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!

Laurie - there is a type and I think you may be one of them who commodities their children - you leave them with a nanny - the best nanny money can buy (until she leaves and is constantly replaced), and then private school, lots of expensive oppportunities and activities. You organise their diaries like sub categories of your own, Monday little Amelia has prep then the au pair will take her to ballet, Tuesday prep then music oh and we must book her into that amazing rowing course for the Easter holidays.
You talk about your kids like they are assets to be developed and polished.
All great but you don’t know actually know your kid or spend longer than 4 hours with them a week. Interaction is stifled and formal - I’ll take Amelia out for a girls lunch this Saturday for some ‘quality time’. It’s not the interaction or life I want for my kids. They can have the opportunities and activities but also me picking them up from school asking about their day, messing about having cuddles on the sofa, me doing her hair in the morning, me suggesting hot chocolates cause she looks tired, intimacy, love, not robotic ferrying about.
I’m generalizing of course but I happen to live in a part of the country where this sterotype is everywhere. I went to Cambridge myself (having come from state school) and saw hoards of messed up young people who had been stuck in boarding schools and private schools who didn’t actually know or talk to their parents (except when they came to take them out for a formal tea once a term).
Also all this ‘quality time’ full time working parents say they spend with their kids. Be honest with yourself - what you never need the weekends too to live your lives? When do you fit in seeing your friends, hobbies, gym? Very few people spend 2 days straight ‘quality time’ with their kids every weekend then head back to do a full weeks work with long hours with no ‘me’ time.
For context, I work part time, I chose job 1. I could have chosen job 2 and earned a fortune but I would have been utterly miserable and so would have my kids. I don’t regret it at all. We could still afford private school on my part time wage and my oh’s If we scrimped and saved but then if we were rolling in it wouldn’t because we don’t need to to give them a top education. My oh and I got great qualifications and jobs on the back of state school - I trust my kids can do the same.

Good place

Oh and before I get accused of sexism I’d say this to a man as well as a woman - work as little as you can whilst still living the life you want. Rich doesn’t make you happy (look at the high profile rich unhappy families in the news) - the trick is be confident in your choices and not be driven by insecurity- I need that car, that school, that house, that handbag, that hairdresser to keep up with the Joneses.
My oh would love to work part time but as I said up thread he would be laughed out of his job if he even suggested it as a man. That’s sad, for everyone.

This has turned into the standard MN debate on working mothers, because some of us gave valid reasons why we either did or would take a FT higher earning role, rather than a PT lower paid role if the opportunity arose. I haven't criticised anyone who chooses a different route to me, I simply gave reasons why my choice has worked for my family, as requested by the OP.

Those cricising me because I dared to say I have bought myself a decent new car and paid for a holiday through my earning capacity this week seem to think that I've been selfish. It's simply a fact that I stopped paying for childcare and a mortgage years ago so I have spare cash available to buy what I want within reason as a consequence of maintaining my career. My point was that I have 20 years to work until state retirement age and, because I retained my career, I can work in a profession which I love, rather than being trapped in a role I would find dull. I'm sure that you are happy to ask for a female GP if you want to discuss sensitive medical issues, realise that the majority of staff in a primary school will be female, would be prepared to discuss a house purchase, probate or custody issues with a female lawyer. If we didn't decide to grab the opportunity to continue our careers at the same time as having children, the public would not benefit from the work we do. It's really difficult to return to some professions after a career break because of the nature of the work, just as it is really difficult to juggle childcare, work and a family life when your children are young. Everyone needs to decide based on their personal circumstances at the time which route they want to follow. My decision may have been very different if I was working in a NMW role or just starting out rather than having a well established career when I had my child.

I agree that that is a sad position to be in apples . DH has probably had to take more annual leave to cover emergencies than I have, simply based on the different nature of our work. However, this means that everyone in his team has seen him do it and they are not afraid to do the same themselves. Hopefully this approach filters out across the workplace as more and more people realise that parenting emergencies can be covered by either parent and flexibility will become more common place.

I am shocked and saddened that so many posters are saying 1. Representative of MN and RL I guess, where supporting the child seems be presented as what should be everyone's number 1 priority.

Many posters saying your'll regret it, and it flies by so quickly, and they'll miss not having you st things/seeing you.

I disagree. I have only ever worked part time since having kids, (not by deliberate choice, was just the way it turned out) and they seem completely unaware, with literally no memory of all the time I spent with them, spent hours making pots of potato and carrot for weaning etc, attending sports days. They seem oblivious.

I myself don't have much memory for my childhood, other than just being comfortable and happy.

So I'm not sure all this 'raising your kids' , ideal, is really significant enough reason, to reject job 2.

I hope job 2 agrees to your terms, OP, for the long term prospects as well as the current job satisfaction. Out of interest, what flexibility did you ask for? I have full time contracted hours in my role but am using accrued annual leave to work four days a week between maternity leaves (eight months) and I enjoy the balance.

Sorry to pick on one single post, because there are others similar, but I actually disagree with most of what's written below:

"My personal opinion, you'd be selfish

to take job 2, when your husband already works a long hours, late meetings etc kind of job. This is the kind of thing you should discuss BEFORE having children, and work out between you who will take the career sacrifice to do the main child caring, or set it up so it can be 50/50.
It's bad enough for a child to hardly ever see 1 parent, never mind both.

If you have a child then you're accepting that your main priority in life isn't you anymore -Really?

Yes, you may be less fulfilled job wise, but if that is the cost of being there when your child gets home from school and actually caring for them instead of paying some stranger to do it, or having them in every after school club going and them barely getting to be home or spend time with you, then so be it, YOU made that commitment when you decided to have a child. "- I did? I don't recall!

Afraid I disagree with most of that.
And actually I only work 3 days and have gone for the last 15 years, so it doesn't apply to me! But it's just I don't agree with it!

When I became pregnant with the first of two children I stopped promotion seeking in my teaching job to stay as a classroom teacher so I could have the hours and holidays to facilitate being with the children. It worked though I was totally exhausted and stressed. Now, retired early through the strain it put on me being a full time teacher and mother I am hosting a weekend for a friend who put her career first. She says she is saving a sum every month extra to what she spends of her pension which is way beyond what my DH and I are having to live on after he was made redundant.

I would say that if the sums add up go for it. There is nothing more miserable than scrimping after a life of self sacrifice. Of course, it might be that the lower paid public sector job has a better pension than the higher paid private sector one. Stick with that and enjoy the time with your child.

On MN there are A LOT of threads about finding out DH has been unfaithful. Don't over 52% of marriages fail? What happens if OP's Dh leaves her, passes away, and she's left with minimal pension contributions.

Aren't most pension threads these days telling women to invest time and focus on themselves, and their pension/future?

Oblo - you can’t plan your marriage as if it will fail
If her oh passes away they’ll be sensible enough to have life assurance and she can always step up her career again given she’s kept her hand in working pt. she’ll be entitled to his pension as they are marriage.

Jump at the chance to get out of the rat race OP

Since I ditched my career 20 years ago my life has taken some lovely twists.
My youngest is 17- I spend 4 weekday mornings at the gym.
I am in my mid 50s and life could not be better.

Apples - what an incredibly rude post! You’ve Made some awful assumptions purely because you disagree with Laurie’s point of view. Believe it or not, you can still drive a nice car, live in a big house, employ a cleaner, pay for good childcare and be a loving, attentive mother!!! Oh and btw I fit my hobbies and gym sessions in once my son is in bed.....in the gym I have in my very large house!!

It’s really important to make clear that “having it all” is bullshit. Sacrifices always need to be made and you weigh up the pros and cons and decide what you can live with. As I’ve said before I don’t find parenting particularly fulfilling, therefore my sacrifice is not seeing my son 24/7. This suits me fine as I’m a kinder, more patient happier Mum because of it. Again as I’ve said, my son may feel differently when he’s older, but he’s fine at the moment thanks! I also realise that I’m incredibly privileged to be able to make this choice and am well aware that many other are not in such a fortunate position

Speak out but what if you enjoy your career and are ambitious

stealth - then you make choices.

I loved my career too- but it was not compatible with two parents having such demanding jobs.
I would also have loved to work with a gorilla habitat preservation organisation in Uganda- bat that also would not have worked well with having children.

We make choices. I doubt my OH would have stuck so doggedly at his career/job if he did not have kids- he would probably have been touring the Andes in a motorhome/working in Marrakesh/fixing outboard motors in the Phillipines if he did not have obligations.

We have to be practical. For me and OH that meant me ditching my career.

Apart from the fact apples that they aren’t married and who knows about life assurance.

You suggested that working parents can’t possibly spend more than four hours a week with their kids. What about weekends?
When do you fit in seeing your friends, hobbies, gym?
About every two/three months , don’t have any, don’t go. So you see plenty of time to see my kids at weekends and no local family support so if GPs are needed to look after them this has to be planned well in advance.

Finally I went to a very similar university and you’re talking utter crap about the private school people who could only go out for formal teas

My youngest is 17- I spend 4 weekday mornings at the gym.

That sounds terribly dull to me.

That sounds terribly dull to me.

I can assure you my life is far from dull. My time is my own,
I struggle to find the time to fit everything in.

That sounds terribly dull to me

Me too. I like my (good) income. It provides security and independence.

I like my good income too. I earn more than my OH and he works full time (senior IT security role). I work 20 hours a week- more than enough.

As I say ditching my career has given me some life twists I would never have dreamed of.

On MN there are A LOT of threads about finding out DH has been unfaithful. Don't over 52% of marriages fail? What happens if OP's Dh leaves her, passes away, and she's left with minimal pension contributions

I totally agree. There is more than one way to 'look after the children' and ensuring that Mummy is financially able to care for them if Daddy runs off with an OW or is incapacitated or made redundant or similar is one of them.

The number of women on the relationships thread who are amazed that men run off and stiff them and that the security of a marriage certificate is only enough to provide for half a house and minimum payments for the children is astounding. Often the same women say 'we agreed I'd be a SAHM [insert reasons] now I have no income and my chances of a well-paying job are small and I worry about providing for the children now and me later in my old-age' (while he lives with the OW in relative luxury and with his pension intact). Sod that. I'm alao amazed at the way that so many posters excuse men for having these magic jobs that can't be done flexibly. Guess what. Women also have these jobs, but they fight for flexibility and often pay the price for doing so. Men can do the same. It's just that most choose not to (because it's easier when the woman does it).

Sicker I'm sure that you are happy to ask for a female GP if you want to discuss sensitive medical issues, realise that the majority of staff in a primary school will be female, would be prepared to discuss a house purchase, probate or custody issues with a female lawyer. If we didn't decide to grab the opportunity to continue our careers at the same time as having children, the public would not benefit from the work we do

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. GP, teacher, and lawyer are all roles where I've come across people who work part-time. Incidentally the 2 P-T GPs I know have very short commutes.

Yes very good for you that you have 20 years to work, no mortgage and no childcare to pay for. And I guess given your now commitment free, work full-time and are chasing the big bucks.

I think you'll find the Op also has approximately 20 years to work but still has many years of childcare in front of her.

Nobody is saying become a SAHM the debate is should the Op, go for a less stressful life in Role 1 or take on the stress and long hours and the commute of Role2.

Teacher22 I'm confused by your point too. You took early retirement and your DH has unfortunately been made redundant, so neither of you are currently working and your comparing your income to a couple who are both in full-time high paid jobs.
I assume DH is looking for work. Could you even consider taking on Supply teaching roles to boost your income?

I work 20 hours a week- more than enough

Assuming you are not a high-class escort this sounds like a dream job - do tell.

The mention of the flash car was only in response to the poster saying that because she worked she had just bought one, I assume.

Totally agree YetAnother