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?

[SwiftRelease]

Completely take the point about financial context, earnings, assets etc (not sure about class quite though!). Guess it's a case of "check your priviledge" so yes, in my case i am a masters-educated professional with reasonable earning power with a fairly high earning spouse BUT as a woman and a sahm for several years I still have a disadvantage if we divorce. My assets earned off my own graft were considerably more than his when we married, these have all been earadicated absorbed in a series of ill-chosen moves. Yes, our doing but i no longer have access to what i had. Our assets divides are still less than i originally brought! In our case, all "our" potential is in dh's income

[SwiftRelease]

Privilege, whoops and sorry for other typos.

[BranchingOut]

Do take on board the point about privilege, but a postgraduate-educated woman working for a low wage (TA?) because it is the only thing that will fit in with her family's needs is still a woman on a low wage. The route there is different, but she has still ended up in the same place.

I had been paid £50k before maternity leave but I was still shocked at the limited options and poor rates of pay available to me once I no longer wished to work 60 hours plus per week in my 'full time' role.

[SwiftRelease]

Exactly. I also was on nearly £50k 10 years ago. Now earn 50% of half that. Ie a decade on, I have 1/4 of the independent means i had to support self and kids, not even allowing for inflation.
I know many women in similar circs. Maybe i was naive but pre-kids, i think most people are so clueless about the reality of having kids that it would be a very rare thing to have a meaningful conversation which sets in stone who would do what re future childcare. Plus life happens! Many prople move for schools/larger houses which limits job options/lengthens commutes. How can all this be foreseen?

[Dozer]

Employers / clients that demand or have a culture of very long hours make it difficult for anyone not able or willing to do the slog to get or continue in some jobs. People with children, people with health conditions, caring responsibilities.

I live in wealthy commuterville, lots of (well paid) men have these kind of jobs, as did their wives pre-DC. It is always, always the women who after DC do paid work PT or not at all. I only know of one man who has taken a big career "hit" (his wife was/is a high earner).

Would be interesting if large organisations published their diversity profiles, including the proportion of male/female people at each level with DC.

[weatherall]

Mini pie- what do the women in your dh's job do when they have DCs?

I don't buy this 'he'd have to quit his job'. Really?

If you died would he quit work or get a nanny?

[minipie]

weatherall there are pretty much no women in my DH's job who have children. In fact there are very few women altogether - a few join but they tend to leave by their late 20s. The rare exceptions who stay on either don't have children, or have SAH husbands.

If I died... I don't know. I think he'd probably have to quit his job yes. I guess he might be able to make it work with a live in nanny, who was willing to put DD to bed every night so he could work late. I don't know if he'd choose that for DD though (I slightly hope not). If not then he'd have to quit. There genuinely is no "not working late" option. He is paid a ridiculous amount and so there are plenty of people willing to work those hours. If he said "I need to leave by 6 every day" they'd say "we'll find someone else".

[weatherall]

I know it's not your/dp's fault but surely that kind of employer attitude breaks sex discrimination legislation?

Is it in the contract that employees have to be available 24/7?

We aren't going to get wider equality until these kind if contracts are banned.

[minipie]

weatherall it's not in the contract but it's expected (not quite 24/7 but pretty much).

I don't see why it breaks sex discrimination laws. The same rules apply to men as to women. There are just fewer women willing to do it (which is partly because there are fewer men willing to be the main childcarer). If you say long hours discriminate against women, aren't you effectively saying that women are always going to be the main childcarer?

If these kinds of hours were banned in the UK, the whole industry would simply move to New York or Geneva or somewhere with fewer rules. A lot of jobs in the City are based on very long hours and the City is what drives a huge part of the UK economy. Effectively you'd be destroying a large part of the UK economy.

Plus, there are loads of other jobs which have un family friendly hours. Paramedic. Soldier. Actor. Waiter. Event manager. You can't simply ban any job that has un family friendly hours.

I think the solution is not to ban long hours but is two fold.

One, try to ensure that jobs are only long/unsociable hours if they absolutely need to be. No presenteeism or face time. No going out for long lunches and then working in the evening.

Two, put in place measures to ensure that men are just as willing and keen as women to take on the main childcarer role (or at the very least, to do 50%). Which would involve a whole heap of changes, from a compulsory period of "sole charge" paternity leave, to more washing powder ads aimed at dads rather than mums.

[BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure]

Yy mini pie.

[AmberTheCat]

I agree, Sillylass. When we had children my dp and I both reduced our hours to 28 hours a week contracts. We've had various configurations of what those hours means in terms of working patterns (initially 4 full days each, now more flexible to better work around school hours), but we've stuck to those basic hours for 10 years now.

This is an arrangement that works really well for our family. We've both been able to pursue interesting careers, we have two decent salaries coming in, one of us can usually do school drop-offs and pick-ups every day, we both get to spend decent amounts of times with the kids, and they see both of us working hard at jobs we enjoy, but also valuing the time we spend with them.

I realise we're very lucky, in all sorts of ways, but I also think as a society we need to challenge outdated assumptions about work. I don't believe that jobs all magically come in 35/40/60 (delete according to workplace culture) hour sized packages, and I think both employees and employers need to start being more open and creative about how we enable people to contribute effectively in the workplace and lead fulfilling home lives.

[ElizabethMedora]

I would love the arrangement you have, Amber.

When DH (who works 50hr+ weeks with variable shifts) applied for part time working, he was offered 30 hrs a week plus all on calls equivalent to being full time

[minipie]

That sounds wonderful Amber. may I ask what you do? is it public sector?

[AmberTheCat]

I know - it's pretty good. I sometimes feel a bit smug posting about it, but I hope it's helpful to share examples of people finding alternatives to more traditional work/family models.

Dp and I both work in the private sector - me for a very large publishing company, dp for a very small IT consultancy firm. There's a fairly established pattern of people working non-standard hours and patterns at my company; at dp's I think he was the first person to request part time working.

[BillnTedsMostFeministAdventure]

DH and I do similar, Amber, also both in private sector.

I know there are firms within my sector, and roles within his company, where this would not be accepted, though.

[Anonynonny]

But part of the reason for the failure of imagination, is because people don't want to imagine it IYSWIM.

It's just much easier to hide behind the "'Swimmin's choices innit" story, than to examine men's choices and to actually sit down and really think carefully about how you could organise your workplace and your working patterns so that they fit better for everyone who ever wants any life outside work.

[scottishmummy]

If you chose to put yourself in a disadvantageous position,its a risk.be aware of the implication
No i dont think the waged partner should compensate or have to formally agree financial structure
Its a private choice between couples i don't see need fir a formal arrangement for the waged adult to pay the other adult for chores/childcare.in fact it would be formal commodification of personal relationship,with the salaried individual holding the upper hand(which they already do)

[Anonynonny]

That's the same argument for not bothering to get married. People's private arrangements are their own business, no need for church, state etc. to be involved.

But that's not the world we live in.

[Anonynonny]

And actually every woman who ever has a child, puts herself in a disadvantageous position.

[scottishmummy]

Not necessarily,but yes if you give up work.bit thats true whether yiu have child or not

[scottishmummy]

Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 came into force in may 2006,giving couples who live together and separate in Scotland the ability to ask the court to order lump sum payments to compensate for financial disadvantages suffered after the break-up. An applicant can ask court to consider assets eg monies/property accrued during the period of cohabitation as joint assets

There is no such provision in england

[Anonynonny]

No even if you don't give up work.

Mothers are seen as less committed, they are instantly less marketable than non-mothers. They earn less and that's not just if they go part time