“He wouldn’t be where he is if I hadn’t sacrificed my career”

[BooFuckingHoo2]

I am expecting a flaming for this .

AIBU to think this is often untrue? I know many men with stay at home wives and kids who, in all honesty, whilst happy to have kids (because the wife does all the wifework) would probably have been equally happy with either no kids or extensive wraparound childcare and an equally high earning wife.

I often see it trotted out on here “I sacrificed my career to look after our children” - but the for the majority of women (aside from some exceptions e.g. husband working abroad) I’m sure it was a welcome choice and not something they were strong armed into. In my experience (unless childcare costs eclipse the wife’s salary) the husband is usually indifferent (aside from the wankers who want a trophy wife) as to whether the wife works or not.

Equally “he wouldn’t be where he is in his career if it wasn’t for me”. I’m sure there’s a small minority of women who’ve accelerated their husbands career but I think for most, they’d have been the same with or without their wife, although granted possibly with no children or higher childcare costs.

AIBU?

He’s happy to facilitate me working as long as it isn’t going to negatively impact his career.

What generation is he if you don't mind me asking?
DH was offered 2 roles last yr, both very similar (low 6 figs) except one only offered 4 days a month wfh & the other was 6-8 days. He took the one with more wfh days as it helped me more & he could do more pick ups etc.
However I appreciate that we are very lucky to have easy going, good sleeping dc, the school & tube around the corner so no long commutes & gps who also live close by. I also work p/t & can wfh & have a very short walk to work.

He’s happy to facilitate me working as long as it isn’t going to negatively impact his career
My god. and you model that behaviour that as acceptable to your kids?he let’s the little lady work so long as he’s not impacted or inconvenienced

@FortunesFave - my point is that I had a hard working long hours high earning job in the city but I didn’t need a sahp to facilitate it. It seems to be just men that need this, the women just struggle on juggling while many men don’t bother parenting at all.

I actually said I had no family support and I don’t.

I took a step back recently career wise because I wanted to spend more time with dds. I’m a single parent with no one picking up any of the financial slack. I think that’s the ideal tbh, for parents to not be so busy at work that they spend no time with their kids whether they are men or women. I don’t mean putting kids in childcare, I mean these men that need sahp because they are never around. That’s no kind of parent.

In my ideal world both DH & I would be p/t maybe 4 days a wk each so we both have more time for the dc/family.

My god. and you model that behaviour that as acceptable to your kids?

Firstly, to be fair, I did not make much of a push to keep my career at any stage - it’s only with hindsight that I can see it was always me compromising and I should have pushed harder for him to do so. Because I did compromise and he didn’t, he now earns a very high amount and if I were now to insist that he moves to a family friendly job, we’d lose that income. That income may well be very valuable for DD in future as she may need various sorts of support, and it has enabled me to be SAHM which whilst not my choice has I think has been best for my children over the last few years (my children not necessarily anyone else’s, this isn’t anti wohm).

Second, I’m not happy about modelling it no, but what do you suggest I do? I can go back to work but I can’t force him to reduce his hours or pick up half the wifework. If we divorced he certainly wouldn’t.

jillypill he’s 40. But he works with (exclusively) men of 50+ and is influenced by that. He chose a career where there is no regular wfh, no part time, no finishing at 6pm three days a week to pick up your child. Funnily enough very few women choose it.

Until I had a child I got every promotion I went for. Then I have NEVER received one in 18 years, in spite of an excellent CV (been checked by agencies), experience and qualifications up the wazzoo. I have worked full time throughout Dd's life, ans switched companies with the clearly stated intention of wanting to work my way up. I even have the same conversation with my boss about once a year where he looks surprised and makes a comment about how he thought I wasn't really career-focused, and I explicitly and clearly tell him that I wish to promote my career and am looking for more leadership opportunities. Then he gives the next opportunity to a younger man.

Every promotion I ever went for went to a younger, less experienced and less qualified man.

So - it would have made no difference if I'd worked or not. DH could get promotions, I couldn't, just because he wears a penis and I don't. Look at the figures of how the pay gap just widens hugely after women have children. Even those who are career-minded and go-getters end up not doing so well whereas men's careers continue to advance.

Not just my husband, but EVERY man who has gained promotions where women haven't are where they are because of women being shafted. We don't sacrifice our own careers - men do that to us.

The assumptions OP makes are that these men would have been able to get a high flying woman. Maybe there are not enough high flying women around - so maybe if the current wife had not married them, they would have had to settle for a less ideal partner in other aspects (eg various different forms of attractiveness: personality, looks, intelligence).

OP also assumes that these men would have been happy to pay out a large amount for childcare or that they would be happy without kids: some men would balk at the expense of the sort of childcare they would need and some have a v strong drive to have (more) children.

I think different people are different with different values. However I do think that some men do not realise the extent of what they would have to pay for to replace what their wife does.

Of course - some men might not think/worry about the aspects that their wife does (eg how many play dates their kid went on) - so maybe the kids would miss out on those aspects.

Maybe the kid would benefit from the aspects that the nanny/grandparent does worry about - so could be beneficial in some situations. But quite hard to get 24/7 nanny I guess - what would happen if parent went abroad?

would probably have been equally happy with either no kids or extensive wraparound childcare and an equally high earning wife.

I know many women who would have liked this but found it impossible so someone had to go.

All of the SAHM I know had jobs e.g admins/retail not ‘careers’ pre kids and were than happy to give them up to be at home with their kids. No high flying careers were curtailed.

I think the truth of it is that men do not feel the guilt that women feel (rightly) about using excessive childcare. Young children need a parent around at least sometimes. It's a fast path to anxiety later in their lives to farm them out to others all the time. Women are better at realising this because they are more emotionally intelligent than men, and are prepared to invest themselves in others' wellbeing. This is a beautiful trait, and should be encouraged in all humans.

You cannot actually pay for what a parent provides in a child's life. A kind grandparent or longtime, permanent nanny comes close. But really that relationship is priceless.

In my ideal world both DH & I would be p/t maybe 4 days a wk each so we both have more time for the dc/family.

This is possible in most professional careers. If you're good at your job, ask.

@Tellmetruth4

All of the SAHM I know had jobs e.g admins/retail not ‘careers’ pre kids and were than happy to give them up to be at home with their kids. No high flying careers were curtailed.

Yep.

Women who really want careers will prioritize that.

@Namenic

The assumptions OP makes are that these men would have been able to get a high flying woman. Maybe there are not enough high flying women around - so maybe if the current wife had not married them, they would have had to settle for a less ideal partner in other aspects (eg various different forms of attractiveness: personality, looks, intelligence).

OP also assumes that these men would have been happy to pay out a large amount for childcare or that they would be happy without kids: some men would balk at the expense of the sort of childcare they would need and some have a v strong drive to have (more) children.

I think different people are different with different values. However I do think that some men do not realise the extent of what they would have to pay for to replace what their wife does.

And I think most SAHM don't think about what they cost to support. Without having to carry a dependent adult the breadwinner would be free to hire services as needed and expect professional standards.

It goes both ways, in other words.

@BonnieDundee

Playing devils advocate, emergencies aside surely he could have hired childcare for school drop offs/pick ups?

Yes but he could be away Mon- Fri for weeks or months on end so I had to be home every night. And emergencies still need to be covered (times when i got called from school to collect a sick child when he was 500 miles away). One parent needs to be available for stuff like that. Thankfully my job at the time allowed me to do that.

Playing devils advocate, emergencies aside

Spoken by someone without children. As a parent you cannot say ' emergencies aside". You need to be able to deal with emergency pick ups which happen often enough that you can't put them "aside"
Anyway it is often working mothers who sacrifice their careers not just SAHMs . They take less demanding ( and usually less well paid) jobs to be more available because at least one parent has to be .

I agree that this is usually for their children rather than for their DH's career but the outcome is still usually less career progression/ success for the woman and more for the man . Arguing that this is a choice for the woman is semantics , the man often just refuses to do it. He gives no thought at all to the realities of what is required to be there for children ( much like the op). He often assumes that the woman will sort it out and continues as normal in his jobs . This is often what is meant by ' I sacrificed my career'

@KickAssAngel

Until I had a child I got every promotion I went for. Then I have NEVER received one in 18 years, in spite of an excellent CV (been checked by agencies), experience and qualifications up the wazzoo. I have worked full time throughout Dd's life, ans switched companies with the clearly stated intention of wanting to work my way up. I even have the same conversation with my boss about once a year where he looks surprised and makes a comment about how he thought I wasn't really career-focused, and I explicitly and clearly tell him that I wish to promote my career and am looking for more leadership opportunities. Then he gives the next opportunity to a younger man.

Every promotion I ever went for went to a younger, less experienced and less qualified man.

So - it would have made no difference if I'd worked or not. DH could get promotions, I couldn't, just because he wears a penis and I don't. Look at the figures of how the pay gap just widens hugely after women have children. Even those who are career-minded and go-getters end up not doing so well whereas men's careers continue to advance.

Not just my husband, but EVERY man who has gained promotions where women haven't are where they are because of women being shafted. We don't sacrifice our own careers - men do that to us.

Well clearly your manager has some basis for his opinions and decisions. Do you miss a lot of work or talk excessively about domestic matters while on the job? How does he even know your household matters or reproductive status?

Arguing that this is a choice for the woman is semantics , the man often just refuses to do it. He gives no thought at all to the realities of what is required to be there for children ( much like the op). He often assumes that the woman will sort it out and continues as normal in his jobs . This is often what is meant by ' I sacrificed my career'

Then why stay with such a man?

Perveen - that is true that some sahp’s would not know how much it costs or the type of pressures in a high-flying role. However other sahp’s would be used to managing the day-to-day budgets as their DPs may go abroad etc. Many sahp’s will have worked at some point and lived independently, so have some experience (though not with children in the mix).

I agree, but my vision is biased - the only SAHM I've ever met is my MIL who keeps saying this OVER AND OVER that she HAD TO stay at home and look after her 2 children. It drives me crazy. My grandmothers worked, my mom worked (all full time!). I don't have any children, but all my friends who do, they work, all of them full time.

Obviously, the situation where you have a child who's ill or has special needs it's a complete different one and doesn't make the object of this thread

@Tellmetruth4 I think has it right. If you are a career driven woman you don't give that up and can be happy at home. For years I loved being a stay at home mum which was only possible because my husband supported that. I've never had the career drive that some women have it Must be so hard to want to take some time away to raise a family but knowing every day away is holding back the career progress. Everyone just does the best they can

@readingismycardio that could have just been the time. Older generations women were expected to be home, she might have dreamed of a career but was never possible really. Women don't have to stay at home now, they can do what they want x

would probably have been equally happy with either no kids or extensive wraparound childcare and an equally high earning wife.

Hmm, yes, assuming the wife ran the home, arranged the fridge to be full, paid and organised the nanny and gardener.
I just have never come across a man who does what a woman does in or around the home.

And would men who didn't want kids find wives easily? Most humans want a child.
I think when you have kids you will realise there's more to it than just arranging and paying for help.

I'm the breadwinner in my family and I wouldn't be able to be if DH wasn't willing to work part time and do the childcare. We had a nanny for a few years, but it's not comparable to a dedicated parent, mostly because the nanny couldn't do the pick-ups/drop-offs, parent-teachers, after school activities, etc, so one of us always had to be available.

So I think YABU.

I think that in the case of very corporate jobs where working until midnight and client drinks is the norm then this is the case. My sister worked in a job like this and had to quit when she had a child as there is no way that you can leave at 6pm to collect a child in a job like that without losing it. She got a more normal 9-5 job and carried on working but in that sense, yes - she did sacrafice her career for her husband's.