In thinking DD is too young to give up work to stay at home

[MrsJenB]

Firstly to make it clear this is not being anti SAHM in fact I've been an SAHM since DD was born which she's saying makes me a hypocrite!

Bit of background DD is 24 and graduated from uni summer 2017. In her 1st year she met a man who was then in 3rd year and has been with him since, they got married in August. DD is now pregnant and has said she intends to give up work and not go back and they want to have a family of 3/4 kids going forward. Income isn't a problem for her as our son in law is a bit of a high flyer and in a high paying industry where he's already earning a lot and his earning potential is very high. DD is very junior in a very different kind of industry.

AIBU to still be a bit uncomfortable with her deciding to stop work at her age? She says I wouldn't be saying anything if she was 5 years older but they're ready so what's the difference. I get the feeling this is coming from son in law a bit though from some of what she's said such as him saying there's no point her working when his salary is mainly what they live on anyway and that hers doesn't make any difference anyway. That might well be true but smells a bit of calling it pocket money. DH isn't 100% on board but isn't really concerned either saying it's good she's passionate about being a mum and wanting a family. I think she's in for a bit of a shock when she realises it's more sleepless nights, changing stinky nappies and having to deal with all the responsibility all day especially with son in law working long hours and probably longer as his career progresses so not there a lot for support, not some "yummy mummy" lifestyle some of her social media posts make me think she expects. I don't think she realises how isolating it could be and how demanding even though I've told her and she says she knows. I think my DH doesn't realise either as he always worked quite long hours which maybe is why he isn't as concerned. And none of DD's friends are likely to have kids right now either so it could be even more of a challenge for her. Of course I'll support her whatever but AIBU to be worried and want her to think a bit more about the decisions?

What ever the choices made why do woman keep describing childcare as using all THIER wages? Surely childcare is a bill like all other household bills?
Regardless if you split the childcare bill 50:50 if, at the end of the month the net result is less household income, why on earth would you go to work (there are a few exceptions to this where women do pay to work for a few years until they get high enough up the salary scale)? I simply don’t understand. I pay all our childcare. If my husband paid all ourchildcare, or we split it 50:50 and we were worse off by £400/month why does it matter who paid the childcare- there is still £400 less in the bank than there would be if I didn’t go to work; (never mind the stress that goes hand in hand with childcare and being a working parent) and I wouldn’t work.

enjoy her child or children without the added pressure of work or money worries

But the husbands income isn't guaranteed. What if he is made redundant, falls ill, is sacked, burns out and wants to leave his job, what if he wants to look after the children, they divorce or he dies?

Whilst it's nice to take time out to help raise young children, it's not advisable to leave yourself in such a vulnerable position. Life is full of surprises, and not all of them good. If the sole source of income dries up for whatever reason, the OPs daughter will be in a very precarious position.

Theres a strong argument for that. If she returns to work in 5 years she will still be under 30 with her whole life ahead of her and still have the energy to devote to a career... yes she wont start in a high position but if she works hard she could still get there at that age! This sounds like what she has decided so I'd try to be supportive

Nice bit of storytelling, it’s just a shame it doesn’t reflect THIS situation at all 🙄

DD is now pregnant and has said she intends to give up work and not go back and they want to have a family of 3/4 kids going forward

OP, YANBU at all.

I'd be utterly disappointed if I had a daughter deciding this in 2019. I'd be equally disappointed if my son married a girl choosing this.

Equality doesn't mean that everything is 50-50, but to me it means that no one has the upper hand in relationship. Too many (mainly) women are stuck in relationships because they can't leave for financial reasons.

I really don't understand how women, in 2019, want to make themselves vulnerable instead of being strong and independent (whilst still in a relationship/marriage). There is a way to spend time with your children (but not 100%) and still work with something interesting and developing (and hence have a foot in the job market).

How about raising children is rewarding? Money isn’t everything?

Money certainly isn't everything, but for many of us, work is about so much more than just money. And yes, raising children is incredibly rewarding, but that's the case whether we work outside the home or not.

All of us are raising our children. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to do that while also holding down interesting and rewarding jobs outside the home. It doesn't have to be a binary choice.

"Regardless if you split the childcare bill 50:50 if, at the end of the month the net result is less household income, why on earth would you go to work (there are a few exceptions to this where women do pay to work for a few years until they get high enough up the salary scale)"

Why on earth? work isn't just about money in the here and now.
What makes these "exceptions" different? @collectingcpd

Surely it's worth keeping your hand in (even part time) so you don't have to contend with a huge career gap once your kids are at school. You keep pension and NI contributions. That might mean an equal or lower household income for a temporary period vs not working at all, but could mean much higher earning potential for the woman in subsequent years (decades!) which is beneficial for everyone in the family.

It's worth thinking about why women tend to earn less than their husbands even pre kids.. if this wasn't the norm, I bet the conversation re childcare costs would be a lot different... imagine telling a man it's not worth him having a career!

I was that age and did pretty much the same thing. To be honest, I regret it. Not from a financial perspective (DH sounds similar to hers in terms of career) but I really love what I do now ( hair and makeup) and I could have started much earlier and still have a nice home/work balance. I did very well academically but lost interest in an academic career and ... to be honest... I became very terrified of the outside world. I started to only see the bad, evil things (did a lot of research into WW2 , what is happening right now etc) and I just wanted to run away from everything (including my culture which I loathed at that point) and retreat into a domestic shell I think. The problem at age is you tend to see everything in black and white.

I don't think it's such a bad choice to have your kids younger, particularly as they can afford it and she already has her degree. And the kids will be grown up by the time they are in their 40s - there is a lot to be said for that.

There is also a lot of practical sense in having kids when you are young, fit, healthy and have loads of energy, it's just that at 24 most people are not settled or in a financial position to afford children then. In your 30s a lot of women go off and have kids in the middle of when their careers are really taking off, and there can be a lot of competing pressures which means that isn't an ideal time to have kids either.

frazzled, I totally agree that work is not just about money, but if you don’t need the extra income why would you do a job that actually leaves you worse off? There honestly can’t be many people in the position where they can afford to loose money by going to work. Paying to go to work, regardless of how rewarding that work is, really isn’t going to be good for anyone’s mental health. The exceptions are careers where in a short time your income will considerably exceed anything you’ve lost in the process. I know several drs who have ‘paid’ to go to work -the childcare, travel and other work related costs are more than they earn.

women tend to earn less than their husbands even pre kids.. if this wasn't the norm, I bet the conversation re childcare costs would be a lot different... imagine telling a man it's not worth him having a career!

DH: oh no, my job brings in less than the cost of nursery, childcare costs are so high.

DW: well , it makes sense for you to stay home with the kids for the next 5-10 years then maybe you could do a part time, term time job.

DH: but what about my career path / sense of variety in life / state pension contributions/ what if we split up?

DW: well you wanted children didn't you? Why would you work while they are small? How odd!

DH: yeah I suppose you're right

Sorry, can't get there...

Obviously there are exceptions and other options like doing part time but it's rarely the father that makes any sort of career sacrifice whatsoever. Men expect they will work FT and have families because women will facilitate this. As a result we have massive discrimination against women at work. I think the expectation should be that both parents scale back work intensity a bit while kids are small. Not always possible but a better default expectation.

Absolutely Frazzled
Was just joining to ask about the men and why there is never any expectation they will step up and take on CC.

Enjoy her child or children without the added pressure of work or money worries

I find this attitude very selfish .Its fine for the DH to work long hours so they can stay at home ?
Does he ever get to "enjoy" his children ?

I would shake my daughter until her teeth rattled if she ever came out with a plan like this and be very suspicious of a DH who encouraged it.
Im the other side of this now and work with several women in their 50s and 60s who gave up good careers to SAH.
They are all exceptionally bitter and deeply regret it now they are facing staying at work until 68 while others retire early.

All the guff about death bed sayings that pops up - having a miserable old age isnt fun either .

@FrazzledCareerWoman
I think the expectation should be that both parents scale back work intensity a bit while kids are small. Not always possible but a better default expectation
I agree with this concept, but I think it's really important to understand why women make up the overwhelming majority of SAHPs before we start looking for total "equality" in this area. Are women becoming SAHMs or the primary caregiver because they feel that they are the default parent to adopt this role, can't get suitable flexible working to facilitate family life, can't afford childcare etc OR are women choosing to be SAHMs) primary caregivers because they are biologically driven as a class to adopt this role. If you believe it's all down to socialisation and economic factors forcing women into the role then you would take a completely different approach to the issue than if you think some women have an innate desire to be at home and be the primary caregiver for their children.

What I'm saying is there can be an assumption that being a SAHM is a regressive step for feminism, but actually if you accept that women are programmed biologically different than men in this area then expecting women and men to behave identically when it comes to this issue can be oppressive in a different way. Why should a woman have to ignore her burning desire to be a SAHM or face financial ruin when her DH has made assurances that he would support her in this role? Wouldn't it be more sensible that both sign some kind of legally binding agreement that commits the man to recompensing the woman for any detriment she has incurred taking in this role if it's a joint decision. I would expect when outlined in black and white many men would bulk at the cost but surely that's the point? At least then the woman would know not to take on the role as her partner is actually not willing to share the burden of risk with her.

Bumpity
I think its more to do with men not taking on the CC role .
Agree with the biology aspect -that why ML exists but with shared parental leave ,why are so few men going for it ?
My DH was the only man to have ever asked for flexibility .
A minor adjustment to his working hours meant I could work and he facilitate me !(PT)
Once they were at school he WFH and so we didnt use CC.
His work were at first and then agreed as they couldnt come up with a reason why not .

I am convinced that it's primarily socioeconomic factors that cause this imbalance, beyond perhaps the first 6-12 months of a child's life when the mother may be breastfeeding etc. Look at Scandinavia, where men are expected to take a significant chunk of parental leave and part time working is more normal.

If I am wrong ; then why do most women enter a partnership with a lower earning potential career than their male partner? This is down to socialisation, education and gender expectations surely. Then automatically they are on the back foot once kids arrive. It's very simplistic to say we are all programmed with some innate desire to be at home with the kids and ignore the structural factors.

I would shake my daughter until her teeth rattled if she ever came out with a plan like this and be very suspicious of a DH who encouraged it.
Im the other side of this now and work with several women in their 50s and 60s who gave up good careers to SAH.
They are all exceptionally bitter and deeply regret it now they are facing staying at work until 68 while others retire early.

My goodness- that is extreme!

I am one of those women who gave up work and now in their 50s. I have no regrets and not bitter at all.
I have loads of free time, gym 4 mornings a week, time for walking, pottering, photography.
I do plan to work until I am 68 and hopefully beyond because my small business I run from home is exciting and very lucrative.
I would never have ended up in such a forunate situation if I had stuck in the 9 to 5 rut.

@Sockworkshop SPL uptake is horribly low for 2 reasons (1) it isn't paid properly unless you work for one of the few companies who go over and above to pay it for men , so as most partnerships have a higher earning father of the kids, it's often not economically feasible (2) it takes time off the 12 months the mother may want at home - many are reluctant to do shorter (although I hear this less often than the money reason)

It needs to be paid at 90 per cent of salary for at least 6-12 weeks imo otherwise you will never see the uptake increase. It would also be better if it could be added onto the end of the year and 3-6 months ringfenced for dads .

FWIW my DH did 4 months leave after I did 6. It was a very interesting experience and had several benefits including a very close bond with our son (no stress if I need to go away with work for a few days) and also suddenly he became much more domestically proactive! That has been an amazing change that really wouldn't have happened otherwise.

But the husbands income isn't guaranteed. What if he is made redundant, falls ill, is sacked, burns out and wants to leave his job, what if he wants to look after the children, they divorce or he dies?

What if she became ill or died? What would the DH do? How would he pay for childcare or give up his job? Wouldn’t his lifestyle suffer enormously as well? How would he manage the home and children?

Don’t you see a value in mums at home?

@speakout you are exceptional - not many people have a lucrative own business.. good for you. It certainly isn't typical.

Don’t you see a value in mums at home

This really annoys me.. of course it is valuable in many ways. But why not share the risks? It seems very imbalanced along gendered lines. They are much more likely to divorce (50 per cent of marriages is it?) than the wife to die young.

@frazzled - there is the issue of workplace discrimination causing gender pay gap. But I think there is also an element of choice - women tend to pick careers that are less well paying (maybe because pay isn’t as Important to them or because the work they enjoy is not monetarily valued by society as much). Take nursing - tough shift pattern, requires degree, not v well paid. But maybe more women like helping people than men do.

And what causes the gender pay gap? The expectation that women will have kids and step back. Whether they do or not. That's wrong.

@FrazzledCareerWoman, don't you genuinely think 'good for you' when someone has a lucrative business of their own? I think it's great and wish I had made the effort to do something like this myself.

I think it's very patronising to say that women in general would enjoy nursing (say) more than engineering (say) simply because they are female?? There are structural barriers at work here.