To hate how mums always have to sacrifice their career...

[rumun88]

I have 2 kids .. one 18 month old and a 6 year old. I work in a cafe for an estate, one week day and one weekend day and there's no flexibility in that I have to do a weekend day.

I've been offered a job as a GP receptionist and I would love to take it. But it's only £10.42 an hour and with it being weekdays we would need to pay childcare. Basically with the summer hols coming up, childcare for both kids would cost more than my wage. DH will cover it, but part of me is thinking what's the point when it means I'm not bringing any money to the pot technically. I'd also have to have both kids in different childcare settings which are opposite side of town by 7.30am. In my current job he works from home the 1 week day and is home the weekend day so no childcare.

So I have the choice, take the new job and get my weekends back but don't exactly earn, keep my current job and work every single weekend.. or be a SAHM.

Please help. I could cry! I was a dental nurse before kids and again childcare was an issue. We have no family support.

What would you do?

cot not fit.

And that's why there is maternity leave....?

I would go back to being a dental nurse, full time, and cover the childcare equally from both your salaries.

It isn’t just the hourly rate or the rate v childcare costs.

On your current hours Are you paying enough NI to count towards your state pension?

As a dental nurse your employer would be contributing to your pension, with the tax rebate on top of your contribution.

You would be gaining experience and pay and promotion prospects.

DH and I did parenting and domestic responsibilities 50/50.

Not all jobs can be fine that way, if one parent has to travel overseas a lot or be on call or whatever, but the default doesn’t always have to be ‘the woman’s career is sacrificed’.

I went back to work at 3 months which is why pp is going on about that age.

@SouthLondonMum22 oh I see, how dare you, your kids happy and healthy? Or are they at weekly counselling?

"And that's why there is maternity leave....?"

Yes. I'm really not arguing women shouldn't work! I just think, in the early months, surely your priority is the welfare of your baby, not this attitude of "well if he is the provider then he has more 'power' than me," which seems to be the overriding issue for some.

He's 7 months now. Starts counselling next week. 😂

Exactly. Had I taken years out I would still be junior and not able to manage my own time. I, like you, have loads of independence in my role thanks to my experience so exercise loads of autonomy over how I spend my time. Of course tehre are times where things are a bit more of a juggle, but I certainly enjoy a very good life balance.

And I agree, it seems like SAHMs on this thread seem to have to bring down working mums in order to justify them staying at home. If you want to stay home becuase you think it's best for you and your family then great for you - but it is a choice. It's not for me and my kids are just fine, see me all the time and aren't dumped with strangers for all of their waking hours.

And 😂at expecting DH to provide for me. Blood hell, this isn't the 1950s! Sure, we are a team and if something meant I couldn't work then yes I would expect him to carry the load, as I would do for him if the reverse happened. But no, I am an adult and can pay my own way. I don't rely on another adult to carry the entire financial burden purely due to the fact he has a penis. Not least, but because what would I do if DH decided to take the penis elsewhere? I can tell you that I would be 100% fine financially, we wouldn't have to move house or even drastically change out lifestyles.

I agree with you don't have to have kids. Of course. But you said "you don't have to do what's best for your kids".

I thought it was every parent's wish to do best for their child

No, it doesn't always have to be the veyr best. Especially when that is at the sacrifice of other things. Best is also fluid. Would it really be best for my kids to be with me 24/7? Should I take them out of school so we don't have to be apart for a single second? Should both DH and I quit our jobs so we could be together as a family all the time? Even if that means having no money at all? Would that be what is best for our children?

For me, what is best for my kids is what we have chosen. They have great lives with lots of time with both their parents. They are seeing an equal household, and their mum working in a successful rewarding career and exercising financial independence. They have access to lots of clubs, holidays etc because our finances are pretty good and never go without. When they were small they went to fantastic childcare settings (not strangers thanks), which was balanced with lots of good quality time with us (I already explained how we essentially spent only about 5 of their waking hours apart, 4 days a week. and all free time was family time as we outsourced lots of chores, thanks to our joint income).

In case you were in doubt, the above is in my view far better for my kids than if I had become a SAHM.

But nobody would have any issue with that Nordicrain. Why would they?

well, make up your mind? Either putting kids in childcare to work is awful and putting yourself over what's best for your kids or it isn't?

A toddler or young child in childcare 4 days a week for 4 hours at a time is nowhere near the same as 12 week old babies in nurseries from 8 to 5, 5 days per week. If nurseries are open from 7-6 and take 6 week olds, then presumably that is the life of some babies.

I didn't say 4 hrs at a time. I said 6 waking hours. 9-5 but with a 2 hr nap.

And you and other posters have backtracked a little, from being general babies and small children, to now just being very young babies. Which, I guess, is good. Becuase in relality most people take at least 6 months mat leave and often more.

Anyway, i am curious, what is the hourly cut off and age that is acceptable for you/ where no damage is done to the child? You say 4 hrs for 4 days is ok, 8-5 for 5 isn't. 12 weeks is not ok, so what is? And are you able to base those limits on something, or is it just your personal feelings?

I used to work in child protection. Even in the most dire circumstances - eg. where babies are born addicted to heroin, or the mother had serious mental health issues, social services will still try to keep mother and baby together in the first 6 months, eg. in a mother and baby unit. Even if the baby has to be removed and put into foster care, these are specialist foster caters and the mother will usually have set contact times (supervised). This may mean they are there most of the day, or sometimes a few hours, building up gradually. The first 6 -9 months are important. That's why there is maternity leave and that's why social services will spend thousands on facilitating mother and child contact in that time.

Ok, so 9 months. After that it's ok, right? Why exactly do women then have to be SAHMs/ sacrifice their careers for kids then?

pp is also continuing to completely ignore the fact that DH and I can both be flexible so 8-5 is standard but if it's possible, one of us will pick him up earlier.

Where did I say women HAVE to be SAHMs?

You started off by saying that it really would be awful for OP to take the job as her child was "only" 18 months old. And you have continued to comment on the apparent ills of childcare/ not being with your children all the time unless you HAVE to be away.

You also went on to say how anxious it made you to leave your kids which I think is probably the crux of it and why you feel you have to justify what you did by putting your own standards onto other women. You and other posters have repeatedly suggested that working unless you HAVE to isn't putting your kids first or doing what is best for them, which is what I am commenting on.

Look, spending 12 hrs a day away from my kids wasn't for me either. I chose a husband and job where I could have excellent work life balance and progress my career. I took my full mat leave, and went slightly part time. Could I have earnt more/ been more successful, sure, but it would mean sacrificing something I didn't want to (i.e. what I felt was a good amout of time with my kids). Could I have become a SAHM and rely on DH to "provide" while I cooked, cleaned and wipped bums, also sure, but it would also mean a sacrifice that I didn't want make (my own values and wellbeing, and our lifesytle and the type of rolemodel I wanted to be). I don't however need to poo poo women who choose differently. For themselves or their families.

Why is it the mums? I know it's because that's what society teaches us but you don't have to look at it like that. You and husband assuming he's the kids dad are jointly responsible.
Make sure you're using the tax free childcare.
Take the job and in term time it will be better, you need to take a long term view.

Yes I understand that Nordicrain. Everyone needs to find their own balance, short and long term. I guess what irks me is what almost seems like a hysterical terror of the very concept of 'living off a man' (even for a few months) and that this, for some posters, seems to be the be-all-and-end-all of life. I think this is quite sad. That's not to say I think women should be SAHMs for evermore, or that it's not important to take certain steps to protect yourself if you are a SAHM (for a period or indefinitely). I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that, it doesn't need to be 'he / she who has the job has the power in the relationship.' It's not inevitable. This (in my view) is a very puerile attitude towards family life and depressing because it suggests that earning potential is the most meaningful thing in a relationship dynamic. The reality is that most parents who decide one is a SAHP primarily value the child having a parent around - so it's not an 'uneven power balance' because there is mutual respect within a family unit and steps are taken to protect the SAHP (financially). It doesn't need to be an insecure power dynamic.

Still no thought on how you'd cope with being "persistently depressed and anxious" and feeling "as if something had been ripped out of" you if the father wanted to stay at home instead?

Well, I diagree. I don't think it's sad, I think it's sensible. For me, the fact I can provide for myself and my children (and my husband should I need to) is a great thing. It gives me security and comfort. It also makes me believe that we can at some point get some gender eqaulity in society where women don't have to be financially reliant on men or always be the one taking the career hit. I am proud to raise a daughter exactly the same way as her brother, showing her women can do just the same things and can rely on themselves. Financial standig is not the most meaningful aspect of a relaionship generally, but when things start to go downhill it quickly becomes it because money is pretty essential.

and I think you are kidding yourself if you thing all, or even most, SAHM set ups are based on equal value and respect. Spend any day on MN and there are various threads about women being treated, essentially, as domestic labour because their DH "provides".

Well said.

What I find sad is someone, assuming a woman, on this thread asking if we don't expect our DH's to provide for us. Like it was shocking women are capable of ''providing'' themselves or even earning more than their DH's.