“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?

there are millions of mothers in the UK. None of this "I did" or "I know someone who did ..." is helpful. I know one middle class woman who networked the hell out of life to forward her high flying husbands career (and had a nanny) but also a number of couples in the same neighbourhood who worked alternating shifts every day so they could both work and look after their kids ... only met on Sundays if their EM shifts allowed. FWIW I was the higher earner and often had to work away while my DP worked locally and was the person called on for emergency pick ups and eg chicken pox.

The only sensible thing on this thread is the advice to both parties to ensure they are financially okay and have a home and a pension if the marriage or arrangement gets into difficulties.

The trouble is the years when you're climbing the ladder, not when you get to the top - ironically, although I have a lot of responsibility now, I have more flexibility and control than I've ever had in any previous job. It's on the way up that you have to jump when you're told, and those years tend to coincide with having a family

Yes this is exactly what I was thinking of upthread - I have massive autonomy now, but when I had a clutch of small children I had less and ended up starting my own business, not to work less but to dictate my terms of engagement and the type of work. That cost me time on the ladder when I returned to big corporate compared to male peers whose partners stayed home or worked part time.

I've certainly had to travel at very short notice (same day) and I could have to now but it would be rare enough that its not an issue compared to the early years.

If I look at my sister in law - she has been the classic company wife as her husband worked his way onto the boards of large companies. I lost count of how many times they moved house with his job and she permanently had bags packed for him to hop onto longhaul for a couple of weeks. I don't think he ever saw a school play or missed work due to sick child or spouse. There is no way she could have sustained more than random part time jobs at best.

By the time the kids were grown and he was finally settled in one place she was too old to get back into her old career and play the 20 year catch up game. She did what a lot of women in her position do and took on voluntary work, charity work etc with the same energy but she had no hope of sustaining any career path.

I’d love to know what jobs these high flying men do which require travel at extremely short notice?

High level cyber breaches, nation state threats, briefing national government agencies, intelligence on terrorism.

But surely in examples where the DH has the big job that isn't compatible with family life he's earning 6 figures

I said this because I don't really understand the point of the added stress, sacrifice unless the salary is high.

The sahms I know we’re not highly paid enough for it to make financial sense or be able to pay for full time care. Their H’s all earn between 50-70k. When the kids start school they tend to do school hour jobs if they can.

In these circumstances I think it makes sense to have 2 people working as your take home pay is higher. Childcare costs are high but they are not for ever.

In these circumstances I think it makes sense to have 2 people working as your take home pay is higher. Childcare costs are high but they are not for ever.

But often the childcare costs are not just high but actually unaffordable. Like I said upthread. When my oldest were 3 and 1 it would have cost the family pot £400 per month for me to work. We actually couldn’t afford that hit. Neither can my friends.

These women are staying at home because they want to. Which is fine but don’t act like your earning your oh salary as well.

But also don't pretend the person building the career hasn't been facilitated by a spouse doing all his wife work. When a couple do that it should be a joint decision for family benefit and the home prioritising partner should get an equal share of the financial benefits.

You have twice compared your nanny to being a SAHP - s/he isn't a wife they are an employee who owes you nothing outside of their paid hours working on a subset of household and family duties.

Childcare costs are high but they are not for ever

No indeed they are not but the person who drops out of work even for a few years too often then ends up being the one to compromise on a patchwork of part time jobs around school hours and children's needs because somehow it "makes sense" to continue to invest their efforts in the partners' career. And more commonly, men just don't pull their weight when it comes to sharing this stuff.

jillypill - some people enjoy their field of work. Whilst we all work to earn enough to live off, some people also want job satisfaction and to use their training and experience. Not all skilled jobs earn huge sums - there might be a career progression for their field for working odd hours or travel but some fields just earn less than others. We arent all suited to the type of work in the city. Which is lucky as I really value things like the engineers who keep my water running.

Of course in some cases it's completely unaffordable but if you are living of one salary anyway & the other salary is just covering childcare that is not going to be forever & NI & pension is still being paid. So at some point you should be better off, that's my point.

I think you are right in the ‘he wouldn’t be where he is if it wasn’t for me’ area. I think that is rarely if ever true.

But I do think it’s hard to keep up two v high octane careers and have kids. I don’t think it’s usually true to say you have to totally sacrifice your career (and it’s a bad idea to do that( but I do think stepping it back is often the only way to stay sane.

So I agree with you mostly.

Also think it’s true men have less drive for kids on the whole, but then it’s a good thing many women want to have them, as while we want less people on the planet, we’d be in trouble without new generations, right?

I promised to link to the facilitated men threads:

Thread 1

Thread 2

@MillieEpple I'm not disputing that & I myself work in a job that is more of a vocation.
However I don't think that changes the point that if a mother wants to work but simply cannot because her partner is never around & hardly sees the kids & the salary is low then it's perhaps not the best career choice.

"Also think it’s true men have less drive for kids on the whole"

Generally speaking, men are extremely self-centered and have 'less drive' for anything that does not directly benefit themselves. Sad really.

@MrsKoala

In these circumstances I think it makes sense to have 2 people working as your take home pay is higher. Childcare costs are high but they are not for ever.

But often the childcare costs are not just high but actually unaffordable. Like I said upthread. When my oldest were 3 and 1 it would have cost the family pot £400 per month for me to work. We actually couldn’t afford that hit. Neither can my friends.

Well, maybe not have kids so closely spaced in age (or multiple children at all.). Childcare costs are no secret.

Choices have consequences.

@DrRamsesEmerson

I promised to link to the facilitated men threads:

Thread 1

Thread 2

There are a few really interesting comments in these threads along the lines of “I don’t think women should be responsible for facilitating men from a feminist perspective.... but it works for my family so we will continue”

Which begs the question - do SAHMs actually want to get out there and work?

Choices have consequences

But in this case the consequences are largely borne by women.

Have your children close together - minimises the career hit, can wreck you physically and costs a bomb in childcare for the early years

Space them out by a few years each - need to start early, take a new maternity hit each time you get back on the work track

And of course this assumes that fertility is under your control.

I might one day meet a man who has given much thought to any of these. The most exercised they get if asked what they plan to do when an impending baby is abdicate responsibility by saying 'its up to my wife' thereby sounding very supportive whilst making it clear they don't se much changing in their own careers. the young women I meet in my industry (still few compared to men) think of very little else if they want to combine a family and a career.

@jillypill

Of course in some cases it's completely unaffordable but if you are living of one salary anyway & the other salary is just covering childcare that is not going to be forever & NI & pension is still being paid. So at some point you should be better off, that's my point.

Depends how many kids you have and how close they are I think. I think I worked out that 3 under 4 would mean earning less than circa £40k was actually costing money. Plus the added exhaustion of night wakings, breastfeeding etc.

In September my youngest starts school and I worked out I’d need to earn approx £13k after tax to break even. There was a job advertised as an admin assistant for £16k ft and I’d have to do some excel/word courses before I apply. I’d be earning about £126 per month. H spends more than that on coffee! I doubt these jobs have much career progression either. I’m seriously thinking of setting up as a cleaner instead. The going rate is £12-14 per hour round here, that along with doing my work from home stuff means the childcare cost doesn’t need to be factored in.

Which begs the question - do SAHMs actually want to get out there and work?

I think the more pertinent question for most is "do I want to do the full double shift" which is what going to work with small children usually means for mothers.

@Ohalrightthen

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.

You make a very good point. Except there will always be women who don't want to work and this set up suits them down to the ground.

@Downandupdownandup

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

Are you saying he wouldn't have succeeded in his career as a single man? Or that he wouldn't have progressed, with a family without your sacrifices.

Because he is/was clearly competent in his role to progress.

@RUOKHon
My husband’s boss is very old school. He wouldn’t let DH have flexible hours to help with childcare, etc. In the past he’s been bollocked for taking phone calls in the car on the way back from a school run.

Employment law exists for a reason and this kind of attitude of your husband's boss needs to be challenged.

Refusing to allow flexible working hours needs to be justified in writing, with evidence and there are 8 specific reasons to refuse it...but it must be evidenced.

Too many people are not aware of the right to request flexible working hours and the requirements of the employer in law.

I know some employers are unhelpful, but they need to be challenged using employment law to protect them.

I work in HR and there are some managers who want to deny requests and when I say, yes you can but you need to evidence why in writing....suddenly they aren't willing to and they allow the request.

If the request really wouldn't work for the organisation, then I'm happy to support them in responding...but they know we could be at risk of an Employment tribunal if they deny it without justification.

The only SAHMs I know had retail type jobs and married very traditional type men who were keen to have a wife at home with the kids. Interestingly these friends seem to feel a lot of pressure to always look good (hair and makeup done always) and have a beautiful house. All women I know with "careers" kept them going after having kids. I don't know any particularly "high flying" couples tho as such. Just regular "good jobs".

YABU for some people. This has been true for me. Dh went to night school so without me as childcare he wouldn't have his qualifications. Not sure where the childcare would have come from if I wasn't here to provide it for free.

One of my ex's friends had a really well paid City finance job and said to my ex that he wouldnt want a woman with a career like me (doctor) - he said he didnt find it very attractive His wife had been a beauty therapist and gave it up when they had their first child (they had 3 in total in the end). He loved the whole glamorous wife at home with the beautifully presented home. Not the no makeup wearing scruffbag me always stressed with work. Cant blame him in some ways thinking about it!!! I think different things work for different people/couples and that's cool.

@swansongs

"Also think it’s true men have less drive for kids on the whole"

Generally speaking, men are extremely self-centered and have 'less drive' for anything that does not directly benefit themselves. Sad really.

Blimey. You have a point . But I think women being more generous is (mostly) conditioning.

I think that the only thing that will really make a difference to maintaining relative equality post children is to make sharing parental leave compulsory.

On the encouraging side I see some young fathers dropping down to 4 days a week, which I didn’t see as much 20 years ago.

@swansongs

"Also think it’s true men have less drive for kids on the whole"

Generally speaking, men are extremely self-centered and have 'less drive' for anything that does not directly benefit themselves. Sad really.

I specifically wonder about men like Jude Law and Boris Johnson and Mick Jagger who pop out kids with whatever woman they're currently with.

I mean, surely they haven't put any thought beyond a) disliking condoms, b) wanting a new squeeze unencumbered with children but who wants her own and c) being able to afford it anyway?

@gypsywater

The only SAHMs I know had retail type jobs and married very traditional type men who were keen to have a wife at home with the kids. Interestingly these friends seem to feel a lot of pressure to always look good (hair and makeup done always) and have a beautiful house. All women I know with "careers" kept them going after having kids. I don't know any particularly "high flying" couples tho as such. Just regular "good jobs".

This is true for me too - i work in a relatively high-powered setup, as do all my friends, and i don't know a single woman who gave up her career for her kids. We all worked bloody hard to get here!

My husband went part time when DD was born, but i don't consider that to be a sacrifice he made for my career, that was a choice he made for himself. If he wanted to work full time, DD would be in nursery full time.