“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?

To be honest, most of the women I know who are married to very high earners met either at uni or not long after (mid 20s) - ie. before they “made their money.” It doesn’t happen overnight. I know quite a few who have sold companies for multi-millions and, in one or two cases, significantly more than that, and they were all mid-40s at the time, having had kids in their early to mid 30s. Many are semi-retired by 50. It’s not clear with many DHs whether they are still working or not.

I think it depends on the situation. But yes there are some who despite just both knowing in their minds what they were going to do when kids came along etc, has not turned out how they'd hoped. It does work both ways that for one tone at home full time, would usually require the other to be at work full time, so it is team work. But you do get some partners who have thought about themselves.
I wouldn't say, saying 'I can't work I've got children' is a good reason. But it's valid depending on age and childcare options, and whether you are with your partner still or not.

I know in my case despite anything that was discussed I wouldn't of necessarily wanted to of been juggling DS with work, and my exP wanted me at home, he also wasn't willing to put in the extra work to maintain work or look at changing something. I never disagreed that it is hard with only one working particularly in some parts of the UK, and paying for everything, if it had been mr who went full time I could not have done it. But he was not willing to support me going to work, immediately made allowances as to why I couldn't ask him to do certain things. He was abusive, so my thoughts etc actions on things were all well trained around the way he was. For example he didn't want to have to collect our DS after work, said couldn't your mother get him 🤦‍♀️ but didn't want to pay for childcare either, or make it possible to have the money to pay for it. So I was stuck at home with no way out, meant we did not move out either and desperately needed to, but despite my input he wasn't willing to do anything. Prioritises his family as in back home, and every other person, well rid, though sadly not got rid of because of having contact with our DS, which at least now in some respects he pulls his finger out. But I still don't get regular maintenance so that is something else to be dealt with officially.

quest1on
My issue is that there are different groups of people (and this is over simplifying for illustration purposes):

1. Couples where Dad has a genuinely inflexible job and because of circumstances mum has become a SAHP. In those situations Mum may well have sacrificed a career/job she loves because the family unit requires it.

1. Couples like 1, but instead of a genuinely inflexible job, dad conveniently manages to be working late doing very little, isn't productive and does lots of 'overtime'. Mum might have given up a job/career she likes because she's felt backed into a corner by the big important man, or she didn't feel strongly either way and then you get the 'it just makes sense for me to give up work'

1. Couples where Dad wants to prioritise his career and mum wants to be a SAHP. They can afford to have the SAHP/WOHP set up and it works for them.

When group 3 start claiming that they've made huge sacrifices and their DH wouldn't be successful without them at home, they're bullshitting those who didn't have a choice because what they actually mean is "I wanted to be a SAHP, were were fortunate to be in a position to have a choice and I'm happy DH I'd pulling in the extra money", so painting it as a selfless sacrifice is a bit false imo. Equally, by equating the value of being a SAHP to how it makes life easier for husbands devalues the value of staying at home and it should be valued for that, not whether it props a man up.

With group 2, unquestioningly parroting the fact that their poor husbands work so hard, long days, there's no way he could do a pick up, he 'needs' someone home reinforces the idea that men are so helpless and apparently can't manage to parent and have a job. It continues to normalise the idea that men's work is huge an important and inflexible when in reality many of those men will have female colleagues in similar jobs who manage to do all the things the poor man apparently couldn't do without someone at home. The idea that 'he wouldn't be where he is without my sacrifice' is therefore just wrong because if he didn't have a SAHP then he'd be just fine like every other working parent (male or female).

Which leaves group 1, who for a range of reasons that are complicated (from socialisation and early career advice, to logistics, to affordable childcare around genuinely inflexible jobs etc) have actually made sacrifices. Those sacrifices need to be acknowledged and not swamped by the other two groups.

Haha the poor “dumped” children.pass me a tiny violin 🎻 I pay a lot to dump my kids.
I recommend the sunny kids penitentiary Pricy containment with long hours for absent avaricious husks who don’t give a hot damn

Group 2. Above, Lola. It's much easier if you have a partner at home (in this case, wife) doing house admin, cooking, wife-work. That frees up the brain for work in a way that being a stressed out doing it all parent doesn't allow. There are many frazzled single parents, who would have much more work energy available if they had a personal assistant.

Do these ‘categories’ really matter though, Lola. I don’t think families are ever that clear cut, to be honest. Life doesn’t work like that! I know myself, as a SAHM, I have often wondered whether my decision was actually ‘my’ decision, or a result of the circumstances and the particular relationship I’m in. The truth is, I really couldn’t tell you, even to this day. I genuinely think it was both - there were ‘push’ factors (DH’s personality / income potential, etc) and ‘pull’ factors (I genuinely would have hated using childcare).

Also families change. The kids get older or start school; disposable income changes; work may become less or more demanding for the DH. So you adapt and as you adapt, you might feel differently about the role of SAHM as the years go by. People are complicated. It’s very possible to feel resentful some days, but then in other days you feel super-privileged to be able to be at home. You can oscillate between feeling pointless one minute, then absolutely essential the next. That’s the truth of the matter. Just like the working parent, I expect - some days will feel like more if a ‘sacrifice’ for the family than others! Do you not think it’s best to just let people be, and let couples decide for themselves what ‘sacrifice’ means to them and how they relate to it as individuals, rather than trying to categorise things that don’t need categorising? I don’t care which SAHMs are deemed to have made genuine ‘sacrifices’ or whatever - it’s irrelevant to my life and makes no difference to my marriage or to decisions I would have made and will continue to make. I know what I’m doing is valuable and that’s all I need. I reserve the right to describe my life in any way I see fit. I have both sacrificed and gained through being a SAHM. No regrets and on balance, I’d probably do the same again.

quest1on
I literally just said I was over simplifying it for illustrative purposes. Unfortunately if anyone points out that some of these men would be in the same place career wise because they've got entirely normal 9-5 jobs then that's the worst thing ever (and no matter how much you acknowledge some women really do make sacrifices, this proves you hate SAHP).

Essentially, I don't believe that every time people claim their DH has a totally inflexible job, that he couldn't manage life without someone running the home these men are genuinely inflexible. Some are totally genuinely inflexible, but we (as a class) make too many excuses for men opting out of home life. Men (as a class) can be entitled enough without us patting them on the head and validating this.

I think we do no favours for fellow women if we:
A) unquestioningly accept that all these men are so big and important and work but totally incapable at home
B) argue that the benefit and value of SAHM is because they make like so much easier for men

Is it any wonder that there's endless threads on here where men aren't pulling their weight at home and with the children when there's women falling over themselves on other threads saying how life is so difficult for poor men and maybe men find it a bit difficult to do home things and work. Talk about telling men that their entitled attitudes are acceptable.

YABU. Looking after kids is a full-time job and if one person wants to fully pursue their career the other will generally have to put theirs on the back burner unless you have a lot of childcare.

It's not really about them wanting to do it - I'm sure like you say they did welcome the family life, but they made a sacrifice to do so.

And it's also not about whether the man would be "happy" for his partner to work or not - it could be a matter of childcare costs, or the time and energy that you spend on looking after a family, but rarely can one person be the main child carer/homemaker and also have a career. Even if they do work it's likely not the high-powered career they would have if they didn't have the responsibility of kids.

And that's fine, and it's fine to make that choice, and it's also fine to acknowledge it.

Looking after kids isn’t a FT job NO Because it is not a job. It’s called being a parent
What about when they’re at school how’s that stack up as a FT job?

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Looking after kids isn’t a FT job NO Because it is not a job. It’s called being a parent What about when they’re at school how’s that stack up as a FT job?

Finally, someone said it.

To be fair, looking after kids is full time until they are old enough to be left home alone all day - and even then, it’s likely to be several years longer until they are self-sufficient and able to leave home. Sending kids to school is outsourcing part of it, although not if the parents home educate, and of course, you remain on call, because you are a parent. The fact it is full time is amply demonstrated by the inability of working parents to look after their kids in lockdown and get a proper day’s paid work done at the same time; and also by the large amounts of money parents part with to get childminders, after school clubs and nannies to do some of the work for them.

No, it’s called being a parent it’s not a job.it’s nor comparable
A job has a set of externally agreed standards that one has to adhere to, other wise there’s a consequence eg task incomplete disciplined. A job is for financial remuneration. A job has a JD and person spec and expectations of what is a satisfactory completion

Let’s not even get into the “full time job” malarkey. Relax people! Just let people do whatever it is they do and let them call it what they want. Let it go! This does not need to worry you. Nothing to get aggro about.

It does strike me, that when people get so worked up about the way that others define their lives, calling in them to categorise this, that and the other, or tying themselves up in semantics of what is and isn’t work or a job or whatever - all they do is draw attention to their own anxieties. No more. Everyone else just gets on with whatever it is they happen to do.

Oh dear god,did you really just rock up to tell adults to relax? Acting all cool like
Let me explain the concept of mn. We discuss,debate,get a range of opinions. Vociferously agree or disagree.
We expect the aggro. We like get aggro about. that’s the point

So do spare me the cool girl routine @quest1on

It's not a job no, because my actual job is much, much easier than parenting.

In my.job I know what to do (roughly), I have colleagues to help me, I am externally motivated by many factors including pay, I get breaks from it, it's stimulating and rewarding and I am valued for it. That said, I could ultimately I could stop my job tomorrow and it would make almost no difference to the world. It certainly wouldn't completely fuck up the two people I love above all others.

Being a parent is much, much harder and more demanding and a bigger commitment, and those who dedicate themselves to that full time should be applauded. Nitpicking about semantics of what a sacrifice means, how far a father would have got in his career otherwise, what childcare means, what a job is, it is all a tactic to bring down others. This is a thread (as every SAHP/WOHP thread is) which seeks to devalue the work of SAHP and specifically other mothers. Lazy gold-digging scheming workshy mothers who could easily work if they wanted to.

Hardly cool and yes, relax. Whenever there is a thread like this you’re all over it “a job is paid yadda yadda yadda. But why? Why would you care so much?

All over it am I? And that matters to you because..?
Flattered you keep count. Is it You keep a running total in your head or a actual creepy spreadsheet with keywords and dates?

HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee
But women aren't meant to have strong feelings on big issues and they certainly shouldn't be debating issues such as attitudes to life and domestic life.

Women need to smile nicely, pretend everything is all lovely, that the feminist thing to do is claim anything done or said by a woman is feminist in order to get on with the big decisions of the day like what to cook for tea or whether we want to go to soft play. Strong feelings and debate should be left for the mother in law asking if she can see DC in 5 weeks time and when DH leaves his mug on the coffee table: in those situations the MiL is a narcissist and the poster should definitely LTB.

(obviously sarcasm)

Yes we must keep ourselves tidy. No aggro. No unseemly arguing
Women need to have long hair,smell flowery and not be shrill. And def no opinions

Nobody would come in here and start ranting at an Admin assistant or whatever - “Define your role - is it a sacrifice? Yes? No? We need to know. Why do you do what you do? What influenced you? Why, why, why? Justify yourself! Was your DH involved? Does facilitate him - or other men? Define your work - do you call sitting in a chair work? What about breaks? Is that work technically? Yes? No? Explain yourself! Well, what you should think and feel is the way I think and feel and have decided for you and it’s actually this.... “

I do laugh at those kind of posts,the show me your quantative data set,your proof
Like mn is a peer reviewed journal submission

HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee
Opinions? Oh no.
You see if the men folk say they are super busy then they are super busy. If the men folk say their life is oh so demanding going to work then who are we to suggest otherwise, especially if we are the female colleagues and mothers who watch a good number of them piss around all day and stay back after work doing the world's least effective working? We've got to get back in our box because there is absolutely no way those men could have been more productive during the day and then gone home to support their partners with family life. No no no. Busy important men always tell the truth about how busy they are. Even if they aren't that busy, it's still good for them to know that they don't have to do anything at home. It might frazzled their brain if we expected too much from them.

There's not threads on mumsnet that show male entitlement at all. None. No threads at all about how some men don't pull their weight at home, but use work to get out of things. No men at all who suspiciously decide they must train for a marathon when their wife has given birth. They are all very very busy with big important things and we can't have women saying that some men are genuinely hardworking but inflexible, whilst others take the piss. That won't do.

Completely agree @LolaSmiles

Well I may agree but prefer quest1on Delivary. If you can stand in your choices and understand other people will make diffrent ones then your going to do well in life. I've never understood weaponised intellectual spite, two mean girls above more fool those below