Do families with an SAHP tradition think it's worth educating their DDs?(57 Posts)
Provocative but semi-serious question prompted by a conversation with the (Neanderthal throwback) DH of a SAHM who sent their DS to private school but not their DDs because - and I quote - 'girls don't need to be well-educated to run a home'. I should add that this is a smart, outwardly normal, Cheshire family.
Why would someone who is vehemently opposed to mothers using childcare or being in paid employment think it was worthwhile educating girls or encouraging them to pursue a challenging career? Feel free to flame.
It's the opposite in my circle. As boys are often going to inherit the farm it's the girls who are sent private and not the boys. Girls are often given a cash lump sum or some other property instead if the farm business but some older generation farmers still think the girls need to fend for themselves.
Don't educate purely for a career - I think that would be a sad state of affairs. It's also to ensure a rich and varied cultural life.
freerange Have you told Gove that
Education opens horizons and brings opportunities. It's denied to so many people around the world especially women.
In an NGO in India a strong principle was 'educate the woman, educate a family'. Because the woman is traditionally at home, education, or knowledge, comes from her first and is very influential.
I am a sahm atm and just got my doctorate. I love that I have my own knowledge and have been taught to think, but also am a role model to my two boys. I help them think for themselves and consider things far more than their working dad does. Value of a person goes beyond the protestant work ethic.
That man you speak of is clearly sexist as hell and am deeply saddened for his daughters. Either they will.grow up as doormats or full.of resentment to him. What a twat.
My mother knew a family like you describe. The girl went to state schools and the two boys were sent to private schools. Ironically the state eduated girl ended up at Oxford and did better than her brothers.
Many people with old fashioned views like your friend want their daughters to do well at school so that they can attend a good university and meet a wealthy husband. (They realise that the SAHM lifestyle requires a wealthy husband to fund it!)
I went to a private school with a friend whose brother was sent to Eton, but the girl just went to the local private girls day school. The girl now has a very sucessful career as a top nurse and has never married or had children.
My mum was a sahm when I was under 5, I will be a sahm until my youngest starts school, dh's mum has been a sahm since we eldest was born 38 years ago!
I went to a great Uni despite having a sahm and would certainly expect no less from my daughter than my son in their education ie that they work hard, try their best and finds a career that pays the bills.
I know that god forbid were anything to happen and dh be unable to support us I could go and get a job / career because I have good qualifications.
How will their girls find rich husbands if not by going to university?
I'm more worried that you think his daughters will be less "educated" if they go to a state school - education is NOT just about schooling...
I am a SAHM. My daughters may not make the same choice, but more importantly, even if they did, an education is still vital - it opens up new horizons and ways of thinking, and benefits the mother and the whole family. The idea that raising children is unskilled work is IMO pretty damaging for society as a whole. That goes for childcare too - it would be better if very young children were cared for by educated people.
Also, most SAHM's aren't at home forever. I will almost certainly go back to work at some point.
Well I would hope that is a minority view! I certainly don't know anyone who feels like that thankfully.
I'm a SAHM and I would certainly place any DDs education on a level with DSs - gender wouldn't come into it for DH or I.
I am degree educated, had a great job before DCs and I would hope to go back to work when I feel the time is right for my family. Being a SAHM is a period of my life, it doesn't change who I was or will be in the future or define me.
That father is being stupid and short-sighted. These days we don't educate people for a single career for life. The value of education in my opinion is in learning to learn. Once you have the skills to learn you can continually learn, take on cpd, re-learn, re-train, change career... if anything, the ability to re-train and learn new skills confidently is MORE important for anyobdy who will for any reason take some time out of the workplace.
" were anything to happen and dh be unable to support us I could go and get a job / career because I have good qualifications"
Really though? After a decade or so out of the workplace and with little/no experience (am talking in general rather than you specifically) can you just walk into a family supporting career on the basis of old qualifications?
Oh and incidentally I went to a state school that was the bottom of the league tables, I still went to one of the best universities in the country and one of the leading departments for my subject in the world.
But not every sahm is opposed to mothers using childcare or being in paid employment.
I think your question is to the very small number of women who see being a sahm as a calling, a sort of moral imperative. They are as rare in my life as the cliche feminist who hates men.
Most sahms I know, including me, see being at home as a pragmatic choice created by specific circumstances. That sometimes include a particular emotional response to motherhood.
I was an associate Director in a major city firm running a department of thirty staff in three locations for over 16 years before I became a sahm. Why would I want my daughter not to have a career ? She is 10 and already talks about her future life and it is just like her brothers was - going to uni, studying art and doing sport and then a career. As long as the Oscars feature along with an Olympic gold medal she wants to fit something great in. At the moment being an English teacher or writing books.
I also encourage my DD to see education as having a value beyond employment - a priviledge (and hopefully a joy) in its own right.
I think educating girls is important because if they want to and can stay at home to raise their children then they are providing a more educated environment.
I find it odd that you think state education is not really education at all?
Many people send their boys away to board but not their girls. I think that's more about attitudes to sexuality (ie they want to keep a firm eye on there girls but their boys can go a bit wild ).
I think most people do what they think is right for that particular child rather than have blanket policies.
SPB - thanks for that!
Seriously though, I'd like to think so - I do have experience from the short time between graduating and having ds but tbh my plan is to retrain with a postgrad which I couldn't do if I didn't have a degree in the first place. My degree is a MA Hons and once dd starts nursery (15 free hours) I will be getting some voluntary experience in a relevant field for a couple of years until she starts school.
But most SAHPs will work for 5-10 years before even getting married, let alone having kids (average age of marriage is 29 for women 31 for men, I think) which is the time in your work life when education matters most (vs experience)
I am really shocked that your friend has said this out loud. Way to give a bad message to his DD. I assume the corollary is he expects his DS to have a SAHW.
I think your thread title is worded incorrectly in that I think it is wrong to assume that families with a SAHM are 'vehemently opposed to mothers being using childcare or being in paid employment'. Your 'neanderthal throwback' doesn't bear any resemblance to the mothers and fathers I know where one parent stays at home.
I am currently at home hopefully until my children have all started school. I have a degree and postgraduate qualifications, 14 years' corporate experience and am fully expecting to be able to resume my career - though I am prepared to study further should I need to to update my qualifications when I go back.
I think education is hugely important for everybody, and AFAIK one of the main indicators of children's future 'success' is the level of education attained by the mother - I believe this is ranked more highly than family income.
I am a university educated SAHM and have no plans to find work outside the home in the future. I feel this is where I was meant to be, but I suspect a large part of my contentment comes from knowing I could have chosen other paths.
I was a SAHM. Worked for ten years previously and it was largely that work which enabled us to have enough financial security so that I could stay home. I now work part-time and have all afternoons and holidays with my children. When they are a bit older (12 - 15), I intend to retrain and enter the workplace more earnestly - am making gentle steps toward this now.
While being at home they have had me around to help with homework, friendship, clubs, etc. I have also put hours and hours of unpaid labour into their schools - often in the classroom, where many of my workplace and university skills have been used.
The Neanderthal doesn't voice the beliefs of current SAHPs any more than a SAHM tradition means vehement opposition to childcare.
It was a well renumerated career that allowed me to stop working when I had children and the education that made this an option helped when I retrained too. Now I have two potential careers I could follow and am employable in either. I would worry a bit for a daughter who didn't have this independence although I would view all my children's education as important.
Am not overly surprised to hear their are some bizarre views out there though. Actually an old neighbour was the same but agreeably his son dropped out choosing an alternative life style whilst the daughter excelled more traditionally.
Bea - sorry - I realised as I was writing it that I was making a lot of assumptions about you that weren't necessarily the case but was asking in a more general sense. Interesting that you are doing further training, which of course wouldn't be an option without your original qualifications. However I do think that anyone relying on qualifications and even experience from more than maybe 5 years ago to allow them to easily get a job at a level to allow them to support a family from the off is on shaky ground. I'm sure there are exceptions relating to demand, nursing and health visiting spring to mind. But my qualifications would lead to a low paid job without experience, and "old" experience would not get very far as things are constantly changing.
However on the wider point I have no doubt there are families out there who don't bother sending their daughters to university, or if they do it's so they can snag a future doctor bleurhh. However, education is more than trainjng for work and at least these women are going to university. at which point, presumably these bright educated young people can decide whether to fall in line or use their education for a career of their own. They do have the choice, however dodgy the original motivations. Families who educate their sons over their daughters are in a different league.
"were anything to happen and dh be unable to support us "
But isn't that saying that you regard the earning potential resulting from your education as a kind of fall-back incase relying on a man doesn't work out? Isn't that the wrong way around? My personal view is that women should be as independent as possible & not make themselves reliant on men unless it can't be avoided. Certainly not plan to be reliant...
And the point about the state education vs private is not that I think it's better or worse but that the man in question clearly thought spending money on a girl's education was a waste. If education wasn't compulsory and it all cost money I got the impression he'd have been quite happy for the girls to stay home learning how to cook or something.
Join the discussion
Please login first.