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!

@BumpityBumper apologies if you feel that way. Obviously I was never a SAHM beyond maternity leave. So you are right I have not a clue as to what you do, outside of what I did when home from work and weekends. Ive said somewhere else babies bored me. But children I liked better. So from my experience of babies, it was boring as hell. This is probably more than likely because of my personality, I don't do groups, so having to meet new people and discuss babies and make everything I do about babies was never going to happen.

I was extremely grateful for the internet. Because social activities are draining on me.

As I said this is based on my limited experience of staying home with babies. So once again apologies for any insensitivity.

@apples high quality, Ofsted rating outstanding childcare provision is fantastic. Of course the staff don't love the children as much as their parents but the do care for them deeply and the kids see that - all I see is a caring, loving environment where children thrive. Maybe I'm just lucky?

Children need to learn how to interact with a wide range of children and adults.

You are yet to provide any credible research that states childcare is detrimental to children's well being.

@incrediblelife wow, just wow.

I'm delighted that there are those of us out here obsessed with equality. Im saddened to hear that so many women are still prepared to accept inequality. Equality isn't having the same thing all of the time. It's not treating someone unfairly because of a protected characteristic - gender being one of them.
I don't demand my DH does 50% of everything all of the time and he doesn't expect that from me. There are times when I need to step up and take on the bulk of the responsibility and vice versa. But we are an equal partnership, we communicate, negotiate and work together to make our family life a happy one - for all members.

Also, it's 2018 and you may be surprised at how many companies are willing to offer flexibility to both men and women. It's just that men don't tend to ask.

As for full time working mum's not knowing how to interact with their kids ....what utter bullshit. I've just been away with 2 other families and we were all a mix of working patterns and a SAHP and I honestly don't think you could tell who worked and who didn't. I don't think you could tell who's kids belonged to who either cos guess what? Not only can we interact with our own kids we can interact with other people's too! And the dad's ( who all work full time) we're all equal parents BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus there are some vile people on this thread. I think it’s awful some of you have children with the views you have. They will grow to be a poisonous and judgemental as you but that’s ok because you stayed at home with them

God there's some serious insecurity on the part of some apparent SAHMs on this thread. Anyone who can be as vitriolic as some recent posters about what the OP has rightly identified as a decision which can only be made by her with her family's interests (and that includes the op as an individual herself!) at heart seems to me to be harbouring some very deep rooted anxieties about whether their own decisions were the right ones. Either that, or it's just petty jealousy that perhaps (despite their 'incredible lives') they never had a career that would afford them the choices the op is currently considering.

Op I think you've responded to everything here very gracefully. I hope you get somewhere in negotiations with the more interesting job, or failing that, that you can find some satisfaction with the other.

Wow, just WOW at incrediblelife’s posts here. It’s a combination of backwards attitudes from the 1950s (most of the women in my immediate friendship group earn more than their partners by the way, including me) and the downright nastiness.

Obviously “paid help” will never love a child as much as their parents but it can still be a mentally and emotionally healthy relationship. I didn’t love the little girl I used to take care of as if she were my own daughter, but I did love her and she loved me. She also loved her parents and she also loved nursery school. (Which she had attended since the age of six months, by the way.)

I am not worried about the OP’s child because the OP sounds like a good and caring mum with her head screwed on.

I am worried about yours though.

The way you have turned on people, using emotional blackmail and manipulation to really twist the knife and make people feel terrible for making any decision which is different to the one you would make is absolutely appalling. In my view, that makes you unfit to be a parent. I would put money on your own kids spending a lot of money on therapy or even going NC with you in later years, if your posts on here are any indication of how you try to influence people in real life.

Blaablaa - I agree with you -my own kids are in nursery too. But not at 6 months when the most important thing is for a baby to bond and attach with its primary care giver.
1 year, 2 years - yes but not 6 months. I can’t believe people come and here and say it’s ‘fine’. I’m all for choice but children do have needs too. They can’t voice them as well as the Mum though and it’s only later that the damage/hurt is apparent.

Well this thread took a bizarre turn!

Incredible, may I say it sounds like you are quite upset about this. If it is because you are resenting your choices and want other mums to not progress - I haven't got it so you shouldn't type thint - then please let this go. If you are truly happy with your lot there would be no need for you to try (unsuccessfully) to make others feel bad about theirs. Its not a good way to be and your children will pick up on this, which would be far more damaging to them and their psychological development than having a mum who works ft yet spends quality time with them and sets a good example!e about how to 'be' with others.

Oh it would be fine if the parent had to work at 6 months - many do. But surely no one would choose to put their 6 month old in nursery full time as the best option for that child if there was another way or if the family could afford a delay to Mum restarting her work.

apples I live in France where most women return to work after three or four months and taking six months’ maternity leave is considered long. I don’t think it’s right and I wish a year was normal here like it is in the UK but that’s the way it is. If I take more than six months (and especially if I do it more than once) we will be without more than half of our income for a significant amount of time and my employer will think I’m not serious about my career.

I don’t like it but that’s the way it is. But I don’t think French children seem any more damaged than British children.

It really annoys me that it's only the woman who is worrying about all of this - bet her DH isn't worrying at all.

I would take role 2. I am in a role 2 type job although I'm on mat leave for a year now. My DH requested flexible working and will be working three days a week when I return to work (we have a three year old and the baby will be almost one). Many companies are more willing to accommodate flexible working for men, but lots of men would never ask.

@incrediblelife can I just point out that most working mothers are doing so in order to pay bills and provide food and clothes for their family. Or do you really think every single one is working on a whim to buy handbags!? Do you have any idea of the cost of living in this country compared to the average household income? (And I mean the common average not the mean average, i.e, most people actually earn well below the 'average' income of 27k.)

Also, please do be careful. If you are actually living by your own standards you must be pinning your entire happiness and fulfilment on your DC. You must be like a servant to them! Plus you are putting a lot of responsibility on their shoulders. They will grow up under a lot of pressure knowing that they are the only thing you have in life and may feel stifled under the weight of your envolvement in their lives. Just bare in mind that there is every chance they will grow up and not thank you for the sacrifices you have made.

Your DC are not an extension of your own ego!

...Although, I actually don't believe for a minute that you actually live by the things you are spouting on here. You sound more like you're having a crisis and projecting in order to distract from your own problems. How do you the judgments throw back at you eh? Not nice is it?

Faultymain5 thank you and there isn't really a need to apologise. It's just a wanted to highlight how language used needs to be carefully chosen as it's such a sensitive issue. I think we all have back stories, thoughts and opinions that underly our decision to be a SAHM/WOHM etc, but I do think it's very difficult to articulate this without casting judgement on those who have made a different decision. That's why these types of threads usually turn into bunfights I think.

I would have reservations about Option 1. It might sound easier but the pubIic sector is constantly bring reorganised and wages frozen, eroded by inflation or actually cut. Option 2 would give you great career experience and maybe more seniority and choices for the school and teen years where they actually need a parent around just as much if not more.

Also you and your DC are at risk of financial insecurity in the future if you are not married and you prioritise your DP's career and pension etc over your own. However unlikely it seems now, if you are unmarried and split up ten years down the line, you will half the house equity each. That's it. He will have a well paid senior career and be able to afford a gpod lawyer if he wants you out of the house. . You will be on p/t much lower earnings (which will greatly affect your DC's security, lifestyle and future) . No recompense is available for this or for different pensions. If he is just on a comfortable salary and not a super high earner, you won't be able to take him to court for child maintenance either , it will just be the CMS minimum.

Unfortunately I have been through this. I would take option 2, get a cleaner, outsource ironing etc, all from joint household budget. In hindsight I would definitely NOT take Option 1 without being married. Sorry to sound like a voice of doom here, but probably most legal people would tell you the same. Congratulations on the two job offers though.

apples it's either fine or it isn't surely. If there are going to be troubled children because they were put into full time care and their mothers didn't have to work full time, surely there will be equally troubled children for those women who do not have a choice. It's either all bad or all fine.

We as parents don't have to like it but that's a different conversation.

@apples but its all about degrees of choice. It's never black and white . Everyone talks about being a financial choice but a child could be put in childcare for a number of reasons - career progression, particular career demands , the parents mental health or just because that's what those parents want.
Were lucky to live in a society where we have those choices and parents ( usually mother's) shouldn't be a villified for making a decision that suits their family.

Other countries don't have such generous maternity leave but I don't think children from those countries are suffering.

I put my child in nursery at 6 months for 1.5 days a week even though I was still on mat leave. I did it because I was going back full time and it was a way of easing us both in gently. I don't regret that decision and my DS hasn't been damaged by the experience.

No it’s not fine - but obviously if you don’t have a choice what are you going to do. It’s better than the child being homeless/unable to eat isn’t it.
That’s interesting re other countries-the us too has a short maternity leave. I wonder if they could study the impact compared to countries where you get 1 or 2 years.
Three months is a shockingly short maternity leave.

@apples I'm pretty sure there is a wealth of research in to the area.

Wow you put your child in at six months for 1.5 days even though you were at home and didn’t need to? I know someone who did similar but it was because they had pnd and were struggling with no family support etc. you are basically saying to me it was because you didn’t want to get too attached?
I also know someone who worked full time but then got made redundant yet continued to send their 1 year old full time - for a year. Yes she was looking for jobs and also wanted to keep her place/days but she literally never even picked her up early or anything.
I guess each must parent in their own way.
Hope whatever decision you make op you are happy with it - that seems to be the key.

I’d take role 1 unless your dh can cut his hours.

Well blaa there is lots of research yes that says too much early nursery is harmful but you don’t seem to want to know this?

Option 2. I have a similar job but only work 4 days. Out the house 12 hours. I have a 2yo and 4yo. DH works 5 days but is more flexible as self employed. It's tough but it works for us. In 5 years time the hard work will pay off. In your shoes I would do option 2 due to only having one child who will be at school soon anyway.

@apples you are yet to show me this research. I'm talking credible, scholarly, peer reviewed research.

Yes I did this as it was the right decision for my family. I felt that gradually introducing a childcare setting and building up to full time was sensible, kind option. However, I don't judge people for doing things differently to me. Nor should you

@apples at what point did I say it was because I didn't want to get too attached?? You have made a huge assumption there!

To enter the debate... My DH’s earning power is far greater than mine would ever have been even if I’d stayed in my industry and got to manergerial level so naturally I was the one who’d sacrifice the career. Tbh I chose to have children and knew that would be the case and it was fine. DH always said ‘if you can earn as much as me, I’ll stay at home’, and he was right. I have worked p/t since the youngest went to reception and sadly was made redundant from one job, but I’m now somewhere secure. Dh been made redundant twice since we became parents, but we coped financially both times - the first time I wasn’t working. I wouldn’t use potential redundancy as a reason to take role 2, that’s catastrophising, if he’s in a private sector role he’d get a decent payout still which would give leeway.