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?

[MontyGlee]

Yeah, cos men are socialised to be crap at laundry. Ammay right?

[slightlyglitterstained]

I wonder why I rarely hear of high earning men putting money into their SAH wives' pensions. Strikes me that this is in many ways a better safeguard for a potential widow than other options.

I suppose it removes control from the man, in the case of divorce, but surely if they feel they should be able to "claw back" money in the case of divorce, then they fundamentally haven't accepted that their income is no longer theirs alone but "family" income.

How many men's financial decisions are based on the assumption that their earnings are actually theirs, rather than their families?

[CrotchMaven]

I'm only speaking of what I see and hear.

I admit to being cynical. Anyone else have an explanation of the poor take up of parental leave by men? It's certainly not because of financial impact round here, unless you count a bit less being spent on 2nd home renovation or a few less evenings out at charity balls.

[CrotchMaven]

How many men's financial decisions are based on the assumption that their earnings are actually theirs, rather than their families?

Oh, a fellow cynic. I say quite a few. They see a temporary cost for delivery of family, then increasing pressure for the wife to earn their keep. In a job that befits their career, of course. And that allows for theirs not to be disrupted.

[PetulaGordino]

when the change to parental leave was announced a couple (?) of years ago, so that mothers and fathers would be able to split the leave between them if they wanted, there was a comment from a poster that has stuck in my mind:

"great, so now we'll BOTH be able to screw over our careers!"

[CrotchMaven]

m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22924708

Yeah, screw them both up. There's a little part of me that says "yeah, that's the point".

[AskBasil]

I think if most men wanted to be SAHP's, they would have lobbied for those rights an won them by now.

Men as a group have far more power than women do. If they really wanted proper paternity rights (and obligations) they'd have them.

Also I think you'd see men in positions of power change their workplaces.

They haven't done so. Because they don't want to.

[CaptChaos]

Agree with Basil.

If it was the case that more men wanted to stay at home with their children, they would. Men have far more choice when it comes to life decisions anyway.

Threads on here and ignorant comments from people about the subject all show that employers are wary of employing young women of child bearing age, that some women support their husbands in their discrimination against these young women and that they crucially don't feel like this toward young men of the same age.

If men wanted it, they would have it by now, they don't have it, so they don't want it. It is men in positions of power, not women, remember.

[BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure]

"Yeah, screw them both up. There's a little part of me that says "yeah, that's the point".

Get that on a tshirt.

DH and I have both cut back our careers to an extent by the choices we made post kids. Luckily we could afford to and both want to.

[RobinEllacott]

Part of the difficulty is the extraordinary demands "career" type jobs make on people, which I think needs to be tackled for the good of society as a whole, not just for parents and children. My contract says 35 hours a week: I work 60. My boss probably does 70. His children are grown up and my DH is a SAHD, but it's not good for either of us - our physical and mental health, our marriages and in my case my DD. But DH and I couldn't both do jobs like mine unless we used a nanny and a nursery, and although I'm decently paid the money isn't in that league. Part time absolutely not an option for me: I wring all the flexibility I can out of the job, but it's not that much. DH's employer was totally inflexible, and he earned less than me and is older so the decision was obvious - luckily for me I don't think he minds too much.

I don't think it's healthy for children to see one parent working crazy hours and the other entirely focused on them. It would be much better if the example we could set to DD was both of us working and earning, but also being around for her, sharing the domestic work and having lives outside work. I'm too shattered to do much outside work, and DH can't go anywhere without getting a babysitter (because once you add in commuting time I'm out of the house for 13 hours a day, every day).

So basically, what BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure said. Screw them both up. Then we might start to see some real change.

[MontyGlee]

Men won't ask for directions or go to the doctor when their leg's hanging off, but you expect them to ask for paternity rights?

File under 'making shit up'.

[AskBasil]

Well they managed to get enough energy to get themselves legally declared women on the basis of their feelings.

And the right to abolish alimony and the right to have maintenance set at poverty levels and not linked to contact so that they could commit financial abuse without it being seen as an indicator of their fitness as parents.

They fight for the rights they want to, don't they?

[CrotchMaven]

I'm not sure how to take you, Monty.

[MontyGlee]

I just have a strong aversion to bullshit. We come up with all these things that society isn't supposed to say or do and then do it ourselves. There's no consistency. We moan about privilege and entitlement and yet have an academic elite that consider themselves above challenge or accountability and sneer at newcomers and juniors like in an Enid Blyton sixth form. It's a joke.

[PetulaGordino]

Who exactly is bullshitting monty? People in general? Feminists in general? Feminists who post on MN specifically?

[bigmouthstrikesagain]

What I find interesting about this entire issue and this discussion is the class aspect, there are entire communities where the relative earning potential of either person in a relationship is a moot point. In areas of social and economic deprivation in a family - the woman may well bring in more income and control the outgoings. They is little stability and if a relationship breaks down the partner who leaves may well be worse off in terms of housing and eligibility for benefits than the partner who retains custody of the children.

The issue of articulate, well educated MC women not reaching their full earning potential just doesn't fire me up the way that poverty, deprivation and low expectations in entire communities does - which probably why I will always identify as a socialist before I do as a feminist, though they are both important to my interpretation of the world.

sorry to butt in and meander off topic - I am tired and have spent my entire evening detoxing my laptop - bad mood post - probably a vv bad idea.

[MontyGlee]

I suppose, actually, people in general. We all talk out of our backsides, but I suppose the issue is how much people acknowledge it; the more committed someone is to something, the more they seem to convince themselves that they are immune from distorting things to suit themselves. Big fish small ponds too... And whilst I'm at it, yes, it annoys me that the privileges of respective genders are talked about ad nauseam with barely a nod to the issue of money, which has far more of a bearing. People waffling on about their six-figure salaries and calling themselves victims of the system.

[captainproton]

I strongly believe that before you get married you should have the, 'do we want kids,' talk. I also believe that you should have the, 'who is going to be the main carer,' chat.

I've been engaged 3 times and married DH because he was happy to take 6 months paternity leave, change his role to family friendly hours, and we do 50pct of the childcare between us.

My ex partners had me pigeon-holed as mummy/wifey at home and that is just not me.

To be fair my father was the parent who I remember being there for me the most owing to my mum being an alcoholic so I always knew that children can form equally and if not stronger bonds with their fathers.

I am DH'S second wife, his first gave up her city job to be sahm and then a teaching assistant. She ran off with a co-worker, she kept the house, car, and children because she was the main carer. DH ended up on his brother's sofa bed for 2 years fighting for a decent settlement and contact schedule.

I think MN needs to stop generalising that it's the poor SAHM who always get abandoned by their toe-rag city boy husbands.

Anyway DH has no contact with the step-children he provided for for 11 years and eow contact with his son.

It's precisely because of this that he wanted to be active in raising our children. If we split up we would raise the children 50/50 because that is what they are used to.

DH is also 15 yrs older than me and it didn't take a genius to realise that I've got a greater career potential than him. He's passed the mid-way point now and on the descent towards the path to retirement.

So if you want a bloke to be hands on dad and not the sort to put career at the top of their priorities, because you both can't do it, then stop searching for the alpha male our mothers and grandmothers sort out and cast your glances at mr average job.

You really can't keep blaming men for everything, you are either an alpha personality (a born leader and career hungry) or you are not. I just can't see how a marriage between 2 alpha types, with children and for them to decide one parent MUST stay at home/ career sacrifice for the kids is going to work. Your only option is to get a nanny and ignore any guilt you may have at not being there for your kids.

[RobinEllacott]

bigmouth, class is important, you're right. Though I don't think MC women are less likely to be financially abused by partners than working class women.

As it happens, I was thinking last night after I'd gone to bed that my post was very MC-centric. But the long hours issue is an issue for almost all parents, just for different reasons - if you're on NMW you can't earn enough to live on in 35 hours a week, unless you live in a very cheap area, so you end up taking a second job and don't see enough of the children.

captainproton, there are plenty of people who want to work and value their jobs, but aren't "career hungry", whatever that means. I love my work, I wouldn't want to be the SAHP. I have no guilt about working. It doesn't mean I want to work 60 hours a week or that I'm focused on zooming up the ladder. I want interesting work, decent pay and the chance to get home for bedtime some days of the week. I think lots of parents, male and female, want that.

[captainproton]

I mean by career hungry, that you have a thirst to work. It doesn't matter in what capacity but you do. I read a thread on here about a woman who was starting to resent her husband because he wouldn't push himself into another role so she could work part-time with the children. She obviously is not wanting to work full-time for her sanity. Me on the other hand, I have to. I would feel suffocated otherwise.

Don't underestimate that a lot of men actually find it an awful pressure to be expected to go out and earn the money so his wife can look after the kids. Certainly my DH had that with his ex, and when she gave up work because she wanted to be nearer the kids they got themselves in a bit of debt. And I am sure that is when the rot set in. He resented her for making him sole earner and she resented him for not earning enough so she had to go back to work.

I remember my mother doing the same when she had to work when my dad became redundant. She never forgave him for it, like he had any choice.

Some people are happy not working at their full potential to look after their children, some people are happy in their jobs which may not be high flying but let them have some kind of work/life balance. Others want to push themselves up the ladder. Quite a lot though have no choice. But if you have the choice, then really you should be true to yourself and think about this long before you start having children. A little bit of forward thinking will save a lot of heartache.

Raising families and being married is full of hard work and compromises as well as good times and love. But you need to know which compromises you are both willing to do before you embark on the venture.

I really don't think either that once a marriage ends in divorce either party ends up better off than when they were married. Not unless one party has hid millions or is extremely well off, which is not many people. You think scraping by when married is hard, try putting a roof over your head when supporting your children. That goes for men and women. Especially if you have a mesher order on the former matrimonial home. Divorce is not a bed of roses for either party, and not all divorces happen because one person has been unfaithful. Sometimes it's a both-to-blame situation. I don't want to drag feckless fathers into this either because most men would not want to see their children go without.

Personally I feel people don't communicate enough. We should also educate our sons and daughters that being the breadwinner or caring for children is not anything to do with your gender. And hopefully these internal assumptions will die out and our children will not feel under pressure to be or do something they don't feel comfortable with.

[PetulaGordino]

i do agree bigmouth that it's important to remember the privileges that come with education, class, race etc

but my understanding is that if those things are taken into account, in general it will be the women of that group who are the more vulnerable

[BranchingOut]

I think the situation is very tough for SAHM women divorcing later in life - children are grown up so no CM, no pension, sketchy work history...their chances of getting a mortgage are slim to nil, but will half of the family home buy a place outright?

Yet when they were young parents all the cultural, societal and structural forces were pushing them towards being a SAHM. Even the availability of childcare was vastly different.

[AskBasil]

Reminds me of the pasting Naomi Campbell got when she pointed out that there is racism in the fashion industry.

Everyone was up in arms about a rich, privileged woman complaining about racism.

But she's right - the fact that she's richer and more privileged than most people in the world, doesn't alter the fact that she is less privileged than her white model peers simply because of her skin colour.

Just because you are in a privileged position vis a vis most people, doesn't mean the systemic disadvantage which affects you can be dismissed.

An even more interesting example of this is Obama. I am certain that one of the reasons his political enemies have blocked and undermined his electoral mandate on an unprecedented scale, is because they don't believe a black man really has the right to be president - they don't have the same respect for him in that role, that they would have for a white man. If Hilary Clinton ever becomes president, I think she'll suffer the same lack of respect for her because of her sex. Even the most powerful people in the world can be seriously affected by systemic disadvantage and it's just not good enough to dismiss that systemic racism/ sexism etc. because they're doing OK in one area. It's no more valid than pretending that because white people aren't subjected to racism, it doesn't matter that they're subjected to systemic class disadvantage. And tbh, it's a bit stupid.

[dreamingbohemian]

bigmouth I agree the class aspect is important, not a bad idea to post at all.

I grew up in a working class family, as an adult have always been low income, and so I admit I can't really relate to the whole 'gilded cage' syndrome, or when people with healthy family incomes talk about not having options. I'm not saying their feelings aren't valid, just that for me, it's literally incomprehensible.

But, I still think their problems can be very real. The way I conceptualise it is to think of a spectrum of disadvantage. A wealthy white woman might be at the more privileged end of the spectrum, with the ability to insulate herself from some aspects of sexism -- but she can never get off the spectrum completely.

Or as Basil pointed out, Obama can be at the most privileged end of his spectrum -- but there are still people doing monkey chants on the White House lawn. Unbelievable as it is, he cannot completely escape the spectrum either.

[minipie]

bigmouth I agree, my own situation is a very first world/high earner problem.

However, I think the wider point, about the primary childcarer being financially disadvantaged after a split, applies to parents with very little money too. In that situation the lower earner (usually the mother) often doesn't work after DC because she wouldn't earn enough to cover childcare. Breadwinner parent (usually father) carries on working, keeping his earning potential going. If they split, she is screwed on divorce (or far far more screwed if unmarried) because she's not worked for X years and isn't in a good position to earn anything. But there is no obligation for her ex to support her in any way - not even for her to retrain as suggested above.