Justifying long term SAHM to DDs?

Hmm having read a fair few of these threads I have to say I've rarely seen "why bother having kids". I have however seen sahm having to justify their choice(just why) and reply to quite openly nasty posts by saying on the odd occasion I do it because I want to be with my kids and don't want to pay somebody else to do what I want to do myself.

I have noticed some posters openly bait such answers and twist words.

It's a pity there is belittling language, prods and digs on both sides. No one is winning from it. These threads never get resolved.

Irl people are much more generous.

The sahm that more than insinuate that wohm are failing their children are leveling a far harsher criticism than any 'sponger' comment could ever be seen as. Far more personal and upsetting.

Maybe, maybe not. I always think the saddest aspect of the sponger jibe, however, is that it is an attack on family; It smacks of individualism above all else. I'd hate to be in a family that worked like that.

No one ever really answers the question about why you would have kids if your not going to hardly see them,usually they just have a go at who ever asked it.

I wonder the same thing every time every time I read/hear about any parent who barely sees their conscious child during the working week due to 12/14 hrs out of the house. Perfectly reasonable thing to wonder about hardly-there mums and dads (although difficult to phrase respectfully to ask).

'Why bother having children if you're going to work' is a rather different question and not one I have noticed on MN much, but then I tend to disregard the more outre remarks of both lunatic fringes.

Also I am a huge advocate of flexible working. My whole aim is to never sit in an open plan office for just the reason of being there (mostly because I loathe them). It's worked so far once people see the benefits.

But I know that it's possible due to the work I do, it doesn't take much to imagine that other people can't push this, and they shouldn't feel bad about it.

The why have kids line is used plenty on mumsnet - pops up on every aibu thread about sahm vs wohm.

I think the defence would be that wohm DO see their kids. There are no hard and fast rules in bringing up children, there is no guarantee that anyone will be happier 24/7 vs evening and weekends together. It is utterly simplistic and very offensive and self righteous.

I think there is more vitriol at wohm because of the nature of the post. The sahm that more than insinuate that wohm are failing their children are leveling a far harsher criticism than any 'sponger' comment could ever be seen as. Far more personal and upsetting.

No one ever really answers the question about why you would have kids if your not going to hardly see them,usually they just have a go at who ever asked it.

summer Yes I agree. I also think leadership is not straight forward. If I think I can communicate an idea, that I think is right, well, so that people take it up and this in turn affects how the leadership operates, then that is good enough for me in terms of power.

Communication is so easy these days....everybody has an audience.

I think the thing about the pursuit of power/ambition is that we are all different; leadership is a quality as is, say, curiosity so different people bring different qualities to life. A curious person might be more interested in how things work, a leader will be more ambitious. These qualities and people should complement each other broadly in society, in an ideal world.

(But I'm sorry I brought it up, let's all play nicely )

Don't remember any nasty post of mine on a memorial thread! That would be very unkind

Well he was an extreme left-winger Jane which seemed to be very upsetting to you despite his recent demise.

There is plenty of vitriol both ways. Of course you notice that directed at your choice more whilst I notice that directed at WOHMs ( "why have kids if someone else is going to raise them?" Etc) more.

I don't think I've seen a remark like that since c.2008. The 'sponging' and 'bottom wiping' jibes seem to be repeated constantly on MN these days though (and I'm a WM so I doubt it is some kind of confirmation bias at work in my head).

On the other hand Jane's remark about the pursuit of power and ambition being a natural human desire sounded chilling to me; I don't think I have ever felt a second's desire for power in my life. So maybe it is differences in motivation that inform our perception rather than our current working statuses.

My point below was that sometimes you do have to be present and it's not sexist behaviour for the people present. Not always, it is rare to work so hard but the benefits are worth it for a few.

I also think the language about sahms is telling. Belittling things that you don't do.

I guess it's not unusual to find fault with the path you don't take.

Jane, I think you make an important point about being able to direct your own career, if you like, to get to the stage where you can work for yourself. I think it is important what we advise our DDs. My DD wants to be a marine biologist, not much scope for owning her own business, and I have no idea the possibility for flexible working.a
But having experienced strong opposition to my own chosen career, my inclination would be to support DDs choices and not say, well, how will that work if you have children? I would not say that to DS.

Retro

There is plenty of vitriol both ways. Of course you notice that directed at your choice more whilst I notice that directed at WOHMs ( "why have kids if someone else is going to raise them?" Etc) more.

Exactly Thumbwitch. Isn't it all about a parents choice to be free to look after their own child? I actively didn't WANT to have to go out to work just to pay someone else to have all the fun with my kids that I could be having. I love being with them every day.
Surely feminism is and was all about freedom of choice, not a doctrine that all woman should work because they can work.

And yes it hasn't been a sacrifice at all, it's nice to fill a life with stuff you enjoy.

Utterly incorrect re more vitriol against working mothers.

It is far more the other way and nastier, as if sahm really are worthless.It is also getting worse and there seems to be a carte blanche to be as utterly unpleasant as posters feel like with zero need for restraint.Not so the other way round.

The poster on the other thread referring to sahp as "spongers" is a case in point.Fide made an excellent point re how getting free childcare off grandparents is hailed as good however pooling family finances is "sponging".

There is a creeping mindset that being a sahp is utterly worthless and I find it concerning on several counts,not least because it reduces choice and can thus be seen as anti feminist.

I find some of the sneering and belittling attitudes from some wp on here akin to bullying.Thankfully you never see it in RL except in the media.

I had enjoyed picking up the dc from school, when they are little and are not yet in clubs all week, it's nice. I like the work too, so I do both.

I don't get the 'muvvas line. Why belittle? It sounds defensive.

"I don't get this "give up everything" to look after dcs....there is literally no requirement it do this in our very advanced and supportive society.

And in summary, I do wonder a lot about why woman sacrifice ALL their own needs for their doc when there really is no need."

Because some women want to. That's really all there is to it. Not everyone is like you, there is no "sacrifice", no "martyring" - some women WANT and CHOOSE to do this. You didn't - your choice, you're happy with it, it works for your family. Other people do - their choice, they're happy with it, it works for their family.

Try to expand your mind to see that not everyone wants the same as you do.

"All this "need to be there when my kids come home" is just falling for the patriarchal crap about good muvvers." Yes, I agree.

On the topic of how work is worked. I moved from being employed to owning. If you can own you get more power. I am certainly encouraging the older children to pick careers where ultimately they could own rather than just work for someone as that can give you power so that if you choose later as it fits your life you can work at least partly for yourself. One reason my children had two grandparents who worked one to 79 full time and the other part time still at 85 is because they had work (engineer/doctor) which meant they could ultimately work for themselves which gives you more choices.

In the publishing part of my business I have a few people dotted around who either write for me or typeset and not just in the UK. They can fit that around whatever else they do and it can work well whether that's to ensure they keep up a very time consuming hobby or as a father or mother because they want to spend more time with a child.

I do though (and I was on Radio 4 talking about this earlier this year and also Woman's Hour) want women to be informed - to know that in most jobs when you start out and build up your credibility and indeed learn if you're only there 2 hours a day surprise surprise you don't learn as much as the surgeon on the job for longer hours. I am not a great supporter of people working when tired. I am a morning person. I try to stop work at night at reasonable hours. I try not to fix meetings which start late. Once in a while long working hours or through the night is fine but sensible employers try to ensure that is not all the time.

By the way I have never been sexist about parents at home. It can be equally as tedious, income reducing, career destroying and bad for children whether it be a man or a woman at home. You do tend to get more vitriol against working mothers (never fathers of course because husbands are saints to work so hard....) from women who don't work than vice versa but I suspect the reason for that is mothers who are out at work simply post less or don't post at all. The important piont is that we all open our eyes to the position of others which is why I post on line in various places to get to hear the views of people with whom I might disagree or never have heard from, why I've enjoyed some business travel to places like Iran and Lagos - because you hear a different view and your knowledge is ever expanded.

(Don't remember any nasty post of mine on a memorial thread! That would be very unkind.)

Right I'd better get the children up for school and look at what work emails have come in overnight.

I think my point was that one can work, but still prioritise DC, and that is neither less valid as a parenting choice, nor as a work choice. It may be seen as less valid on both counts, but that brings us back to the broader issue of societal attitudes. Nothing ever changed by people doing things the same way.

spiritedwolf, entirely agree about the pioneer attitude. I was writing a project proposal and wanted to build in one of the assistant posts as part-time to suit a SAH returner or someone with dc who wanted to work less. I was advised not to, as we would not get the best person for the job, the implication being that if you were committed you would not be there part-time. I was told this by one of the senior women in our organisation.

What I don't like on your post, although you are not the only one who has done this, so apologies for singling you out, is the very loaded emotive language, that you SAH for a child that you love, and the language of escape around working etc. There is no question that WOHMs love their children. Surely your DH loves his dc?

It is funny, DD was telling me last night about her psychic abilities, so I said she could predict the lottery numbers. She said, why? We don't need to win the lottery, we are happy.

I am not going to say that is all that matters, it is not. I am doggedly continuing to work flexibly, because I am a parent with dc, and I think my organisation, which prides itself on being a thought leader, should be able to accommodate that. I do think that if people don't consciously try to change the work culture, it won't change. It just struck me that the senior woman I mentioned has a supportive dh who has picked up the childcare over the years. But I don't, so my working practices will be different.

A slightly meandering post. I need to refill my coffee, I think.

Random tangent - I don't think MPs get maternity pay.

I'm hoping that my dc will understand that my choice to be a sahm for 8 years was because I didn't want to miss a second of their childhood, and that I was lucky enough to have that choice, though it meant a lot of financial sacrifices. And that had I been a bigger earner than DH I would STILL have chosen to be a sahm, because despite my expensive education and good career till I had them, being a sahm just felt utterly right for me and was worth every penny pinching minute.
DH doesn't have a 6 figure salary, or anything like it, and I am now setting up my own business, and yes it's hard after a break like that to get back up to where I was before salary wise. But I'll get there!
I have made damn sure they have understood just how equally valuable both working parents and sahp are' and I think they have a well balanced view of the roles of a family.
If DH had been passionate about being a sahp I think we'd have taken it in turns to be the sahp with each child.