Who is living life the right way?

[flowergirl24]

Sister A and Sister B met up over the Christmas period. Their lives have gone in different directions and they are both late 30s. They both have 3 DC.

Sister A works 60 hours a week in a stressful job. She manages to take the children swimming at the weekends but they don’t do activities after school during the week. She has invested money in rental houses, and is concentrating on being able to have a better quality of life in the future.

Sister B works 8-10 hours a week. She has ponies and the children enjoy riding after school. She is not focused on a career at all, but does a lot of driving the children to after school activities. Sister B has expensive cars and is living for today, with no concern for the future.

Who is doing life right?

The only way to truly fight sexism is to consider how women may want different things to men. Put what women want front and centre for a change and then structure society around that. That's how more family-friendly, child-centred systemic change will be achieved imo, and this is in the interests of women, men and importantly, children. As opposed to the increasing status quo of children doing long days in childcare (cared for by underpaid women, what a surprise) and families run ragged in far too many cases. Nothing will change unless women push for flexibility on their own terms, not on men's terms.

@cosima4

The only way to truly fight sexism is to consider how women may want different things to men. Put what women want front and centre for a change and then structure society around that.

I don’t disagree with the principle here and I certainly am in favour of family friendly work policies but there are a lot of questionable assumptions particularly: a) that wanting to spend less time at work is what most women want, b) that childcare is inherently unhealthy and damaging. And c) not stated in your post but implied in previous ones, that parents working is a direct cause of poor mental health in children. I don’t accept that all of these are true.

What is absent from this discussion is money. The reality is that long periods of time at home mean less money and therefore less economic freedom for women. That may not be the primary consideration in the examples you have given (of mental health issues). But it’s pretty important for most women. And it matters for the long term outcomes of children. Much more than whether or not their mum was at home when they were 2. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that being in good quality childcare harms children despite decades of attempts by social conservatives to prove that it does.

You talk about wanting a society shaped around “what women want,” but what does this mean in practice? It sounds as if you are saying women want to stay at home.

Plenty of individual women may want this and that’s their prerogative. But I don’t accept that all women want this.

I agree with @Thepeopleversuswork that you sound as if you think most women want to stay at home. I think that’s a fairly problematic assumption. I don’t. Having a child hasn’t made me less ambitious. I don’t think I know many women who do — the SAHPs of either sex I know have been so because of children with illnesses or additional needs, or being a trailing spouse, or just difficulty finding work. Equal pay, women’s careers not being seen as optional after they have children, flexible working hours and high-quality, low-cost childcare works to the benefit of all.

I want a career. I don’t want to be a SAHM and I don’t want to work part time either, not all women want the same things.

Children are cared for by women in childcare again because of sexism. Have you seen some of the threads on here about men working in nurseries? They are met with suspicion and ridicule because society sees childcare as woman’s work.

I mean the thing is there isn't a correct answer here.

It's what suits the families and the within them. But think of it this way, would person b be able to support herself if her partner died, decided he liked men or just fucked off entirely. What if she wanted to leave but couldn't because she had no way to keep the lifestyle she's currently living.

Basing financial choices based on someone's else's best/shiniest version of their life don't mean fate won't come kick you in the balls.

If person (a) is feeling jealous of person (b) that doesn't mean what person (b) is doing is right and (a)is wrong, it indicates that person (a) feels like something is lacking that they see in the person they envy.

Envy is rarely an emotion shown by the contented but that doesn't have to mean you turn the whole world upside down to magically sort it. But have a honest conversation with yourself and pin point rather clinically what the other person has that you want.

This is coming from an adult who when I was small my mum wfh, v part time, lovely house horses etc whole 9 yard and had dad pop his clogs and we literally went from riches to rages very quickly. More quickly than most would think.

Some women say marry a rich man, and in the famous words of Cher "I am a rich man" aka the keeper of the money, has the privilege of choice.

I don't think there is such a thing as 'living the right way'. But, if I was forced to choose between the life of A or B then I'd go with B. The future isn't promised.

No it's not - I know many civil servants in all types of roles and no one does over 60 hours a week and evenings etc thats ridiculous, you need to manage your time better.
Secondly all the rental homes and early retirements in the world won't make up for missing your kids in those early formative years.
Neither of you are wrong but the majority of parents do somewhere in the middle between 8-10 hours and 60+ hours for a reason - it's about balance. You won't last 10 more years doing those hours you'll burn out.

Ask the kids x

The depressing thing is that as a civil servant she won't even be getting paid particularly well for doing those hours.

It's all just time and money, we can spend it how we like. If you are living in line with your values, not harming anyone, and it's sustainable then crack on.

100% and they think the pension is worth It but it's so not.

@Thepeopleversuswork

In response to your points -

a) I think a lot of women would prefer to work either less, or certainly with more flexibility, yes. This also goes for men. Even for the most career-driven individual (and I know plenty of those), or people who, in all honesty, use work to escape having to be around their kids too much because they find it boring (and I know some of these too) - flexibility and options are never a bad thing. I never met anyone who said "I wish I worked more with less flexibility."

b) Childcare is not 'inherently damaging,' but I don't think anyone is going to argue that babies or toddlers in paid childcare from 7.30 to 5.45 is in any way ideal. Is this really what parents want for our children, on a societal level? High quality childcare is obviously invaluable. It is used in many ways and has many benefits, but, at the more extreme end, let's be honest, most mums would prefer to spend more time with their young kids than 2 hours on an evening, given real choice. Again, it's about reasonable, more child-centred workplace. It may sound idealistic, pie-in-the-sky now, but if people can't even begin to imagine alternative workplace structures that are centred around family life, then how can there be hope anything can ever improve?

c) I do not think that parents working is a direct cause if poor mental health in children. Not at all. On the contrary, I was pointing out how you can never assume or predict anything - but that is things happen, families need to adapt in whatever ways are most practical.

And no I am not arguing that women should 'stay at home.' Far from it. What I am suggesting is that just having a job, in and of itself, does not equate to feminism. Its no longer the 1960s. Most women work in some capacity. Even those who are SAHMs have previously worked and may well return to work in future. But, too often, workplace structures are patriarchal. Women have had to slot into these patriarchal structures that take no account of family life to prove themselves over the decades. But now, I think women should be demanding more. If you are working to the extent you can only see your child at the end of the day for 2 hours, 5 days a week, and you feel perpetually unhappy about this - is that feminism? I don't think it is - it's just women conforming to patriarchy under its latest guise.

You can have a career working 40 hours a week. Is there really a good enough reason to be doing 60+ hours a week in the pursuit of a career, taking you away from your DH and your kids and working evenings and weekends as well if the end result is you regret in the future not spending the time with them when you could?

If you are okay with it and it works for your family that is fine, (OP is obviously questioning her approach) but to assume you have to be working 60+ hours a week, days, evenings & weekends just to have a 'career' is just nonsense.

I'd hate to live like either A or B!

If I was going to work 60 hours a week, I'd make absolutely damn sure I was being paid appropriately for working those hours and that is not a civil servant salary, even at the top end. I'd be expecting magic circle law firm money for that time commitment.

As it is, I work 30 hours a week but could step up my career if necessary. My DCs are late teens so more self sufficient but they do actually appreciate having me around in the evenings and after school to chat to - while they manage if I'm not there, it is lovely to have that time to chat or play poker/ board games/ drive them around etc and I don't think being able to retire slightly earlier is worth missing out on that.

My career is thriving, I earn an absolute ton, have a fantastic pension and loads of responsibility and I'm well respected in my industry. I work 35 hours (full time for my company) compressed over 4 days and not a second more. So in reality you're right - 35 or 40 hours etc is more than doable. With a lot more pay/benefits/progression than the civil service too.

I think you're both a bit wrong. Why can't B save, work a little more and stop with the stupid cars? She does need to think of the future whether she lives to see it or not - she has kids.

I'm more in your camp Sister A bit I think you should make some changes. Can you negotiate a four day week into your employment contract? If not I'd look for another employer or start my own consultancy. You need more time with your kids.

I don’t have to work 60 hours or evenings/weekends now but I used to and I had to so I could progress to where I am now so I can be more flexible. To have the career I wanted I did have to work that many hours, especially in a male dominated industry competing with those who have a SAHM at home.

Only read ops posts but I think you will regret missing your children's childhoods. When do you get to spend any time with them if you work weekends too?

Urgh this is such a frustrating trope. People just say this because they have heard others say it without thinking about it. The OP isn’t “missing her children’s childhoods”.

Even parents who work a lot get quality time with their children. The quality of time spent with them isn’t purely measured in the quantity. And of course the children are at school from age five anyway so the difference between a SAHM and a working mum covers about three years of life.

So simplistic and insulting.

Sorry but that was glaringly obvious from the OP 😁

The only thing I would say is saving for a better life in the future is fine, but how old will your DC be at the point you stop and breathe? They grow up fast, so think carefully about what you really want.

I have thought about it. When exactly is op spending quality time with her kids?
I was a sahm for 2 years, then a childminder for 3 years and then worked pt out of the home. For me personally I wouldn't have wanted to work like that when mine were small.

Agree with this.

She manages to take the children swimming at the weekends
(from the OP) makes it sound like the weekends are a rush and swimming is something being squeezed in. That’s possibly an unfair interpretation, apologies to the OP if so.

Why would it only be an issue for 3 years? Wraparound care can be 12-13 years of the children's lives.. some kids do 7:30 - 5:30 five days a week? Often for necessity, but sometimes, as in OPs case, so their parents can maintain a lifestyle that they have built up, and to facilitate early retirement plans (which may never materialise).

It's not simplistic and insulting to say OP is missing her children's childhoods, if her posts are true then it's fact, she drops her youngest off at nursery at 7:45am then works 9 - 5:30 every day and picks the youngest up at 5:45.

She doesn't do the school drops or picks ups and does nothing with them after school, she sees them for a maximum of 2 hours in the evenings, then goes back to work at 8pm, she doesn't do any activities with them at the weekends apart from one session of swimming as she also works at weekends.

I would say her work is the extreme end of the scale, but it is no wonder she looks at her sister taking her children to activities after school and being with them before and after school and feels like she may be doing something wrong.

But did you choose to do that while you had young children?

I didn’t have to in the end but I would’ve done if I had still needed to progress to a point I was happy with. My ambition didn’t change when my children were born.

Also, it isn’t just about maintaining a lifestyle, it’s about security for the future, financial independence and making sure my children don’t have to financially struggle as I did growing up.