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.

@catcafeatno10 speak for yourself, I never found being with my children boring. They were delightful and have grown into wonderful adults who have a close relationship with dh and me. And yes, they were in childcare from a few months old because long mat leave wasn't a thing until relatively recently. Some of us enjoy our children and have careers we enjoy too. The two things aren't mutually exclusive

pp was talking about me but pretending that she wasn't for whatever reason. I have said in previous threads that I've found the baby stage boring and that I went back to work full time at 12 weeks by choice.

No not specifically you @SouthLondonMum22 or @lolly792 . Just the way the threads go. People say 'Oh mine were in childcare from 10 weeks old' - as if that's all there is to it.
My point was - firstly, most women would not want that anyway and second, if you have a husband who is away a lot or who doesn't work regular hours, then you would still doing it all outside of nursery hours anyway. And if, eg. you earn £50k and he earns £500k or millions or whatever amount that would make
you're earnings seem irrelevant (as all money is shared anyway) - would you really put your kids in full-time childcare and be permanently exhausted doing a full-time job for money the family won't miss, plus running yourself ragged in the evenings? It's not hard to imagine why some families might organise differently. It just depends.

, "it’s the woman taking the hit 99.99% of the time."

It depends what you mean by "taking the hit."

Ok she might not keep the job / career she had. Whether that's a 'hit' or not depends on how she felt about the job and what her longer-term plans are.

I would never recommend not financially protecting yourself and your children indefinitely.

I'm just saying that there are some circumstances where not prioritising the 'big job' in a family would be counterproductive.

It's still all about choices though.

I wouldn't have had children with a man who refused to either negotiate regular travelling down to at least occasional travel or if that wasn't possible, get a new job that involved occasional or no travelling.

I also wouldn't have had children with a man who didn't consider my career to be equal with his. I'm the higher earner, DH could easily be a SAHP but his career is important too and it would be the same if it was the other way around because no matter how much or little I earned, becoming a SAHM was never going to be a choice I would make.

I'm not permanently exhausted or running myself ragged in the evenings, I'm not sure why that would change if I was the lower earner. Of course it's hard, especially with very young children but nothing in life worth it comes easy and it's absolutely worth it to not only continue my career but to carry on progressing too.

@catcafeatno10 not all women want their work life to take second place to their partner's and they make decisions (jointly) to avoid that. You talk about couples where one person earns 500k or millions... well some of us actively choose, as a couple, to not have one partner having a jet setting high octane career earning megabucks if it means they'll barely be home and the other partner will have to do everything with the kids and house.

I've already said, dh and I decided that we both wanted interesting, good careers but we would climb the ladder to the extent that it would be incompatible with family life. We both wanted to earn but also have time with the kids, share nursery drops, cooking dinner etc That's a choice. It didn't happen out of nowhere. The kind of situation you describe with a sole earner on mega bucks can mean that parent has very little time at home. They may carry a lot of stress, they may be at risk of burn out. In my view, it's not worth one parent being home full time if the other parent barely gets a look in. We wanted to bring our children up seeing mum and dad both working but also both doing nursery pick up, and seeing whoever was home first cooking dinner.

*wouldn't climb the ladder

Well you don't have to do anything @SouthLondonMum22 . But clearly, there are women who are married to men who don't do what you might call 'regular' work - eg. I know men who have done certain finance-related jobs which are pretty hellish, but the family make a decision that he will do it for a few years. When he makes millions in bonuses - obviously, in a marriage if shared finances, that is the wife's money too. It puts the kids through schools, uni, all sorts of options the family would never have had if she had refused to let him do that role. Or couples where one has a business that gets sold for life-changing amounts of money - same thing. Or what about if your husband / wife got a ridiculously paid role in a movie, or the theatre or in a sport. Not all couples work in offices with comparable salaries and hours.

@catcafeatno10 that's fine if it suits the couple.

We're all different; no way would my dh have wanted a hellish job that took him away from family life even if it did provide mega bonuses. And I wouldn't have wanted our children seeing us with polarised roles like that either - me stopping work to facilitate dad doing some crazy hours big earning job.

But if it suits some couples that's their business. The issue with the OP is that she's gone along with the situation and is now moaning about it

It's still a choice to marry men like that who expect their careers to be the one that always comes first. I wouldn't have married a man like that.

Of course I know that not all couples have comparable salaries and hours. In my marriage, both careers are always equal.

What if you were married to a footballer who was sold for £100 million or whatever it is they get sold for, but the team was in another country? You wouldn't say, 'no DH sorry, you can't take this opportunity as your job can't be prioritised under any circumstances, even if we all stand to benefit."

I married my husband young and quite frankly we both change all the time. We reacted differently to lack of sleep, differently to redundancy etc. I suppose every day is a choice to stay together, but who knows how that will pan out by tomorrow.

I am always surprised by the number of mumsnetters who both parents knew exactly how they woukd feel and react to everything and never had to change jobs Or never had any difficulty finding work so we're stuck with inflexible terms for a few years etc.

@catcafeatno10 I assume in that case you consider whether you want to have children with a footballer who's playing at that level. Plenty of women do - there are loads of top footballers in their 20s and 30s with very young families. It wouldn't be the life for me. No way.

@Frowningprovidence no one stays exactly the same! All relationships are about growing. But it's absolutely possible to talk through the really big issues before embarking on kids. Eg, how many kids? What if you can't have kids? Are both careers equally important?

And yes life throws curve balls. Eg if one of our children had serious medical needs which meant they couldn't go to nursery, dh and I would have had to rethink plans.
The unexpected can happen to anyone.

But too many women sleepwalk into just assuming their work life is less important. They default to doing all the caring, often most of the cooking , housework etc as well. Then realise further down the line (like the OP) that they're frustrated and wish they'd made different choices

I wouldn't have married a footballer. I wouldn't have married anyone with a career that involved me having to follow them around sacrificing my own career.

Definitely wouldn't have had children with them.

Well, this is a goady post. Nice straw man you've set up there.

I took 6-7 months' maternity leave in each instance.

I didn't breastfeed because I didn't want to - nothing to do with work.

As for not liking spending time with our children, and not relating to the "turmoil" of having children, I am going to posit something controversial: maybe those of us who are successful in our careers are just capable, confident people. Maybe that's why we excel in our careers and also don't find parenting as difficult as some others seem to. I really like spending time with my kids, I'm a great parent, and I don't find it hard.

As for not relating to having high-earning partners, most high-earning women I know also have high-earning partners. I think capable, intelligent people tend to find each other.

As for shared finances, for those of us who run a household with another person, of course expenses are shared. Both me and my husband would also be able to be financially independent if we split; does this bother you?

TL;DR: successful women are often successful parents, too. We're good at things!

If he earns more and is involved properly when he is there, don't complain - you're lucky. This was the case with us when we had small children, so we just regarded my income as a bonus. And I earned much more when they were older.
I should say that I was the child of a high-flying mother who worked long hours and I was brought up by nannies and au pairs. They were perfectly nice women, and I was not neglected - but I would much have preferred to see my own mum at the nursery and school gates. I swore my own kids would only see me or their dad.

@PicturePlace - if none of that applies to you, then it doesn't apply. I didn't say having children is 'turmoil' - is that another post?

I was trying to say that when people say things like "I don't compromise because we both work 8-5 and the kids are in childcare" - well, that would sound like a compromise to many people. As for 'financial independence in the event of a split' - again, financial independence can be achieved by prioritising one person's career - if it pays off. It depends what it is!

How can you have financial independence in the event of a split by prioritising one person's career? Do you understand what financial independence is?