“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?

Or just stop having kids?

Well people are, and the result is an increasingly ageing population in the UK. There are huge staff deficits in adult social care and across the NHS. Soon we won't have enough people coming into the workforce. I'm not sure how that helps society.

South Korea is about to start offering cash incentives for people to have more children. It's unlikely to work. That's not a desirable position to be in.

@ISeeTheLight

YABU. My dad was only able to have a high flying career with international travel because my mum organised everything. She really did sacrifice her very successful and academic career for him. She still worked (full time mostly) but wasn't able to get to a really senior level until my brother and I were 16+. We even had an after school nanny until we were both over 12. They've been divorced for over 12 years now (I'm in my 30s) - my dad has a huge pension package that my mum won't see any benefit of, even though she enabled it.

Unless the pension was explicitly included as part of the assets in the divorce settlement, she can go back to court to ensure she gets her share. Not a lot of people know that, but it's true. She's entitled to that money.

the women claiming this often feel pretty trapped.

The situation you've described is a choice, though. You chose to stay at home with your baby because it was what you wanted to do. I'm not saying it isn't a valid choice, but it's wrong to describe this as being 'trapped'.

@Circumlocutious that's a whole other thread tbh. Generational inequality, not wanting immigrants (who are needed when birth rates are dropping), cost of living, wage stagnation, low interest rates etc.

When mothers being in the matter of sacrifices, they refer to bring a single parent so not able to have a career, or not able to work because of the kids illnesses and holidays.

I can't see how these are not excuses when they are 100 thousands of mother's in this situation who do manage to work ft and have a career. Where does the impossible come in?

Hard? Yes. Demanding some adjustments, definitely. Stressful? Without a doubt. Impossible? No.

I totally agree with OP that in the very cast majority of cases, it is purely a choice that makes their lives easier.

I’m not sure it’s true - my dh pushed for our dd (I had a dd already from prior marriage) and he’d have preferred me not to work pre school age as he didn’t like the idea of her in nursery ideally. However I wasn’t prepared to give up my job and so I work a compromise of 3 days a week.

Realistically I’d like to work more but we can’t cover the school holidays if I do and neither of us want her in wrap around for long days every day. His work categorically just said no for any flexibility.

Unless you have excellent wrap around care it’s very hard to support your child’s school work without someone working part time.

it's wrong to describe this as being 'trapped'.

She says women FEEL trapped. Because they do. Absolutely nothing wrong with people describing their own experiences

I've always seen it more as a high earning carer means they can afford for one person to stay home. For lots of couples its just not possible to live on one wage.

You need to find an enlightened boss... and I’m on 6 figures and make both my home and work life work. You do need to be exceptionally good at your job and being senior helps

Well the second sentence precludes the first quite often doesn't it? I have considerable autonomy as well and I'm unusual being a woman at my level. The men on my level are almost entirely single or have SAHMs - they have no worries about children being sent home to isolate, having to travel at short notice because they have someone else to pick up the slack at all times.

The problem is that careers offering high paying endpoints tend to make the most demands with the least autonomy at the very stage where women are facing the biological clock and child bearing. That is because the career structure in most professions is built around a standard progression which assumes no need to take breaks for childbirth or to soft pedal for a few years around children.

YANBU, I'm actually pleased to see a thread about this because I feel like it's taboo to talk about and I think in majority of cases what you've said is spot on. I'll get flamed for agreeing I'm sure but - I.don't.care!!

I agree as well. I've known a lot of women over the years who complain that they have sacrificed their careers, when the reality is that they couldn't wait to go on mat leave and made it clear that they weren't coming back, or only coming back full time because they wanted to stay at home and their husbands earned enough to facilitate that. I think some women like to be the martyr.

South Korea is about to start offering cash incentives
I think it won't be long before the UK has to do the same!

@Brinn

it's wrong to describe this as being 'trapped'.

She says women FEEL trapped. Because they do. Absolutely nothing wrong with people describing their own experiences

And absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that, whatever they might feel, they are not 'trapped'. Identifying as 'trapped' doesn't mean you are trapped.

SIL says this when she has no qualifications at all and had only ever had entry level jobs, some of which she was fired from. DB changed careers in his twenties pre DC and encouraged her to do the same, she'd start things and just drop out and as soon as she was pregnant (29 so not young) she said she was never working full time again and complains bitterly about the 12 hours a week she does work.

Also people who say a man should find a new job if he had unenlightened bosses - partly I think this depends on your industry. My dh works in construction (site based) - I’d say 90% of his colleagues have stay at home / low paid part time work wives. The industry doesn’t understand giving men flexibility - it’s what the women do (he’s actually been told this).

He’s worked in more than one place since having our dd and talked to others - part time men just aren’t an acceptable thing.

It’s totally wrong but he’s now realistically too old and too well paid to start over in a different industry without a massive lifestyle drop.

So he can’t just walk and I do feel “trapped” in doing it all / sacrificing since I work in a flexible industry.

Me and DH had a conversation on family expectations before we got married. We both prioritised the fact that we wanted to both be present. We are comfortable (income 90k in the north) but are both home every evening for family meals. We share childcare in the holidays and share taking them to activities. We both are able to work flexibly. We have taken it in turns to return to education to get extra qualifications.
I feel we have the best of both worlds. I have friends who have given up their careers (usually in teaching) after their 1st child and their husband is high flying and the sole earner but they are basically a single parent except for the weekends. They seem happy but my job is too important to my identity for me to even think about that so my DH has passed on higher level jobs (he doesn’t want to be away from the kids either).

I completely agree OP.

It is absolutely possible to both have a high flying career with travel, etc with the help of a nanny (or a team of two nannies if overnight cover is needed). Of course nannies can go to drs appointments, collect sick children from school etc.

It is all a question of choice, and most women are not happy to make the choice to prioritize their career if it means barely seeing their DC some weeks. So yes, they sacrifice their career, but it is not to allow their DH to pursue his, it is to allow them to have the family life they want.

I think it won't be long before the UK has to do the same!

Traditionally the UK has bought up the skills bases from poorer countries to fill that gap, then despised them for being "immigrants"

Unpopular opinion but I agree with you I think many men would be happy with no kids at all or just 1 child, with a working wife and paid childcare. It's usually the mother who wants several kids and in some (but not all) is more than willing to take the SAHM role to allow this to happen. I really think its pretty rare than husbands suggest/coerce SAHM to several children m

I think YABU.
When we looked at the cost of wraparound childcare, not only did it wipe my salary, it would have pulverised it. My husband doesn’t earn enough to pay food, mortgage, bills etc, let alone adding childcare into the mix (£900 minimum pcm for 2 children, one school aged, the other was 2 from 7:30am to 6:00pm)
I had no other option but to give up work..

Also people who say a man should find a new job if he had unenlightened bosses - partly I think this depends on your industry.

I do agree & some industries it won't be possible. However if more men pushed for it & the expectation wasn't always on the women to pick up the slack then some industries would change.

I had no other option but to give up work.

This is also a problem when childcare costs prevent working.

Strongly disagree.

I live in London commuterbelt. Know v few mothers who have been able to sustain FT work / career progression, largely due IMO to fathers being unwilling to change their working life much at all. Few couples want to use childcare 11/12 hours a day.

All the fathers I know are ‘facilitated men’, those with SaHWs even more so.

I knew a couple where she had stepped back a bit, but still earned 6 figures, and he had the big job. They had to have 2 full time nannies, which almost swallowed up her salary. That is a tough decision to make and I can see why many don’t. It shows the level of support that is required to both be pretty much free to follow your careers.

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.

What I'm hearing there is that the poor men were forced to have children by their devious wives and would have been much better if they had stayed single and childless

Also it's not in effect a minimum wage job. In my experience paid childcare never dropped everything to collect a sick child from school or went to activities during school term like sports days, nativities, end of term ceremonies or got up in the night to change vomited on bedding and change and bathe vomiting child.

Maybe in the 6 figure earning world of MN that sort of childcare is available but in the real world most of us inhabit where we are both working because of financial need, I'd be very surprised if it happened

Something I'd like to say is that I am 60 and whilst I had 7 years at home with the DC and then worked locally as the DC's principle carer/parent to support DH's career AND the DC, going back to work even in a smaller way reconnected me with real life and freshened our marriage. 17 years on still working full time and all the time at Director level.

The alternative would have been to turn into a SW London lunching mummy whose conversation focused on interior design, tennis/sports club, the children, schools and the next holiday. By 50 I saw lots of women separate in unhappy marriages where the DH's had thrived professionally and needed a little more than they had at home once the children were a little older. The sad reality for those women was/is a smaller, less prestigious house, significant loneliness and for those who hadn't worked for 20 years little likelihood of employment. Some of these women gave a tinkly laugh and a little sneer when I went back to work 17 years ago and started again at the bottom.

Best bit of lock down has been DH saying "goodness, you really know your stuff and construct an argument well and his jaw has dropped at the realisation that I really do manage a team of 20. Best bit of being a mother when dd said "you've been such a good role model mum because you have taught me to be disciplined to get things done because you have a job".

Finally may I whisper the pensions word. They are so very important so max them before children and reignite when and if you return to work. I believe also you should ensure that high earning husbands allow you to retain child benefit and repay it through their tax returns to ensure you receive full nics assessments for those years.