Justifying long term SAHM to DDs?

Coraltoes asked why someone who could choose not work would work. Her DH has presumably made that decision, assuming she could support the family on her earnings. That's why I asked.

But...

I think our choices do have an impact outside our own families, as I said below. Whether we should choose to take that into account is debateable of course.

Coraltoes, is your husband ready to explain why he 'chose to not see as much of his daughter as he possibly could'?

What a ridiculous statement - why are you not choosing to work if you are both highly paid, so that her dad can spend Very Important Quality Time with her whilst you support the family financially?

What I object to is the way people assume it will be the woman who gives up or reduces work.

Since having LO (17 mo) I have lost track of the number of times I have been asked if I'll be going down to 3 days at work. Oddly, not one single person has asked that question of my partner!

It also really annoys me when people say "my husband earns more, so it made financial sense for me to be the one to give up work." Of course he earns more, men will continue to earn more as long as women are expected to put their careers second. I read somewhere that women typically lose 80% of their lifetime earning potential by having a child. 80%!!!!

I don't need to explain to my teenagers why I became a SAHM. They know, in fact they have thanked me.

thefallenmadonna, I agree it was not a feminist argument, my point was more that the notion that a woman 'should' work FT to be equal can be as damaging as the notion that she should stay at home, if there are not the concomitant shifts in perceptions and actions about who takes on the domestic load.

Why does that matter Fallen? The reason should be insignificant to everyone except those in the family?

Did your DH also consider giving up his job coraltoes? How did you decide who got to make that obvious choice, as you are both highly paid?

I think that it's faintly ridiculous to assume that daughters will take after their mothers in every case.

My mother was a secretary. I did not want to be a secretary. She was a SAHM while I was little, did some voluntary work and then worked part time when I went to school. She must have stopped this again at some point when my sibs were born, I can't remember - but when they went to school she resumed working part time. We needed her financial input - she would probably have preferred to continue with her voluntary work and political input, given a choice.

I have 2 degrees and started work at 15, doing Saturday jobs. When I finished my 1st degree I got a FT job (not as a secretary). I worked until I had DS1 at 40, when I stopped for a few weeks and then carried on working PT from home, in a self-employed capacity, until I emigrated with DH, nearly 5y ago. I haven't had a job since, not really (although I have done some work for my old boss).

DH wants me to start working again when DS2 goes to school - I will be 50 at that point. I'm not entirely sure that anyone would employ me! But I may take up my self-employment trade again.

I have never used my mother's example to decide what I want to do with my life - I have trodden my own path. I suspect the best lesson we could give our children is to have the confidence to do the same.

I don't know why it has to be anyone else's business as to what any family set up is. I certainly don't see why anyone has to justify it!

As for explaining to a 14 year old child (regardless of gender) why one parent is at home and the other isn't, well, you explain it according to your own family's reasons. There doesn't have to be a statement suitable for everyone. If you give a crap explanation or a duff reason, you deal with the consequences then. Cricket it isn't rocket science.

Using arguments about equality "against a woman" is clearly the antithesis of feminism, which is about ending the oppression of women. It is not in any way a feminist argument to push for a woman working full time and shouldering the major domestic load too. Negotiating a fair distribution of labour, all labour, is absolutely the way to go. But that can be done with two working parents of course.

I dont think you can as when I was at school a lot of girls said my mum has worked for years whats the point? Only the boys need to worry. That attitude used to make me cringe as a teen as my mums a working mum and always have been so Ive got lots of drive and ambition.

I have a degree, great job, highly paid and senior in awake industry...and am about to quit to be a SAHM. DH earns a lot. If you can choose not to work, why would you work? I'd find it harder explaining choosing not to see .DD as much as poss than choosing to be a SAHM.

Good point summerflower.

I have two friends whose husbands "use feminism against them", ie they had to work straight after having kids ("we are equal right?") but also ended up doing the lions share of kids stuff and housework. One of them has a burn out at the moment, which is awful.

Whatever your set up, someone has to look after the kids. If not the parents, a grand parent, CM or nanny.

The only people I know who are very happy to work both full time are those with grand patents on stand-by or with sweet competent au-pairs/nannies.

By supports his family, I meant broadly, not in solely financial terms, in working out and contributing fully to an arrangement which works, however that looks.

Okay, I have not RTFT, as I need to get ready for work (cards on the table!)

I am a single parent to 2 dc, and work fulltime. I have been the primary resident carer, even when briefly married, for over ten years. Simply put, I am exhausted. I work as flexibly as I can, to get to extra curricular activities and fit in playdates, and my priority is balancing what I need to do professionally with being there for dcs. I have very little external support.

It has always seemed to me, that if you have two parents, it is not a good use of emotional and physical resources to both work full-time. When I was married, I wanted to drop to part-time so that everything was more manageable, but my husband refused to support that. I suggested us both working 0.8fte, again got nowhere.

I don't believe that gender equality is making sure you keep up with the men in the workplace, though the ability to do so is important. It is having a level playing field so that childcare features as much in male-decision making processes as female ones. I don't see why I need to buy into traditional male working practices to be setting a good example to DD or DS for that matter. Finding the way that suits me and allows me to also be the parent I want to be is a far better example for the future.

It was one of the reasons my marriage broke down, that the arguments of feminism were used against me, because I should contribute equally financially and be motivated to do so. Never mind that I was also doing the lion's share of the childcare. The argument has two sides, and I respect a man who supports his family and his wife's choices, however that looks, far more than one, who, in the name of equality, offers a very narrow (and exhausting) pathway - and the same is true of a woman. And it is that point which is far, far more important for my DD and my DS, I think.

But willow you too are complaining about both parents working but focussing on your mother as the culprit!

Also people keep mentioning breast feeding as a reason to sahm. Not in my experience it isn't!

I've never wanted a 'career' really. It's always been my desire to be a SAHM & I found it really difficult that everyone seemed to expect me to be 'more' than that. As if what I wanted to do with my life wasn't good enough. I still went to uni to do a science degree, realised I wouldn't be any good at teaching secondary school, retrained & did a foundation degree in early childhood. I could've done a top up year to get a full degree & gone on to do a PGCE. I'm perfectly intelligent enough to have done that & could have had a decent career in it, if I'd chosen to, & I still have those qualifications should we need the money.

DH earns just under £30k & we have a mortgage & 2 young DC. Money's tight but I have no intention of working any time soon. We're planning to homeschool so, assuming DH's job stays safe, it's going to be many years before I'll even consider the possibility of getting a job. Even once the DC are grown up I doubt I'll want to work. I see it as my role to teach them the joy of learning. Not just so they can get a good job but for the sake of learning itself. The world is a wonderful place with so much to discover. I want them to learn what they love about it & use that to be happy. I fully intend to teach them that a lawyer & a toilet cleaner are equally valid people. The important thing in life is to be happy.

My role model isn't either of my parents but a close friend who doesn't work but has numerous volunteer roles within the community & is always on hand to help anyone wherever possible. If I can be even half as useful to the community as my friend I'll consider my life a success. My friend gave up a very successful scientific career to drive around OAPs & do odd jobs for them. His wife supports their family.

As far as I'm concerned, my being a SAHP isn't because I'm female, it's because I'm me. DH wouldn't want to not work because he's him & loves his job. If we had personality transplants neither of us would bat an eyelid at me working & him staying at home. Personally, I think the whole debate is ridiculous. Some people have to work, some want to work, some want to contribute to the world in non-financial ways and are able to do that. Everyone's different.

morethan you are really in an unusual situation where you can claim to be a SAHM who HEs but who also is a partner in the family business and seems to do a lot of the work in the family business. That doesn't sound like a SAHM to me, that sounds like a family where both parents share the childcare and earning responsibilities.

I really wonder where all the fathers are in these threads? Why are the mothers choosing to stay at home and not share the WOH/childcare with their DPs? Surely then the children would benefit from a parent at home and the parents would both benefit from having a foothold in the job market. Why didn't the families with a SAHM who made the ideological decision that it was worth having a parent at home all the time make the ideological decision to take the financial hit and allow both parents to have time at home?

Scarlett

It shows you are there for them after school, to spend time with them, listen to how their day went, sort out any problems and anything else you'd want to do. Take them to the doctors/dentist/activity.

Not all jobs can allow this. Nor can all employed people manage school events, to have friends over etc.

Not that I'm suggesting this is better, or the ideal way or anything.

It doesn't imo give a negative message.

My approach atm is completely child centred as we H.ed our youngest dc

Now that is seriously hard work morethan

Being a long term sahp - from say 8-9 to secondary age onwards probably isn't setting a great example as there's not much scope for the genuine need or even desire to sah.

Woah beep! From 'pseudo-mother' to that^ in one thread - you're brave! .

If you have an alternative lifestyle, or Home Ed, or have a child with SEN, or other caring responsibilities, or ill-health yourself, or large savings and a hobby you enjoy more than work, it could well make sense AND provide an excellent example to the DC.

I educate my dc on politics, history, literature, feminism, music. I talk to them, I spend time with them, and I'm happy to do so.

Yes, this I'd have had much less time to discuss Magna Carta, Second wave Feminism, the Midlothian question,Universal Suffrage, Post-Colonialism etc etc if I'd stuck to FT PAYE commuter work. But the knockers only want to talk about changing nappies. Odd.

here here - oops!

Time for zzzzz me thinks!

Otoh, even if not working in the long term. There's nothing wrong with deciding to rather take up hobbies, become a volunteer, help run the family business, study.for the enjoyment, etc. Those things are all good for the soul and might counteract any negative impact not earning may have.

Sabrina hear hear

Herc I wasn't aware my values are less worthy than yours. And I wasn't aware there's massive pay gap between male and female. Thanks for filling little old uninformed me!

Moving on
Being a long term sahp - from say 8-9 to secondary age onwards probably isn't setting a great example as there's not much scope for the genuine need or even desire to sah. There could be both financial & emotional/social implications to sah long term.

As a sahm of school aged dc I constantly feel (on MN) I'm having to defend my position as a feminist. But i am a feminist - I believe women are equal to men. That doesn't mean that my decision to become a sahm wasn't influenced by patriarchy -I'm certain it was - but it was what I wanted. I wanted to stay and look after my dc, do ebf etc. It was my choice, and I'm still very pleased that I was able to.

I don't believe I'm a poor role model for my dc - I'm no drudge. I'm educated and happy. I educate my dc on politics, history, literature, feminism, music. I talk to them, I spend time with them, and I'm happy to do so. But I don't think I'm better or worse than working mums - it's just my family life.

Fideline

That's exactly how I feel
I had a good career, enjoyed myself before settling down and have continued to be the same person but a sahm.
I am married to my best friend and soul mate and my dc make me happy for them.
From the minute I gave birth I knew no way would I continue to work, that doesn't make my choice any better or worse than anybody elses.
My approach atm is completely child centred as we H.ed our youngest dc, not many peoples choice I know. My motto is "Enjoy yourself its later than you think".