Could we have a talk about perceptions of SAHP?

Isn't it because just about anyone with arms can do it whereas most people can't do what I do and most people can't do brain surgery etc.

This is an interesting one from Grazia. Basically, I think she has nailed it.

But there are people like me...
I could have stayed in work at £60K, paid a nanny £20K, and pocketed the £40K differences (pretending we live in a world with taxes, ha, ha ha! but trying to keep this simple.) I baulked, because to me (and this is a very personal opinion) I thought I could do it better than someone else. I felt that the someone else wouldn't have as much "skin in the game," as I did. I also wanted my children interacting all day with someone as intelligent and as educated as me, which I wasn't so sure I could find for less than the £60K I was earning.

Now, I am very happy content with the children I have, our relationship, and how they are turning out to be. So, I could take that as a sign that I made the "right choice." On the other hand, for all I know, it would have all turned out the same or even better if I had done something else. It's only now that the children are growing older, that I am coming out of a fog of intense emotion, that I can even consider things in the round.

In my case, I have a few job interviews coming up, fingers crossed! And perhaps this decade as a SAHM will just be one, lovely, much appreciated chapter in my life. If so, I wont' have any regrets.

But, having lived it and made the choice, I will admit you have to pay the price in your career and financial outlook. And I will admit that the children of full time WOHM seem to also be doing OK. In truth, I don't know many dual fulltime, workoutside the home couples. So many are able to do 4 days each or work at home a bit, or mum works 3 days. So maybe we are already seeing the change in work culture happen before our eyes.

(As I have said upthread, the career break and the chance for perspective and introspection has been invaluable to me as a person and my development. Clearly this is very much an indulgence not afforded to most people.)

Loving your posts summersazz, really interesting points to think about.

That's good and I hope you don't feel it's been hijacked by women who work full time either. it has been an interesting discussion.

Right extra hour so am at my desk albeit in my cosy home office. teenagers won't be up for a bit. Busy week for work comingup and children off school.

I see the papers report today that employers may be required to disclose what men and women earn and all male boards might be controlled. That will be quite helpful.

DH and I both work full time (me from home at least one day per week to be at the school gate), DH travels a fair bit, and we have no local grandparents to fall back on.

We have live-in help from an au pair - it's the only way that between the three of us, we're able to ensure school drop-offs, after school care and sick days can always be covered without concern or stress. There is also cover in the evenings and weekends (the latter of which we rarely, if ever have to call on, but it's there and it provides flexibility).

We're not loaded, but we're (touch wood) comfortably off due to maintaining two good careers. It was hard at times, especially after emigrating and (for me) having to switch careers, but in hindsight, completely worth it. After five years at university (and a long slog of paying back my student loan), I wasn't prepared to sit back and let DH's career go full-steam ahead, and he certainly wouldn't have been either.

You do need somebody to help keep the home fires burning when you have young DC, but it doesn't have to just be a wife. So many people seem to be resigned to thinking it has to be. There are solutions, and for me, both of us in decent careers simply means there are more options available to us. Now, and into the future, should something unforeseen happen.

Because for many men and a good few of we women it can be ... actually a bit boring ... and we like to have work plus home rather than just home.

However increasingly younger men DO want to have rights to work part time, to take some paternity leave, to rush home once they have children certainly amongst the men I know that is so. My father even in the 1960s came home for lunch every day, drove us to school every day until we were 18, got home on time every day and did the bed time routine too, house cleaning weekends and night feeds (because he was used to being up at night and my mother wasn't).

Why aren't men fighting for more family friendly stuff? You know, like women did over many issues? Proper balls on the line stuff, like women being force fed and dying to get the vote? (I know that's not the whole story)

It's almost like the status quo works for them...

Why is caring for children seen as low value peoople asked. You could say the same about cleaning too.

Isn't it because just about anyone with arms can do it whereas most people can't do what I do and most people can't do brain surgery etc.

That doesn't mind even women and men like I am who earn quite a bit don't want to be with and love our children - we do and we are the same as any man or woman who does the same things but for more hours a day with the 2 year old. Most of us think higher of colleagues and friends who are a good parent and a good worker - we all know that in life a balance of work and family obligations tends to be what most people want and is best for all. Being a full time working parents doesn't mean you pack the children off to boarding school at 7 and not see them until they are 18 as happened to a few children sent home from british India 100 years ago.

Women can network well and they are increasingly doing it better than they did. It's all very encouraging. One of the only reasons for 30 eyars I have gone on about how you can have children and wrok full time is because women don't see enough positive examples of that even now. So those of us who love it and make it work can help. Just as men smilarly are often "working fathers" (i.e. they work and are a father). Make that your watchword of the week - are you a working father, ask the men. Get the phrase into use. I know some gay men with children and these issues are interesting to discuss with them as they don't have the same gender roles (and both work full time so have to manage childcare etc like a male/female couple).

Thanks Slippery . I think men being given the right to share paternity leave is a good start. Men are unable now to put their hands up and say 'well, of course I would stay home and look after the baby but I cant.....'. If this does become more of the norm then further flexibilities may be extended to men.
I also disagree that people need more external childcare provision availability to enable them to work which seems to be the 'go to' solution. We ALL need more flexible family friendly work schedules so men and women can both work and both be responsible for caring for their children.

summer, I wish there was a Like button for your last post!

Yes absolutely Slippery. In our case DH usually takes time off as I work PT so my office days are usually more intense.

It is stuff like this that means that women often have to stay at home and give up good careers or other jobs. Its not the lack of opportunity for women to work (albeit this could be improved)that is the problem imo its the underlying structural expectations of businesses. Everyone just seems to bang on about there being no choice for women (eg jobs offering pt/flex) rather than flipping it round and challenging the patriarchal structure and expectations of the workplace for men so they can help facilitate their partners working

Summer

You are right to challenge, and I totally admire you for this.
it is wrong if even a small percentage of women don't have free choice.

I have often wondered though if it is the same for women who have a sahp?
Or whether it is just the women who suffer who have a working partner.

It hasn't always been easy for my dh to get time off work when the dc were ill and I must admit to being the one constant carer, but that's because it really wouldn't be possible, not because he thinks he shouldn't.

Saying that I must admit to being mighty pissed off if I have an appointment and said person has gone home to sick child and appointment can't be rescheduled, especially when dh has taken time off to attend and it's important.
This isn't a female issue though I hate it whoever has done it.
I may be flamed for this but some jobs I don't think you should do under these circumstances, because you need cover.

summer, it's a bit like dads'employers assuming that it will always be mum who looks after the children if they're ill. DH and I have always shared this, but I know other couples where it's been a real problem for the dad to get the permission for time off.

Newlife, I'm not saying it is the sahm who are at fault but the businesses who automatically expect men to be able to drop everything at the drop of a hat and expect someone else (likely a woman partner) to just 'sort everything'. This leads to lack of choice for all concerned, other than the business which just continues to expect employees and their families to dance exclusively to their tune. It is this I would like to challenge.

Oh, and yes, I can imagine dh's boss saying that as he's a wanker .

Dh and I both work away and dh's secretary checks with me if it's ok for him to be away and my boss never assumes I can be away. Working in this way dh and I have always both worked together to meet our various work schedules. I would say this has 90% been when the company would like and 10% of the they have had to accept a bit of flexibilty.

summer

Are you sure your dh boss refused? I'd be asking myself if I were you.
You may have a point about a sahm perpetuating the problem of inflexibility, but we as women fought long and hard for choice and now we have it we don't want to let it go.
There are more women working than ever and with assisted childcare it's getting even better. There may still be some way to go but this isn't the fault of those who have chosen to sah.

Why indeed? It is a way of making women believe the work they do is easy and unimportant. Or not really work. It's very interesting that women in wartime had to take over men's jobs and discovered that far from being the stressful, difficult day that deserved pipe and slippers and pre-bathed, silent children at the end of it, it was in fact better paced, far easier and more relaxing than being at home doing housework, cooking and childcare.

mrsmole, I never said it wasn't. [Smile]

Why is "woman's work" seen as low value, though? For example, caring for children or the elderly, where paid, is paid badly. Why?

I was asked about why we have few senior women in our workplace. I said I thought it was all about men's opportunities and not women's. The need to dispel the fact that men work ft and need to be flexible to fly off at the drop of a hat or work long hours. Imo everyone should be seen as having the same considerations at work as to whether hours/location are possible. It shouldn't be assumed that its fine for men to do it but they need to check if a woman can (as she is assumed to have the ultimate caring responsibility for kids). Everyone should be treated the same.
Now I may be controversial but women staying at home and facilitating men to be the ultimately flexible one unfortunately add to the perpetuation of this.
I had a discussion with a (male) director about this and he agreed with me, that although it was a reverse way of looking at things it did make sense.
I am 'lucky' to have maintained a senior career (although less so than had I not had dc) and am now earning more than dh. I suggested to him that we both move to 4 days a week (him from 5, me from 3) but he says his boss won't 'let' him. Again, a lack of flex work opportunities for a man means I am the one who has to be more flexible. It's self perpetuating . Oh, and I told dh he had crap negotiating skills

MrsMolesworth

I think each situation is unique tbh.
We moved to the stix and were semi self sufficient for about 12 years before locating back here again, to a large town.
It worked for us because it was what we wanted and certainly wouldn't have stopped my career had I wished to continue as I had the business when we initially moved there prior to dc.
I don't think I'd have picked up a normal job very easily tbh, and can see for others it would be foolhardy and indeed imprisonment of the worst kind. Our situation is that we both could have lived anywhere as our clientele is national/ international so the base really didn't matter.
My reason to stop working was purely selfish and dh to continue was purely selfish in that at times he wasn't around so much in the early days.

NewLife, couldn't you equally easily ask, how can a woman who is financially dependent on her partner structure her life with freedom and choice? I read on here so often that women have babies, leave the city, move to a village. DP commutes long hours. Woman is home alone as a SAHM with very few opportunities to earn due to rural location. To me that is self-imprisonment of a dangerous kind.

DP was all for moving to the country. I agreed to village life only if it was within easy commuting distance of London. And in a village lively enough for me to be able to generate my own income. Even when DC were tiny and we were checking out locations I researched if anyone else in my profession was in the area and whether it was the right demographic for there to be a market for what I do. For the first few years, this was immaterial. Until DC were both at school I didn't work, but as soon as they started, so did I and just as well, as DH was made redundant.

Slippery jack, it's not capitalist per se to ensure you are financially secure without relying on your partner's income. Nor is it inherently capitalist to achieve high rates of pay to ensure you can work shorter hours. It is just good financial sense that capitalists and non capitalists alike can employ.

Grazia

How can a woman who works structure their lives with choice and freedom when they are working? I don't really understand what you mean really.
I find that time is the most important commodity, and this is what enables me to structure my life to enable me to do what I want exactly when I want to do it. This surely isn't a possibility when you have to work for a certain number of hours during a day and you can't tell a client or your boss that you just fancy not working for the next month or so.
To me freedom is not being tied to a job and career.

I am very very pro capitalist. It's the only system that works. Capitalists have chidlren, love them, spend time with them and work. What's not to like about that kind of balance. Just about every capitalist I have even known even people on over £1m a year put at the centre of their lives and prioritise their loving relationships and children. In fact the more women earn the more they can structure their lives with choice and freedom to spend their lives as they choose.

Yes, sorry for derailing

I guess that we've all swallowed the capitalist kool-aid and therefore can't attribute value unless there is also money in the equation. Which is wrong on all accounts.

I would never say that I wanted to use my brain when defending my decision to work - that's just offensive. How do SAHPs use their brain any less than non-SAHPs? It's simply used for different things - but they are things that capitalist society deems less valuable.