Bored by full-time motherhood

a lot of sahm is facilitated by a male wage.does that make partner wage slave?having to maintain a sahm and children.with little chance of packing in work unless the sahm returns and earns. so the sahm is inextricably dependent upon capitalism too.

acquisition of items isn't necessarily blind pursuit.it can be conscious choice.and that choice can be positive driven force.not all people are wage slaves it is possible to be vocationally and mentally stimulated and get a salary too

is too reductionist to assume wages and consumer durable = wage slave
or minimalist spending,less consumer spending = worthy and happy

Must say good debate though! Stimulating for us bored sahms

But everyone here in the UK has a choice, really.
I have been about as poor as it's possible to be in this country, and it's not exactly fun, but no-one starves.
I did choose that, at the time, because I am well practiced at living on nowt, and I money was less important to me than time.
It's different in the US (where i have also lived) as that is a truly capitalist society.

I think Xenia is presenting a very either/or debate so that is why I challenged her.

Socioeconomic circumstances dictate health and life expectency yes. But beyond a certain point wealth and posessions can be meaningless.

Nothing is black and white. For some the workplace and wealth provide meaning for others the workplace means food on the table and a roof over their head. Some couldn't stay at home all day with small children others thrive on it

Each to their own yes. But I still maintain that the emptiness a lot have felt at times derives from blind pursuit of western ideals without really stopping to think what it means.

x posts. the rub is choice.youre happy with your choice
its trickier when no choice,and people are unhappy and compelled
of course capitalism impinges- we live in a capitalist society. there are alternatives and tweeks one can make, but essentially if live in uk we live under capitalism

youre being a bitty precious and finding offence v easily
its straightforward common sense- if a sahm does the majority of the childcare and housewifery she has undertaken an allocation, demarcation of said roles in her relationship

now,read carefully,this individual act initself doesn't automatically make childcare womens work,but it doesn't also doesnt dispel that it isnt it either

now here is the rub couples individually decide how they will divvy up responsibilities etc. and for many of it varies. as any mn thread will tell you.depends upon us and depends upon our partners how it pans out

back to the original op, well she need to plan her re-entry tp workplace imo.given money isn't biggie she is v lucky and can stsrt lower salary and get foot in door again

scottishmummy, i do take your point re money, lifestyle and morbidity rates. i'm not disputing that. i think though that very quickly the pursuit of money, material possessions etc can all too easily cross over into being an empty pursuit, done for its own sake. that's what the capitalist machine requires of us, and it's immensely powerful.
maybe i'm weird...but we're brassic, and i'm all right with that. obviously i wouldn't choose it, but it seems like a small price to pay.

sorry - stupid phone wouldn't let me preview my post. i meant to make the point that ff'ing does NOT mean you've been misled by advertsing etc; that you may in fact have made a well-thought-out choice.
scottishmummy, i find your assertion that if a woman does the majority if the childcare, then she has made it woman's work, somewhat offensive. i made the decision to be at home based not on any feminist ideal, but on what i believe to be best for my small children. but that doesn't mean i'm not interested in the aims of feminism.

I don't get this debate at all. Why is it always presented as "either or"?
The majority of women I know with young kids work part time, in careers they were working in full time pre-kids.
Or, lets be honest "jobs" not " careers".
Not all of us have these really high flying careers where it matters sooo much if we take a couple of years off when our children are small.

My one friend who works FT has her own business (like xenia) and is based near her home, which makes it a lot easier than having children and working full time for a boss.
Also, her dh is a teacher, and so covers holidays etc.

For myself, I have been a student and worked part time, which seemed to be the best balance.
I would hate to only see my son for two hours a day max, and he would miss me like crazy.

They say its "quality time" that counts, well, I am not so sure.
I think, actually, it's just being around a bit.
Not even necessarily doing stuff with them, crafts and whatnot, but simply being nearby so they can chat to you, ask you things, potter about.
I wouldn't have missed that part of my son's life, but at the same time I wouldn't have wanted to be home ALL the time.

We don't have to get macho about it, and all this talk about earning shed loads of cash to be your own woman etc etc is a bit daft as far as the majority of people who just rub along are concerned.

I don't see it as some competition whereby if you take on the majority of childcare you lose, or you have been had in some way.
Like I said, I would hate to have missed out on it.

Also, there is nothing to say you can't work less, work part time, or not at all for a few years and then later pick up your career (job!) again later, or start your own business.

Our lives are not set in stone and are constantly shifting and changing according to what we need at the time.

If you, OP are bored being a sahm, the choice doesn't have to be between the power suited 40 + hour week and playdough.
Find a compromise, that's what life is about imo.

but inanna the money made and lifestyle lived determines ones health outcomes and morbidity.and so ones death bed.the manual labourer will die earlier and in a different deathbed to the banker. salary and placed lived determine health inequalities. isnt just money its much more

take glasgow, in diff parts of the city residents have completely different socio-economic and health outcomes. so the age and way one arrives at the so called deathbed is determined by class,salary,and lifestyle.so given your hypotheses maybe some would ponder life unfair,to be here at this age

and the "glasgow effect" is fascinating health reading if anyone interested

Well no I don't think childrearing should be just women's work

I believe it should be shared bewteen both parents, extended family and the wider community

But the irony of your assertions Xenia is that it is your very capitalist ideals that have led to childcare being predominantly the woman's realm

Increasing expectations of material wealth have led to an inbalance between the sexes and longer working hours for all. Men work away from home longer, women move away from extended family to gain more earning power. Nothing wrong with that but you can't have it both ways.

Capitalism and western ideals were largely created by men, who sought to use the inbalance of power to get ahead in that particular game. It will not empower women in the long run to be a slave to it. Why not embrace other ideals? Nurturing, working in harmony with nature and community. Why not make childrearing the centre of community instead of viewing it as this domestic drudge to moan about all the time? The less we seek to posess the more time there will be for men and women to share parenting

but if sahm does majority of childcare,she has made it womens work.whether or not that was a conscious ideological decision,well thats for her and dp to discuss.realistically though, if the woman is sahp then the role and remit is majority hers then that has become the womans role.

im more contesting the its only money,cant one downsize and eke out an existence. it is oft touted on mn as the solution.it isnt that easy

but essentially we all adapt and do what we feel is right for our families

and as thread attests for some sahm is wonderful, for some not so

Just watching the Sopranos for the second time and this theme is covered beautifully.

I very balanced post scottishmummy and I agree with your points

But don't you think we do live in an image obsessed culture, where the accrual of possessions and beauty has for a lot of people brought anxiety with life?

I am not talking about paying the mortgage and feeding your kids. I like little luxuries too and I think any extreme thinking is 'woo hoo'. But it is a relevant theme and part of the human condition.

It is themes covered in films such as Fight Club and Fargo and has been written about in literature for centuries. If we intrinsically believe that we have to be successful and that idea of success is a western condition rather than a basic human need, then it leads to dissatisfaction and depression.

but just because a woman chooses to be at home with children doesn't mean that she has bought into the ideology that "childcare is predominantly women's work". - just as, if a woman chooses to ff, she has bought into the cultural myths about the oversexualisation of breasts, or "fallen" for the marketing of formula. both those arguments are offensive in the extreme.
and actually, it is "only money". i don't believe that many people, in summing up their lives (on their deathbed, say), would sigh "if only i'd made more money". they're surely far more likely to wish they'd spent more time with loved ones etc. anyone who chooses to have the pursuit of that as a defining characteristic of their lives is perfectly entitled to do that. however, anyone who uses the opportunity of being at home with children (and it is an opportunity, i believe, if you want it to be) to allow themselves to seek worth from other things, should also be entitled to do so without other people assuming that they're being preached to and therefore castigating the supposed "preacher".

this its only money a bit guru saag aloo and woo hoo
well thing is only money pays the mortgage,fills the fridge,pays the broadband buys the laptop,you get the picture.

and the actual practicality for most of us is pre-children we had a lifestyle and certain outgoings we want to maintain eg where we live,job,other outgoings. add children to the mix and thats an additional cost too. so for many of us the female job contribute to maintain and support the family. in addition to being a good role model,that mum has job and external approbation other than primarily housewife

of course satisfaction and self worth isnt solely derived from salary and job.but salary and self worth can also contribute to satisfaction and choices too.

and i do think its risky for female to take prolonged periods out of employment, but partner career goes stellar as he doesnt have to worrry about being back,pick up,appts, holidays as she has it all covered. that insidious assumption that child care is predominately women work

I would loath being a sahm I would be bored shitless. Like I am now, bed bound with flu, thank god for MN. I'm only part time at mo though.

It's different for everyone.
people are different from each other. What fulfils one person doesn't another. It doesn't make them better or right.

The sooner we accept that the better.

Some people want to have their worth measured in £s and job titles as this equates freedom, equality, fun and a life to them.
Others measure their worth in things that are more outwardly difficult to define but are no less or more worthwhile.

Do what makes you and your family happy...imo

want to elaborate Rannaldini?

Your definition of success is a very western and capitalist one Xenia. That works for some but causes misery and disillusion in others. You would do well to take that on board.

meh

You're implying that a woman is not successful unless she works and earns Xenia?

Your arguments generalise and therfore hold no sway with me

I am not a housewife, or a mother alone. I am certainly no mug. I am not defined by any of these labels because I am a human being with all the complexities that go with that. My worth is based in my intrinsic humanity, my love and my ability to love, in a connection with nature. In striving to reach my potential.

My potential is not measured in what I own. Things, posessions after a point have no meaning. I have no opposition to women working and I do not believe a woman is a bad mother if she works. But I will not be labelled as a mug because I choose to find purpose outside the work place or because I don't have buckets of money.

Of course working mums soothe their children and read them stories. As long as a child feels loved and secure, a woman seeking fulfillment outside of the home is fine. I am not judging anyone. But I get so sick of the psychological projection that some working mothers subconsciously play out again and again. They snipe at non-working mothers because they dare to say that they have stayed at home to be with their children and because they genuinely find happiness and fulfillment in that.

And I will repeat that I said some working mothers because generalisations achieve nothing.

OP -or those who relate with OP- do you compare life as a SAHM with life as a working mum or do you compare it with life as a single childless woman ?

There is a big difference and i think sometimes we grief for the era that has gone (life as a young woman and life before children) and adjusting to a new phase (life with children), and it is not about working or not working. The 'head space', identity, nostalgia etc are symptoms of having children, entering a new phase, having more responsibilities and ties (some of us didn't have mortgage when we worked before dcs) etc.

Yes, buit lys working faterhs and mothers adore that too. You can work full time, buy an isand or whatever you prefer or give to charities and all the other stuff you can do if you're a successful woman and also cuddle the child, breastfeed the twins, enjoy time with the chidlren.

Men know this balance is best and they lumber women with very unbalanced lives and a very few women who are mugs accepot the housewife slot. They usually come to regret it. If Mr Wonderful thinks he can run the house with 3 under 5 better give him the pinny and get youself into the board room. He'll soon get fed up.