I can't ever imagine returning to work. And I'm quite happy with that(390 Posts)
Although I realise that makes me seem quite odd to others
But I actually really like not working and just being able to do whatever I want
I have loved being at home but have always wanted to contribute some way, so work evenings. That way I have no childcare issues, my time with the kids is focused on them (As housework can be done whilst their at school)and I get some time out on my own. At times I feel I should be working more, especially when a big bill arrives but its so hard to balance school holidays etc. I do look back on my past career and uni days with such fondness and miss it often, but I know I'll get back there one day. At the moment I'll work around my kids, as I feel in the scheme of things (ie how long our working life's are - I'm 32 so got a good 30 left) it's nice to be spending my time with my kiddies. They won't be that for long!
wordfactory there were certainly a few posters earlier on in the thread who seemed to say that. I admit I haven't read the whole thread and can see that the tone has changed.
The tone earlier was a bit heated I think.
I had a good career but gave it up after 20 years as really not conducive to happy family life. And my DH felt his career was being limited a bit by mine....always away, busy in evenings etc.
Fine by me. I've had a good go in the workplace and now I'm learning to be the SAHP. Don't feel I've 'stepped down' or anything. Just changed my role.
Financially it's more precarious now but I'm trying to live more in the moment and not stress about the future. Yes something awful might happen. But it might not.
Have got a small pension and a small savings. That will have to do.
Folly- that's great as you're clearly doing what suits your family, and as wordfactory says, no one has said you are 'letting the side down.' Just as long as you recognise that there's more than one way of doing things and its equally possible to be a good mum (or dad) as a WOHP too
This business of it usually being the woman who has the lower-paying, less-enjoyable job so that she doesn't mind - or actively enjoys - packing it in to SAH isn't some natural phenomenon to do with having a womb.
It's the manifestation of a system that was set up for men's benefit at the expense of women. The more women that work in a particular industry or at a particular level, the lower the pay. Because the idea is that domestic work and child-rearing are to be done by women, and money-earning (with the associated privileges ie freedom from domestic work and status as the owner of the household and the woman in it) is for men.
But I still wouldn't say that supermarkets, factories, care homes etc are full of university educated middle class women!
Ha! no neither would i. Perhaps i am from a weird blip. My last job in a call centre everyone under 40 had a degree, everyone over 40 had at least 20 years managerial experience. Yet there we all were working in a miserable job for 21k (being timed for our toilet breaks etc). 2 friends from my class at school both became carers for people with learning difficulties after uni (we are all 37) and are still doing it on NMW (they tell me all their colleagues are the same - perhaps this is because we are from/they work in an affluent area of west london). Another friend did media and now works in admin (again in chiswick) for 19k, all the dept have similar education and are in 30s.
I agree with sgb's points, but there has been progress... Of course there's further to go.
My own parents were, I think, not untypical of their generation. My father did A levels and went to university. My mother (similarly matched intelligence and ability wise) had to fight her own parents to be allowed to stay at school to do A levels. University was out of the question... What did a woman want to do that for, she just needed to work for a few years before marriage and babies. This was in the 1950s so not that long ago. And even if she had won the battle to go to Uni and got herself qualified for a career, she wouldn't have been able to continue it on becoming a mum because there were no nurseries and very few child minders around back then. Childcare happened on an informal unregulated basis.
Nowadays things are different- not perfect by any means- but far more women do gain qualification and entry to careers than ever before. This then increases the likelihood that they have a choice about continuing to work.
I think the next biggest influential factor will be the transferable parental leave after having a child. I really hope it becomes common for couples to use this entitlement, because I think the impact for children, families and wider society will be very positive. It's all about widening choices... If families still opt for a traditional set up that's fine, but hopefully it won't be out of a 'default' position or lack of choice.
It is changing but slowly. I was the WOHP and DH was a SAHD because I have a career and he had a job. I have a good enough income to support the family but I have made sure DH is financially protected e.g. I get life assurance and critical illness as part of my occupational pension. Now that the DC are in school, DH is starting his own business but he is still the one whose time is flexible IYSWIM.
Yes, things are changing. I live in a very wealthy area and it is hugely common here for women to be SAHMs for very long periods.
It's a bit of a bubble and like any bubbles, it starts to have its own logic. Anyone thinking of returning to work is discouraged by the other bubble dwellers, and the DC with two working parents are the subject of scrutiny .
I always managed to evade judgement by working from home and doing the school run etc.
When I did finally start working outside the home (albeit on a part time free lance basis) I found a world full of working women and SAHDs !!!
It is changing and I know a few woman out earning their husbands. Know a few where the husband has been the travelling spouse as well, following his wifes job but it is still rare.
Feel it at the moment because most women I know have gone back to work, especially when the kids are in school, so not as many in my position where I am.
I completely agree that lots of women are better mums because they work. I'm certainly not saying that the only good mum is one that stays at home, far from it.
I know quite a few women who would be bored silly being at home and who thrive on having a career. I think that's great. A happy woman has to be a better mother.
I would say that the ideal scenario is if you are doing what you want to do regardless of finances. I think it's a shame when women can't afford to stay at home because they need the money; equally there are also other women who would love to work but can't, because the money wouldn't pay for the childcare.
That's very true folly.
I'd also add though that its not always an either/ or. Many of us enjoy time at home but also enjoy working. My children were great company especially as they got a little older (toddler stage is a lot more fun than the early weeks of feeding/ nappies/ sleeping ) I don't think I would have been bored as a SAHP... It's just that I enjoyed combining it with part time work
I have some friends who work 3 days a week or so - I think that's a great balance.
I agree. I think i'd be a better mum if i could work 2 days a week. I'd even do it for free (i mean if the childcare and fares cancelled out the wage), but i couldn't justify it at a loss. And sadly those interesting 2 days a week jobs aren't that common round here.
It's interesting to see this discussion turn to class. Of course you're going to see more women with 'careers' given the demographic of MN. Though it would be very wrong to think that women with jobs rather than careers don't ever see them as freedom, a break from the kids, social interaction, identity etc. There are also more people with degrees doing relatively low status work than there ever has been, because of both the economic situation and the increasing percentage of the population who have them.
One thing to consider is that even for wc women doing poorly paid work, they still on the whole have more security than they would if they SAH. In the current climate it's risky for anyone to be out of work unless they have independent income and/or qualifications, experience or other qualities that can neutralise the disadvantage of taking time out if they need to get back in quickly. Which wc women are, if anything, less likely to have. A woman who's doing a few shifts a week for NMW is a woman who has some independent source of income. Meaning that if her partner dies uninsured, or they suddenly separate, or he becomes too ill to work in one of those inconvenient ways that ATOS don't like, she still has some money coming in. Sure, she'd be eligible for top up benefits but those take time to apply for/vary. Being in work also prevents her from being totally at the mercy of whatever sanction or workfare placement the jobcentre dream up that day. The fact is that these days, even traditionally 'low hanging fruit' like supermarket work isn't easy to just walk into. The fact that you aren't on a career ladder as such doesn't mean you don't get security from work.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.