

Clearly it is what works for you and your family.

I would be tempted to take job 2. If it gets too much-then quit-but why not give it a try? get a cleaner-get them to do ironing too-so that when you are home, you can spend as much time as possible with your child and not get ground down with housework. and ensure there is a fair division of labour with your DH too

I went back full time. Sometimes I admit i regret it, but I have my financial independence, which is of great importance to me. i'm lucky in that my role ensures I can work from home if i need to/want to and also have flexibility to attend assemblies and stuff for our two dc.

good luck OP and congrats on being offered the 2 roles

Jeez this thread is depressing as hell.
If you have chosen to be a SAHP or have taken a job with less hours or responsibility because you want to and it was a decision you were happy with then nobody has an issue with that.

What I (and other PPs) have an issue with is those women who have been pretty much coerced into thatvre because of outdated societal and gender norms or because their partner has convinced them that because they earn more they are more important and should be exempt from domestic responsibilities.
I have a friend in this exact situation. Her DH works in a corporate environment earning big bucks and does fuck all around the house or with the kids. She is a nurse. He has convinced her that because he earns 4x her salary her job is pretty much a hobby and therefore if she wants to continue she needs to be responsible for sorting all childcare. It's a joke. I know which job is of more value to society.

We need to stop focussing on the money aspect - that is just one element of a career satisfaction. It's skews people's thinking - I research people's career decision making behaviour for a living and there is so much more to a career than money.

None of us can predict f job 2 will turn out to be rewarding or actually a bit shit. Job 1 may be more stressful than it appears, or may lead to great opportunities. There are a lot of unknown factors here. I would say the OP is extremely fortunate to have the opportunity of either job from a position of being out of work (for three years?)
The thread certainly exposes a lot of the issues with life for women today.

rocketgirl, oversimplification going on there and a Splash of sentimentality
its not cold cash earned by being absent husk vs fluffy wuffy memories
Money is important,it only money when you have enough

“For me, this is not a difficult decision because I love my children deeply and want to spend my time with them.”

I find these kinds of comments deeply unhelpful and borderline insulting.

And as someone else said, it is not a binary choice between cold hard cash and spending time with your children.

Yes, the time when your children are small passes very quickly. And yes, that means that if you work long hours you will miss out on precious moments with them when they are small.

But you know what? Life is long.

The OP has probably got another 25 working years left ahead of her, but that does not mean these kinds of opportunities will always be open to her. The career decisions she makes now will close or open doors which will affect where her career goes in the future, long after her children have grown up and left home.

My mum stayed at home when we were small because she didn’t want to miss out on those moments. She then worked part-time for many years so she could support us after school.

But in recent years it has become clear that she is frustrated and resentful because she never got her career back on track. As her daughter, I don’t think it would make much difference to me if I had spent more time with a childminder when I was small. But as her adult daughter now, I think I would have preferred to see her happy and fulfilled in her career rather than miserable and stuck in a rut.

You can’t have it all. We all know that.

But it is definitely not a case of “if you love your kids, take role 1, and if you’re a selfish bitch, take role 2.”

Will you DD be starting school in September or not until next year? If she is starting this year I see little point in taking a 3 day a week job.

Those saying “on your deathbed you never regret spending time with your kids” are being very selective.

Many many women when their children reach adulthood regret losing their career and ambition and sense of self. OP will be 55 when her dd is 18 - that’s a tricky age to try to move up from a p/t low stress public sector job.

For me, this is not a difficult decision because I love my children deeply and want to spend my time with them.

That's right. Working mothers all hate their children. There is no possible way they could love them as much as those who stay at home. Clearly none of the working dads love their kids either.

Ft working For me, this is not a difficult decision because I love my children deeply
I want to be good role model, demonstrate women working & earning,
I want the approbation & satisfaction I get from working
And on deathbed I’ll be happy & proud to recall career and my family

Museum mum but the regrets you have during your life don't matter. It's literally only your deathbed thoughts that hold clout :o

I can think of a few sahm in my family who’d have pushed harder in their careers with hindsight - my mum who sahd has been one of the keenest on me not giving up.

It’s possible to regret any choice, that’s why you think and plan as best you can and change if it doesn’t work.

I think years or regretting and feeling resentful trumps deathbed regrets

I worked nearly full time when my DD was little (from six months old). I actually work fewer hours now she's a teenager and she seems to need me more than she did when she was little. I'm mostly home when she gets home from school.

I also think take the career job that your heart wants. If you can make it work, with your DP stepping up to help, and jointly sourcing additional paid support with the domestic stuff, then great. If it all feels too much, then with a good track record of working there, and a good reputation, you might well be able to negotiate some flexibility, compressed hours, WFH, etc., that would simply not be available to an unknown new starter. Being a 'known quantity' has value.

And if flexibility is not an option in the career job, you can always rethink the family working hours, yours and your DP's, based on circumstances at the time.

Lipstick I just don't get your rants against 'sentimentality'. If a bereaved person was to feel sad about losing somebody they loved very much is this not allowed because it's sentimental? Sentimentality and emotions are part of the human experience and it can be very damaging to our mental health to deny their existence or importance.

You may not attach significance to spending lots of time with your children in their formative years. You may see this as unimportant and something you are content to miss out on. I would argue that some (possibly most) don't feel like that. Mocking people who do want to experience precious moments with their children whilst they are young is as bad as those on the other side saying to you that you shouldn't have had kids if you weren't going to raise them yourself. Both belittle women and seek to dictate to women which parenting choices are 'acceptable'.

@rocketgirl For me, this is not a difficult decision because I love my children deeply and want to spend my time with them.

Well by that rational either we love our children and don't want to spend time with them or we don't love. Personally it's quality over quantity for me. but you do you.

It's quite unpleasant for people to imply that a SAHM can't also be a good role model for their daughters.

Another couple of things:

I would be very wary about working part-time, because for women this often translates to working full-time hours for part-time pay. My colleague is about to go back to work full-time for this reason because she is always answering emails on her day off and in the evenings so she might as well get paid for the hours she is doing.

Also, don’t assume that the public sector job will mean easy hours and low stress. Budgets are being cut left, right and centre, and the diligent, hard-working people who don’t like to leave a job half done are doing a lot of unpaid overtime (and carrying a lot of useless deadweights sitting at the top of the pay scale doing fuck all and just waiting to collect their gold plated pensions).

AvoidingDM (page 14)
I come from a developing country where you need to pay for everything. Additionally, we didn't get paid in pounds, the 200k would be eh, maybe 40k in reality before removing a chunk for taxes. Two sets of school fees at 5k (pounds) per annum (DB and I worked our butt off to pay half) plus health insurance for 4, in a country where you rely on cars... I assure you, DM working full time for an extra 150 pounds a month eould have helped. 40k doesn't go very far.

Oh, but surely everything is cheaper? Nope. Everything remotely technological is imported, and developers don't care about poverty. The only thing cheaper is food, because it is produced here.

I am sorry for the misunderstanding.