To take a job where I won't see my DC

[Peakypush]

More of a WWYD really.

I've been a SAHM for two years now. I had two DDs 15 months apart and finished a masters during that time which I haven't put to use yet. I have the choice to SAH indefinitely as we're in a good situation financially (not rolling in it but comfortable, mortgage free etc.) however - I'm so bored! I had originally said I'd like to stay at home until my youngest started nursery at 3 but on the bad days of tantrums and drudgery I want to cry at the thought of another two years of this... We live rurally so we're limited in how we can fill our days.

A friend from uni has sent a link to a job opportunity at her company and is encouraging me to apply. It's the type of opportunity I would have jumped at pre-babies. I got so excited reading the job description and felt a fire in my belly for the first time in ages. The downside is, with the commute, it would mean I basically wouldn't see my babies from Monday to Friday except for maybe an hour before bedtime. This makes me feel a bit ill.

I'm so conflicted. I'm dying to use my brain again and to have adult interaction but on the flip side I feel such guilt at even considering leaving my DDs to go to work when I don't necessarily HAVE to. Not to mention my youngest is still only 8 months old. I did look into part time work before but it's just not an option where we live - there's literally nothing here relevant to my field. So it would essentially be all or nothing decision.

Has anyone else been in this position or can offer advice? My DP is supportive either way but he thinks in another year - when my youngest is out of the baby stage and the oldest is at nursery - I will have more structure to my days and I may feel happier being at home. I think he's right deep down but a year seems like an awful long time away... I'm not sure what I'm asking really but would love to hear other people's experience. Do you work long hours during the week and is it a source of regret? Do you think your DC suffers? If I did this I would most likely have to employ a nanny as DP also works very long hours. Would it be awful to do this to our children when we have the choice not to? TIA

Sorry to hear that saltandvinegarcrisps1 what a horrible git to do that to you and your DC

for you

Some children are placed in nursery and with family support workers be because the time with the parents is not meeting all developmental and emotional needs
So. A parent can work and still be a good safe and consistent presence a good parent

I was agreeing with you, how can you provide all these things in an hour.
You can't, so you pay somebody else to.

Hearts ease,bit belated back to you.I said that children don't remember the early years not that the early years don't count.
I went back to work 2 days a week when did was 7 months,she had a childminders for o e of those days and exh had her for the other.I went back full time when she started school.
She is now a teen and has more collection of who gave her care and my priority is that she had good care.
My staying at home full time until she was 4 would have made no difference except that limeOP I found it mind numbing and being a disengaged parent would probably have done so.e real damage..
Many of us have to work and those of us in the NHS work shifts and the majority are women,women in other jobs have other challenges but we have to compromise on how we look after our children and what we don't need is someone making us feel worse when we are doing our best and are not lucky enough to have the choice.
In OP case she is not married and needs financial security.Glad btw OP that you are looking at other job opportunities and wishing you luck.

seventh
Not trying to make you feel worse, I do understand that there is often no option but to go back to work and sometimes it's the right decision even when it's not the only option. However that's not the position for the OP (who does have choices and isn't sure what to do) and that's the context we're discussing this in.

By saying that they don't remember the early years, I wasn't assuming you were saying it didn't count. But I did get the impression that you were saying it didn't matter quite so much if it wasn't the parent there. I agree with you that adequate care can certainly be given by others at any stage of a child's life. But whether they have recollection of the early years has no bearing on how beneficial it is for mum or dad to be there if possible. I don't think it's a helpful thing to bring into the conversation because for the young child who is living in the present without many memories or concept of the future, today is all they have. And what happens to them today is no less critical because they won't remember it in a few years.

I worked FT from my youngest being 2 ish. I wish I hadn't but I had no choice at the time as finances were a must.

A colleague once said to me - no one ever lies on their death bed and wishes they spent more time at work.

I need to work for my sanity and to be useful, earn money and use my skills. I now work 4 days a week so I have some time to do school pick ups, bake cakes, ride bikes and do nice things with DC. They are only little for a short time and it goes so fast.

Enjoy what you can of it and don't wish the early years away.

It's fuck all to do with patriarchy. The same applies to very high earning women. If you want to earn a telephone number salary, you're not going to get flexibility, one of the reasons the job pays huge amounts of money is because it requires a high level of commitment. Nobody can have it both ways.

Totally agree with Bluelady that it’s far too simplistic to put it all down to “patriarchy”.

Firstly, many women actively want to stay with their children in the early years. This simply feels like the natural thing to do and why wouldn’t it be? Those SAHMs don’t feel repressed at all - they see it as a freedom and a privilege that they have a partner who enables them to make this choice. Particularly as it’s a choice many women don’t have because of the cost of living these days.

Secondly, it’s easier to throw money at childcare and nannies in the early years when children’s needs are less complex. Families I know where both parents have highly demanding careers have come unstuck when the children were falling behind at school because the nannies simply weren’t providing adequate homework support, for instance. Where I live, there is stiff competition for independent schools at 11 plus - it’s beyond the job description of even the most wonderful nanny to research and implement the prep needed to get into the likes of St Paul’s etc (which are the schools these parents can pay for so want the DC to have as good a fighting chance as the next child whose mum is at home and “on it”). The same goes for the sports and extra-curricular stuff. If you have a child who is dedicated to a particular interest, facilitating this can be too much to ask if any nanny, particularly where there a multiple children involved.

Out next door neighbours were both very high-earners and the mum went back after 6 months after each of the three children. They had a fantastic nanny for 6 years, but one child was dyslexic and was falling behind and the nanny simply couldn’t provide the support, particularly as English was her second language. Both parents used to travel, often for weeks at a time, but when the nanny left to have her own baby, it all fell apart. They had a succession of disastrous replacements who the children didn’t take to. All the DC we’re falling behind at school, one became quite reclusive and life was at breaking point. When the mum got a huge promotion which effectively doubled her salary, the dad left work. The dyslexic DS went from being “below expectations” and on the SENCO radar to gaining a place at Kings College Wimbledon within the space of two years because the dad made it his business to make it happen and prioritise the child above all else. He’s now been at home about 5 years and does pretty much everything for the kids while having a property sideline which he can focus on while they’re at school. The children would simply not have got into the schools they are now in if it had all been left to nannies while the parents worked / travelled.

It's fuck all to do with patriarchy. The same applies to very high earning women. If you want to earn a telephone number salary, you're not going to get flexibility, one of the reasons the job pays huge amounts of money is because it requires a high level of commitment. Nobody can have it both ways.

The same rules apply to women because of inequality, traditionally these roles have been done by supported men, eg those who have housewives as partners. If the majority of people in top paying roles were traditionally women you can bet that flexibility would exist. This kind of nonsense eg women rolling over and accepting inequality keeps women out of top paying jobs.

Didn't stop Nicola Horlick, did it? She worked morning, noon and night, no flexibility there.

People's view of work flexibility seems to change if it inconveniences them - eg when it's their solicitor, doctor, MP, carer, teacher, Prime Minister etc, whose flexible work does not seem to be meeting their needs as they perceive them. There's a totally hypocritical mismatch between what people want for themselves and what both men and women expect from others, imvho.

The same rules apply to women because of inequality, traditionally these roles have been done by supported men, eg those who have housewives as partners

Surely you mean equality, both treated the same, man or woman.

If it takes a sahm for a mans career to flourish, then it takes a sahd for a woman's career to flourish.
I know several women in top jobs with brilliant careers who haven't had dc, or met a man happy to be a sahd.
I think you meant woman being different to men, superior and more entitled, that's certainly not equality.

no one ever lies on their death bed and wishes they spent more time at work

I think that depends how much you love your job. I come from a farming background, both my father and grandfather worked until a few days before they died. They did less and less but it was more natural reduction than retiring from FT work at 65. They both loved the land and never regretted the time spent on it, conserving and improving it for the next generation.

I'm a scientist, I love my work. Maternity leave was not good for me, I missed the intellectual challenge and the people far too much. I have no desire to retire and don't plan to until I face ill health.

I know most people aren't lucky enough to feel like that about their jobs but it shouldn't be considered impossible.

As several previous posters have said, any decision on deciding to SAH or go back to work is based on the individual and their particular circumstance. This OP, from what she has posted, would be making a mistake if she did not go for the opportunity. if she has the option and the opportunity, she should go for the job - it is what would make her happier, her financial situation stronger (not married), and is in the best interest of all in the long term.

OP, I'd go for the job, hire a full-time nanny - possibly live in to give you ultimate flexibility, and, most importantly, don't flip-flam and feel guilty for your decision. I believe that every woman should decide for themselves what is right for their particular circumstances - FT/FP/SAHM, all are equally valid. Once the decision is made, don't allow anyone to guilt you into feeling bad about whichever path you have chosen. If you decide to go the career route, understand what that means and embrace that (family takes a second seat, sometimes very secondary seat). In doing so don't allow anyone to make you feel guilty for your choice. If you decide to stay at home (and I think this is a wrong choice for you), don't constantly regret your lack of high-power career and that life.

Just make your decision and run with it.

People might not lie on their death bed and wish that they had spent more time at the office, but they may well regret that they didn't ever reach their potential (in both intellectual stimulation and financial earning power), particularly as having money is very helpful in having a comfortable retirement

As several previous posters have said, any decision on deciding to SAH or go back to work is based on the individual and their particular circumstance.

And if you're a grown-up who gives a damn about your child, you will also think of your child, their personal circumstances and their personality.

I'm speaking as someone who who had a mum who worked long hours, in her case running a private language that she and my F owned.

The problem wasn't the long hours. It was the fact that when she was at home with us she wasn't really there, because she was so often dealing with a work issue; their business line had an extension at our house.

She didn't spend time listening to us; she was quite remote from us and it often seemed that she only took notice of us was when we stepped out of line. And now she can't understand why DSis and I felt unable to talk to her about the abuse we were going through, as she believes she was oh so approachable.

Only you can decide, OP. If you choose this job it doesn't have to cause any damage to your relationships with your DC. The important thing IMO is that when you are with them, that you're focused on them and not on other things, however important they might appear to be.

The old cliche about 'quality time' is apt. Make the times you do spend with them special times that they look forward to.

Would the company be willing...able ....to do a job share...eg you work two/two and a half/three days a week ....

Personally I would rather be at home but the choice is yours ...

Good luck ....

"Quality time" is a nice concept ...if you are not too knackered to provide it

Surely you mean equality, both treated the same, man or woman.

No I mean inequality, because it is presumed that childcare falls under "wife work" and is the main responsibility of the mother to fulfil this role and not the father.

If there was true equality jobs traditionally completed by men would also have flexible working conditions, women would receive the same pay as men for the same job, have the same career opportunities, and there would be as many men staying at home or working part time as women.

@Br1256

I agree, it doesn't always work out that way, I'm sure my DM thought she was giving us quality time when in fact she wasn't doing anything of the kind.

On the other hand, I do know some very busy mums who have a wonderful bond with their DC. So it is possible, but not right for every family. I guess the key is to be prepared to make changes when they're needed.

It also depends on your dc - mine were so beat by bedtime when they were under 5 that I clikdve been Mary poppins and I could hardly get them to listen a story or interact without tantrumming

Fruit

As I said, plenty of sahd's supporting their wives in top jobs.
just as a man seeks out a sahm, a woman can seek out a sahd.
If he's not prepared to do it and your career is important, you move on surely.
I'd have hated a man who expected me to work ft and our children be in childcare, so I didn't seek one of these types of men.
It's hardly rocket science, but definitely equal.
Yes, plenty of other things aren't equal, like pay.

She won't hand over to a random.
Who does?
Oh maybe those random teachers at school....
It sounds like she and do can afford a well chosen nanny...

if you want to earn a telephone number salary, you're not going to get flexibility

The higher I have climbed, the more flexibility I have. And yes I have 6 figure salary. Way easier to combine that kind of career with family obligations than a dead-end clock in-out job.

All I can say is that you've been very fortunate. I never (quite) achieved six figures but the more senior the role I had, the more they wanted to own my soul. The flexibility was a one way street.