Justifying long term SAHM to DDs?

Going back to something mentioned before the name change related derail...

Companies employing people working 18 hour days and who need 18 hours to get the job done (aren't just hanging about to look good for the next promotion) aren't employing enough people - that's two workloads. Not only is it bad for the individual who will likely have high stress levels, poor out of work relationships and potentially burn out. It is bad for businesses because people are less productive per hour .

One problem is that people who work hideous long hours and make many sacrifices to reach the top may not feel inclined to change things. How often do we hear "Well I'm a woman and I managed to reach the top, if others just worked hard enough/smart enough they could do it too." I certainly heard in the discussion about the sexist atmosphere of PMQs, the long hours etc in parliament a former MP (female) saying that that's just how it is, its rubbish/hard for men and women, and if you can't hack it then you shouldn't be there. (May not have been her exact words it is a while ago now).

One shouldn't have to go through what these pioneers do. Public life and career success shouldn't be limited to those who can shrug off the sexist atmosphere around them. But when token women manage to succeed in male dominated careers and industries, (often by working much harder than the average male colleague in order to prove themselves worthy), they are held up as examples of the possible.

We need to address the structural inequalities that make some workplaces hostile to people (who won't always be women) with caring (and other) responsibilities and a life outside work. Everyone should be able to have both time for work, and time for life outside work (whatever that looks like).

I love spending my time playing with my toddler, reading to him, sharing the world with him and yes, I change his nappies. Not because I'm a martyr but because on the whole it is extremely fulfilling work. I don't think anyone would question that if I was paid a decent salary to do so as a nanny/child minder/nursery nurse.

I appreciate that not all women would choose this kind of work as their day job (though most parents can't escape it the rest of the time!) but some would or would if it is for their own child who they love. It is work that needs doing and it is no less valuable because I gave birth to him and no one pays me to care for him.

I will probably be a SAHP for a while because I intend to have more children and I am considering home schooling as a possibility. But as many have alluded to, I do see that it would be wise to work on my skills and possible income streams to supplement the household income in case of a rainy day. I intend to work from home self employed around my caring responsibilities - when DS is napping or DH is home to take care of him.

Sahm are always far more critical of wohm on these threads on mn.

If being a sahm is about setting an example of selfless love though then I'm not sure it is good. That would be a very skewed version of real life. There is no selfless love. Having children is not an act if selflessness - far from it in fact.

So you don't criticise childcare but it's substandard. Riiiiiight.

Ladyblah

I'm sorry but what utter tosh.
Being there for my dc when they came home from school was not for the sake of my dh as he was sometimes there too.
It was because they liked it and I enjoyed it.
Childcare isn't harmful, did somebody say it is?
For me its sub standard to what I can/could offer my dc when they were little because a parent is the best provider in our case.

Bill & Summer, I agree.

I have name changed but have the same posting style, views and family/work/life details. Anyone linking me to different names would get a very full picture of me.

I am not desperately trying to stay anonymous, but if someone did take against me and advance search all about me they wouldn't get everything from one name iyswim.

To make a link between nn is a bit low, but I appreciate fideline didn't mean it in a nasty way. I think Barrack has been a bit shitty though, attributing statements to Jane made under a previous nn, which may be taken out of context. (The IQ comment being one).

Yes, OP, you are being too simplistic (not to mention smug and judgmental). Your friends are educated intelligent woman who have made a choice to look after their children themselves. You make it clear that you are not prepared to sacrifice your career for your children and you seem uncomfortable with the fact that others have.

You assume that the best example to set your DD is to juggle family and work. When in fact you should encourage your daughter to reach her full potential for her own sake. Perhaps point out that a good education and qualifications will stand her in good stead for the rest of her life. Whether she chooses to be a working mother or SAHM it will mean she is never be wholly dependent on anyone as she will always be able to support herself. It gives her choice and independence.

I worked in the City for 12 years and gave it up last month to be a SAHM to my DD. It was not an easy decision; being a mother is the hardest and most relentless job I have ever done. It is also the most rewarding. In terms of having time to "laze on my arse" (as one poster sees it) the easier option, for me at least, would have been to go back to work and consign my DD to full time nursery.

I dont feel that I have set her a negative example. I would find it far harder to justify to her - when she's old enough - that I could have been around for her formative years, but prioritized money or career over her. I hope I'm setting her an example of selfless love, and that she (rather than corporate clients) benefits every day from my education.

I don't get why we all think child care options are so dreadful and oh so harmful

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

I live my life totally differently. We are ALL equal in my house, no-one needs to sacrifice martyr their dreams for someone else. We all love and respect each other, and our individual needs.

So, I do a job I love and would never give it up for my ds's, and they would never want me to. They are proud of what I do, interested, and their after school club 'trauma' is literally nothing in their lives, because we compromise and make sure they also get to do what they want and need to do.

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.

Sorry, that wasn't clear. I meant that frequent changing of name but not style or details was probably to limit the number of posts any one search throws up. Not saying anyone here did AS.

Anyhow, I'm uncomfortable with this whole thing so am going to stop posting now.

Yes, you're probably right.

This is all a bit intrusive, really. I do regret posting once the thread had taken this turn. It was well-intentioned, but misjudged. I would say the same for the continuance of the topic.

Bill anyone searching Janes notorious previous NN (or her others), won't bring this thread up.

I don't know what you're talking about, i certainly haven't been using advanced search to find her

How do you mean Bill?

Linked by advanced search.

How could you possibly not link her posts with one name

billin uhum.

Not to necessarily remain unidentifiable but to limit the posts linked with any one name.

Well yes - I do that, but Jane seems to be saying otherwise. So I am concerned that she doesn't understand how she is revealing herself/causing hilarity/comment.

Plenty of posters systematically namechange. Not to necessarily remain unidentifiable but to limit the posts linked with any one name.

Barrack, that's going a bit far.

If you want to be a champion of women you are going to have to find a way of winning people over to your way of thinking through supportive and friendly advice whilst still being frank but not alienating the very women you seem to think you are championing.

Which would also help you avoid all the "involuntary" namechanges.

Sorry to hear your RL identity was revealed though. That is very disappointing.

Isn't that from life of Brian

Yes, we are all individuals!

their ^ legitimate views

The thing is Jane/ Ms X, at times you are very gracious, sporting etc and I certainly agree with you that there is massive social pressure on women to soft soap and water down there legtimate views. But you often cross the line from bracing, through acerbic to vile . E.g. you said something completely unconscionable on a memorial threas recently that literally made me choke.

It is what makes you so identifiable and thus the NCs slightly amusing.