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?

rumun88 - sorry to hear that. I hope you were able to get support at the time?

So you will be happy with them being SAHM? In spite of all that investment in their education, presumably with a well paid career being the aim?

I’m also finding the idea of you being a SAHM being such a driving force in their educational success decidedly patronising!

Of course I'd be happy with them being a SAHM, as long as the family could afford it and they were financially protected long-term. It's hardly a crime, is it.

We had quite a few children and yes, I've put a lot into supporting their education in various ways. Is this not allowed either?

@Bloomingbloms well, as I pointed out earlier, many of us manage to have kids who've gone to top universities and got themselves into good careers without needing to jack in our own good careers

And?

I see it as mums are lucky because they often get to go part time to spend time with their young children; whereas dads often have to continue working full time and miss out on time at home with their children.

I'd be so happy to stay at home and enjoy the 18 month old. They grow up so quick.

In the end most people (whether stay at home mums or going to work mums) are doing what they want to do most based on the options they have. The argument they are doing what’s best for the kids is grating from either side because, like most preferences in how kids are raised, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference and there are pros and cons to either option for kids. There are pros and cons to both for parents as well. Unless you are independently wealthy then staying at home with the kids is a risk to your long term financial security. There will be many people it works out fine for but also many it doesn’t. If you work then you do miss out on the best opportunity to see all your child’s “firsts” and you don’t get to spend as much time together. That may be something that is really upsetting/hard for you or it may be something that you are perfectly happy with.

There is a big element of socialisation involved but in the first 6 months plus there are also biological differences that will factor in. Much of the time you’ll still have a lot of hormonal stuff going on throughout first months that will make you feel an element of discomfort being away from your baby. If you have a crash section or a difficult vaginal birth it can easily take 6 months before you are fully recovered. Also if you end up breastfeeding then it’s challenging to return to work before they are established on solids (been there and did it and no one I know who did found it in any way straightforward). It’s always going to be hard to make changes but to me the answer isn’t more women going back to work faster as it just wouldn’t be something that would work well for the majority. We could do with men being offered the same options for paid paternity and better funding for maternity/paternity leave. Many corporations (& our government ) could do a lot better at acknowledging the structural barriers to women getting into senior positions given the way things are now and revising how we assess people. We’ve started to assess on impact rather than throughput at my work and since we did I’m one of many working mums who is suddenly looking pretty amazing compared to male peers. I’ve seen a lot more examples of women being promoted into more senior roles since it came in. They’ve also increased paid paternity leave so it’s normalised that everyone takes a break when they have kids. More good quality part time roles and flexible working hours also help. In the end having a set up where all different types of people have the opportunity to progress and succeed is good for the business as well. It’s surely much easier to provide good products and services to a very diverse population if your leadership is a bit more representative of that population 🤷🏼‍♀️

@watermeloncougar Quite. That’s my situation too. I’m a senior academic (not Oxbridge only Russell Group thoug!) and I’ve got 2 academic children.

To be honest I would be disappointed if my girls wasted their education to facilitate and become financially reliant on a man. Luckily, I am quite confident that they won’t.

@norestguests

I have also ‘put a lot’ into supporting my children’s education and I work.

@whatkatydid2013 that's a good post, but it's worth adding that in fact the huge advances of the last 25 or so years mean that parental rights have never been better. Mums now don't need to return to work before their child is weaned - statutory ML is long now, and many women take additional leave on top and don't return til their child is a year old. Plus there is the option of transferring some of that leave to the child's father. We also have free hours for childcare kicking in at age 3, with some families being eligible from age 2 and with plans for it to begin from a year. Plus of course, everyone (not just women) has the right to request flexible working.

However, despite all the above it's depressing that so many people still see women as the 'default' parent to give up work, to take on the bulk of everything child related, domestic chores and mental load. None of the parental rights listed above existed when many of us were returning to work 30 or so years ago! It was tough, working with 3 month old breast fed babies, but things are a lot easier now so it's a shame that things haven't progressed further.

Of course, there will always be some families who choose to have mum at home and dad as sole earner - and that's fine as long as it's a joint decision both are comfortable with, and the woman protects herself financially. But the reality is that overall, women are still massively disadvantaged financially compared to men, and are not equally represented in the workplace, which is a pity when they're just as capable as men (and men are just as capable of looking after kids and doing the school run!)

All of this and hybrid working is the normal, even for male colleagues! Majority office roles are 1-2 days office. There are a few 3 days a week, but been that is better than what it was before…

Also from 9 months women can claim 15 hours free childcare then 30 hours.

So, I really don’t understand this talk of giving up work for few years when they’ll be at school anyway?

Majority bar travelling office jobs are standard 8-4 (9-5), I opt to work an hour earlier so I can finish at 4 and do pick ups!

I have never been a sahp and i do recognise that many office roles are now more suitable than ever to keep work going.

Not everyone does office work. Lots of work is shift work or does actually require your physical presence, sometimes away from home both men and women in these fields can still find it a challenge.

I don't agree with mothers being the default by any means but you're also being a little disingenuous with your comments on office work. I actually consult in hybrid strategies for businesses and your statements are actually far from reality. The most common contract is 9-5:30 now, with 9-6 not being uncommon. 8-4 is considered a flexible work arrangement by many employers and needs to be approved, it is by no means standard.
1-2 days in the office is the real low end of hybrid and definitely doesn't apply to most roles.
Many many business enforce 3 or even 4 days in the office and there are still plenty that don't allow flexible working and have gone back to 5 days.

Tbh, this is why public work is suffering and they can’t recruit well. Pay isn’t good and then there’s no hybrid working. Office work is the best for flexibility. I would never choose shift work or go into public sector, I’d advise my children/family against it also. Unless, it’s well paid.

Tbh I am in stem/technology, so that plays a part. I left my old job because they wanted 3-4 days office, I easily found a new job with better flexibility. There is a lack of women in stem/technology, that probably plays a part also. I’m the only woman in a direct team of 6!!! Lol

My younger sister also left a job that was 3 days office potentially 4, has a remote contract now. She does 9-5 though as she prefers it.. Then, again she’s in a similar industry to me!

@anonymousxoxo "Also from 9 months women can claim 15 hours free childcare then 30 hours."

Pretty sure the 15 hours free childcare isn't something that has started yet so at the moment you can't claim any free hours until your child is 3.

It’s going to start next year which isn’t too far away!

@anonymousxoxo doesn't really help parents who have young children right now though as childcare costs are astronomical.
I have a 2 year old and a 6 month old and it would cost over £2000 a month to send them to nursery.
I did give up work, although it could have been DH who did. The reasons we agreed for me to is because I am breastfeeding and I also wasn't enjoying the job I was in so it seemed like a good opportunity to stay home and help me decide what I'd like to do going forwards when the kids are a bit older

We pay £2302 a month just for one 7 month old!

Well, you know what childcare costs were and chose to have 2 children close in age - for twins I can understand. My point was simply women are being supported to stay in work, maternity leave and flexibility etc along with hybrid/remote work. Women don’t have to leave their careers and do low paid jobs in schools while their dh career soars.

@SouthLondonMum22 that's insane.
@anonymousxoxo actually we didn't choose to have them so close in age and I had been going back to work when we fell pregnant with our second so our plans changed. Tbh, I could have gone back to work after mat leave with our second but really didn't think it was worth it when essentially one of our wages would have been swallowed up and I'd rather spend the time with them.
I appreciate not everyone wants to stay home with their children.
But also our situation is different from others I guess, in that we're not doing it so my DH's career soars. If we'd chosen to formula feed then DH may be the one staying at home instead of me.

Everyone makes choices and that’s fine, is their decision. I just don’t want to be sideline at work or on the mummy track, that’s all.

Tbh what any individual's family set up is, is not the issue here. We're all agreed that families all over the U.K. make their own decisions based on a range of factors and within certain limitations. I think the more enlightened of us also see that it's the outcomes for the children which is paramount - and that it's perfectly possible to raise children into happy, well adjusted and successful adults whether their parents work or not!

The real issue is that despite the massive advances in legislation and working practices, it is still the default position that the woman is the one who gives up work or takes a back seat. It's a fact that despite achieving better than males at school and university, females statistically earn less, hold fewer senior positions and are far less likely to be financially comfortable in their later life. I'm heading towards 60 and I see it around me among many of my peers... women who remain 'underemployed' doing jobs that are low paid but fit around the school run. Or women who never return to full time work after having children and realise too late that part time work = part time pension.

Those are the issues we should be concerned about. As a mum who gave birth 30 years ago when things were very different (my dh was back at work the day after the birth as there wasn't any paid paternity leave, and I was back at work 3 months later) I really hoped that things would have progressed further. The structures are in place now for it to be easier for mums and dads to share the load and it's a shame all round (for mum, dad and the children) that we are still in a position where the default is that mum will give up or step back in the workplace