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?

[CrotchMaven]

I think a lot of you are being very charitable. I know very few sahds and very few fathers who would be interested. Their identity is derived from the paid work they do, along with being a family man, as far as it goes in traditional terms. Albeit, being more involved than their fathers were. They are no mugs! I used to say that sahms allowed the father to continue their career. I don't now-sahms allow a man to be a father, with all the "normality" that brings, along with the career they would have followed if they were childless. Except they often do less of their own personal work.

[MontyGlee]

All those guys fulfilling their childhood dreams of being an insurance salesman or senior spreadsheet compiler...

[SwiftRelease]

All those guys with status, money AND kids!

[minipie]

Seriously Monty, if all the main breadwinner fathers out there were offered the option of being the SAHD or main childcarer, while their DW/DP worked full time, how many of them do you really think would take up the option?

I know some would but suspect not that many.

[melissa83]

Its why I picked dh. I want a big family as does he but people like me arent meant to be at home and do the wifey stuff. I leave it to dh more as I like working and Im not really in to all the cooking or that type of thing. We have been able to both work with a couple of children but want 4/5 so dh is looking after them whereas I feel Iget the best of both worlds.

[PetulaGordino]

i don't have children so accept that this may not be valid as an observation, but my impression from posts on here and comments in RL from sahp is that they often feel that it is the wohp who gets more of the "fun" time with the children, whereas they do much more of the daily grind gruntwork of parenting

so there may be arguments to be had about who is missing out on what

[SwiftRelease]

Indeed but they also get hugely pebalised for what were joint decisions re parenting. I for one had no idea that i seemingly have no right to %age share of dh's earnings as recompense for the years I've had out/working p'art-time looking after OUR kids. Genuinely think many other women are similarly clueless, it's not talked about as a risk!

[CrotchMaven]

Monty, you jest. But that is still higher status in their eyes. Or, rather, perhaps in the eyes of their peers.

I do often wonder if mners (not just in fwr) actually know any men or listen to and observe them.

[MontyGlee]

We don't know mimipie. That's my point - we're saying blah blah blah about it when most of the mothers I know feel they want to be mothers first and workers second and don't even give their DH a choice. Meanwhile, I'm sitting here hating work and wishing I had a DH with a big fecking career that would give me the option to give it up. Yes, I accept the obvious point that I'd be a bit screwed if he then buggered off, but, to me, spending all that time with your kids is a huge privilege and people come on here saying it's an appalling chore and we should all feel sorry for the sacrifice they've made. Maybe you all know super-dooper bankers and rock stars or something, but for most people it's work that's the chore.

[AmberTheCat]

I think part of the answer to the broader question is for employers to think less rigidly about working hours and patterns. If more employers were willing to enable their staff to reduce their hours without reducing their status (though obviously they'd take a hit on pay), more families would be able to achieve a better balance of work and childcare for both parents.

[SwiftRelease]

Monty as you freely admit, you're not a parent so i dont feel you can compare the 2 experiences. For me, childcare is a chore, my job often deeply satisfying. I am not alone. I felt duty bound to be there for my kids, like many mums

[PetulaGordino]

but it's socialisation isn't it

we are socialised to value paid work above unpaid work, so paid work in general has a much higher status (unless of course it's a traditional woman's role such as care work)

[minipie]

don't even give their DH a choice that does surprise me - I would have thought the DH would have to agree to support the family financially before the DW could give up work. Surely all these things have to be a joint decision?

I agree this thread only really applies to mothers (or fathers) who have reluctantly had to stop/cut down their work in order to ensure the children are taken care of. It doesn't apply to those who were delighted to become SAHPs and wouldn't have wanted to work anyway. But there are more of the former than you seem to think monty?

You're right that there may be more reluctant WOH dads than we think. Maybe lots of them are just itching to be SAHDs. I know my DH isn't though. He's quite happy with his lot - job he mostly enjoys, no pressure to get home to do pick ups, fun time with DC at the weekends.

[SwiftRelease]

True but mire to the point paid work pays the bills!

[CrotchMaven]

I admit that I live in Middle Class Central, so that's what I base my comments on.

[SwiftRelease]

On the backs of the unpaid/underpaid labour of (mainly) women

[PetulaGordino]

even if they are a happy sahp minipie, if the marriage breaks down they're still in the same position as the reluctant ones

[MontyGlee]

Not sure when I freely admitted that; my DS will be most put out.

[SwiftRelease]

Apologies, mixed you up with Petula!

[CrotchMaven]

And, don't forget, mothers may want to be at home because they pretty much know that their partner would make a half arsed job at being the sahp. And they would still have to do the bulk of the domestic chores and admin.

[CrotchMaven]

They aren't itching - that's why the take up of the new leave rights is so poor. They know which side their bread is buttered.

Am I just in a cynical mood tonight?

[minipie]

petula that's true. I just haven't really thought through what I think is fair in that situation... it does seem a little different from the "reluctant part timer" but I'm not sure whether it should make any practical difference.

[melissa83]

I would stay at home if I had everything done for me. I like playing with the children but I will never be the tyle of mum to cook a roast dinner on my own, or a cake or iron a shirt etc.

I just dont do anything like that so as I work I dont have to and I find it easier. I dont mind cleaning but I cant do other wife type tasks so I get why men wouldnt want to do that type of thing.

[PetulaGordino]

i do know what you mean

[PetulaGordino]

minipie i meant