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.

You can plan all you like but circumstances change in unpredictable ways when you have children. Unknown unknowns and all. Someone can work 9-5 at the point of planning a family and opportunities to progress come about in the next 10-20 years following which require different or additional commitments. You also can't predict or plan for the needs of each child which can vary wildly. Again, unknown unknowns.

No, but I’d expect a diplomat husband or one on the brink of millions to outsource enough help to enable me to exist as a human outside of my role as “mummy”. I think OP has been fairly clear she doesn’t actually want to give up work and be a SAHM, but she can’t see an alternative.

(As it happens one of the coolest women I know was the wife of a diplomat, three kids close in age, and absolutely refused to play the “diplomat wife” role – and her husband did everything to make sure she didn’t have to be subsumed by his role and motherhood.)

Otherwise the children of these high-flying male diplomats, scientists (it’s always the cure for cancer, isn’t it?), millionaires, etc, grow up seeing men achieving great things but doing nothing domestic, and women giving up work and doing nothing but the domestic, and the cycle continues for another generation.

There are also plenty of Big Jobs that aren’t office jobs that don’t have defined hours, but that also aren’t international diplomat/curing cancer/making millions. Why are those jobs (and indeed the strawman jobs in your scenarios) more worthy than a routine salary, than an “ordinary job”, than OP’s or any woman’s desire to work outside the home? Where do you draw the line: is it money-based? Is it what the job achieves? Who defines what is an important job Vs a routine one? What happens if both parents are on the brink of curing cancer but can’t stretch to a nanny?

No one told the spouse to the current British ambassador to the US to stay at home with the kids...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Roxburgh

His wife is also a high-flying diplomat. Maybe wrong, but I think you'd have to be fairly enthusiastic about your career progression to get to that level, which indicates that she was interested and motivated to see her career progress in that way. It's not for everyone though.

His wife is the ambassador

Only women.

Several on this thread alone have talked about giving up jobs that included a lot of travel. Men aren't expected to do that though.

I wouldn't have married someone with a job that involved extensive travel because I'd be unwilling to parent alone.

In my experience, a lot of really high flying types tend to be attracted to other really high flying types - most very ambitious people tend to appreciate drive in others. So the guy who is busy trying to cure cancer or whatever may well have a wife who is doing the same. Is she still supposed to quit her job in order to facilitate his important job, or do they need to work together effectively in order to ensure that both of them are able to continue with their research and contribute equally to family life?

What if she is the cancer researcher and he is an investment banker? She earns less than him, so should she quit her job/be the default parent so that he can maximise his earning potential? Should she be the one to cover all the sick days, pick up the slack at home etc?

Why is it always the perception that men with big important jobs couldn't possibly be expected to pull their weight at home, whereas women on equally big important jobs somehow seem to manage? I wonder...

It is a general point I was making. There are people who earn, or who have the potential to earn, life-changing amounts of money. And yes, some (many) of them will be men. And some women will be married to those type of men. It is what it is.

Yes you could hire a nanny, but some families feel very strongly that they don't want to do that.

Of bourse, I completely understand why prioritising a husband's career would be seen as a risk. But it doesn't need to be.

I would never recommend giving up work to live off 'his salary.' There needs to be more than that. The way it would work is that the money he earns gets invested in both your names - in properties or other investments. So, even if you split, you'd be fine (and actually much better off than if you hadn't prioritised his career). In a family unit, it's not 'his' money - it's everyone's money. You invest that money as a family for everyone's future. It's prioritising and protecting your children and their education and future financial security. And if the DH is able retire early, all the better. As parents, you support, balance and facilitate each other in the best interests of the children and their futures. This is the priority. It's not a competition about who does what. Equality is about mutual respect - it's a mindset, not a petty game if who does this and who does that. You are a family.

It's also interesting that women on here with ''big jobs'' are often called materialistic, a wage slave, selfish, greedy etc.

The attitude about OP's DH is very different.

Ah, I understand. Canny ;) I can only assume both of them wanted children, high flying careers, and they had a bucket of luck along the way. Well done them. There are other good options available.

Give it all careful consideration, talk to your DH and write a list of pros and cons. Then do what you both think is best, I think giving up work for a while would do you good from what you've said.

The two stay-at-home dads I know (both back in work now - kids are teens) were married to (female) doctors and were widely regarded as mini-heros for their choices. I'm sure they would have made the same choice is their wives were diplomats too though.

The point I was trying to make (which seems to have been ignored) is that my DH, who is in the equivalent position to the OP being the lower earner and working part time, really didn’t want to give up work. And because I love him I want to support him in that. And it is possible for me to support him in that in lots of different ways without actually reducing my own hours or dodging travel or whatever else OP has said her husband absolutely cannot do. The massive benefit to me is that not only do I have a happy husband but, much more importantly, I feel I get plenty of time with my kids even though I work full time.

Those things are (as other pp has suggested):

• doing nearly everything that can be done online. So booking appointments, shopping deliveries (we have a set weekly order and meal plan so this is limited work; DH is there to unpack it), ordering the kids clothes, dealing with school admin.
• wfh on 2 set days a week (though can go into work if needed)
• living close to my office and school which means I can do the school run most mornings and still be at work on time. We could have a much bigger house if we lived further out.
• agreeing with my employer that I’ll leave on time to be home for bed and bath most days (again living close to work helps this) and will log on afterwards. Very occasionally meetings/calls/events happen to prevent this but these are exceptions.

I agree, given the pay disparity it would be unreasonable for DH to suggest I reduce my hours. But it would be equally unreasonable for me to essentially create a situation where I prevented my DH from working because of my job. There has to be some middle ground and some compromises on both sides.

And I do not want my children growing up entrenched in sexist roles. I took 13 months mat leave with both and bf them to 18 months so understand the biological
realities, but from that point on there is no reason why dads cannot take a more equal role.

I know a very successful woman who probably earns close to £1 million per year. Her husband gave up his (also well paid) job. He has side projects, but is basically a SAHD to 4 teenagers. When he was working, they were both travelling s lit snd had a nanny. But life is more settled and manageable with one parent at home, as default for the teens, especially as two of the DC were experiencing some quite serious mental health issues for a while.

I know several men who came into 100s of millions through start-ups. Let's just say, their wives never worked and focused on the children, but they're not complaining. Even men who sold up for say 10 or 20 million, their wives are not complaining that they left their jobs in HR or the health service or whatever 20 years ago when they had their kids.

You’ve suggested fixing this with private school, OP.

Doesn’t that just cause a huge issue for the 16-18 weeks
worth of holidays?

@FolkSongSweet I don’t think I will either!

DH honestly isn’t ‘making’ me do anything. I really can’t stress that enough. And while he earns a lot more than I do, it isn’t quite at the level of ambassador or similar either. Hence if I did go down the nanny route I’d need to work FT so we weren’t working at a net loss.

As for ‘do people not talk about these things before having children’ yes, but does anybody actually know what having children is going to be like before having children? I didn’t …

Took DH 5 years to persuade me to have a child. We the. spent just under 2 years laying the foundations before TTC. Whilst having DD with DH working away 5.5 days a week and parents being thousands of miles away wasn’t ideal, it was temporary and we had a plan in place for when that was going to change. I couldn’t have undertaken the responsibility of having a child without having done all of that preparation.

On that basis I’d have been 45 before we started trying. Not everyone is the same.

Our breaking point was going from 2 DCs to 3. We could cope with drop offs and pick ups for 2. I did drop offs, DH did pick ups. Neither of us were on huge salaries though by that point mine was significantly higher than DH's.

We couldn't afford childcare for 3 DCs so we made the decision that DH should become SAHP. The writing was already on the wall for his industry and skills so it was a case of jump now or be pushed in the near future.

My job was already changing, if I wanted to pursue my career I needed to be able to travel. Having one parent at home meant the DCs got continuity.

My career has never been high flying. Private school and a nanny were always beyond our reach.

I understand that. I guess it depends on priorities.

Life changes and jobs change. The op’s husband could move to a no travel job, then be promoted or find that it’s so rigid as he needs to be in office 9-5 so he sees them less.
More senior jobs with travel often come with more flexibility. When they are both at school it could be ideal for their family eg no childcare on days he wfh, flexibility to go to sports day etc.
Op is about to give birth. See how maternity leave goes. If at end you think maybe you being home is best then just have a few years off. Protect yourself financially and keep talking and reassessing.
When they are 4 and 6 and you’ve made a few good mum friends at school life may look a lot different.
My dc is 17 now and both me and dh have worked various jobs and combinations over the years.
Nothing is forever. Just take maternity leave and see. Good luck.

I agree re the flexibility. I recently turned down a local job (no travel) because of the rigidity around d working hours and days in the office. It just wouldn’t have worked for us.

I was a planner. Dh and I actually did same job when dc was born. But then life happens - she was born with a serious disability undetected on scans, he was made redundant and I developed a serious illness.
You can plan away and then life happens.
Op has mentioned her age so options that a lot of people deploy to make life easier like a big age gap between children are not an option to her.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with assessing and saying that’s not working let’s try this and see.
I’m almost 50 and most of my peers are in different roles to what they did in their 20s. The days of starting work as x and doing that until retirement are long gone.

Hey! Your post is really genuine and something that a lot of parents (usually mums) have to weigh up and think about . I’m so sorry you have had so many weird and Unhelpful responses 🙄.

I think that this is a very personal choice. Let’s face it, when you are having to pay for childcare, work isn’t really financially beneficial. I found it way harder to keep on top of everything since having 2 kids rather than one. Especially when you don’t have family support. For some reason I wasn’t expecting the jump to be as big at it was.

as far as NI goes, I believe that if you are claiming child benefit you don’t have to worry about NI contributions. Check that out though- I’m not sure.

Some things to consider- do you enjoy work? If you quit, how will you find a sense of purpose? How will you get enough adult interaction? How will you get enough breaks from your kids to keep your cup topped up? How easily will it be to get back into work if you change your mind? What will your days/ weeks look like?

What is your heart saying? Good luck making a decision.

Childcare is temporary though, especially the early years where it is the most expensive. It can be financially beneficial to take the short time hit (childcare) for the long term gain (career progression, no loss of earnings etc).