Justifying long term SAHM to DDs?

Jane Financial independence is not solely about earned income. A SAHP can have savings, investments and property, potentially.

scottish have you seen the confusion that ensues when people aren't clear who is responding to what on a heated topic?

Why "wrong" to be financially dependent on a man?

1. The moral argument - it does other women and your daughters down and it ensures men continue in power across the planet.

1. The practical argument - men disappear, pay nothing and don't see or help with children -plenty of women experience this so if you stop work you are taking a massive risk with your children's futures and happiness and could be plunging them into later penury.

1. It makes for unequal unbalanced marriages where women serve and clean and men work, where there is unfairness and inequality.

1. Income is the best indicator of child outcomes so working as a mother may be one of the best things you can do. Also children thrive with seeing two parents and a carer/grandparent not with just one adult - a mother - seeing to most of their needs. Children of working parents often do better so the moral imperative on women may well be to work.

I am the SAHP. My DH provides us with income. However I do have financial independence, as I look after the bulk of our savings (this makes sense economically as it utilizes my tax allowance.)

Childcare has never been entirely straightforward as my DC was Statemented with SEN. When faced with SEN childcare can be expensive, suitable childcare can be difficult to find.

Thankfully, because I was a SAHP, not having gone back to work, this was less of an issue. The Statementing process is grueling, lots of appointments, lots of aspects of it to make sure all the information is correct and action taken are appropriate. If we were a family of two working parents, well, I think something would have had to give.

It made sense for my DH to be the one that worked, as he always earnt much more than me. Yes, this is a gender stereotype but one which works for us.

As far as setting good examples, being a burden on the state etc my DC has required extra support through the education process. Someone has to give it. I fitted the bill and there has been a huge positive progression. To me this is very valid, it means a great deal. It means a child who quite easily could have failed is succeeding.

Mme we are informed by our own family history that's for sure.

I live a life informed by a fear of poverty.

A quick example : I can't at a gut level understand people who will rack up debt to study an Arts subject. But I know at a logical level it's a positive choice - it is something I just couldn't do myself even when full grants were available!

For me it's not "wrong" for only one partner to earn (if there is financial stability!) but I can see why you could not feel happy with that.

I am going on assumption no one has memory impairment,or need their own post c&p
It's odd to reproduce posts,and in bold too.bit passive aggressive
Get own with making your case without reproducing posts

I strongly believe it is wrong to be financially dependent on a man.

You still haven't explained this^

I don't need to Mme I've been here all along.

The PP's use of 'pseudo-mothering' was a job description of childcarers not a value judgement on WOHMs. So why are you spouting some nonsense about your DC not regarding the employees you outsource childcare to as 'pseudo-mothers'?! Of course they don't! Who said they would?

Have you read the thread properly?

No wilful misunderstanding on my part - read the thread!

It is very important to me. I never, ever want to be in the position I have witnessed both within my own family

Fair enough. Important/unimportant is entirely different from right/wrong, though.

You said 'wrong'. Why?

(cunningly disguised admittedley)

It was also a seemingly judgemental opener to a post complaining about judgy comments.

It is very important to me. I never, ever want to be in the position I have witnessed both within my own family (although exacerbated by DV in my mothers case) and in friends. Watching women around me struggle when their marriages went wrong and they have been left with very little financially is tough. After having been out of work for so long, it can be very hard to find work post divorce.

I feel strongly that unless more women keep their careers going and reach senior positions where you can enable change, existing patriarchic working practices will never be challenged.

And this ^ is yet another wholesale buy-in to corporate/patriarchal work patterns and extremely prescriptive.

My DC both went to nursery, nether have poor language skills or consider any of the nursery workers to be their 'pseudo-mother'. This is total claptrap and assumes that if you are a working parent you therefore never speak to or interact with your child. Utter bollocks.

But FWIW, this^ paragraph was also odd/bollocks/willful misunderstanding. How would you describe the anthropological purpose of childcare?

Lol, how funny that out of the long post I wrote, that is the phrase you are interested in..

It jumped off the page. Very very strange choice of word.

Dh and I currenyly both work full time but are around for all school pick ups, drop offs and after school. My kids arent bothered though they just want to play with their friends. I think some parents care more than the kids tbh.

I won't be justifying anything to anyone. As that implies I made a wrong choice, or that we made a wrong choice. We and I haven't. For us it's the right one.

To be fair though mme it was your opening comment, so obviously significant to you.

Lol, how funny that out of the long post I wrote, that is the phrase you are interested in...

Lol,that's a handy power mom cliche about work.to divert from the thread

If you mean the suit bit -it was light-hearted. As I HRT myself, I wouldn't dream of telling someone with limited NMW-funded options how to do things, despite the fact I spend most of my working hours in yoga pants.

I did, however, spend a couple of years on a very low income with small children and it is very clear to me that some posters have no idea of the realities of that.

I strongly believe it is wrong to be financially dependent on a man.

"Wrong"? MmeM? In what way "wrong"? Morally?

Lol,that's a handy power mom cliche about work.to divert from the thread
when in fact women are in retail,public sector,offices.not all besuited alpha female
The assumption that it's the woman who gives up work,or reduces her hours.not the man

But actually scottish I agree with you (might need a lie down and a dram) that it is gender equality in parenting that is the key issue to pursue. Hectoring mothers under pressure is't the way to do it, however.

I have 2 DC and have always worked, and have always earned significantly more than DH. I strongly believe it is wrong to be financially dependent on a man. I could not live like that and I encourage my DC to be financially independent

DH and I take equal responsibility for our DC, it's not my place to work around school drop offs & pickups because I'm the mother, we share this and both manage to hold down well paid, high powered jobs.

I find some of the views expressed upthread deeply disappointing and insulting. My DC both went to nursery, nether have poor language skills or consider any of the nursery workers to be their 'pseudo-mother'. This is total claptrap and assumes that if you are a working parent you therefore never speak to or interact with your child. Utter bollocks.

I'm now an Exec that makes hiring and firing decisions for my company and in the last 6 months I've changed our policies on part time working and flexible hours. I've hired some amazingly talented women who had been sidelined by the big corporates for going part time or for even requesting flexible working patterns.

I feel strongly that unless more women keep their careers going and reach senior positions where you can enable change, existing patriarchic working practices will never be challenged.