“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?

I would be astonished if you could find threads like these on male-dominated forums. It's simply not on their radar
Of course it isn't on their radar. Men as a class can go about their life expecting their wants and preferences to come first at all times. Men as a class take it for granted that their career will always come first. Men as a class have no reason to consider changing the norms. Men as a class benefit hugely from the myth that behind every successful man is a woman doing all the heavy lifting at home.

Women didn't get the vote because men were talking about women's rights.

The only time women's rights become a topic of concern for men (as a class, obv NAMALT before someone says "but my husband...") is when they think women are getting ideas above their station, or want to have bodily autonomy, which is why you see lots of old white guys in the USA overly invested in forcing women to remain pregnant.

The reason why this topic comes up on predominantly women's forums is because women get shafted by the idea of the big important man with his big important job.

That would also disproportionately help women Jangle, so would make a big difference. I was a career changer into teaching and I still can't believe how old-fashioned it is. I work for one of the few schools (in my experience) that doesn't actively make part-timers lives' hard (bearing in mind that part time in teaching means you do 40 hours instead of 60) and yet most schools find it hard to recruit and retain. They are driving talent away!

One thing I wanted to suggest was that women talk about sacrificing their career what they are actually talking about is giving up what they imagined their career as they imagined it in future - the starry heights they had hoped to achieve.

When you've had a good career and lots of promotion throughout your 20s and early 30s, giving up mid-30s feels like throwing away the chance to take it to the next level - to become VP, CEO etc in future. As surely that was the trajectory you were on given how well you were doing, right?

Unfortunately real life shows that, children or not, most women don't make it to the 'C-suite.' Moreover career progression for women, despite a track record of promotions/good performance, really slows down in your late 30s, to the point that many women experience becoming almost unemployable by their late 40s/early 50s. Not the experience of everyone but for many.

So I think many women who talk about 'sacrificing a career' are envisaging a starry future career that they thought might happen but, in reality, may not have ever come to fruition.

To be fair, Lola, there were men in the suffrage movements. When you read about the lives of women like Josephine Butler, their husbands were as committed as they were.

I for one would paid a lot higher taxes if it meant the teaching and NHS professions would embrace flexible working/job shares

This is already available, not always granted. Depends on service needs

I work NHS i don’t want or need a job share or flexible working but I’d like it to be available

I agree with you OP. Childcare is expensive, and rightly so, so if the woman made less than it cost to put the kids in childcare (unlikely, round these parts nurseries are £4.50ph so a lot less than minimum wage), they wouldn't have been out of pocket.

I respect a person's choice to be a SAHM or SAHD, and their choice will be hugely beneficial to their child. But I highly doubt it helped their partner's career.

Phineyj
I had a battle getting part time because it apparently didn't fit with the timetable. Once I went part time, I saw an increase in my workload for several reasons (including people dropping last minute jobs on me on my day off) and eventually I moved schools.

Phineyj
I know there were men in the movement, that's why I was talking about men as a class because I knew the default response to social discussion is NAMALT.

But the progress didn't happen because women were minding their own business nicely until some lovely gentleman happened to say 'oh golly gosh, you know these women folk? I rather think they ought to have the vote. Shall we go and tell them that they could do with fighting for equality?'

Same on many other women's rights issues. Yes, some men do campaign for women's rights, yes some men share parental leave (my DH is one of them), but it doesn't change the fact that men as a class very definitely benefit from the status quo.

We both work part time with a combined salary of prob £180k
Surely you can appreciate that that is extremely unusual and beyond what’s achievable for most careers?

I think 2 people working & earning very well is more achievable that just the father working & earning 300k plus.

I want to change the narrative - where both partners share the load/earn the money and perhaps aim a little lower.

This is what I want to aim for. Much better work/life balance for everyone.

Dh is a high earner - a Management Consultant whose job has always involved him staying away from home - I did not want kids to pass then out to other people, I get that this may not be a popular opinion but it was mine and my dh agreed with how I felt. So I stayed at home while I needed to - my dh was able to arrange his work week without hiderence and work late nights and weekends whenever needed. I am now working again - I do not regret the years I dedicated to my kids - we could afford it, we have a strong marriage and we are all happy, what other people do is up to them - dh would not be where he is today had he had to compromise his work life. We all got what we wanted.

Suppose it depends how you view childcare, I never viewed it as farming out or passing my kids. Nor does my dp have such strident views
I always know I’d return FT had my return to work planned and nursery place booked when 3mth pg

Nursry costs 25k per child per year, add to that before and after nursery/night nannies to cover DH's share of the childcare which is MASSIVELY more than my salary (He works 16 hr days so can't just pop to nursery pick-up at 7pm ). I suppose he could have married one of his female co-workers but then the kids literally wouldn't see a parent Monday-Friday.

I actually do work PT but in a "mummy" job.

So yes DH could have the career but his take home would be less and his kids wouldn't see a parent most days so our set up works best for our DC

What’s a mummy job?

Its a job you fit round the children at a lower level than you are capable of.

Guys, ffs, this is patriarchy at its finest. You’re all sniping at each other about whether it’s acceptable for women to not have any ambition and to “just” want to stay at home. Of course it is. What’s fucked up is that it’s not acceptable for men. So there aren’t really any SAHDs. And that’s shit for the women who really do want to get ahead (and have married men who just won’t do their bit), women who enjoy working but also want to participate in their children’s lives, and women who want to stay at home and then go back to work. we all suffer no matter which camp we’re in.

The reality is that if there were as many dads as mums who SAHPed this would be a total non issue. But it’s SO uneven it has all sorts of unfavourable repercussions, almost all of them landing at women’s feet.

Patriarchy. Focus, team MN!

@Jangle33 yes, is agree. Part of it is finding the right company and the right role and not being afraid to ask for things like flex. But it’s also true that is it easier is some careers than others. Which people may not have thought about when they chose their career (I still remember a friends mum when we were 18 recommending that my friend follow a particular career because then she could work part time later on - I pretty much laughed at her then, but often look back now and think she was rather wise 😂)

And also easier at a certain level of seniority.

stealthbanana
You're right about SAHD, but personally I don't care what a fellow woman does to structure her home life. If someone wants to work full time, part time, have a career break, be a SAHP for a few years or longer, that's up to them to make an informed decision and all power to them.

I do care about the way some women prop up the patriarchy by continuing to promote the idea that the worth of a SAHP is based on how great it is for the big important man to not have to trouble himself with domestic life or the children he created.

In some circumstances there's genuinely a need for someone to give up their career and long term prospects due to their partner's job, but there's a damn sight more jobs that are fairly standard professional jobs that are done by men and women, but only the bepenised ones find it impossible to manage home and work.

I'd love to see the narrative changed away from 'of course I made all these sacrifices to run the home because DH is big and important so he needs me to lighten his domestic load as he has such a busy job' and move towards:
A) I'm a stay at home parent because I want to be home with my children and this is a valuable contribution in itself.
B) I'm a stay at home parent because my husband has chosen to prioritise his career and he doesn't think he can adequately manage a job and family life (focus on the husband's apparent inability to do family life / choice to opt out)
C) I'm a stay at home parent at the moment as although we tried to have a more equitable split, DH's company denied his request for flexible working. It's a shame that some companies are so our of touch with modern relationships and families. (Shift the focus onto companies who promote inequality)

When we first had our dc1, dh was working in a shitty deadend IT job making 18K a year. He quit when I was on mat leave to start his own business. I too went back to work part-time for about a year or year and a half, and then FT. I did the same after dc2 was born. I work in a demanding London professional role with a long commute. Dh does most of the school runs in normal times/homework/etc as I'm out of the house 6am-7pm 3 days a week. He now makes about 100K a year 7 years later. Carrying the load equally and both of us prioritising our career ambitions has only buoyed both of our careers.

Very interesting reading so many of these posts because on any thread discussing salaries, pretty much anyone who says they earn £100k+ it’s implied that they must be lying

@stealthbanana,You rock up give the summation we are all sniping. As if the opinions count for nothing
Women having vociferous opinions and arguing is not sniping and it’s pejorative to reduce it to that. That’s the narrative of be nice, get along, don’t snipe. Gosh one mustn’t be seen to snipe
I have no problems with opinions expressed,they are diametrically opposing to mine still want to hear them

So no I won’t be told I’m sniping because I’m not, that’s a familiar way of closing down women you demean their opinions as sniping, also commonly used a is bitchfest, bitchy

Say something constructive rather than criticising posters on the periphery

@ShirleyPhallus

Very interesting reading so many of these posts because on any thread discussing salaries, pretty much anyone who says they earn £100k+ it’s implied that they must be lying

When we had kids - dh was earning £140k a year - I was earning £30k a year. I had twins - I would have had to earn at least £50k to break even after taxes and work costs to make it break even. Did I want to do that - hell no! My job was shit - I didn't enjoy it and dh enjoyed his...it's a no brainer for some of us.

@Thefilmisabouttostart
But if the combined income was £190k why do you have to earn more
The biggest earner eg him,should proportionately pay more for nursery
Why do you have to give up work because your sole wage won’t cover nursery?

[quote HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee]@Thefilmisabouttostart
But if the combined income was £190k why do you have to earn more
The biggest earner eg him,should proportionately pay more for nursery
Why do you have to give up work because your sole wage won’t cover nursery?[/quote]
I gave up work because I didn't want to do it - why should I want to? It was practical - dh had to travel over-night - often 4 nights a week - long hours, we had no family close by, we were better off with me giving up work and I felt I'd do a better job than paid childcare and here's the big thing - it was our choice, we had the right to make it - no one had to help us or step in and 18 years on I do not regret it at all! Other people make different decisions, I am happy with mine!

I not questioning your happiness, I’m questioning your logic that nursery fees exceed your wage,when there are two wages