AIBU to say that some people just cannot work full time or even at all?

[thebeesknees123]

This does seem to be an age old discussion among parents, particularly among women with young children.

I can think of various reasons why people can't work:

Just had a baby and breastfeeding
Mental or physical health conditions
Caring responsibilities - e.g. elderly relative
The money does not cover childcare/commute expenses

Personally, I do work (30 hours per week) but I am lucky in that it is shifts around the school so I don't have childcare costs. I would never slate someone who couldn't find something suitable for their needs or pressure them to take something that is going to cause them undue stress because they are put in a position where they are forced to be unreliable, which, frankly, I would be if I were forced to work 9 to 5.

I don't think it was a trailing spouse was it xenia Weren't you divorced?
I wonder why anyone would feel "very sad" for a sahm who gets to spend time with the children she gave birth to , has time to live the life she wants and has a happy marriage because both parents aren't stressed and overworked. They have time to spend as a family and don't have to become a circus act, juggling this and that.

Sushi

I see this all the time, it's so sad. Children just want mum and dad together, not complaining of not spending time together, having affairs and splitting up.

Romany. Yes that’s right, only marriages where both parents are working end in divorce .

If I remember correctly you had a trialing spouse so assuming he was the full time sahp then it really isn't different to many families.

No, Xenia was divorced I believe. Or marriage annulled perhaps.

RomanyRoots fair enough, sorry Xenia I got you muddled with someone else who returned to work very soon after the babies were born.

Dorset

Not at all, but I just notice.
There is just no need to feel "very sad" for sahm's because they aren't necessarily worse off financially or emotionally.
That's not to say some sahm's don't get divorced

Romany. Then I think you’re only noticing what you want as it’s just not true.

And for the record, most children don’t actually want parents ‘together’ for the sake of it. They want their parents to be happy and a family where that is created by both parents working if they want to is far better than a family where one parent is miserable stuck at home or where one parent works in a job they hate but has no choice because their partner refuses to contribute financially.

Dorset

Of course, it's swings and roundabouts, as a sahm of a lot of years I've seen a lot of sahm's divorced too.
My point was the reason that was cited in the cases I know where both worked was no time for their relationship.
It's a shame if you relationship breaks down, whichever camp.
I think children would much prefer happy parents together than divorced though, so best we all work at our relationships and don't let unnecessary things spoil it.

I agree

People see the magic 40 hour week as normal. But whose to say it is?

A lot about society is making people miserable.

I have a couple of friends who just seem to struggle with working. Both have pretty much always worked part time (no kids). And as soon as they up their hours, have conflict or pressure, or are required to follow any strict processes or conform to a timetable they crumble. I respect it in some ways; the ability to stand up and say "this isn't right for me. I can't do it." And then my DF's voice rings in my ear "how bloody flakey, get over yourself and knuckle down."

I had always worked full time until DD. I didn't enjoy it particularly and it was tiring and stressful but I did it because I wanted to earn as much as I could and get on in each company. I dropped to three days when DD was born and going back part time was like an epiphany. It turns out I am hugely efficient in just three days. And I like my life a lot more. I don't get the work dreads anymore.

When DD went to school I told DH I would up my days to four a week as I just didn't feel I could justify being at home two days without a child to look after. He shrugged and said it was up to me. I told work I was keen to do four days but only if the extra day was from home. They instantly agreed as they had been keen for me to do more for a while. I now do two days in the office and two days at home. I have the equivalent of a full time remit/responsibility but don't have to do anything on a Monday other than school runs and exercise my horse. It works very well.

I think very few are lucky enough to be in that position though. I think lots of people don't have that choice and just have to work part time because they'd spend every penny on childcare or whatever reason or they work because they need the money and don't have the luxury of time out to themselves. It's the minority who think they shouldn't or can't but actually can or who always rely on others to fund their lives who are the issue I think. Obviously it's the choice of that person doing the funding and if all parties are happy then what's the problem. It just wouldn't sit well with me.

I was a young teenage mum many moons ago. Back then I was able to have fulltime child care, collage placement and a living allowance compleatly funded (on top of the benifits I received). I studied for 2 years, gained my qualification and went to work. I haven't ever needed benifits since.

This initiative in the short term cost a fair amount of the tax payers money but the 'rewards' the system has gain since that time by far outway that..

Wish they still did this.

dimsum, my daughters have been interviewed with me for a magazine or radio programme about working mothers actually and they seemed pretty happy.. I don't write about them on line but I am a grandmother and the grandchildren have two working parents. However I would never interfere in what decisions any of my children take about their own lives.

I worked based at home although with a fair bit of uK and international travel once the oldest was about 10. I think I have had a lovely balance of earning a lot of money and having a good family life (We were married for 20 years. I don't see the fact we then divorced as a particular problem. Some people stay together and ruin their children's lives by doing so. Also my divorce had nothing to do with work and 20 years is a pretty long marriage - longer than my grandmother or grt grandmother managed (as their husbands died as was common then).

I have been scanning my 1980s and 1990s diaries recently so have read every day of their early childhood - it's been really interesting. One more year to go.

My advice to any woman, is to keep your hand in, where your job or career is concerned.
You never know what the future holds, even if for now you are a happily married SAHM.

@CosmicComet other benefits of working are what you get from just paying into the system generally, e.g. pension. Employers do usually give more than just salary.

Employers do usually give more than just salary

If you have a good employer who values employees and treats them well. Unfortunately that isn’t always the case - in 2019 it’s a race to the bottom. Employers falsely class people as self employed so they don’t have to pay maternity and sick pay etc. They use zero hour contracts so employees have no reliable income. They illegally tell people to “volunteer” for unpaid overtime otherwise they won’t have a job any more. Many many employers don’t give a shit about their employees, they just want to pay them as little as possible.

Late to the party, and agree with Cosmic and RSGB on this thread.

This question of childcare not covering wages is beginning to puzzle me though. The whole principle of having communal services is that together we can afford more than we can individually. When it comes to childcare, that means that we all chip in a bit to pay one person to mind the children of several other people. Yet it simply isn't working anymore. Wrap-around childcare fees for each individual where I am are usually exactly half the wage of a nursery assistant, which is around £8-£10 / hr. Why isn't it working any more? Overheads, similarly shared by a group, shouldn't that be much higher. The same thing happens in public transport: there's no way private transport should be able to match public on economics.

Something very fishy is going on.

Because the regulatory overhead for childcare is very high due to an understandable desire to ensure children are given an environment in which they can thrive.

1-3 staff ratios plus the added cost of ofsted mandated admin and rents and bills for high square footage spaces - it’s always going to be expensive if those are the rules.

1-3 staff ratios is for the youngest babies. By the time you get into pre-school it's a lot lower. Wrap-around care in schools similarly has much lower ratios. So it's not as simple as that. In wrap-around care and for some pre-schools they often use the same school building so overheads should not be all that high. Obviously I don't know all the ins-and-outs, but it looks suspicious. I know other council services were told 15 years ago to start 'maximising income streams'.

brookshelley

A good phrase I heard once - "A man is not a financial plan."

Oh, I like it. It says it all in a nutshell. Who can argue with that?

Fowles94

Sounds like my nana and dad. I couldn't agree more with you.

Thank you. We know it can never hurt to be prepared.

I work with four women in their sixties whose husbands are either sick or disabled and can’t work. These women are shouldering the financial burden. And they’re the lucky ones; they’ve always worked, so they already have the good income and benefits. It’s not like they’ve been out of the workforce for 35 years and are now desperately trying to find someone who will hire them at a decent wage with benefits because the only income stream has dried up.

I think generally society expects too much of women and it’s ridiculously exhausting trying to work full time and have a family.

Actually I'd turn this on its head and say the real problem is society doesn't expect enough of men.

Until there is more expectation on men to share the home and childcare responsibilities, nothing will really change.

I completely agree that when both parents work full time it's exhausting. But how often do you hear someone saying "after we had DC, we were just so stressed and exhausted all the time, so DH went part time. Something had to give."

Yes there are likely to be individual circumstances where the mum being the one to take a step back makes sense. But as PPs have said, the evidence doesn't really explain why this should be happening on such a widespread scale. The gender pay gap doesn't properly take hold until after people start to have DC.

While at an individual level I respect that people should be able to decide what's best for their families, at a societal level I don't think it is right that men are disproportionately represented in the workforce at senior levels. The decisions taken by those at the top levels of power (not just in government but in business and other industries too) affect all of us and our families every single day.

Part-time and flexible working for men (or men being the ones to become the SAHP) is gradually becoming more prevalent but it's a slow process and I'm not sure attitudes have changed much yet. DH and I both work four days so the DC only have to spend three days a week in childcare. He's treated as some kind of hands on, family man hero whereas I'm seen as a career girl and frequently get asked if it's hard being away from my kids

I have fibromyalgia, along with other health problems. There is no way I would cope with working full time outside the home. My last job before I was diagnosed was only 24 hours p/w and I was so sick and exhausted, I lost so much weight my periods stopped. And since then I’ve developed other issues as well. I’m “lucky” in a way because my illness fits the benefits tick boxes, I can only stand so many minutes, or walk so many metres; I’m in constant pain. But the system doesn’t allow for trying to set up a wee home business - I’d be then considered fit for work and pushed back to full time outside the home. Ditto trying to study so that if my health improved I’d be able to try to support myself. I’m grateful for all the help I get, but it does feel like a very narrow view of what “work” is and that it has to be going someplace for 40+ hours every week.

@Sunlighthouse good points. The current system of work and wages was basically set up to benefit men at the expense of women (and of course to benefit management at the expense of the workforce) - they employment system could only really function if the male worker was supported by a wife doing all the domestic stuff and looking after the children. (Though even when this was the 'norm' and the ideal, poorer women often still did some sort of work outside the home because they had to.) Up until about the 1970s, men were routinely paid more than women for identical work, because the man got a 'family wage' and the woman was working for 'pin money'. Never mind that the man might be happily single and spending all his money on treats and toys, while the woman was desperately trying to feed and clothe and house a couple of kids...

I think it's very important to distinguish between 'work' and 'paid employment'. The latter might well mean earning very little money for giving up hours of your life to be treated like shit and achieve nothing of any purpose and it is entirely reasonable for people to refuse to do this.

How many times does a male get asked
"How do you juggle work and kids?"

So many parents get divorced because they want their own careers and don't have time for each other

My word...what an absolutely ridiculous statement.

Unless you have complete financial security giving up work to be a SAHP is incredibly risky.