To wish I hadn’t married a man with a well paid job

[butteronthebread]

DH earns well, not loads but realistically is always going to be more than me.

So as a result it’s naturally meant my career has had to take a back seat. I know some manage without any compromises but we’ve no additional support and someone does need to do the child related things so this lands on me.

its very much diamond shoes are too tight. And I know this. But sometimes I wish I had the luxury of working more.

Sorry to be a bit blunt but you and DH need to own your choices. High earners are so because they are needed and difficult to find. They have a lot of negotiating power in a workplace and can demand life balance if they want. Your DH has chosen not to because you have allowed this with the choices you too have made and your anti-feminist expectations. If you really wanted a stimulating job and career you would have one (low paid or otherwise). You sound wistful for a rose tinted idea of what you could be and very ready to make excuses for yourself.
it’s possible to have 2 (even high) earners in fulfilling careers who see their kids lots but it takes strength of character, strong desire for it, and commitment to that goal. If you have that - Go for it - because it is possible.

@Needanewname42 it doesn't make zero sense to pay more than you bring in.

It's frustrating but it's also short term and with a long term gain.

Childcare for full time nursery, let's say it's £1000 a month per child under the age of funded hours, then it drops to £700 a month per child when you factor in add ons and the weeks not covered by funding. So by the time the child is about 2 years old your costs have reduced £300 a month and you've had a year or so to apply for promotions and increase your income, so overall your financial situation is better.

Then nursery ends and primary school begins, your childcare costs are before and after school club and come to £400 a month, so your costs have decreased another £300 a month and you've had 2 more years to increase your salary and build reputation/flexibility in your role.

Your financial situation is better, your career has progressed, you have the flexibility to do school drop offs and attend events, you have ongoing opportunities to continue to progress and your need for childcare will continue to reduce over time. You've been paying into your pension in ever increasing amounts and you're used to higher outgoings so could switch those spends into savings accounts without noticing so will be building your savings.

It may not be the obvious choice, it may be hard to fit everything in, it may be stressful at times, but it doesn't make zero sense. It's just a different choice with a different outcome.

Why bring it up then? Irrelevant to the OP. Start up your own hobby horse thread blaming women for men not stepping up. It's our fault apparently because some women are nitpickers.

And the options you suggested for her don't work for reasons she's explained. But you carry on being snug.

My point is that people make choices which lead to any particular point in their life. And they can continue to discuss and make other choices.

But hey, let's not get what I've written in the way of frothing

@InfoSecInTheCity that sounds like what dh and I did. There were several years when both of us working gave no more immediate income than if one of us had stopped work and not pajd childcare. What it did mean though is we both kept up with our careers and pensions. Some couples choose not to do that and that's fine too, but it's not true to say there's no point.

No one arrives out of the blue in this situation, two children down the line. Choices are made.

In the OP's situation, aside from anything else, she could have returned to work after the first child, when incomes would easily cover one set of childcare costs. Seems she chose to reduce to part time and have another child and is now complaining her dh earns too much!

I agree with the above.

Looks like the OP sleepwalked into this situation and has just woken up. It is always harder to unravel rather than plan ahead.

The fact that the OP and her dh now find themselves in this situation is because OP did not prioritise her career all along the way. Even now, OP still does not have the drive or motivation to take steps to dig herself out of this hole, dismissing advice from posters on this thread.

So OP is doomed to fail and can continue to whinge into the ether.

Women do need to take some responsibility for the choices they make. It isn’t inevitable, it’s a choice.

You don’t have to have children with a man who travels all of the time
You don’t have to give up your job or go part time when you have your first baby
You don’t have to live in a rural area where childcare is limited.

I'm self-employed, as is DH, so the world of paid parental leave, tax breaks for childcare and so forth is all out of my experience, to be fair.

If it is a setup everyone's happy with, why would such men be despised? I don't see that should be the case, and I am a professional woman, mother, who has childcare and who earns approximately the same as her DH.
If it suits a couple for one to be at home, or part-time, and the other to earn most of the money and not do as much of the at-home-stuff, more power to them. Whatever suits a particular family sounds good to me.
My parents did do this - my mother has both a good degree and post-grad qualifications (not all that common for a woman now over 70) and she and my Dad both wanted a big family with my Mum at home for some years. It suited them then, it still suits them now. Crucially, though, they have obviously always regarded every penny as "their" money not "his" money.

when u marry for money itr causes problems who knew

Did I just read that correctly................"But sometimes I wish I had the luxury of working more".

You sound incredibly ungrateful. A lot of women would love to be in your position.

IMHO, with parents working sensible hours and is better for equality than the "man with a big job / SAHM model"

And, the latter makes the former more difficult to achieve

we won't have equality until senior male employers are doing the school run and therefore stop discriminating against women who leave work to do the same

we won't have equality until senior male employers are doing the school run and therefore stop discriminating against women who leave work to do the same

Lots of fathers at the school gates these days especially with the ability to work from home for many professionals. It is not the rarity it used to be.

I do agree that a couple with equal jobs is better for equality than one big and one small with strict division of labour (which almost inevitably means the lower earner, often woman, picking up the lion's share domestic/childcare tasks).

That way, school runs and looking after sick children can be shared so it is not always one person who has to do it. Hence both parties can keep their career progression.

I guess OP has boxed herself into a situation where her dh travels a lot and she cannot WFH most of the time. When my dcs were young, I picked my jobs with logistics in mind. This is one area OP and her dh will have to look into if she wants to keep her career on track.

I'm sorry but that is the most self entitled headline post I've seen. I know I'm revality new on this platform but come on. And yer I can't spell even with spellchecker. Maybe just me , us retired pirates. When we don't get that rum shot. Grumpiness ensures.. arrrrr. ⚓

Doesn't necessarily work - there have been various schemes since DS1 was born 19 years ago, and none of them have covered us. We can't be companies, for example, which has knocked off some. DS2 is young enough for us to qualify still, but we never have been able to.

Best response 😊

Check with your Accountant at one point i was self employed, but through a Limited company.
The company paid my childcare to a certain value, but I believe for the company to do it, it had to be open to all employees. Which it was Me. It's a long time ago so rules might have changed but it might be worth looking into.

@LondonLawyer yes, of course couples can decide how to carve things out and if it suits them to have one high flier high earning parent as sole earner, and the other as a SAHP then that's up to them. But that's only going to work if both parents are genuinely happy with their role. And it also makes sense for the SAHP to protect themself financially in case the unthinkable happens and their partner dies/ can no longer work/ leaves them.

But honestly, in the 21st century it shouldn't be a surprise that many couples don't want that set up. Often both partners are equally well qualified. They are just as capable and don't want to give up their work life or put it on the back burner. And often both partners want a good work life balance where they get time with their children and get stuck into family life. Not working crazy hours as sole earner.

Dh and I are late 50s with grown up kids now and we certainly wouldn't have wanted one of us to give up their career; I'd imagine it's even less the case now

Get a nanny so you can work when you want and the nanny does the children's requirements.

If women continually moan about loss of career, earnings. It's simple, don't have children.
Sometimes you can't have both. Yet, you blame men for carrying on with their careers and paying the bills and bemoan them not giving birth. It's basic biology, what are men supposed to do. Not have kids as well. Then what?

I do get where you’re coming from, the whole “what if”.

Honestly, I’ve had the whole career and gone part time. At the time I realised happiness didn’t come from a career. Now I’ve switched to a family friendly job I do sometimes get a little whistful, but always remember it’s where your heart is where you’re happy.

Be happy and honoured! When I was working FT in career I looked upon the SAHM with jealousy, they didn’t have to do what I do or rely on themselves. Enjoy life however!