To choose not to work after DC? Why?

[Marghe87]

I totally get it. Childcare costs are ridiculous, better to spend time with the family than with colleagues as those years will never come back etc... But, in the long run, aren't the risks too high?
I mean, being a SAHP means:

• giving up one extra income that can make a big difference in a family life (ie: being able to afford a better house, family activities, travels, pay for the children's education etc... obv it is different for those with a partner that earns a big enough salary to cover all the above)
• giving up a job/career that was build with efforts and dedication and no longer being financially independent
• putting the future of the family at risk in case the working partner either: decides to leave you, dies, gets ill, loses his/her job etc
• stop paying into your pension which means a very low income later in life
• what happens when the kids are older and no longer need you at home all the time?

I don't mean to be harsh will all of the above but I am really keen to understand why a person (90% of the times a woman) feels like giving up their job is the best option for themselves and their families in the long run.

I'd like to hear from women that made different choices.

I worked and had a career until ds1 was born when I was 34.5. We did not need my salary. Did try part-time for a year and found it the worst of all worlds.

Something I'd heard the Jesuits quote also resonated. "Give me a boy until he is 7 and I will show you the man". Felt the nurture of my dc should rest with me.

Went back to work fulltime when dd was nearly 7. Have retrained and have a good salary again.

If I work until I am 65 I'll have two thirds of an occupational pension.

I think the pension aspect is very important.

Out of interest, does your partner work full time?

I was lucky to have a reasonably well paying job. I did not want to be financially dependent or service my H’s career and pension.

I don’t see many men at all going PT or SAH after DC - they get to be parents AND retain and increase their earning ability.

@Artfullydead - yes my DH works full time. He is a doctor - he was working in A&E when DT’s were born but then trained as a GP as the hours were better(slightly!).

I quit my job because my bosses kept putting meetings in at 7am to an office over an hour away despite me telling them in my initial interview I can’t get to work before 9 (I could always stay late though) it cost me a lot of money to pay my nanny overtime to get to these meetings. The client didn’t even care what time the meetings were and my nanny didn’t even like coming to me before 6am as she herself had a journey to do to get to me.
Nightmare. And that was a new job as the two previous were also totally inflexible. In the end I couldn’t keep up with my companies demands to act childfree with a dh who works away for weeks on end & someone had to make it home to collect dc from the nanny.

Hate being sahm but better than the stress my job gave me. Didn’t even realise how stressed out I was until I stopped. I told myself I’d go back soon enough but now quite happy to be at home. You don’t have to do nothing anyway. I’ve studied and sat exams and will probably start a masters this year.

My sister and I and many others got fucked off with scenarios described by cha above so we have set up on our own doing what we did before but independently. We earn well and have flexibility. There was a segment on women’s hour recently on this. Lots of women are doing the same. I don’t work between 3.30 and 7 so am here for my kids.

Also what’s do “good” about continuing your career unimpeded and seeing your kids in the week? I don’t envy that and don’t want that. My kids pre teen often have a lot to talk about after school I am here to do it and am still a higher rate tax payer. I wouldn’t see earning double and not being there as a success. Artful you have a very narrow outlook.

*not seeing your kids in the week. Which I wouldn’t have in my old job

Broadly speaking, more women choose to go into caring professions such as teaching, nursing, etc which lack good salaries and opportunities for career progression. Fewer female applicants are selected for highly paid opportunities in law, finance, technology, etc. Even when men and women have the same qualifications, men are more likely to be hired and promoted. And when couples marry it’s more common for a woman to want to “marry up” to a more successful man.

This creates an unequal playing field where on the whole men have better, higher paid careers than their female partners. So when a baby comes along it’s the lower paid woman who has to give up her job.

I made more than DH when I gave up working. I had a career in a STEM field but kids changed everything. I had no interest in only seeing them at the weekend.

I decided to be a SAHM as I don't want to miss out on anything of my DS baby/toddler years that I don't have to. I couldn't agree more with @Mishappening. I want to watch him develop and set the tone for his upbringing. I didn't want to be dropping him at a nursery through the week and then get a "run down" of what he did that day, I wanted to live it with him, experience it with him.

They are babies for such a short amount of time and I wanted to be there with him as much as possible. It would break my heart to leave him all day while he is so young and then be told he took his 1st step or said his 1st word Or be rushed with the time I have with him through the week.

We have such lovely days together and i would not change that for all the money in the world. My career is very demanding, stressful and a lot of extra hours, I am just not willing to forfeit my time with my DS.

I am willing to take the "risk" that the amazing man I chose to marry and have children with will not turn out to be a horrible person.
I don't know how to articulate clearly really, I would regret missing out on them years more than anything.

If I were to go back to work and then in 20yrs I'm still happily married ( which I expect to be lol) I would regret that more than having them early years with my DS and if my DH leaves I struggle for few years. I said I can't articulate it clearly 😟😟

Quick responses to your questions

When my DC goes to school I will then decide if I want to return to my career

The career I have worked hard and shown dedication to achieve, now feels so trivial to that if my DS. I very much doubt I will return full time to my career I will opt for a job that fits around my DS.

A bigger house, better car etc would never be more important than time with my DS

We still go on holiday - but I would definitely give them up for a few years

I could go back to work, miss out on all that time and still have my husband walk out on me and our standard of living change massively

I think everyone makes a choice of what they think is best for them and their families, it's not one size fits all.

While the children are small you could work part time, best of both worlds.

giving up one extra income that can make a big difference in a family life (ie: being able to afford a better house, family activities, travels, pay for the children's education etc... obv it is different for those with a partner that earns a big enough salary to cover all the above)

This is on the assumption that absolutely everybody earns more than childcare costs. Not the case. I did keep my job part-time but it came at great financial sacrifice to the whole family. I couldn't have done it if dh hadn't been prepared to make those sacrifices.
What most of my friends did was either give up work or for one parent to work late-night shifts/weekends, meaning that the couple wouldn't spend much time together when the children were little.

What you don't get is that when you talk of privileged people there are other people sitting below you thinking "ooo, doesn't she sound privileged?"

putting the future of the family at risk in case the working partner either: decides to leave you, dies, gets ill, loses his/her job etc

What happened in my case was that it was my child who became chronically ill. These things happen too.

stop paying into your pension which means a very low income later in life

Dh joined a scheme which means he paid pension contributions for me too. And child benefits count as NI contributions.

what happens when the kids are older and no longer need you at home all the time?

I'm rebuilding my career, thank you for asking.

Some people just want to be at home with their kids and do things for their family, I can't see how that's so surprising.
The first few years are the most important and I didn't want someone else being responsible for them, they were my kids, my responsibility.
Nobody could raise our kids like us, to the same standard and love.
As for when they grow up and leave home, then you start minding your gc in between being free to come and go as you please, or volunteering/pt work.
Sometimes even as a sahp there aren't enough hours to do what you want to do. Some hobbies and interests can consume quite a few hours.

I think it's pretty easy to understand why people stay at home, they love being with their children, responsible for raising them exactly how you want. I couldn't think of anything I would rather do than raise my own child full time. Even working PT would not be an option for me as it would still mean me leaving him at CM or nursery at such a young age.

@Artfullydead totally agree with every single word.

Before my baby was born I thought logically, wanted to go back to work. Once that baby was in my arms I couldn’t do it.

There is something slightly unkind about the premise of this thread. I think this is why the reaction has been very emotive.

It's saying, unless you go straight back to work after Maternity Leave ends, you are doomed: your career is finished, most likely your marriage at some point and therefore, your solvency, too.

Is this where we are now? I'm alright, Jack, because I have kept my job. Thank God for the posts that have contradicted this notion.

The only way to be truly equal is to become just like men. The woman's role as a primary carer is devalued and disrespected. The man's role as the equivalent even more so (cocklodger, anyone?)

Why do this to another woman? This is not feminism and this is not liberal. It is the equivalent to The Sisterhood arriving home and saying 'what do you do all day?'

Sorry, haven't rtft but I find this whole discussion really concerning. Why is it that so many women find the though of women taking on a caring role so concerning. Caring for children is an important role, it isn't dicking about.
don't personally think a relationship that is so unequal to have one partner able to earn considerable amounts and one only minimum wage is healthy.
So what is your solution? High earners should only have relationships with other high earners? Shouldn't poor people be allowed to mix with professionals? It all sounds a bit scary, all for what? To 'set good examples?' Why can't some people just allow others to organise their lives in the best way for them. There is no 'greater good.' If I went to work, causing all of our lives to be more stressful, then it's not suddenly going to change the fact that for a lot of women (and men) raising a child is what they want to do!

Also I think that 0x00 is talking sense re. interdepency. I do depend on my DH at the moment. There was a time in the past where he had to depend on me. I trust him and I would rather live my life as a trusting person than not. If anything did happen then I know that I could very easily get another job. It may not be well paying but then lots of people work in not very well paying jobs, men and women. As a family we are very savvy with our money and I have worked bloody hard to do our house up to sell so that we can afford a much better house in a cheaper area, I'm still contributing, even though it's not financially at the moment. I think anyone who thinks that we can change the world so that men and women are the same and want the same is on a hiding to nothing. I'm a feminist because I believe that women should have equal opportunities and because I think that we should be valued equally, but we are different, there's no doubt about that.

I didn’t work when mine were under 2. I work part time now. For me being at home when my children were small was more important than having a bigger house or more savings.

I totally get it

I don't think you Do!

I also think artfully dead has made some very interesting points. I initially thought the responses would be different if you were to ask a broader age range. But interestingly there has been a thread in the last few days where the mother was earning a significantly higher wage than her oh, who also was on a v good wage. The answers were very much weighted in favour of her keeping her job, at the very most going part time. If I had the time, energy or inclination, I could check if a completely different cohort of posters replied to that thread. As a mother, I feel women are selling themselves short if they believe their contribution or value begins and ends with motherhood.

Sorry, should have said, the higher earning poster was considering leaving her job to be a Sahm. The majority of replies recommended not to.

I don't honestly know is the answer to that, Raspberry! but in my utopia everyone would be able to live and live well from minimum wage (a job is no good if you can't live off it.)

As it is though, when two graduates end up so unequal as to have one only able to work on MW and one able to comfortably keep a family - something isn't right there.