"Having a career cost me my child" - Article in this month's Eve magazine!

[Citronella]

I read this article with a knot in my stomach as the subject is v. close to the bone for me. In the end I had to agree with one of the interviewees which is to say to any woman contemplating a role reversal in terms of breadwinner/stay at home parent, " Don't do it. Never do it. You will be punished". I would add a caveat which is if you are going to do it, let it be absolutely clear between you for how long.
Many women of my generation were brought up with the belief that you should get a career and not fall pregnant too young because you would waste those career opportunities. But also brought up in the belief that you didn't need to be dependant on a husband. Many of us followed that advice and concentrated on careers or just on paying for mortgages, bills, and food because it was inconceivable not to be self sufficient. But no one said anything about how strong the biological clock would tick and just how strong that maternal instinct would be.
The article says " Increasing numbers of women are being legally separated from their children-not for drinking or doing drugs, nor for hitting, ignoring , or walking out on their children, but simply for being the main breadwinner in their family...(the CSA) has almost 67,000 cases of British mothers living apart from their children; many of them loving, devoted parents who never dreamed that choosing work instead of staying at home full-time could count against them"
The thing is I'm sure (as it was for me) that while choosing to have a career many did not to be the sole breadwinners in the long term. That's just the way things worked out.
So you hold it all together for years but when the marriage fails you stand the risk of losing your children.

Anyway, sorry for rambling on. This article has been in my head for a few days now and its a subject close to my heart as I said earlier.
Not really looking for advice but any shared views/feelings or experiences welcome.

Soapbox do you mean making it work together as a couple or as separated co-parents? I certainly think, 2 courses of relate (over a period of 5 yrs), a 6mth trial separation and other things is giving it our best shot.
Also I think as you seem to be inferring the chances of losing complete care of your child are not huge. You would have to be really evil to be kept away (by the courts at least) from your kids permanently. Most (whether it is the father or mother) have very generous contact arrangements. But for me, to be the mum who puts her kids to bed everynight and gets them up in the morning for a new day is really important.

Isn't the core of the problem, though, that the vast majority of the workplace world is set up for a worker to have an unpaid support system (a 'wife') at home? Isn't there a lot wrong with the ludicrous long-hours culture in jobs that don't need that much amount of time spent on them (most office-type jobs selling widgets or ad space or intangibles, for instance: not quite the same as open-heart surgery). This isn't just bad for parents, it's bad for anyone who wants any kind of life (or has dependent adults who need care, for instance).

I agree madamez. I know that during term time my dp has to run our house because of the hours required of me. I know i could not remain in my job and be a good single parent.

It may be "only fair" int hat it happens to men, but it still tugs at the heartstrings, doesn't it? I earn more than my DP, though he also works, but I often have at the back of my mind the fact that he looks after her whilst I do nights and weekends, and how this would look if it came to custody. I am at work now, for example. It is a part of how my job is, no changing the antisocial hours. I don't know - I would miss my career, but miss my dd far more. Fortunatley we are getting on well at the moment, but can totally see where Citronella is coming from.

Great post, madamez

I am quite certain that if it were a fair world i would lose custody of dd to her father if he applied now.

CowardycowardyCustard, you are quite right that's why I can see where FFJ are coming from. It is not easy for any parent who adores their kids and at the same time must be committed to paying the bills and keeping the roof over their heads.
Madamez I agree with what you say. We are definitely in a culture where business seems to be more important than family. It would be all very well to say well I'll give it all up and we'll go and live the simple life. But nowhere seems to be the simple life. I'm not really expressing myself well here . It's too early.

Citronella - no I meant it was incumbent on the parents to make shared care work.

Does shared care in the UK have to mean a 50:50 time split?

Here in France shared care is basically just an à la carte system where the parents decide how care is going to be shared in accordance with every party's constraints (father's job, mother's job, children's school normally). The children's two homes also need to be very close to one another so that they can walk to school from either home.

The "standard access package" is residency with the mother and every other weekend, one night per week and half the holidays for the father. Which can, in some circumstances, be reversed and the father have residency.

Shared care doesn't (and doesnlt usually) mean a 50:50 split - the split it needs to be tailored to a child's needs, which are not the same for a toddler as a nine year old as a teenager.

For example, for a baby/toddler to have a meaningful relationship with their non resident parent, they need to be doing overnight stays because so much parenting is still done at night. This might not be so essential for a teen - who might well say a justified eff off to a 50:50 split if it played havoc with their own social life.

It is a chilling risk for the person, being the sole breadwinnner (whether mother or father).

That is why my preferred choice (and I appreciate not everyone's circumstances is such that they have such a choice) is not to have rigid division of labour (ie the traditional SAHP/sole breadwinner) but for both parties to work to some extent. Ideally both working fairly sane hours rather than one working insane hours and the other at home without support.

That way, each person does not have sole pressure, whether it be of childcare/running a home or breadwinning. It also allows each person to understand what goes into the different roles, reduces the likelihood of taking the other for granted or begrudging the other having an 'easier' time.

It is also preferable as 'insurance' should one parent die, become disabled or otherwise leave. As the remaining parent can easily perform dual roles to maintain stability and continuity for the children.

We were thinking that when (if?) we have a child I may carry on working and DP be a SAHD because financially it makes sense for us. This has really made me think twice. In a quandary now, after all no-one expects their relationship to end when they start their family.

What do people think the position would be if mum worked full time and dad worked part time and looked after children when not at work?

don't know if my experience yesterday is relevant to this thread but it has left me slightly horrified......

want to work PT (3 days/week). Every job I have phoned about, lab head has said firm 'NO' to PT.

Friend said job centre might help me; rights in approaching employers for PT work etc.

So, got an appt. Misunderstanding though, they thought I wanted to sign on, which bizarrely, I am entitled to do for a couple of months as there is some Govt cash that isn't measn-tested?

Anyway, chatting away to Job Centre operative. She's typing in my job preference (post-doctoral medical research) and says I have to have a second choice job. I'm a bit stumped so she says Admin would be good - I go along with it. Then comes the advice bit (a good 30 mins later). 'Ah yes, PT work. I see you've already put in some hard work here. You're not having any luck. Well, it's an employers choice. Nothing we can do. You're not being realistic, you need a nice office job or need to apply for 'lower grade laboratory jobs'. My mouth was open.

'If you don't do that then we'll take away your moeny'

BUT I DIDN'T COME FOR MONEY!!! I JUST WANT ADVICE!

And then it dawned on me. For all that the govt is choving women with children back to work, they are actually doing NOTHING to support well-qualified women like me to maintain their professional status part-time. If you are looking for work, and need dole money, they are actually forcing women into low-paid, low-status work rather than giving them the time and support to persuade employers to retain/employ women PT.

Financially, of course the Govt doesn't want to keep women on the dole - they want them in work. But for women with children/dependants, it's not helping women to stay on the career ladder and move up.

Don't know if I'm naive/wrong.

Interesting thread. Can anyone do a link to the original article?

Ah, sorry, maybe it's not online.

I had a horrible nightmare after this thread last night, I dreamt that dh left me. And woke in a sweat at 5am. (he isn't, we're happy)

I do think work is set up to be all encompassing and isn't accepting of the other stuff in peoples lives.

And yes, men are in this position, routinely. But it doesn't make it ok, whether you're a man or a woman.

Wickedwaterwitch, I'm sorry about your nightmare. I didn't mean to cause distress!!

Highlander - totally agree there is not enough support for PT professional work. I will be looking for a PT postdoc next year and that just doesn't seem to be an option. I do know researchers and lecturers who work 3 days/week - but that is cutting back from FT, not starting out PT. Of course it's worse because we are geographically restricted for the same reasons we want to go PT.

Citronella, no need to apologise, I'm fine! And dh and I both work ft oth and are v happy so it 's fine!

Highlander, we've had many, many threads in the past about highly qualified women who want to work part-time because of family commitments who end up doing jobs they could have got straight from school...

I'm thinking about going back to work once my youngest is at school. I say a job advertised locally which I know I could do well, bonus is that it is term-time only, BUT it is full-time. I feel it would be a huge stress for my family if I were to work full-time so I'm probably not going to apply...

Good post Highlander. This Govt. seems to hate mums. They want to force us into low paid jobs that we're over qualified for, whilst shoving our babies into communist style state run nurseries and then take them off us if we decide to leave a husband who is badly treating us. We're going back to Victorian times when our husbands could have us locked up in mental asylums if we disagree with them. (Have had large glass of wine, hence the rant!)

I'm going back to work shortly. I will be doing the same job as I was two years ago. My hopes of promotion evaporated during my maternity leave

MrsDanvers rant on! I get so cross with this drive toward FT childcare as though that is the obvious option. It's fine as an OPTION - but what about flexible working as an option too (slurp)?