AIBU to think many women put themselves in a bad financial position?

[Sunflowers095]

So there's a lot of talk about the gender pay gap and also how women have been more affected by the pandemic and had to take on more caring responsibilities. While I understand there are single parents etc. in most situations what I don't understand is:

• why don't women go for higher paying careers or marry lower earning men, therefore being the main breadwinner
• why don't women choose partners who will take on 50% of caring responsibilities, chores, etc. rather than have kids with someone who doesn't contribute and just put up with it?

Another thing I see often is women deciding to be SAHM, come back part time, extend maternity leave. Nothing wrong with this choice but in the context of a career surely it's not the best way to support that goal? Especially when many SAHM say that they decided to stay at home because their wage would barely cover childcare. That's not the point! Long term it increases the earning potential if a woman stays in work.

While I agree that a lot of inequality still exists I feel like many people make conscious choices that make their financial situation worse. Women I know who decided to take shared parental leave, go back to work full time, make their partner take on equal responsibility etc have all had great careers. Am I missing something in this conversation?

I'm not trying to be judgemental in any way towards non career driven women or women who want to be homemakers as I think it's great people have a choice and being a SAHM is an important job! I just mean purely from a financial/career perspective here.

Yes school does create different demands, but it's a time that is generally easier to share between both parents in two parent/co-parenting families.

It does not need to be m, nor should it be m, just the mum listening to a child read, organising childcare in holidays etc etc. She is not breastfeeding anymore. It goes back to the OP's points of personal responsibility and ensuring both parents are stepping up.

Mum, not sure why that came out as m twice!

@changingnames786 of course having both parents makes things infinitely easier but in our case, we would have all the struggles I mentioned if we both work full time. For us, working full time involves leaving home at 8am and returning after 6.30pm. So unless one parent drops their hours, we simply can't be there to do things with children.

Of course we could both drop to 3/4 days a week instead of just me working part time but in our circumstances, it works better for one of us to take the hit so the others career is not restricted. I am very fortunate to be in a profession where I will not struggle to go back to full time if the need did arise

@riddles26 sometimes the thought of something is often worse than the reality. I remember the dreaded feeling of how we'd manage school holidays, but it's fine, you figure it out. Weve worked full time since before kids were in school, it really isn't that difficult for us, flexible working has been readily available to me so I haven't had to rely on childcare too heavily. But even on the days we got through the door at 6pm that was still over an hour to read and spend time together with homework on weekends. It's manageable to plenty of families.

It may be difficult for some families, or hard for some people to comprehend, but most families I know have school age children with both parents working full time.

@changingnames786 I guess the flexible working is the game changer there. I'm in medicine so I have flexibility to reduce my hours and go part time but not to work from home in the way many office workers would. I also have the unsocial hours in the mix with a full time role which then impacts DHs work. DH has some flexibility but also needs to be at the office a fair bit.

I have friends who make it work but in pretty much all cases, one of them is working from home most of the time (pre covid) which makes all the difference

@riddles26 yes I understand the difficulty with unsociable hours. My DH is forces and away for months at a time, thankfully my own roles are office hours and very flexible, although only because I've worked my way up, it was very rigid when kids were pre school which was difficult, many women stop at that point but the short term pain created a long term gain for me. (Very much talking about myself there, I understand certain career paths just don't allow for flexible working etc)

I have to put my hands up and say I'm sure some of the decisions I have made in my career have been due to their compatibility to family life, my husband has not (to the same degree). So I do not proclaim to be a beacon of hope for women's rights in the slightest, but I have been determined to remain on my career path in a way that I could.

@changingnames786 I'm very similar in that respect. I've made a point of continuing to work and stay in my career but equally have made sacrifices and changes that keep it more compatible with family life. However they are decisions I have happily made with no resentment for DH progressing faster and further.

If the worst was to happen, I can step up to full time and earn a decent salary which would support us all and I'm very fortunate to be in that position

@riddles26 glad you made it work for you. No resentment for my husband either, I surpassed him quite a while ago lol! Although I suppose I resent a bit that I have to consider childcare more than he does, because he has to go away for months at a time but not much we can do about that whilst he serves, it gave us a lot of stability as young parents, I have to remind myself that some times, but he should be out in a few years.

I haven't RFT but I do think OP is underestimating the effect of discrimination against women, particularly mothers, in the workplace, making it more difficult in most professions for women to be those high fliers even if they've done everything 'right'. Then for BAME women like myself you have to factor in an additional level of discrimination and so on. I was once passed over for promotion internally not long before I was due to go on mat leave. There was only one other applicant, who was in a different team, less qualified and with less service than me. I have no doubt the only reason I didn't get that job was due to my imminent maternity leave. I have also spent years applying for another load of jobs prior to one success and I do wonder how discrimination may have affected my chances. Also, job insecurity and economic precarity mean vast swathes of the population are not eligible for things like SPL etc. We weren't last time as DH was a student and we won't be this time because DH was on a temp contract which wasn't extended so he is moving employer so won't meet the continuity element, which we have both been devestated about, plus the loss of what would have been his very generous SPL pay meaning I am now going to just have to take 9 months on SMP again as my employer doesn't offer any generous mat pay. Plus there is the physiological differences regarding maternity and birth etc that even the best husband cannot compensate for. For example I have had HG in both pregnancies meaning extended times on sick leave, the first time meaning a big loss in income due to not qualifying for much sick pay. It also took me 9+ months to recover physically from my first birth. Even the best men can't really do anything to mitigate those disadvantages that we have.

@MeadowHay absolutely this 🙌

[quote FloconDeNeige]@timeisnotaline

I think you make a good point.

The difference could be down to any number of things; perhaps the children are more similar in personality to one parent and naturally gravitate towards them. Perhaps one parent is more lenient than the other or has interests that appeal to the children more.[/quote]
I'd bet good money you'd see a difference between children who are entirely breastfed and those who aren't, though I don't believe a study has ever been done on it. But it shapes an infant's attitude towards its world significantly.

I would class that as biological, for all it's possible to get around the necessity for it.

@SmokedDuck for your data collection my daddy’s boys were both ebf till about 8mo (obviously I weaned them, just didn’t switch them to formula also).

I’d bet good money you'd see a difference between children who are entirely breastfed and those who aren't, though I don't believe a study has ever been done on it. But it shapes an infant's attitude towards its world significantly. I would class that as biological, for all it's possible to get around the necessity for it.

That’s what me and my husband think. I breastfed my first until he was 2.5 years old and my second until he was 3 years old, so for all that time I was their source of comfort in a way their dad couldn’t be, and they had an attachment to me in a way they couldn’t have with their dad.

It may be taboo to state that some children have a closer attachment to their mother based on pure biology, but like you said OP, breastfeeding may have an impact in some circumstances.

I don't think its the breastfeeding as such but the "being there" that makes a difference in attachment.

Both DC were/are breastfed. Baby DS1 only saw daddy after 6pm weekdays, DS2 was born at the beginning of 2020, DH went back from pat leave for 6 weeks and then started wfh the week before the 1st lockdown started and is still working from home now. DS2 is still being breastfed but he is equally close to both of us and DH is much better at rocking him to sleep.

I left a well paid job (£40k full time), company car etc when my first DC was 2. I worked freelance for a while and did alright. Then had DC2 and didn’t work for a bit. Now I’m “employed” by my DHs company. I do bits of freelance for him but I’m effectively a SAHM. I do feel frustrated by it as I’m not using my potential however he works a 60 hour week and when we married/had kids we decided to become a team. If I had a full time well paid job then who would be around for the kids? Answer = no-one. I take the view that we chose to have them and at the moment I have to put them first. Obviously we are “lucky” to have a successful business (if you could consider luck as taking a massive risk and then working bloody hard to make it it off.)
Anyway IF we were to divorce I’d get half of everything including his pension and strongly could argue that of contributed to the success of the business. My view is that I’d have earned every penny of it as I do 95% of the childcare/housework. There’s no way he’d have been able to be as successful without me.

I'd bet good money you'd see a difference between children who are entirely breastfed and those who aren't

What, like entirely breastfed kids are overly reliant on the mother to meet their wider needs and that their attachment with their fathers is under-developed?

Oh no, silly me - you meant that they’ve have a special magical mummy bond!

I’d bet good money that’d you’d see neither if enough studies were done; there would be no difference.

@riddles26 I agree about it being SO much harder once they are in primary school. That came as a shock to me as I think there is a perception that you’ll be “free” once they get to school age. I know very few parents of primary DC where both parents work full time. It’s just not feasible unless you can afford wrap around childcare or have very helpful grandparents.

@PinkPiranha11

Why, if you’d had a full-time well-paid job, would there be nobody around for the kids?

If that was important to the both of you for someone to be around, why was it automatically you? Why didn’t your husband give up his job to be there for them?

[quote FloconDeNeige]@PinkPiranha11

Why, if you’d had a full-time well-paid job, would there be nobody around for the kids?

If that was important to the both of you for someone to be around, why was it automatically you? Why didn’t your husband give up his job to be there for them?[/quote]
Most likely because the business her husband owns and runs earns far more than her good salary and also has much higher long term earning potential too.

In our case DH doesn't own a business but he also outearns me and had much greater earning potential over the next 10 years at the stage when we were discussing maternity leave and childcare. I had the career with better part time options that would not restrict progression when I do go back to FT.

It doesn't have to be the women that goes back, but as previous pp pointed out, once you take into account biological differences and the need for a minimum amount of maternity leave for mother to recover from childbirth, we always will be at a disadvantage

If I had a full time well paid job then who would be around for the kids?

This depends on the job surely. I work full time (well paid, career) and I take my kids to school every morning, they go to after school club for less than 2 hours Monday-Thursday, from 5pm I am with them, we have dinner, do reading/homework, spend time together, then do bedtime. I then have time to myself from 8pm. I'm with them all weekends. I take them to football, beavers and swimming. Never missed a sports day, assembly, parents evening and I am a school governor (PTA is not my bag).

I really don't see how 8 hours in a week equates to never being around for the kids. That's the only difference between a SAHM and me. I am available and very involved.

@FloconDeNeige ummm because my husband’s business employs quite a lot of people so if he simply gave it up to look after our kids then there would be a fair few other parents out of pocket!?! Plus one £40k salary before tax definitely wouldn’t feed, house and clothe a family of 4. So all in all that would be a silly idea.

I know very few parents of primary DC where both parents work full time. It’s just not feasible unless you can afford wrap around childcare or have very helpful grandparents

Of course it's feasible - wraparound care isn't necessarily expensive. We pay £13 a day for both before and after school club and never use grandparents. You can also use your tax free childcare account providing neither of you earns over £100k.

The two things that make a difference are:
Flexible job. We only use wraparound care three days a week at the moment as we're both wfh.

Both parents taking responsibility. The only time I see this becoming an issue is when it all falls to one parent.

@PinkPiranha11 I think you would find theres a lot of families of four out there having to survive on half of 40k.Bit of a sweeping , little bit snobby statement!

I worked full time and my kids were in nursery from 6 months, then wrap around care.It was expensive and I only had little left after paying childcare and the bills etc but I done it for the long term of keeping a well paid job.The only thing is, I’ve kept the well paid job but have never been able to take the career opportunities offered as I still needed to be around for the kids, or put non work time into the kids.
If I hadn’t been in a well paid job then I can totally see why it ends up with usually women taking a step back .
I also ended up getting divorced and the full time job supported us through me becoming a single parent ( not without lots of headaches on childcare, school holidays etc)

You asked in your original question about finances not careers.
After finding out my partner was cheating and having to extricate ourselves from one another financially I think the key is to earning your own money or at least keeping some separate to the family pot, but and it’s a big but, there’s gotta be enough money at the start to do that. After many years I met a new partner and we do not have joint accounts whatsoever , we each pay half the bills and half for anything we buy.Wouldn’t work for most people but having been stung in finances I’ll never share my finances again in joint accounts etc.We can only do this now as apart from my teen at home the other 3 are grownups.
I think it boils down to choices you make before you have children on career and finances that may carry you through those early years.Of course life has a funny way of altering the best laid plans though!

@TheJerkStore

I know very few parents of primary DC where both parents work full time. It’s just not feasible unless you can afford wrap around childcare or have very helpful grandparents

Of course it's feasible - wraparound care isn't necessarily expensive. We pay £13 a day for both before and after school club and never use grandparents. You can also use your tax free childcare account providing neither of you earns over £100k.

The two things that make a difference are:
Flexible job. We only use wraparound care three days a week at the moment as we're both wfh.

Both parents taking responsibility. The only time I see this becoming an issue is when it all falls to one parent.

Well, indeed. Unless you have loads of children and/or live in an area with very poor provision, I can't see why wraparound care would be so unaffordable?

In our area, it's £15 a day and holiday club is £30 - given that you can use annual leave as well to cover holidays, I struggle to see how that's out of reach

It differs by location. My DDs breakfast club is £6.10 and after school club is £14. If you have 2 children in 5 days a week, that’s £146.10 per week.
Surely if you’re working full time, you’re earning more than £146.10 per week?