Justifying long term SAHM to DDs?

littleseahorse I was meaning a new phenomenon in the scale of human evolution that bravepotato was mentioning - where biological factors were the main driving force (arguably with a lot of help from St. Paul and his like) behind gender roles.

Ubik When faced with a DC's SEN the 'choices' in childcare come with even more complications...

For example, adequately qualified 1 to 1, is not as cheap. From society's view the numbers do not make group childcare any more economically viable prospect, that is if the child needs 1 to 1 care.

From a feminist viewpoint it is often the mother who assumes the primary caring role. Not many paid employments are flexible enough to allow both parents to work and care for a child with SNs. If the mother has already taken time out for caring for the child whilst a small baby, it is likely she will have already suffered a salary drop, so the mother often ends up taking on the caring role.

Ubik

Totally agree, its having the choice that matters, not what you choose.
This choice has to come from the parents though and the perceived lack of choice realised.
We could have easily afforded a nanny when we started off with ds1 but we chose not to take this route and have a sahp. Its something we had discussed during the pregnancy and held as such importance to us.
We moved heaven and earth to be able to do this, just the same as some couples have to do this to enable them to work.

I care about women being able to make a real choice about how they want their family life to be
this

I think the only key policy implication is the lack of quality affordable childcare.

Was in Copenhagen a month ago, and there most mothers work, paternity/maternity leave is shared and everywhere in the city were these little groups of tots all dressed up in their rain gear, doing various activities, solemnly eating lunch, looked after - not by people barely out of their teens, but by mature women and men who were focused on the children.

I was fortunate to receive subsidised childcare (yes I am a drain on sociert) and still pay just £175/month for DD3 to be in ft nursery. This has enabled me to get back into work. Our family finances are much, much better as a result.

I don't care what women 'should' do, I care about women being able to make a real choice about how they want their family life to be organised.

I agree, working class women have always worked but let's not forget that it wasn't that long ago that working class children had to work too and didn't even receive a proper education.

Retro

your point up thread about some sahms costing the tax payer more if they were working would be me.
Whilst dh is around a lot of the time I can't guarantee this and as you can't say to an employer can't come in today my dh got last minute work, would need cc for the time I was working.
This would prob be 70% funded by the tax payer, and I would be entitled to tax credit in my own right too. I would be aprox £400 a month better off, just from benefits, without factoring any profit from working.

Bravepotato Paid employment is a relatively new phenomenon. Education for everyone is a relatively new phenomenon. Women working before kids is a relatively new phenomenon

No, none of these are new phenomena. The industrial revolution started in Britain in the mid-18th century. Women in the lower classes, as well as men, worked before marriage, even before that; women joined the professions from the late 19th century onwards (albeit not in huge numbers). Education for everyone was introduced in 1871 in England.

So, these are not new phenomena. Women have always worked in some shape or form. There was quite possibly a short period in the 1950s and 1960s where women were much more likely to stay at home, because priority was given to men returning from the war and this coincided with Bowlby's work on attachment, but the male breadwinner/SHAwife model is not a time immemorial trend that is only only recently being reversed. The male breadwinner/SAHwife model is far more recent.

But to be honest, I think the key point is that, if a man would not waste his time having this argument, why on earth should a woman? If there are not key policy implications that one can campaign on or advocate, then it is a rabbit hole, it really is.

MrsCripps We make it work. I'm not as long term as you say (quite yet) but am a SAHP for the foreseeable. Tbh, my career was never as lucrative as DH's. Different professions...

So should I have chosen a better paid profession? My skills would have to have been elsewhere. Should I have concentrated more on those subjects earlier on in my schooling? I don't know. I focused on what I enjoyed and what I was good at.

We are happy. I was not happier when I worked full time at all, at times I hated it and I loved it when I could leave one job and have a break because DH's job relocated.

I am never bored being a SAHP. There is always loads to do...

I live in a part of the country where many people like a life balance so you see more 2x part time workers I also know many who would like 2x but the jobs simply aren't there.If my dp decided further down the line he wanted a part time job in his field he'd be laughed at.

Interestingly my dsis has had 2x part time jobs with her dh but has found it hard to hold onto as have friends of mine in similar positions.You also get treated less favourably with things like time tabling,working unpaid hours,redundancy etc.

2x part time is a lovely idea(which I'd like for my dc to have as a choice)but in reality an awful lot of jobs don't lend themselves to it and actually tax wise surely it would reduce revenue.

I don't see why a SAHP needs to justify it to their DD. They may wish to discuss context etc. No doubt they will wish to point out that each family and situation is individual. Fat worse would to speak in general terms about what is 'right' or 'best'. Those conversations are both sexist and really really shit parenting.

yy to this!

Can I ask a question that I think is relevant to this thread ?

Would those who are longterm SAHP ie to teenagers have made the same choice to give up WOH if they had the support provided to them that they give to their partners ?
This seems to be the issue, although it is presented as their choice to SAH often the backstory is a man (usually) who wont spport the career ambitions of his partner/ take an equal role in child caring.
So to achieve anything remotely resembling a balanced family/working life the woman becomes the SAHP.

This is always presented as "better for the family" but is it really better for the woman or even the man who works long hours and doesn't see his DC during the week .

Disclaimer :WOHP 50/50 shared parenting with DP,no childcare.

And yes life is long.

The vast maj of sahm will gave worked for it,worked before and will work again after.

This portrayal of sahm as life long sponging scroungers is shit and not what I call feminism which I thought was about choice.

I think children will be most affected by their own peer group and the job market of their era.

Exactly who says being a sahp is a negative thing for a woman?I read the blog Tales a From a Happy House where the blogger raised this point last week in a post entitled Intelligent People Don't Get Bored.

Some women and families crave being and having a sahp. Circumstances,jobs and people differ.How dare anybody ask me to justify my choice, it's so rude.I know several sahd,do they get asked to justify their choice? No siree they're just heroes.

When I became a sahp it was after 7 years of trying to be a parent and two stressful pregnancies.We both wanted a sahp and were both earning the same. Neither job would have enabled a part time worker.There was no way after putting my body through utter shite and carrying those 3 kids inside me that I was going to be the one not there with them at home.I wanted it more so my dp let me have the role for which I'm very grateful.Once we made the decision we decided to build up dp 's career and I funded his Masters both the cost and the maintenance as the only working partner at the time.

This has worked for us.I am an intelligent woman and not some weak,lazy sap others would like to portray me as.The relationship isn't going to collapse and leave me on benefit street,I can think and weigh up pros and cons.

I'm staggered at the way women are portrayed on here - weak saps bullied into staying at home,hitching up with sexist men who dump you further down the line.It's bollocks.In RL most women I know are and do argue for what they want,are able to pick a decent partner and are happy in their choices.Interestingly the ones that aren't seem to be the full time workers but hey lets not pick them to shreds.

I am a SAHM. Left work at 28 on >£50k and about to make a bit leap up.

Four years later I have two children and absolutely adore being a SAHM.

Life is long. So I see this phase as a wonderful career break. I will return to work in a few years, but I honestly think that my daughter's ambitions would be remotely affected by whether or not I return to work.

My mother was a SAHM, from the moment she became pregnant with me and never returned to work. I never thought about it as a child, but as I grew older, I knew I wanted my children to have what I had. A mother that was around a lot of the time. It certainly didn't affect my ambitions. I had a Protestant work ethic at school and university (I recall my parents begging me to take a break), and then I went straight into a graduate
Training scheme.

I don't find this baffling, I can see how this happens (this does not mean this is how I want things to be, can you appreciate the difference?)

Yes Bravepotato I can but maybe I was reading an inference into your post you did not intend. I read it as a bit of a 'shrug' 'it's biology that means women stay at home' which implies it isn't something to be changed.
I am aware of the historical context that our current bias to women being the main carers and men being the main earners has sprung out of....I am just baffled as to why we are still wasting so much energy discussing it as a solely female choice - to stay at home or not to stay at home. Why aren't we focussing our efforts more on driving change and real equality of choice?

^....Good job I don't think so or I would be in a very sorry state....

Retrospear

Hey ho at least dd will have a good role model in order to counter effect having a wastrel as a mother.Does the good role model crown get taken away if dsis gives up work any time in the future?

Yes this is the thing I hate about these sorts of conversations. SAHMs are made to feel they are a drain on society. Never mind that there can be SNs, SENs, illness, caring roles, volunteering, added in to the mix.

It seems to me that some can be very smug about the employment they do, which is paid. Because the work I do is not paid to me in a salary, is it really less valuable?

I like nice schools that get the best out of my dc(you don't need 100k to favour that),not interested in fancy cars or holidays(although I'd like to travel with the kids more). We make the best of what we've got.In some ways I'm glad my dc are having to work hard and don't get luxuries handed on a plate.

My mum was a sahm,I totally respect and am grateful got her choices.I never rem the need for her to have a strong argument.My sister and I both got degrees and careers and worked at school.Education and qualifications have always been highly regarded in our family.

My dsis is the main breadwinner and successful in her career.At the moment she desperately wants more time with her dc.

Hey ho at least dd will have a good role model in order to counter effect having a wastrel as a mother.Does the good role model crown get taken away if dsis gives up work any time in the future?

Think -Or immgration will do that... tin hat at the ready....

Speaking as someone whose DH does earn well over 100K, its funny, its a lot of money but all allocated to various dreams that we have for your family. We have no debts bar the mortgage, however I like the nice holidays, I like my children going to schools that bring the very best out of them, I like having a nice car, not having to worry about losing my job (and if I did getting a big pay off because of my age and grade).

You do IMHO grow into your income and things that previously were not possible suddenly become possible.

Having said that - would I want to win the lotery - no - not really. You see what 50 million does to people. 1 million would be enough for me to pay off the mortgage, have nice hols a few times a year and see the chidlren through the rest of their private education. I would still work though.

I can see the point if the OP as to what to say to a dd.

I gave a job that is unusual and not well 'respected' even though it was taught at master degree level. I am self employed which means that I can juggle a bit my hours and make them fit what works best for us as a family.
However the influence if school means that I gave to 'fight' so that my work is recognised the same way than the one DH does, a more 'normal' standard and fully recognised job, even if his education was 'less' than mine.

In the same way, defending the idea that women aren't the only ones that should do hw or look after the dcs IS hard, even though both of them can see DH been very involved both in HW and parenting....
I found that having strong arguments as to why I do work like I am, why I don't work two days a week, why DH dies do a lot if he and why it's normal etc.....
I would imagine that to be even more true if I had a dd.

Explaining why education is important, why you have made and putting into perspective within the family dynamics, what is possible it not and more importantly putting it into the perspective of the equality of genders.
But you need strong arguments and to be fully convinced by them if you want it to have an impact.

*What seems to be indicated by some is that their partner is paying their tax (!!) and if the relationship breaks down - well they can always go on benefits...

There doesn't seem to be any thought given to the fact that they are relying on either one person to fund their lifestyle or the government.*

The husband pays more tax, being a sole high earner, over the 40% tax threshold than a dual income family, whose combined wage would be way over the 40% threshold but whose individual wages are not. Simple. Also this situation affects being able to claim for tax credits and family allowance. So effectively more tax is being by the husband, on a single wage, which balances out the lower tax rate of the dual income family.

In my own situation, although my DC had a Statement of SEN and received part time schooling for some time, I never claimed DLA. Mainly because, I saw the SEN as temporary (others did not) and something that affected mainly schooling. I did not see the Statement and extra funding, the school received, as something that would be received for the whole of the time spent in school and my aim was for my DC to progress far enough for SEN not to be an issue. The Statement has been ceased - so we are well on our way. So this involved really focusing and building on successes, which is difficult to do if you are trying to claim DLA (to claim you have to prove how disability adversely affects your life). I fully appreciate some people rely on this benefit for income, but we did not need to, which I consider a luxury, so did not cost the Government that. I am thankful for this.

So as for costing the government more? Not sure about that one....if my DC had not progressed, my DC would have cost the government much much more. I have had to be very involved in supporting the education my DC received.

Our first point of call when my DH was made redundant was for him to get another job. Lived off the payout in the meantime. If he had not got one the options were to down size / maybe buy a business, which we could run ourselves - which we could have done. Not the Benefit Office...

I don't think I do cost the Government more.

How many women stay at home their entire working life?