Professional couple, now SAHM - does it change your relationship?

[mrschop]

I know having kids results in a big shift, anyway. But I had a good career - same field as DH - which I've given up (at least temporarily) to stay at home with the children and support DH. He's just had a big promotion at work, is under lots of pressure so I'm at home alone a lot. So our day to day lives, which had previously been very similar, are now quite different. I'm 18 months in to my SAHM role, and am quite happy, but I do wonder how things will be in 5, 10 years time: I always assumed we'd be 'equivalent' (socially/professionally) throughout our life, and now his career is motoring off while mine recedes in to the past. Although I don't like to define myself purely in work terms, I do think the woman I am now is quite different to the woman he married! I know others must have gone through this, I just wonder how you get used to your expectations as to how your life together will be being completely turned on their head?

I do know of many men whose careers would (probably) have been better if they'd chased positions that took them away from home more. But the ones who take the high flying, never home route are not dismissed as being selfish and unloving the way that a mother in the same career would be.

CoV I hear what you are saying but I don't see what you are saying IFYSWIM. I do know so many clever bright well-trained women whose children are 8-10+ who have stayed at home for years and they are not doing anything which sounds more than filling the hours in.

"Filling the hours in" is a bit dismissive and each to their own and all that. I only mind running the PTA being compared to a job because I think it's inaccurate.

In answer to the op - my dh has told me on many occasion he couldn't stay at home with ds because it's such hard work.
I did for 2 years and am now back at work part time
I found being a stay at home mum the hardest thing I have ever done. It's not mundane - if you do it "right" then ot's the toughest thing in the world. I didn't fill my time with toddler groups or lunches with other mums. I just wanted to lay some quality groundwork (IMO) with my ds
I am glad I did what I did and yes, I do feel that I did the right thing for me and my family ....after all, isn't that what matters? I am happy with my choice, others are happy with theirs
There are many ways to skin a cat, so to speak!

Again, can I ask Xenia, what did you mean by your first sentence re me marrying?

nfx have you ever actually run a pta? I am in the throws of organising a summer fair for dd's school. It is no picnic in the park believe me. I organise monthly meetings, do the accounts, do new parent presentations, pester businesses for sponsorship/raffle prizes. It is running a registered charity which is a recognised job.

I didn't say that it's easy but it's not a job. Adding up a list of activities and stressing their difficulty doesn't change that fundamental fact. A job is an activity whereby you work in return for money. Voluntary work is valuable and should be appreciated but it's not the same as a job. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Sure they're both fruit and both the PTA and employment is work but they're not the same.

I haven't run a PTA but I've done school related voluntary work and was struck by the enormous fuss many of the women made about the simplest things like a cake stall. There are people performing key hole surgery who are less stressed by their work. It made me realise that people really do become preoccupied by the tasks that they do.

Sorry it was a typo. It should have read "So Comeo married someone who would EARN more - the usual marrying up, therefore stays at home."

Even if couples are not sexist if the woman always earns less and one has to stay home then it's likely to be the woman at home. Therefore as long as women choose men who earn more whether consciously or unconsciously then they will be the ones at home as that makes economic sense. 4 in 5 women earn less than their man and I expect most men prefer it that way.

The PTA might not fit your definition of a job, but does it make it any less meaningful? I think not.

My father successfully ran his own business for years and was also involved in local politics. He was a senior politician who achieved lots of great things for my home city. He wasn't paid for his council work but he derived great satisfaction from it and it also benefited our society.

Paid, unpaid, whatever. But money is not always the most valuable thing that can be gained from an activity.

I was very clear and careful about saying that voluntary work was valuable. And of course money isn't the only thing that an activity can offer. But usually when people don't earn any money their day to day lives are very difficult indeed. The few exceptions are if you've inherited money or if you are married to someone who makes a lot of it. And I think that's interesting. I also think it's interesting that in the latter case, it's usually the woman who doesn't have a job.

Xenia, I married a student who wasn't earning anything. I supported him through his studies, paid the deposit for our first home, paid for our wedding. I can assure you thaat I never once thought about living off his earnings in the future nor stopping work when I had children. We had no idea what job he would get and how much he would earn. The fact that I ended up as a SAHM was a surprise to me as much as the next person.

I hope you aren't insinuating I married dh because I knew a few years down the line I could sit on my arse and spend his money!

I had always earned more than my dh
We met as students and I took my career much more seriously than he did (we are in the same line of work)
Now I work part ie in an unprofessional capacity due to childcare issues and he is in a well paid job
tbh it does grate a bit but at the end of the day his wages pay our mortgage and when it comes to promotions etc I am 100% supportive obviously

Sorry, backtracking a little Xenia but have only just got in and read your response of 10.36. My comment "I'd certainly feel I'd messed up if I had to give my partner a huge pay-off!!" -how can that possibly be sexist!!! It works both ways round! I certainly don't believe women 'should' be financially dependent on men or vice versa! You really are remarkably good at entirely managing to miss the point (do you work in law - it's ok - I used to as well!).
The point I was trying to get across in my post, and yes this is personal, but your views are pretty extreme Xenia and I'm sure you can take this on the chin, is this. The two things which you seem to bang on about most Xenia, are the importance of having a 'good' fee paying education, and getting a job where you can earn pots of dosh. I just wonder if, despite your own posh feepaying education, you made a poor judgement in marrying a man who seems to have fleeced you. I just find it odd that you seem so concerned about the rest of woman kind being downtrodden and exploited. While thanks, for the concern, but I'm fine, thank you. I partnered a man who is my equal, we share home tasks, we have equal earning power and we see parenting as a joint responsibility.

Anna8888 - this is also a reply to an earlier post. I think I explained very clearly that it's impossible to totally separate working life and other parts of your life - certainly if you work in an interesting and high status role it's an artificial demarcation. I'm sorry you and your partner aren't happy about finishing your holiday and returning to work, but we don't all feel like that. I love my holidays and also love my professional role. My self esteem is bound up with all aspects of my life - not just through being a wife, mother or professional.

MrsMosschop - with regard to your question about whether your relationship suffers if you no longer work outside the home is an interesting one. Obviously I think it depends on the couple and each individual couple has to work it out for themselves.

However, your situation is different from a lot of couples in that you both worked in the same field (as me and DH used to do). Not that many couples can relate so closely with their partner's job because they don't do it themselves, they don't understand the jargon and they don't have much of an idea what their partner talks about all day.

Getting used to your new role depends in part on whether you were competitive with each other or mutually supportive. If your relationship was based on competition (who had the best exam results, the best job, the highest pay) then one of you no longer working leaves a bit of a vacuum in how you relate to one another.

If on the other hand, you were mutually supportive, then I would think it is easier to manage you expectations and the changed course of your life and simply continue to be supportive of new goals and plans.

The 'worthy' things you mention can fill the gap but if you did the same job before you had children and now don't, I think it takes more of an adjustment because you are no longer sharing that common language. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.

I think that more women actively want to stay at home with the children than men do. I don't know whether that's social conditioning, biology at work, economic circs. Whatever. But there is no way I would want to go back to work while DH looked after the children.

Having children has changed me: before children, I was absolutely 100% committed to my work, to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. I never had a hobby before I had children - work was my interest as well as my job. I worked all day, every day, and weekends. I took work on holiday with me. I absolutely loved my job. Once I had children, I couldn't commit that time to it. But also, I found I didn't want to. I wanted to leave at 5.30. The 'crises' that had previously seemed so stimulating and important became irritations - someone else hadn't done their job properly so I'd have to sort it out (and miss bedtime). Whereas DH thrives on the pressure in his job.

Does anybody else agree that staying at home does not have to be a permanent choice? I know that one poster states that after her friend returned to work it took her nine years to regain her previous status but this isn't necessarily the norm. I know of lawyers who took time out who are now judges, doctors who are now consultants. These are real people who made their choices according to their circumstances at the time and still went on to have sucessful careers.
Xenia, I don't want to get personal but if working makes women such well-rounded interesting people why do you only ever post about one (possibly two at a stretch) subjects?

My sister took around 4yrs off and it took her 12m to get above and beyond where she was when she left. So no, staying at home doesn't have to be permanent.

Thank you

Neicie - I agree with what you say. We've never competed at all, and we both see his career success as a result of both of our efforts. But yes, there is a twinge when he still talks the 'old' talk, and I feel myself further and further removed from it as time goes on. My previous post was in response to the other points made in the thread.

Also, I'm not mosschops! I know she's a regular poster. I'm much more of a lurker - this is the most active I've ever been on a thread but am enjoying it!

There was a piece the other day that showed a pretty staggering gap (30% I think it was) between the earnings of female lawyers and male lawyers. And the effect of taking time off to look after children was cited. The problem for many professional women is that the period of serious career consolidation often coincides with broodiness.

Of course many women do it and cheerfully pay the price in terms of their career. But it makes me wonder what one should be telling one's daughters about career choices and motherhood and financial dependence and independence. Men, it seems, can still have children and careers AND someone to tidy away their socks!

My sister has children and a career and she's not a man

CC, I absolutely agree that staying at home doesnt need to be a permanent choice. In fact I would think it pretty odd for a capable healthy adult to not work for a huge chunk of their adult life! I'm sure there are many examples of people who take some time out and then re enter their profession successfully, particularly if they have kept up to date with professional developments and so on. I think it does require a real effort though, and I think you need to be aware when giving up work that you'll have to be determined to get back into the job market. In many ways it's a confidence thing. I've known very capable women give up work, and within a few years, they don't believe they have the skills/ability to get back to work. Those few years out of the job market do seem to have an effect on self esteem.
Mrschop - I'm sure social conditioning is a big factor in the way it is almost always women who give up work. In our case, DH was as happy as I was to go part time temporarily when the kids were tiny. As it turned out, I took maternity leaves, and he had a year or so of part time working. This worked really well for us, and in fact I always find it a little strange that some men wouldnt be happy with this.

Of course they can Juule. I didn't mean they could. But can you ever imagine a website for men with posts like: "Don't you think men who have children and sometimes work weekends are really selfish. Why did they bother having any if they were prepared to let their wives do all the childcare?"

How much is biology and how much social conditioning is still worth discussing, I think.

I think professional women have an easier time returning than ones who did more fluid jobs like the media. But that's just a hunch and not based on hard data.