To wonder if there comes a point where you just have to give up work?

[Bluewatersummer]

I’m hopefully not there yet. But while I wish I could be very feminist about this the fact is DH earns a lot more than me and he always will, his talents lie where money is.

With one child we have managed through a combination of part time, taking turns to take time off when needed, and some good luck as well - haven’t had a lot of sickness to contend with. However, I’m due my second any day now and I’m wondering about a whole host of stuff.

It’s going to be so difficult when DC1 starts school and when DC2 is in nursery, reliance on wraparound care and rushing from A to B to C. I don’t honestly know if it is just easier for everyone - not just me - if one parent gives up work and just has their ‘job’ the children and house. Which isn’t very feminist but would potentially make a big difference to stress levels! Honestly wondering what others think: I’m not making any big decisions just yet.

Depends on what you do. Taking a few years out can be fine in some professions eg teaching they will bite your hand off

My partner has given up work now we have a baby (and his daughter from a previous relationship). Makes life simpler, and more stress free.

@hettie no one is dismissing part time, I am part time! But staying part time will mean I’m looking for promotion in my early fifties where in all honesty I’m unlikely to progress and if I do it won’t be very much.

There is a lot of ‘don’t rely on a man!’ replies but in all honesty, who doesn’t rely on someone? Husband / partner, mum / dad, nanny / nursery? Anyone can let you down. A mortgage and nursery fees on a part time salary would be beyond me anyway so in that sense I already do rely on DH.

I do think you have to be sensible. But equally going through life and making all future plans on the assumption that a marriage isn’t going to work isn’t sensible, it is paranoid, and there can be a fine line between the two to be honest that I do often see on here.

Everyone brings their own experience and perspective and that's what's so valuable about this forum. You will find your own balance but people sharing their perspectives isn't just about people being on the extremes for the sake of an argument. The women who do value financial independence very highly (myself included) do most likely because they saw the 'extreme' scenario play out in real life and want to absolutely make sure they avoid it. So they're not attacking you by sharing it, they're hoping you won't replicate their/their mother's/aunt's experience etc. You can apply that insight to your own life as you see fit of course, but it's definitely not being paranoid and therefore worth dismissing. You are being given the gift of insight into situations you had not considered so that you can make a good decision for yourself.

making all future plans on the assumption that a marriage isn’t going to work isn’t sensible, it is paranoid

When over 40% of marriages fail, it’s only sensible to think about how you would cope financially if you were to end up alone.

Yes, absolutely. And it is sensible to make some plans for old age and to make some plans in case the house burns down or you suddenly lose your job. But there is a difference between a backup plan and living a half life expecting doom.

@Bluewatersummer

I do think you have to be sensible. But equally going through life and making all future plans on the assumption that a marriage isn’t going to work isn’t sensible, it is paranoid.

Respectfully, I disagree.

Nearly half of marriages fail. So it's not paranoid to plan for a scenario that affects just under half of us.

Also the marriage failing isn't the only scenario in which being financially dependent is a problem. Being wholly dependent on someone else changes the dynamic in a relationship and leaves the dependent person very powerless. Even if the marriage doesn't fail, you are choosing to diminish your own standing and autonomy in the marriage. That's probably fine for a couple of years but over time it definitely changes things. I saw this happen to my own mother. My parents marriage survived but she never really worked after having children and while she didn't want for anything material she felt disempowered, increasingly irrelevant and increasingly bitter as she got older.

Also you have said yourself you fundamentally don't want to be a SAHM. There are women who embrace this. You are, by your own admission, not one of them, and it's reckless to wilfully put yourself in a situation where you reduce your bargaining power to avoid this.

It's not a zero sum game. It doesn't have to be a balls out high flying corporate job versus doing absoluting nothing but looking after children and doing housework. It's perfectly possible to take two/three years out and then inch back in. There are an infinite number of ways to keep your hand in, keep some economic autonomy and just keep yourself moving and relevant without completely stepping off. Part time work, volunteering, education etc. It's a mental thing as much as anything. Maintaining a commitment to keeping yourself engaged with things outside of the children.

This might sound unnecessarily argumentative and I really hope it doesn’t but if I assume my marriage will fail, I would need to do the following.

I would need to work full time, because I can’t just snap my fingers and change my contract in the event of my marriage failing and I wouldn’t be able to live on a part time salary. So even more rushing around and even more stress, in case we split.

I think one of the issues I see time and again on MN and maybe in RL too, I don’t know, is there is a lot of ‘what if.’ And I don’t want to sound flippant about this but so many times in my life I’ve ended up in a situation where I don’t think I’d have known what I’d do but when you’re in the moment, you do, you just get on with it and cope because that’s what we do. So our worst case scenario is DH leaves and isn’t paying any maintenance and I’m left destitute - and I know that does happen - but I also know I’d cope and id get on. I just don’t want my children’s overriding memories of me to be wrung out because that’s what I assume will happen.

@Bluewatersummer

I just don’t want my children’s overriding memories of me to be wrung out because that’s what I assumewill happen.

But being "wrung out" because you're tired from working/juggling is a temporary thing which will ease after a couple of years. Being "wrung out" because your husband has left you penniless and you have to work way into your retirement is several leagues of magnitude more severe. And you will still be wrung out if you don't work, just with less variety and less money. You're not comparing like for like. I'm sorry if this sounds melodramatic but in the scheme of things the sacrifice you make now will more than pay off in the event of the worst-case scenario.

I sympathise with the situation you're in at the moment because I've been there: there's a period when you're exhausted, stressed, you don't feel you're there for your children etc. But this is just intrinsic to having small children. Being a SAHM won't magically alleviate that.

It's a bit shit but it will pass, it doesn't last that long and it will pay massive dividends to you over the long term. It isn't just the insurance policy of keeping your hand it. It's the protection of your own autonomy and power in the marriage and your right to have a life outside of child-rearing.

If the marriage doesn't fail (and there's nothing in your posts to indicate that it will), you won't be in a worse position for having kept your skills and financial independence up. In fact you'll probably find your life will be better in many ways.

See I actually think it’s years - wraparound care and drop offs and pick ups and frantic charging around! Definitely throughout primary school years (surely?) And that’s not a ‘I will give up work’ - contrary as it might sound I’ll be more likely to increase my hours because then I can solve a few problems with the private school route. That’s got a lot of ‘ifs’ too though.

I think that's fair enough, OP. We all have different levels of tolerance for risk. I wouldn't personally be willing to take the risk of quitting my career, but if you're OK with it, then that's your call.

Historically, the state has stepped in to support single parents, so there has always been a safety net that people can rely on, which has perhaps meant that they haven't needed to think too hard about personal risk. There used to be a kind of national consensus that innocent children shouldn't have to suffer because of decisions made by their parents. These days, I wouldn't want to rely on the welfare state if things went pear shaped, as the support has largely eroded by this Tory government. Foodbanks are full of people who are struggling to put food on the table for their kids.

You need to pick up and drop off your kids regardless of whether that's from wraparound or 9-3, there's no more frantic charging if it's wraparound!

In fact, I think wraparound is actually easier because it's not a precise time. I find the day I drop and pick up 9-3 more stressful because I have to time things more precisely

Nah it's not years. Honestly.... When they're both in primary if you were part time you might need the odd breakfast club or after school. You also pull in support (dh does more domestic stuff or his big wage pays for it) and you're less run ragged because trust me the physical and emotional demands of a baby and toddler are full on. Two primary age kids are nothing like as demanding (unless you turn tiger mum and obsess about clubs/book bands/music exams and county level sports, but then that's on you and your poor kids).
So in primary it will be easier and you might find time/energy to pursue promotions. They are available to part time workers.
You say you don't want to live your life as if the worst will happen. Even if you are a statistical anomoly and there are no episodes of poor health or marital discord when the kids are in secondary on their way to leaving home what do want with your life? If you're happy to volunteer/bumble about and see to the domestic all well and good but unless your a teacher/nurse/medic it'll be nigh on impossible to return to work that you find rewarding.

@Bluewatersummer

As a PP says it does depend on your tolerance for risk.

But the years of wraparound care and drop offs/pick ups: honestly this is how most parents live these days. Kids are fine with it: there will always people who will tip up here and tell you it's bad for children and "how could you do it to them" etc but in decades of discussion about this not one single piece of evidence has yet emerged to back up the idea that childcare is bad for children. Most children thrive in a well-organised childcare setting. And the drop offs/pick ups you would be doing anyway, right?

There will be a few years when you (or your DH) have to be pretty ruthless about time management and leaving on the dot for pickups etc and it can be stressful when you are running late etc. And your career may flatline for a bit. But it's no more stressful than spending your whole day looking after children.

Ultimately it's your call and you need to go with whatever you think is right for you and your family. No one else's views really matter, it's up to you and your DH.

But I do recognise the syndrome of the particular life stage you're in because I want through it myself and I promise you, it will pass and you will very likely get to a point where you think "thank God I kept my hand in".

OP, being a SAHM is absolutely fine. You know your life best. There will be people on here who speak with a lot of bitterness but ultimately, they are not you. People who are truly happy - whether it be as a SAHM or working mum - tend to not really post. So all you get are extreme views and people trying to project or work through their own personal complexes (or their mother's or whoever) via your scenario. You won't really get balanced or nuanced views that is relevant to you.

Honestly, loads if women are SAHMs and why wouldn't they be? What is unusual about having a child and wanting to be there for them, day to day? Not everyone has the means to do this, but it's a very natural thing to want to do. Life is so hectic these days. If you don't love your job, why on earth should you feel compelled to pay someone else to be with your children when you could do a much better job yourself? Not everyone can cope with being a SAHM, but it can be the best thing in the world. You and your DH will take care of the future and work it out in a way that suits you both. It's fine.

OP, I see where you are coming from, and it's a similar line of thinking which has made me and my DH lean towards sticking at just one child.

I was totally unprepared for just how frequently our DS would be sent home from nursery with illness. We have zero family help, so it's been a juggle for both me and DH to deal with it. I just don't see how we could manage two children getting sent home sick (and probably at different times) without one of us giving up work entirely or massively scaling back.

When I look at friends or acquaintances with more than one child, there's always a parent (and it's not necessarily the mother) who has massively reduced their hours or become a SAHP.

I think people on this thread who are claiming to have managed two FT jobs and more than one child are either a) fabulously wealthy enough to afford a nanny b) have lots of nearby family support, or c) have unusually flexible jobs.

I don't know what field you are in OP, but is there any possibility of you freelancing? It would be a good way to "keep your hand in" if you do go the SAHM route.

OP, I've only read your own posts. You sound incredibly grounded and sensible. You know your priorities. Somehow I feel confident that you will find the right solution for you and your family.

I get the impression that the thread has been helpful to you in thinking it through, even though - as you say - there are people who don't seem to be grasping your perspective. But at least you have a chance to discover whether there are any potential issues you hadn't previously thought of, so you can take them into consideration too.

One small point which might be a bit helpful on a practical level: did you know you are allowed to make small contributions to a personal pension even if you aren't working at all? Even a non-taxpayer gets a top-up from government on pension contributions. I wish I had realised this earlier. I would have boosted my pension rather than putting all my money into less tax efficient savings for my retirement.

So if you give up work, assuming the family income allows for it, your own pension provision as well as your DH's can be increased. It's only a little (currently £3600 a year), and will undoubtedly be less than if you'd been working throughout, but it's something in your own name.

The OP asked a question wondering if there comes a point where you have to give up work. Many posters answered with 1. No, it's hard right now but you can make it work, try x,y,z and/or 2. Advising the OP of the risks of making herself financially dependent on her husband and taking on all the domestic duties. And they are being called paranoid, bitter, with complexes, etc. I think that is awful. The posters advising her to be cautious are actively supporting a woman by ensuring she doesn't make herself vulnerable and can consider those risks as part of her decision. Or reassuring her that it's hard now but it gets easier (which it does). And they're bitter and paranoid and living a half life? That's horrible.

I've only read the first couple of pages, and then just your posts...
Whilst I sympathise with your situation and acknowledge that it is hard, I'm not sure there comes a point where you have to give up work, more that you want to/would find it easier to?

It is a relatively short space of time that they're at different settings (school/nursery) depending on ages of your kids and then it gets easier. My youngest is starting school after the summer and I am very much looking forward to just one set of drop offs and pick ups! My husband works away a lot, we have no local family and I can't WFH so I do have some understanding of your situation, but I don't really identify with the "constant stress" and "charging/rushing about" that you mention. Maybe because I've been doing it for longer so am just more used to it than I was at the start!

I guess you just need to weigh up what's right for you and look into different types of wraparound care/childminder etc to figure out what will work and what is possible. I mean you seem adamant that your husband can't compromise at all and have a day set from home so it's hard to give much advice. My husband tends to have Mondays as a no travel day so he's available then.

I agree sometimes its to difficult for both parents to work. People's situations are different ,but if you can afford to be a SAHM for a few years. Which takes the pressure of you having to run around at work and at home. Making you life's easier for your husband your self and children . Go for it .

@BlurredVision 'Twas ever thus.

If I had a pound for every time I'd been called "bitter" or "jealous" by posters for pointing out that becoming wholly dependent on a man was risky I would be a multi-millionaire.

TBH whenever someone accuses another poster of being "bitter" I discount their arguments out of hand. It's a sign of intellectual flimsiness.

The OP's situation is complicated and the solution is probably somewhere in the middle between working FT and stopping work altogether but I do find it aggravating that encouraging women to consider their long-term financial security always prompts accusations of jealousy.

I don’t think anyone is jealous or personally paranoid but I suppose what I’m trying to say is that living your life on the assumption that everything will go horribly wrong isn’t a life I want. I don’t think that means I’m overly cavalier in my approach to life, more that I recognise I can cope and I will cope if shit happens. But that’s different to expecting it to happen.

We're not living our lives on the assumption that everything will go horribly wrong. That's a big leap! It's like saying if you have fire alarms in the house it's because you live on the assumption the house will burn down any moment. Anyone who exercises or eats well for future health reasons is not doing it because they go around all the time expecting to drop dead of a heart attack any minute. We're not all miserable women just working waiting for our husbands to die/leave us/get depressed. It's very possible to work (to whatever extent) and live a very happy, positive fulfilled life for yourself and your family. In fact the lack of worry two paychecks brings only makes that easier.

@BlurredVision but what I’m trying to explain is that everything everyone is cautiously warning me about re giving up work also applies to part time work. Therefore, in order to really ‘protect myself’ I would need to work full time and this is living my life assuming the worst will happen.

I am not suggesting that this applies to everybody but to my personal situation, it does. Part time isn’t a magical answer.