“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?

Clearly a lot of women do ending up resenting being left with all the wife work, childcare regardless if they work or not. How does that play out when the kids are older?

minipie I could have written your posts. My DH is exactly the same. I think it’s hard for those without first hand experience to understand just how demanding certain jobs are. My DH is always working. Holidays, evenings, weekends - it doesn’t stop. In normal times he is expected to travel globally with little notice. All of his peers at work are men doing the same thing.
We have 3 young DC and I do still work but have taken a pay cut and a part time job while he is at the top of his game in a city career. We met at work and I was more senior than him at that point. He definitely wanted DC and would love to have more but I know my limits and there’s no way I could cope. We live in London with no family help. Yes we could have 24/7 childcare but there is still the mental load which inevitably falls to me. And who recruits/retains these nannies and picks up the pieces when they leave?
I have definitely sacrificed my career and his is thriving. Could he have cut his hours and been around more? Certainly yes and I would have loved for him to do this but he wasn’t willing to. And the fact is that if he had he would not have risen to the position he is in as quickly as he has. So yes I have sacrificed my career for his.

Personally, i think people who's jobs are so full on that they require someone else to do 95% of the childcare have no fucking business having children.

I will never understand why women choose to saddle their poor kids with fathers who are functionally absent.

@jillypill I think the resentment usually comes when the husband does not fully appreciate what the wife does.

Actually my ex is where he is today because of me.
I was higher up, better paid and better career prospects.
Had DC and he carried on as normal and left at 7am (earlier) back at 6 pm. Then he focussed on himself: evening work, marking etc and then did the same on weekends. All of the sudden I did all the wrap around care etc nothing was split. Then when we split - he threw himself even more into his work and I did even more for the kids.

So yes I went down the career path and he went up. Totally unfair.

@lovepickledlimes thinking about I think it's quite hard to quantify & actually long term I think me staying in work will provide better security & money long term (I have a good pension). Lots of high earners only earn a lot for a few yrs & job security can be an issue. Also his career has a ceiling so it's not like he's going to earn 500k.

“ CayrolBaaaskin

@Waferbiscuit - I agree. The uncomfortable fact is that these women facilitating men’s careers are facilitating the patriarchy and making it harder for working women. We need working patterns that that work for both sexes not to live in the 50s where marrying a rich man is the pinnacle of women’s achievement”

Blaming women for the patriarchy is low and just another form of misogyny.

I agree working patterns need to change but that is down to workplaces enforcing family friendly working for everyone. Sadly nothing will change until this is done. I prioritise my children’s well-being which undoubtedly would suffer if I worked at the same level as my husband.

jillypill
I think resentment can kick in on either side where there's poor communication and different expectations.
For example a SAHP would rightly feel resentful if they were doing home and child things all week, and then on a weekend the working parent buggers off for 8 hours doing their hobby and doesn't pull their weight at home because 'I've been working'.
Equally, a working parent may feel resentful if the original agreement was for one person to be a SAHP until school age but over several years there's always been a reason why the SAHP 'can't' get a job and before long what started as a medium term agreement has become one person at home for over a decade.

@Downandupdownandup in your case where you out-earned your husband surely it would have made more sense for the roles to be reversed so that it's the highest income for the family that is protected etc

The pandemic shows how reliant modern society is on someone else looking after the kids.

Women going part-time due to childcare seems to be much more common than men. This is anecdotal, I know, but in 25 years working for a huge multi-national company, I've only ever met one man who worked part-time due to childcare. I've met countless part-timer women - I've been on teams where I've been the only woman working full-time.

I am childfree by choice. I'm not a high-flier or very career-driven but I wouldn't want to stop working and rely on a man's income - simply because there's always the possibility he might ditch you, or become too ill to work or even die, leaving you having to find a job with no recent workplace experience.

Tax wise it's often better to have 2 good earners vs 1 high earner eg 1 person on 120k takes home 6.2k a month, 2 people earning 60k each have a total of 7.2k a month plus the 30 hours & tax free childcare & 2 employees paying into a pension.

This is a point not made enough. We both earn in the 70k region. If one of us became a SAHP, the other would probably progress a bit quicker but not to the tune of the other's entire salary, particularly given the tax advantages.

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

I suppose if they work 9-5 ish hours and can drop at the childcare at 7.30 and be back to collect on time at 18.30 ? What happens if travel is involved and you need to leave to catch a flight at 5am ? Who looks after the children pre childcare hours ?

I will never understand why women choose to saddle their poor kids with fathers who are functionally absent.

I think sometimes you don't realise what you are getting into.
As someone who's father was a VP at an investment bank & a true workaholic who also worked abroad months at a time I really missed my dad. My mum was great but I was very close to my dad & would have loved him around more.
It was clear his career was his first love & eventually my mum & him split because he was a crap husband even though he was a very hands on dad when he was around. He's provided very well for all of us which has given me privilege in that I can choose a career not just based on earnings however I always knew I would never have dc with a man whose career was everything.

Clearly a lot of women do ending up resenting being left with all the wife work, childcare regardless if they work or not. How does that play out when the kids are older?

From observation? By the time the kids have left home the parent who has given up job prospects to prioritise babies, growing children, then teens will become the default carer for both sets of parents because "it makes sense" as (usually) she has "more time" and often because by then a combination of simple ageism and sexism make it harder to restart a full on career even if you wish to so do.

Personally, i think people who's jobs are so full on that they require someone else to do 95% of the childcare have no fucking business having children

That is an issue with the structure of work. That won't change until you see threads like this angsting about juggling responsibilities on male dominated forums to anything like the same extent they rise up on women's sites. The workplace in most careers is based on a model of education->entry level->up the tree without pause, breaks or changes of pace for family responsibilities, willing to relocate when needed. Women are told to "lean in" to this and bend themselves to fit in. I know of some couples where each managed to move to eg 4 day week/3 day week and both took a hit but they are very much the exception.

Women talk about this because by and large we take the hit, make the sacrifices or not but overall are held responsible for the family by society at large and communities face on.

Like the OP, before I had children I sort of assumed that "excellent wrap around care" was the answer but of course it isn't. The hours are not long enough nor flexible enough and even if you can afford 24*7 live in care you will still have times when the nanny is sick, the kids are sick, school stuff /medical stuff needs covering and randomness happens. Even basic decent quality childcare costs more than many people take home.

Because of the tax and any resentment issues my advice to my kids wanting a family and career balance would be both working 4 days / part time if they can.

But if people are the ambitious types this may not be enough! And not everyone wants more time at home with the children..

There's noone you can hire (without paying a fortune) who'd have your child if they were sent home sick from school or had to stay off because they've got a vomiting bug.

Even nurseries close at 6/6:30 so unless you're hiring a nanny, even with a modest commute you're not working late.

If you are working part time you do have recent work place experience. If he dies you should have life insurance. If he falls ill he is someone you love! Not a piece of useful furniture. Life is tough as a carer. Carers allowance is shocking. We undervalue care as a society but thats another story.

@RandomLondoner - totally agree. We see it often on mn that women claim their dh couldn’t do his high earning career if they didn’t have a sahp (funnily enough those with lower paid busy jobs seem to manage). They act like they earn half his salary and often claim they do. But often their dh will have female colleagues juggling it all with a nanny or childminder.

I’m a single parent and while I paid my nanny fairly she doesn’t earn half my salary or deserve half my assets for doing her job. She gets the salary for the job she does. While there is an issue with devaluation of caring work my point here is a sahp is doing the same thing whether their dh is an investment banker or minimum wage worker. It is no more or less valuable a role because you have “married well” and we need to get away from valuing women in those terms.

Imo these traditional roles are not doing women as a whole any favours. It’s responsible for the pay gap and for women doing huge amounts of unpaid work. But it’s undeniable that like many things that disadvantage women as a whole, some women benefit from the patriarchy. Particularly those women who would never have earned much in the first place and get to claim they are earning half an investment bankers salary for looking after their own kids.

@Di11y emm yes there is. My nanny would have done that so would my au pair.

YANBU. What the man means is that he doesn't want to be inconvenienced by his own children, and wants to carry on climbing the ladder that invariably benefits him the most, and puts the other in a precarious financial position. Being a SAHM is great if it's genuinely what the woman wants to do, but to do it as a sense of duty to facilitate someone else's career to the detriment of theirs, no.

There are very few childminders/nurseries in our area which offer more than the standard 8 till 6. A very few will do until 7pm. Doing even a 9-5 day is quite challenging with an hour's commute each way. I was frequently a few minutes late for our childminder, who was quite understanding, due to train disruptions. When we changed to nursery, who are much less understanding, I had to adjust my hours to leave at 4.30pm. Having to do this sort of thing necessarily limits your career.

@MillieEpple

If you are working part time you do have recent work place experience. If he dies you should have life insurance. If he falls ill he is someone you love! Not a piece of useful furniture. Life is tough as a carer. Carers allowance is shocking. We undervalue care as a society but thats another story.

Yes, I was referring there to people who give up work altogether - hence I said I wouldn't want to stop working rather than I wouldn't want to work part time.

Life insurance may help but it's unlikely to keep you for the rest of your life.

I agree being a carer is undervalued.

hazelwong yes it makes a huge difference imo but often seems to get overlooked. Although it has the biggest impact when one earns over 100k so appreciate its not applicable to all. I "only" bring in 2.5k a month after pension (p/t) but it still makes a different to our household income & cant imagine a scenario where it wouldn't. Life is expensive!

@Uhohmummy - I’m not blaming women for the patriarchy. But we all have roles to play and we should take responsibility for our choices and their implications, both men and women.

If we have a society where high earning high status jobs can only be done with people with a sahp or no children then as long as women are default carers they will be disadvantaged. There will be patriarchy until we all take responsibility to dismantle it. You can’t just blame someone else and say “the patriarchy works for my family”.