Women taking on the "main childcarer" role at the expense of their earning potential

[minipie]

Bear with me, this is rather long winded. Inspired by a recent thread on the divorce/separation board.

Ok, so DH and I are both in jobs involving long hours. When we had DD it was clear that either one or both of us was going to have to take our work down a notch in order to do pick ups/ensure DD saw a parent at bedtime (we both agreed this was important).

Financially, it was much better for us as a family for only one of us to take a large step down and do most of the pick ups/bedtimes etc, with the other staying full time, rather than both of us take a smaller step down and do 50% bedtimes each.

I earn less. Mainly for this reason, it was me who went part time, reducing my earnings and shelving any promotion prospects, and DH who carried on full time climbing the promotion ladder.

Fast forward a few years and I can see that my career/earning power will be stagnant at best, while DH's will have gone from strength to strength.

If we stay together, that's all well and good. But what if we split? What if DH decides to waltz off into the sunset (BTW I have absolutely no reason to think this will happen but then nobody ever does, right?)

I gather there is no right to spousal maintenance any more. Ex wives are expected to support themselves, by and large. Therefore, if we split, there will be no recompense for the fact that I buggered my future earnings potential to look after our child, and DH did not.

This of course applies not just to me but to millions of women who take on the "main childcarer" role at the expense of their earnings - especially those who become SAHMs.

I kind of feel I should get some sort of acknowledgement/agreement from DH that I am compromising my future earnings in this way - ideally, I would get an agreement that he will make some sort of recompense to me if we do split. (I have no idea if this would even be enforceable mind you). DH on the other hand is pretty horrified by the idea - he agrees in principle, but hates the idea of having these sorts of legalistic/antagonistic discussions with his DW. I can see his point.

So, has anyone else considered this? Anyone else tried to protect themselves somehow from the long term effects of going part time/becoming a SAHM - in the event of a split? Or is the only true protection to ensure both parents do 50% childcare and take equal knocks to their earnings/career?

Thoughts?

[BarbarianMum]

Certainly with me, the main reason I earned less than dp at the time was pregnant was that I was 6 years younger (we work in the same field).

But beyond that i had a very strong drive to be at home with the children when they were babies (I did go back to work full time after ds1 whilst dh and my mum covered child care and hated every minute of it). I don't feel entitled to be compensated for something that was fundamentally my choice (although have always made sure that a proprtion of savings/the car etc were in my name).

You can ask why women earn less. But also why they choose partners who earn more. The connection between those two things is quite interesting too.

[slug]

When I had DD it was DH who, despite earning (slightly) more than me who took on the full time carer job. While from my career perspective it was great, I've gained another degree and diversified during the years he was a SHAD, I also had to factor into the equation the risk of the relationship ending. If that happened I had to accept that, as the main carer it was likely that he would end up with DD spending most of her time with him, he would end up with the property and I would miss out in terms of time with my child and my established home.

Fortunately that didn't happen and he's gone back to work though in a reduced role. He's the one who gets to go to the school plays and recitals while I can rarely manage to get away in time.

[FidelineAndBombazine]

I agree there are loads of women who are delighted to become SAHMs, but there's plenty who have become SAHMs (or gone part time, or taken a less demanding job) because that works best for the family even though it's not their personal ideal.

Can we have that engraved in three foot lettering and hung somewhere prominent?

Please

[squizita]

But also why they choose partners who earn more. The connection between those two things is quite interesting too.

There is a bizarre amount of prejudice out there about this. I can see why many women wouldn't consider it having never had it presented as 'normal'. DH and I met as students/casual work aged about 21.

Since then, I've ended up earning more: the reactions have sometimes be mortifying. From claiming DH is a 'failure' (perfectly good job, I'm just a machine at work LOL ...not really, but I happen to have made management), not a real man, to calling me unromantic and unnatural ("don't you want someone you can look up to?" Erm I want someone who I respect not just for their wallet, there's more to life ), to suggesting he's homosexual, to out and out laughing.

This is from middle-class left wing 'open minded' people at odd moments.

[slug]

Squizitia do you also get comments about your DH being 'under your thumb'? Because choosing to be the lower earner is obviously not something a 'real' man would do voluntarily

[BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure]

"I just find it odd that anyone would actively prefer to dump their kids at a nursery so they can spend 8 hours sitting at a computer. There always seems a presumption in this discussion that work's a privilege while being a housewife is the essence of martyrdom."

If you're referencing Xenia with this, she certainly adopts a view at the far end of the spectrum.

Your use of "dump" puts you at the other end of that spectrum.

[BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure]

"But also why they choose partners who earn more. The connection between those two things is quite interesting too."

The mean age gap at first marriage has been decreasing over time and is now around 1.9 years.

However, your 20s when most people are pre kids is probably the time of sharpest rises in salary for "career" jobs as people do a few years here, move for a better offer, complete training, are free to travel etc.

Women start thinking probably a year before TTC whether to stick where they are and start or make one last move and delay a year or so. Men don't.

So even a small age gap and the above perception gap can lead to a couple working at the same salary when they started out being different enough at the po

[BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure]

...point of maternity leave to influence the decision about who goes part time.

[minipie]

Yes BillandTeds I think there are a lot of subtle factors at play as to why women (in general) earn less.

One factor in my case was that I spent a year unsuccessfully TTCing. In that time I wasn't particularly enjoying work, so wasn't pressing ahead career-wise, but I didn't want to move job as I wanted the maternity pay. If I'd been a man I would have moved jobs. An example of how enhanced maternity rights can in fact (indirectly and admittedly through choice) hold women back.

[PetulaGordino]

interesting bill and mini, and at that age too if you did decide to look around for another job you might find yourself up against some misogynist employers avoiding hiring women who might be looking to start a family and taking maternity leave fairly soon. so your options for moving around may become more restricted by that assumption

i am 28, in a long-term relationship though not married and don't yet have children. i've been told explicitly (in social situations, not professional) by men running businesses that they wouldn't hire me based on my age

[ElizabethMedora]

I think about this a lot. My parents just divorced after 30yrs. When they met & had me my mum was a temporary contract academic & my dad was a doctor. Guess whose career rocketed during the course of their marriage & 3 kids? Fortunately my mum is entitled to half of my dad's generous pension, & there is no way my dad would have made the name for himself that he has if my mum hadn't been there managing the home (she never worked full time again except one year when I was about 8).

I have just resigned my job because it is not financially or logistically viable as a family for me to continue. DH has 3 x my earning potential in the next 3 years & around 4/5 times in the future. However, if we divorce 5 years later I will be 35, kids in tow, a patchy work history & an ex husband who is only where he is because I was at home.

So, yes, I would like to see this sort of situation taken into account in the divorce courts.

[davidjrmum]

"I agree there are loads of women who are delighted to become SAHMs, but there's plenty who have become SAHMs (or gone part time, or taken a less demanding job) because that works best for the family even though it's not their personal ideal. Can we have that engraved in three foot lettering and hung somewhere prominent?"

Of course, provided that we can engrave in the same place that there are plenty of people who have become the major wage earner because that works best for the family even though it's not their personal ideal either.

[minipie]

Elizabeth how come your mum is entitled to half your dad's pension? Was that something the court awarded or was it agreed?

However, if we divorce 5 years later I will be 35, kids in tow, a patchy work history & an ex husband who is only where he is because I was at home.

exactly

[ElizabethMedora]

They haven't been to court - all agreed amicably. The solicitor did suggest my mum pursued my dad for some of his current earnings as he is still working but my mum felt that wasn't necessary. However I get the impression that was because she is 62 now & can't exactly go out & get a high paid job all of a sudden.

[minipie]

david I am still thinking about your point. It's pretty obvious how to recompense someone who has reluctantly decided, for the good of the family, to work less and reduce their earnings potential (you pay them money). I can't think of a good way to recompense someone who has reluctantly decided, for the good of the family, to work more and see less of their young DC. Any ideas?

Or do you think the appropriate recompense is the greater earnings potential, ie they should not have to make any payment to the childcaring partner?

[Trapper]

The working parent in these situations is also taking a risk. If the relationship ends in divorce they are unlikely to get custody of their children - regardless of blame.

[minipie]

Yes Elizabethe I have heard that spousal maintenance is still occasionally given and it tends to be to women like your DM ie long term SAHMs who are divorced late in life and have no real hope of supporting themselves. However women (or rather spouses) who are younger and can earn are expected to support themselves. There's no recognition of a middle position ie. "yes you can earn but your earnings are much lower due to having been the main childcarer, therefore you should get a top up".

[BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure]

Trapper, indeed. Although that will vary with age of child and if child is old enough to express a view.

All arrangements should be regardless of "blame" anyway.

[minipie]

Trapper that's true. I hadn't really thought about that - probably because I suspect my DH would be perfectly happy not to have custody (he is already used to being a "weekend dad" in many ways).

[ElizabethMedora]

Yes exactly minipie. My situation is slightly different in that we had DC1 when I was 24 & studying for an MA, & DH was 26 & studying graduate medicine. & then it all defaulted from there - his earning potential higher, his career demanding in terms of hours & extremely inflexible in terms of location etc. But his career has continued as if he had not had a child in his mid twenties whereas mine has gone irrevocably off track. I have just resigned from my graduate scheme because it is incompatible with his job... Ho hum.

[PetulaGordino]

i wonder whether something could be built into the financial settlement stuff for "retraining/career development" or something for the sahp? something that would cover refresher courses, tuition fees, apprenticeships, plus the necessary childcare etc that would better enable that parent to get back into the jobs market at a higher level more quickly

obviously it wouldn't completely level the playing field, but it might help?

[SwiftRelease]

Isnt it a double- whammy? The mother's take a hit, the father is enabled to advance in his career with little/any regard for childcare. Obviously there are exceptions but dh &i are like this as are most of those around us. Our marriage is rocky, may well not continue. I suffer the consequences financially of OUR choices- having to move out etc, he doesn't in any appreciable way as high enough earner for child maintenance alone to have little effect.

[Trapper]

Mind you, the children won't be at home for ever, whereas the loss of earning potential will be long term. I was thinking of my position with a 2 and 3yo. But the SAHP of an 18 yo would be very much the worse off.

[BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure]

One of the problems is that if the main earner is paying maintenance and running a new flat/house, there may not be much extra money for extra settlement.

[BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure]

Good point trapper.