“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?

@bambinaballerina

All the SAHM I know left work due to the extortionate costs of childcare, here in London.

They were not lazy, they were simply people who earnt an average salary, in some cases low, and couldn't pay nursery and rent, whilst having enough flexibility. It's mostly people who have hard working DHs and who worked hard for years before kids.

These idea that the country is packed with wealthy SAHMs is quite frankly irrealistic. If you have inferred it from this forum, I wouldn't take it seriously. There are lots of fantasists on here.

Reducing the costs of childcare by subsiding it more is the answer, not calling other women lazy and entitled.

That really pisses me off

Childcare is a shared expense

When I went back to work with my 2nd child our childcare bill was more than my salary, but it was a joint expense

The short term financial pain enabled career progression and my earning potential over time.

Women who have to stop work as they earn less than the childcare are married to men from the dark ages who see all childcare as women work- including paying for it.

@OxfordwillsaveusbyFebruary let's say a family has an income of 3000£. Bills and food are £1500. That leaves both people with £750 spare each or for personal costs like transport/petrol, possibly clothes,lunches if needed, social expenses at work ,gifts etc.More than enough.

Then with a child , nursery adds an extra cost of £1500 . Bills haven't decreased,if anything they're likely to rise. That leaves just the added CB for both parents to cover any extras which often is not enough . You end up with two parents tired,stressed,barely making ends meet and a child in childcare every day. In some cases they are actually in a deficit.

Now one of them staying at home wouldn't make too much of a difference financially bar saving whatever work related costs, but if the parent staying at home is happy and manages well, family life would definitely be improved.

Yes childcare is definitely a shared cost, no one will argue otherwise, but only if there's enough money to share to begin with.

OxfordwillsaveusbyFebruary - it is a joint expense. I believe that 100% but not every job has career progression. And not every family unit can afford to be worse off. What if the amount you are worse off by is the amount you needed to eat.
We were worse off by £9 a day with both of us working v only one of us working. (Without travel expenses) I earned above national average. We did it for all that career progression skills stuff. Its a privileged position to be in.

@LolaSmiles

Walkaround I've not seen SAHD called cocklodgers. I've seen plenty of men who don't work, do almost nothing round the house, don't pull their weight with the children and expect their working (female) partners to carry the mental load be called cocklodgers, but not SAHD who fulfil the valuable role of running the home and looking after the children.

People don't say dads can't have a career and be a father though. The assumption is that someone (generally dad) will work out the home and that someone else (generally mum) will fit in around work.
As someone quoted up thread, most dads aren't making flexible working requests. Do you not think men have a responsibility from their position of privilege to challenge the idea that flexible working equals giving up?

It seems awfully convenient that the driving force for better equality in domestic spheres comes from women, and then when women question why it is they're always expected to come second or women suggest we challenge the assumptions that women work for petty cash and have no aspirations after becoming a mum, fellow women tell us to shut up because their husband's job is important.

It seems that for every woman wanting greater equality and a culture change, there's another 3 who are quite happy to justify their (totally valid) choice to stay at home by (unjustifiably) doing the patriarchy's dirty work and perpetuating the idea that all these big important husbandswouldn't manage without them/it just makes sense to get a mummy job.

FWIW, I don't care if people stay home or go to work so it's not about working vs being home to me, but I'd like people to be transparent on their reasons(eg. I chose to stay at home because I want to be with the children, I chose to stay at home because my husband wants to prioritise his career and doesn't think he can manage to do home life things, I've felt forced to stay at home because Company A doesn't value flexible working from its employees and relies on spouses facilitating their employees working family-unfriendly hours.)

jellyfrizz That's really interesting.

@LolaSmiles - you’ve seen what you want to see. I’ve read posts that, if a man had written them about a woman would have been interpreted abusive, demeaning and controlling, but because a woman wrote them, they are interpreted as someone living with a cocklodger with lower standards than the hard working, breadwinning woman who should expect a cleaner home and nicer meal after a hard day being the only one bringing any money into the household. The theme is always that the one not bringing in an income is a lazy sponger. This thread also very much has that undercurrent that you can never possibly be contributing your fair share to any relationship if you SAH.

Uhohmummy
I'm speaking generally.

On one hand there's the dominant belief that women will drop everything to facilitate men who genuinely have jobs that are incompatible with day to day family life.

On the other hand, there's men in entirely standard jobs who conveniently find it impossible to do family life when the women in that line of work manage.
In both situations there's the claim that 'DH wouldn't be where he is without me, he is so big and important because I do the housework' when the likelihood is that there's by far more men in the second camp than the first, so choosing to give up work is a choice, not a necessary sacrifice.

Too often what is apparently 'I've made all these sacrifices because DH couldn't possibly manage without me leaving work' is actually 'I want to be a stay at home parent, DH has chosen to prioritise his career and doesn't think he can manage working and his share of the housework'. The latter is perfectly fine if thays the set up people want, but at least own the choice instead of perpetuating the idea that it's inevitable that men can't balance work and a family, whilst claiming women who are asking difficult questions are awful.

It would do the world a favour if we started being upfront about staying at home for example,

• I'm a SAHP because I want to and it is valuable
• I am part time because I want more time at home and to keep my hand in/ finances require it
• I am a SAHP because my husband has chosen to prioritise his career and part of that is me choosing to facilitate that
• I am part time / SAHP because although we looked at flexible working patterns, unfortunately his company do not value flexible working

Too often what is apparently 'I've made all these sacrifices because DH couldn't possibly manage without me leaving work' is actually 'I want to be a stay at home parent, DH has chosen to prioritise his career and doesn't think he can manage working and his share of the housework'

It can actually be both! Sacrifices can be willing ones! No one on here seems to be getting this! We can make choices and recognise it means sacrificing some things but still make them because the benefits are more important. It doesn't mean someone might never feel sad about the sacrifices ever!

unfortunately his company do not value flexible working just because the company cannot accommodate flexible working, doesn't mean they don't see the value in it - you are using overly emotional, judgemental language. It's unhelpful.

Sacrifices can be willing, but it's not a sacrifice when you DIDN'T want to work and you DID want to be a SAHP. And that is frequently the case.

Sacrifices can be willing, but it's not a sacrifice when you DIDN'T want to work and you DID want to be a SAHP.

What if you wanted to make the sacrifice but understood it as a sacrifice?

I'll give the example I gave earlier. I had breast cancer. I had a mastectomy. I sacrificed my breast for the health of the rest of my body. I willingly gave consent to this treatment. Do I ever feel sad about it? Yes! But would I make the same choice again? Yes!

Lola I actually agree with much what you’re saying but I think a lot of voices on this thread (including mine) have spoken of another situation where the husband has a demanding job and is not prepared to compromise work to pull his weight at home. So the “choice” for the partner is either (a) outsource the husband’s share (cleaners, nannies - but the difficulties regarding this have been explained at length for those working very long/irregular hours) or (b) take a step back at work and take on the husband’s share of domestic work yourself. Choice (a) involves the (usually) wife taking on 100% of the mental load as well as picking up all of the slack when children get ill/childcare fails etc - which is very hard (impossible?) to do while carrying on working in the same way you did pre-children or as if you had a fully involved co-parent. It also means a huge amount of stress for the wife as well as the children who are in childcare for long hours. Not much of a “choice” in that scenario which sadly seems all too common judging by this thread.

I do not see anyone “claiming women who are asking difficult questions are awful.” These are important questions to ask.

What if you wanted to make the sacrifice but understood it as a sacrifice?

If you don't want choice A and do want choice B, it's not a sacrifice to go for B!

I'm very glad you recovered from cancer and I hope you continue to enjoy good health, but I don't think it works as an analogy for this.

Personally, I’m hugely grateful to have maintained my career. There was a brief period after my second mat leave when I thought of becoming a SAHM but I quickly discounted it. We could have managed on DH’s salary, very comfortably, but I’d worked hard to get where I was and I wasn’t quite prepared to give it up. It’s a pretty full on life - we’re both senior finance/legal professionals but we’ve managed to muddle through. For us, it’s give and take and bloody good childcare/home help. I know the DC won’t be little forever and once they spread their wings I want to ensure I have something to focus on.

If you don't want choice A and do want choice B, it's not a sacrifice to go for B!

Choices aren't always binary. A choice can be one you wouldn't make given different circumstances but you might recognise it would work best overall in a particular set of circumstances so you make make a choice which involves a sacrifice. So you might enjoy the financial independence and job satisfaction (and respect apparently) being in paid employment gives you however you might sacrifice that employment if it means after children the family is financially much worse off because the of childcare fees. Or you might sacrifice your career in order to take care of and advocate for a child with SEN as the person best placed to do it. In both cases you might be satisfied with the outcome and your way of life generally but regret the loss of societal respect and financial independence.

I'm very glad you recovered from cancer and I hope you continue to enjoy good health, but I don't think it works as an analogy for this.

It absolutely does because it's about the definition of a sacrifice.

This has been a really interesting thread, with valid points made on both sides.

I wonder do they have 32 pages on work/life balance and career vs family life on male dominated forums such as Pistonheads. I rather think they should.

I am a high earner. DH is a high earner. We only use full time childcare 3 days per week because we each have a lot of flexibility that only comes with seniority. That’s because we had kids later. People who have their kids in their 20s tend to forget that your 20s in a lot of well paying industries are usually when you need to work all hours to prove yourself. So by coming out of the job market or lumbering yourself with kids at that point means you may struggle to return. That’s why women in these industries often have their kids in their 30s/40s.

The theme is always that the one not bringing in an income is a lazy sponger. This thread also very much has that undercurrent that you can never possibly be contributing your fair share to any relationship if you SAH.

I don't think this thread has said that.

@GrumpyHoonMain

I am a high earner. DH is a high earner. We only use full time childcare 3 days per week because we each have a lot of flexibility that only comes with seniority. That’s because we had kids later. People who have their kids in their 20s tend to forget that your 20s in a lot of well paying industries are usually when you need to work all hours to prove yourself. So by coming out of the job market or lumbering yourself with kids at that point means you may struggle to return. That’s why women in these industries often have their kids in their 30s/40s.

I didn't get my present job (the first one in which I've had real flexibility and control) until I was 46. That would have been quite late to leave it to have a baby: I had DD at 39 and that felt like leaving it quite late. Not everyone's careers are on a perfectly smooth upward trajectory - I thought I was settled for life, then things changed, a bully took over the organisation and I had to move in a hurry for a substantial pay cut.

I don't think this thread has said that

I think what some posters have sought to do on this thread is minimise the challenges and barriers some women face with regards to continuing to work once they have children. And also to minimise the challenges some people face with regards to flexible working within their employment.

This might be done in a futile attempt to encourage more women to stay in the workplace in order to promote equality but all to often it comes across as accusatory towards the women who have decided to leave the workplace, the elephant in the room being 'they should've tried harder!'.

I think instead we should be recognising those challenges and barriers as this is very necessary in order to instigate change. We should be valuing the roles women take within the home in order to more truly recognise their skills and value them within the workplace in order to enable their return. Society needs to have more respect for SAHPs in order for them to be more employable.

Hear hear, @pensivepigeon!

I also think there's something profoundly feminist about recognising that not only paid work has value - that bringing up children to be good human beings and citizens is a worthwhile thing and shouldn't be denigrated, but a shared responsibility between those children's parents. There's a tendency to mix up housework - which is mostly drudgery and can be outsourced - with child-rearing, which is partly but by no means wholly drudgery, and where often you need a parent's input. DD has been doing her 11+ exams this year, I don't know where we would have found childcare to give her proper support through that - we had a tutor but it needed a fair bit of parental input too. And I'm really conscious that the upheaval of the teen years is coming.

I could not, and would never have wanted to, be a SAHP. But I am incredibly grateful that DH did: it facilitates me, and it gives DD a better life than if we were both working 14 hours a day (my life in busy times).

@pensivepigeon and @DrRamsesEmerson - I agree, to a certain extent, and the concerning thing is the number of women on this thread who do not even seem to realise when they are denigrating life outside the world of paid work. I wonder even if they re-read their comments they would still fail to see how patronising some of them sound. It’s like they’ve taken on the views of the patriarchy without realising it, and then claim they are feminists because they blame men for anything they don’t like and think that men should do more of the work they look down on as “drudgery” because women used to have to do it, so it must be suspect, low skilled and less important.

Yes, @Walkaround. As an added insult recognition of the sacrifice women, who have given up the financial independence, status, respect and self fulfilment being in paid employment can offer, have made, is denied them. Just because they appear to have made that sacrifice too willingly. Which is nonsensical because it wouldn't be their sacrifice if it wasn't done willingly and could not be credited to them. And then why would someone make a sacrifice if there wasn't the prospect of something good to come out of it which there can be satisfaction in? That is the whole point of making a sacrifice, surely?

Yes, exactly that, @pensivepigeon.

It absolutely does because it's about the definition of a sacrifice.

To be a sacrifice, you have to give up something that, ideally, you'd keep. Your situation is inherently different because your top choice - health and no mastectomy - was not an option. You had to choose the least bad option; it almost wasn't a choice at all. You would have had to give up something that you wanted, whatever you did.

For many people who choose to be SAHP (emphasis on "choose" and "many"; obviously I am not referring to everyone), being a SAHP isn't the least bad option. It's the exact option they want in their ideal world. They're not giving up something that they would ideally keep: it IS their ideal option. Some of them have said so explicitly, here and in many other threads: they did not want to work, and they did want to stay home.

That's fine. More than fine. It's great when people can be true to themselves, do what they honestly wish to do, and benefit their loved ones by doing it. They are contributing to their families and deserve their fair share of any assets.

But it's not a sacrifice.

@GeordieGreigsButtButtZoom - funny how so many people berate SAHMs for sacrificing financial independence, status and respect and argue that a “fair share” of assets should not be half if they didn’t do paid work, then, isn’t it, given the lack of sacrifice you claim they made.

I'm very glad you recovered from cancer and I hope you continue to enjoy good health, but I don't think it works as an analogy for this.

I agree....it's really not comparable. You can't compare life or death with giving up your job.

You don't plan to get ill
You do (usually) plan to have a family.
You know the cost of childcare
You know how much you earn

You have the information to make an informed decision.

a career just