Cost of living out of control

I think the very small minority of men in the position you describe niceguy2 doesn't really offset the fact that the most economically challenged group of people in society are generally single women with primary responsibility for children. There is still a high expectation that the woman gives up her job to look after the children, aided and abetted by attitudes like the OP's dressing up economic dependency as 'the right to mother your own child'. Whilst it can work for a select few, far too many women find they go this route with the best intentions and make themselves vulnerable or trapped in the process. A sacrifice very few men will ever find themselves in the position of making.

But why is it always the women who have to be the vulnerable one?

I'm not sure you can say it is ALWAYS the women....

Of course there are many women who are left in difficult positions after a marriage/relationship breakdown where the man swans off. But there are many cases where the woman ends up with the kids, the house and a chunk of the ex's salary, leaving the man with nowhere to live, little money and often very limited/no access to the kids.

I'm not saying all men are victims. Clearly not. Just that it's not always black and white. And for every poor woman left 'vulnerable', I could probably find you a man who was 'screwed over' by his ex too.

"Not all sahps are *miserable and frustrated"!!! What a sweeping generalisation!"

If you read it again, I said that a lot of women of the OP's mother's generation felt miserable staying home because the middle-class social conditioning of the time meant they were raised to be dependent wives rather than independent women. It was literally shameful for a middle-class man to earn so little that he couldn't 'keep his wife' but those same women were often so bored they were turning to drink or tranquilisers just to get through the day. Working class couples had similar pressures but pragmatic economic considerations often won the day.

"the right to mother your own child" You certainly have the right to be the mother to your own child. But nowhere does it say that the state should pay for it.

So if you are lucky enough to be in a financially secure situation say your DH earns enough then great. Good for you.

Yes in an ideal world women could if they wanted to stay at home and raise their child. But then in an ideal world we wouldn't have mass unemployment, poverty, diseases and wars. The ideal world doesn't exist.

We all therefore have choices to make. If you've chosen to get such a big mortgage that your husband's teacher's salary just about covers it then the main problem is you have stretched yourselves financially.

This is your problem, not ours.

I still agree with what Cogito says. Our foremothers fight to gain the financial freedoms we have today. We feel outraged when we hear stories from "a certain religion" that confines women to the house and completely dependent on their male relatives. I work because it defines me to be more than being a wife and mum. I work because it gives me power to choose what I want to use my spare cash on.

I think it's great we have a choice to be a SAHP. But why is it always the women who have to be the vulnerable one? Is there some social conditioning happening to think men should be the one holding all the cards? I'm sad that on women's rights, we are moving backwards in a lot of ways. Look at what the media still portrays women as. Young girls have a choice of tea party, beauty parlour, princess toys. Didn't a major retailer marking a science set as boys only? Beauty pegeants for girls? Sexualisation of the media. And then what do we get at the end? Most marriages end in divorce. Most men die before their mates, leaving elderly widows in destitute? It seems to me we are conditioned to just accept less.

I don't understand this?

If you want to be a SAHM have you considered selling your home, moving somewhere a bit smaller so the mortgage is less, or renting? Have you looked at ways to reduce your food bills? If you have 2 cars have you considered selling one? What about less holidays each year? Or ways to reduce your gas and electricity bills?

When my Ds is born I will be returning to work after 6 months as that suits my family better, but if I wanted to be a SAHM with some lifestyle changes I could certainly make that happen and my DP is a teacher.

cog Not all sahps are *miserable and frustrated"!!! What a sweeping generalisation! So are all people who woh happy and feel valued??? Of course not!!!

Shit happens in life you know? My ds1 has sen/sn. There is a large gap (not planned) between dc and so I have been a sahp (with a short break before I concieved ds2) for 9 years now.

Is it what I saw myself doing at 17??? Well...no How many of us can say out life is what we imagined at 17? But then again I dont think I would have achieved much by "going to south america and fighting for anarchy" which is pretty much what I had got planned for my future at 17

I feel sorry for anyone - sahp or wohp - who is not happy and doesnt want that life. Its tough and must make life much harder.

Who knows what the future holds for me and my family? Health permitting I may go back to work/re train. Its nice to know I have options. Some people dont.

Oh, and plenty of people seem to be able to choose to have no one in the family working at all as the taxpayer provides a better standard of living than one they can provide for themselves.

Plenty have choice as has been spoken of here. Some choose to cut their cloth to one salary and live frugally, some choose to work because they want to, some choose not to work because they want tro.

I'm pretty sure millions of non working mothers have not all been born with piles of cash

And who actually has real choice in life? Unless someone is lucky enough to be born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouth they can't just 'choose' to do nothing, they have to make a living. Even if those who are born with piles of cash have certain obligations that curtail freedom. I think the expression is 'grow up'... real life for all but the most fortunate means choices are limited.

I believe that having real choice is the ideal. It doesn't matter how you exercise that choice - SAHP, full time worker, part time worker. It's feeling you have no choice but to take one of the options that you may not want to that it all becomes a bit grim.

@EV01 I'm not sure why you're so bitter about working or why you think working means we can't be proper mothers. You seem to think you're above it just because your mother and grandmother didn't work. Like it's your birthright or something. In fact, you're lucky. Women have fought for the right to be financially independent whereas people your grandmother's age would have been literally kicked out of a job the day they announced they were getting married or having a baby. Many intelligent women your mother's age were prevented from working by domineering husbands who thought a 'woman's place is in the home' and spent great chunks of their lives miserable and frustrated.

What Cogito said - very well put.

"I fell in love with a teacher whose wages only cover the mortgage"

Jesus, how big are your mortgage payments? If they are taking the whole of a teachers wage they must be huge. Sounds like you have massively over extended yourselves.

I think it is sad when people are forced to make decisions they don't want to - whether that's working or SAHM. That said, I also don't think the govt should be subsidising people not to work. If you can afford to make that choice, then great - but I don't think people should expects others to pay for it (through their taxes). Working should be the default position IMHO.

I also think your OP is full of assumptions... Many people do choose to stay in work to maintain a lifestyle. I know friends who have moved and downsized to enable the mother to stay at home, others where they have remained in very small houses etc. I know if I moved to a much smaller house, on a main road in a cheaper town, I could knock 60k off my mortgage. This would enable us to have one SAHP. But it's not a choice we want to make. for many others, I think they need to work to maintain a lifestyle, but sometimes there are alternatives for those that don't!

Also, Why do you assume that of the people who work are going to automatically be putting their babies into institutions? Amongst my friends, grandparents have been a very common source of childcare, as have mums working evenings / weekends do childcare is not needed. Then there are childminders... I know more people who have gone down this route than have put their children into full time nursery. In fact, out of my friends only 1 returned to work full time. All the others went part time or gave up completely.

Part time working seems to be a very common option (with most of my friends working 2 or 3 days) - this is not exactly the farming out of children you picture in your OP.

I guess what I'm saying is that amongst the people I know, the choices they have made have been very different to the scenario you paint. The majority of coupled I know have made sacrifices to enable the women to work part time (I do know very few women who do no work at all - it seems to vary between part time career work, a few hours shop work or even just looking after someone's children for a few hours a week). This seems to be the situation amongst the overwhelming majority of people I know - not the scenario you paint.

Sorry it's long!

I celebrate that we have choice. I think we have difficult choices, but they are choices nonetheless. If parents are passionate about one being a SAHP, the family could choose to do this but accept the sacrifices that go with it - whether that is work in the evenings or weekends, live in a smaller house, cheaper area, go without holidays etc. I appreciate that the cost of living is massive but I really believe that where there's a will, theres a way.

My wife has to work but would love to be a SAHM. Her salary is, coincidentally, the same as what I pay in tax. If my tax contributions were lower, my wife wouldn't need to go out to work meaning that someone currently festering on the dole would be able to take her job.

High taxation is a major cause of misery.

I agree with ragged, I went back to work 12 weeks after having dd, because I wanted to finish my internship for better hopes of a job in future.

I think we should feel pleased mothers have more choice these days.

There's a very serious issue that faces a lot of SAHP's and that's when relationships break down. You've only to look on the Relationships board on MN to see just how vulnerable stepping out of paid employment and becoming wholly dependent on a man makes so many women. It may start as a noble aim to provide a good start for the children but, so often, they are taken for granted by money-earning partners, their efforts are dismissed and they find themselves financially vulnerable. It's not IDS saying they contribute nothing, it's their husbands. 'I'd leave but I have no money and I don't know how we'd manage'.... is the most common phrase.

In Denmark 90%+ of mothers are in the workplace. Childcare is more affordable and parents take more of an equal share in raising children and generating income. That seems to me far more equitable and places women in a much stronger position.

Which does sort of bring you back to the government position of making it easier to work so that there is more labour to drive the economy.

There is a finite amount of money to go round. How would you propose splitting that pot? When something becomes more about a lifestyle choice (sahp to non sn children) than necessity , I am not sure it's something I see as a priority for getting state support.

And that does seem to be what op is inferring. The other alternative Being some kind of economic policy that brings down the cost of living . I am no Keynes but trying to fix food , petrol, house prices costs (for starters) so it I more affordable for one parent not to work is a big ask.

I feel very sorry for those women (generally it is women) who work because they have to and not because they choose to.

It must be awful

I have been an sahm for 9 years now (large gap between dc) and although at times I have longed to go back to work I am glad I have had the choice...the poster above is right, it is seen as priviledge atm to be a sahp and IMO that is so wrong...it should be possible for every parent to be able to be sahp if they want to and be able to keep a roof over your heads and put food on the table too.

Something has gone very wrong somewhere...........Whan a Govt minister (IDS) can state that "sahps contribute nothing to society" (thanks btw Ian!!) and not get sacked then we are all in trouble.

Sigh...

Slashing of benefits, inc DLA and carers allowance to cut costs
Cap on free school meals to cut costs
Smaller portions of said school meals to cut costs
CB cuts

Oh! but its ok! - some middle class families will get a tax break! Thats fine then