“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?

A family unit always needs sacrifices from both sides. This thread does show we need career strong women to show younger kids how amazing they are. I don't know any women like that but we need more positive role models

I agree with a lot of what your are saying.

Many men are indifferent to having children, women are the drivers of pro-creation.

I agree that they don’t sacrifice their career out of necessity. It’s a choice and many won’t admit that they just want to be at home.

However, my DH mother was a SAHM and mine worked full time. He had a much more stable and less chaotic home life. She had more time and mental capacity to support her children and husband through studies/work difficulties and just generally take the mental load of family life.

So I think although there is value in having a SAHP -it’s a choice

Two working parents It’s not hardYou throw money at it. Really it’s not insurmountable in the least

my DH was on £30k/year Do you honestly think that all jobs that require travel or dont allow flexibility for childcare are 6figures? I live in the real world. I love this thing on MN where everyone.earns 6figures. I only know one person in RL who does. Predictably its man and no he didnt do childcare unless it suited him and it certainly never interfered with his work.

I worked full time for a while but when it became apparent that it was very difficult to juggle I went part time. I would never have been a high earner but I could have earned more than I did.

Tbh my DH did have some days he could work from home and did in an emergency so I could go to work but there were days when he was away and I absolutely was the only option. No family nearby, childcare wouldnt take sick child. My low paid work allowed me to take time off for this

I find it a little depressing that women are being in part blamed for the gender pay gap

Unless both the husband and wife are happy to work 9-5 jobs compatible with family life, share the mental load, school/nursery runs and sick days and do an equal share of childcare and jobs around the house, one person is making some sort of "sacrifice" for the other (although usually their motivation is to make sure the children are looked after).

Men or women who work long hours/overtime/ weekends aren't available to pull their weight on the domestic front and rely on having someone else pick up the slack. Yes, it could be paid help (two nannies and housekeeper) but it's usually cheaper to rely on the other parent unless you're both very high earners. If they can squeeze lower paid full time or part-time work into nursery or school hours so they're also contributing to the household income, that's an added bonus.

The stress of working a job without fixed hours (in corporate law, for example) and trying to rush away to do nursery pick-up at 6/7 in the evening is unsustainable. I know quite a few people who have tried and failed at this. They haven't usually become SAHPs though... normally they've left for a less demanding, more flexible role.

I read a really good article on this in the New Yorker. The fault lies with the demands of these jobs. We were corporate city lawyers it was possible for both to work at that level but that wasn’t the life we wanted for ourselves.

Even having left London occasionally dh has to work round the clock. Both of us doing that just wouldn’t be possible even now our kids young teens. I’m no martyr though I wanted to leave anyway and set up on my own so much happier around for kids and earn decently. Our choices have definitely helped dh career though

I sacrificed my career, after mat leave I returned to a lower, less well paid position so that I could cut my hours to 3 days a week. I did it willingly and I love having the time with the children. I didn’t do it so my husband could excel in his career, I did it for the time with my family.

I agree with you generally OP. I dont see the real issue as childcare costs though (although def an issue). I think the real issue is why the women are expected to or choose to be the ones who sah. I studied law and was at uni with pretty much equal.men/women mix. Many of my friends married each other and had children. Often the women was a higher performer than the man academically and career wise (although typically both went into magic circle forms), yet when I meet them now it is, without exception, the woman who is the stay at home parent. I find that disappointing and I cant help but think it's a reflection of societal attitudes and barriers in the workplace generally, particularly around maternity leave.

I think some people tend to erroneously say that something isn't a sacrifice if it is a choice they thought was right and that they were happy with in that it was beneficial in some other way. Does the definition of sacrifice demand continual suffering with no let up? I would say there still is a sacrifice (without continual suffering) because something that could have been had is let go/given up. Equally does it matter at which point someone made the sacrifice? Does it make a difference if the sacrifice was made at the beginning of available opportunity rather than towards the end? I would say it is still a sacrifice if made at the beginning.

This strange fascination with other people’s family choices must come from insecurity in the person making the judgements. Why else would anyone feel the need to be such an unpleasant, sneery human being? Or is it just a power trip - a “look at me, I’m as high on testosterone as any man and enjoy giving a good kicking to anything I think has less power than I do”?

What I find interesting is that often the more senior someone is the easier it can be to be flexible. My director level husband did his fair share of childcare during lockdown. There was one time the chairman called him and he was feeding our children lunch. There was a comment about how times have changed but they cracked on and got on with it. I doubt the chair had ever fed his own children lunch.

I’ll be honest and say us both working while doing childcare nearly broke us but we did it. I’m sure there would be some saying he couldn’t have possibly done it at his level. I think often men don’t ask the question re flexibility. What I would say though is my childcare was more educational and probably better.

I do see it said a lot on here about what is sacrificed but I see it as choice.
Before we had DC we knew the childcare would fall to me. DH has a job which means he works away Mon-Fri, some weekends and the odd longer trip dependent on the work that's in.

However I work full time hours as I didn't want to leave the area of work I am in and have to try and reaccess it once DC got older.

From a young age with DS1 we used Private Nursery and Wrap Around Care with me doing drop offs and pick ups on my way to and from work. It wasn't worth me working but I did anyway at that point.

With DS2 a grandparent does childcare during my working hours which is greatly appreciated. However I was in a position to change to term time contract which I took up as it gave me a better work/life balance.

I also do all hobbies, school events and the majority of housework. When DH is home he takes over hobbies and jointly does shopping, washing, cooking and childcare.

Yes this allows DH to work in his field but not necessarily advance just his job isn't one that can be done locally.

We had choices and ours was this as he is and always has been the higher earner and my job allows a little flexibility on occasions. Plus I work 20 minutes from home so in emergencies I have been able to be around quicker then DH who is often the other end of the country.

I think the problem is that it's a transaction the man is rarely aware of. The woman sacrifices her career for the benefit of the family on the understanding that the husband won't leave or become abusive. That rarely gets discussed at the outset though and you see tonnes of women on here who are totally financially screwed upon the breakdown of their relationship.

@BooFuckingHoo2 - I note in your scenario, the man doesn’t appear to have any interest whatsoever in his children or who is looking after them, as he would quite happily be childlless. Yet you don’t think a man with such little interest in his offspring will have wanted a trophy wife? I wonder what such a man would have wanted with a wife at all, what with his career apparently being the only thing of any value to him.

scepticalface82
You seem to have selectively ignored the fact that on several posts I have specifically said there ARE some situations where a parent's job requires the other to make the sacrifice. I also said that there's no right way to structure a household, but sure ignore that too.

My point was that if people are to believe MN then there's loads of men who apparently couldn't function in life without a wife at home, that there's something special about being a man that means him doing a job is incompatible with family life but his female colleagues somehow manage fine. There will be some genuinely high fliers in pressurised careers, but the likelihood is that a good number of these very important men with very important jobs actually have fairly typical management/professional jobs.

Given that there's quite a number of men who magically feel they have to take up long distance cycling or marathon training as soon as there is a baby or young children, it's hardly rocket science to work out that there's men out there who find ways to opt out of day to day family life with claims they couldn't possibly do any day to day things with the children because of work.

Equally, if someone wants to be a SAHP then good for them. As I've already said it's a totally valid choice, so then own it as 'I wanted to be a SAHP and it works for our family' instead of creating the impression of a big important husband who would be utterly lost and failing in his career if it wasn't for the SAHP.

Being a SAHP is a perfectly valid choice and endless justifying it by how much it makes life easier for the man of the house suggests its value is whether it allows the dad to be hands off, rather than the numerous positives.

I'm very half and half on this one but I can only speak from experience. There are definitely situations where men excel in their careers because their wife does the day to day stuff and looks after the children. 100%.

However, I work full time (in a good role) and have done since my maternity leave ended. My partner earns more but has done so due to the nature of his work. He doesn't need to be out of the house 12 hours or work stupidly long hours to do so. We share school drop offs and days off sick. It's about what you are willing to compromise on. I didn't want to sacrifice anything, so we made it work.

However, the other side of the situation is my husbands ex wife. She repeatedly says she sacrificed her career to support my partner, but knowing her and how we have managed with us both working full time it strikes me as rubbish. She has never worked full time and has absolutely no desire to do so. She wants to be a 'kept' woman, but pulls out the career sacrifice argument whenever needed in a row.....so yes, I can see it from all angles really.

It’s a easier to stay later at work, go for a drink with the boss and dedicate more of your attention to work if you know you never have to be the one to deal with a childcare emergency.

The problem here is that you are taking the children as a given. These men wouldn't be taking care of their children if they didn't have a wife to do it. They'd probably not have them in the first place.

How many of these men do you think would have signed up to have children if they had to agree in advance to even half the care, let alone the majority?

I do find it ludicrous when a divorce court says a wife enabled a man to earn millions, by being a SAHP to his children. No, by doing what is in effect a minimum-wage role, she helped him have a family. Without her, he wouldn't have fewer millions, but he might have fewer children.

I think, @BooFuckingHoo2, you are assuming that these men who don’t feel the urge to have children unless their wives want them, will still just be a source of cash rather than love, time or effort for the family, even if their wives work.

Heidi1976
You put it better than me.

There are totally situations where one partner does have to make a sacrifice, there's others where it is a choice, and it's important not to confuse the two.

Not sure I agree. Every choice is a sacrifice of something else, surely? Making any one choice sacrifices another opportunity. For many families it is a choice for one parent to work FT, one to work PT or SAH. For the parent working FT that comes at the sacrifice of feeding the ducks at 10am on Tuesday, or being at every Christmas concert. For the other parent it comes at the sacrifice of earning more money, work opportunities etc.

That's how I see it. The only reason to artificially separate the two is to tell women who have decided to work PT/stay at home that they brought it all on themselves and if they really wanted to they could also be out there having a big job, despite children.

So many assumptions. That men dont want children, that pregnancy itself doesnt ever have an impact, that no children have complex SN, that men dont find it easier to work late knowing a child is with its mother being tucked into bed v one of a team of nannies. That everyone can just have high flying 6 figure careers and find a matching wives.

minipie I assumed he was older as it's quite a old fashioned view. I agree though you have to do what's right for your family. Perhaps if I didn't work DH could earn more but in my case money is not only the aim.

I think this is just a way to articulate the stay at home partners contribution it making thr working partners life easier

Of course in reality the working partner would have the children max fifty percent of the time and be able to have child care and be able to have their careers, many single parents manage it very successfully. But of course having someone do it all for you does make your life easier.

extensive wraparound childcare and an equally high earning wife

How are the children's needs maintained when both parents are off chasing their respective high earning careers? Unless wraparound is willing grandparents or a long term stable nanny, it is no substitute for parents. Before I had children myself, I had 2 female career-focused managers; one was always dealing with the fallout when the nanny left, they would be trialling a new one and children were playing up because they were finding the change difficult whilst her husband worked away (distinctly remember the panic when the 11 year old left by himself at end of school day instead of waiting for nanny to pick him up). The other had arranged flexible working so she could collect her child from school on 2 days each week but would never manage to leave on time and often talked about how she ended up being so late, had to pay fines etc.
In both cases, my heart went out to their children. As the child of 2 working parents, I remember how much joy it brought me to have my mum pick me up, her attend assembly with other parents and generally be around.

Whilst my children are pre-school ages, I have worked 3 full days each week. On working days, I just about get the time to talk about their day but by then school is a distant memory (both finish at 12pm). We don't have the time to look through school work, read the reading books and all the other things I would otherwise like to do. When they start school, I will be adjusting my hours so this is possible as I strongly feel they benefit from this

As many pp have pointed out, high earners need someone to be around and deal with the sick days, unexpected early pick ups and general life/house maintenance. This always involves some sort of a sacrifice. Fortunately, my career isn't one that involves completely stepping away post children and part time is an option but it has stagnated and will continue to do so until I am able to commit to full time plus all the before/after work commitments.

@jillypill and that was your choice for some people having as much money as a family unit is important

I chose to be a sahm, and it was a choice, while my kids were small. My dm missed lots of mine and dsiblings childhoods working and I didn’t want that for mine. I don’t blame her at all, she was widowed and working to earn money for us to have everything we wanted, but I didn’t have that need, even though I earned well, so I chose to stay home. Dh was delighted.

Interestingly, my dh would and often does say that I facilitated his career and helped him to succeed. He never had to worry about drop off or pick up, getting the kids to after school activities etc and could be away as much as necessary for work without even having to think about it. When he says that I do make a point of saying that he was just spoiled, and he would have just done it if he had to as many young families with two working parents do so.

I’ve been back at work for a few years and after a tricky start dh does now pull his weight at home. He is super supportive, but I think if he was honest, he much preferred it when I was home doing everything and he didn’t have to put any thought into anything except work. That’s not to say it wasn’t the right thing to do but it has definitely increased his workload. He has always been a wonderful father, now he had to be a better husband too.