Could we have a talk about perceptions of SAHP?

I think 'handing over' is negatively loaded and the people who say it absolutely know it is too.

I like to think me being out the workplace is just a phase- and I've always said 'at home' or 'not working Now.' However, the reality is trying to get back in is going to be difficult. Not impossible but quite tough- and maybe that's something that I should suck up after 6 years out or not- I don't know!

"just a phase" is all very well, but after a certain time you can't just hop back into a career. The best you can do is find a "job".

Now, I suppose I'm in the "fortunate" position of being able to weigh up the money I'd earn in a job versus the hassle, and at the moment it doesn't compute.

As someone else said upthread, it also depends where you are. Long-term SAHMing is more usual if you are in an out-of-the-way place. And it depends on your pre-dcs job. I heard a (stupid) woman on Woman's Hour talking about the importance of maintaining her career - and she was a "freelance journalist" (sold two unfunny articles on the difficulties of parenting, more like). A freelance journalist hardly has the worry of what to do with the dcs when chickenpox strikes.

Isn't part of the problem around the language of this is that it is very hard to describe a personal experience without a sensitive person on the other side reading a judgement into it when none is intended. For example:

SAHP: "I love being able to go into the eldest's school to help with reading and know loads of people through the toddler group" -WOHP hears "I can't believe you've never made it to reading time and how sad you don't know many of the local kids"

WOHP says "Working makes my brain feel used" - SAHP hears "you must still, x years on, be in that early maternity brain fog"

I think some people rush to feel judged far more than others try to judge... And then get defensive. I know I've been on both sides of this, when no harm has been meant.

Agree that women rarely have the option of a parent at home rather tha paid childcare.

There is often a financial and career penalty to even a "phase" of time at home. And retraining is much more expensive now than in the past with higher fees etc.

My mum was a "trailling spouse" moving round and a SAHM for ten years or so in the 70s/80s, then applied for a degree for an NHS profession and joined the NHS afterwards. She says she wouldn't have got on the course (more competition, higher entry requirements) or been able to afford to do that in similar circumstances now.

So the lower earner married the man 10 years older... that was my point. Women marry up and often older men so when push comes to shove their earn less and give up work . Before we got engaged we agreed if one of us had to give up work it woudl be him as we were both feminists but just as important I as a lawyer would earn more. My mother supported my father working full time for 10 years back in the 1950s. Not all families have that history.

I think we can dispense with loaded phrases like "handing over" children. Asd someone else asked is it handing over if your husband stays at home? Also is it handing over when the child goes to nursery school or big school? In fact the handing over in a sense is what makes the child better if we want that debate. If you have close relationships with several people and learn different view points as a child you tend to do better not worse than a child with one parents 24/7.

whatthe - but not all young men are like that. My sons know it will be an equal decision as to who works and who doesn't and also amongst my daughter's friends.

I wonder if welsh would have married a man who was 10 years younger rather than 10 years older? That is another reason women's life long careers are worse than men's beecause they marry slightly older and slightly better earning men.

the choices facing mothers and fathers are not equal. I know there are plenty of equally committed parents. However I'm sure I'm not alone in knowing that there are lots of families in which the father has a choice between capable and enthusiastic child carers in the shape of paid carers or the option of the other parent going part time or full time at home and being the hub of kids & house and all that entails. How many mothers actually have that choice available? It's usually child care or working, isn't it?

This is a really good point. Witness on this thread how many women have given up their careers, because to them it made sense for the family rather than use child care. Not a choice men seem to face, is it?

I work with a lovely young man & we were discussing whether he might start a family soon. It was all about the impact it may have on his wife's career & stop her progressing - because we both knew full well it would have no impact on his. And this is the next generation - nothing has changed.

I didn't mean it in a "it's just a phase, get over it" way

More in a "so, why all the aggro against SAHMs?" way. And, yes, why the penalties all round for mothers?

Not enough coffee in me yet to attempt an answer to those questions.

It's never quite clear what "have it all" means...

It's true that SAHP is quite often a phase. But being a mother penalises you very often in the work place - you are not committed, you are nurturing (yes, that can be used in a negative sense, isn't that funny?) etc etc. I don't know if the penalising is also a phase - I'm still waiting to find out after 10+ years. But of course being a woman lasts quite a long time ... Difficult to pin down what part of my lack of progression in my career is down to which type of stereotyping ...

SAHPing is often just a phase, isn't it? A period out of a whole lifetime.

Yes, Softsnow, I think this is a good point. It is what I want for myself, and wish was more available to more parents if they feel it is right for them.

It may be impossible to "have it all," all at once. But, most of us can have a bit of everything sequentially.

Any people who have negativity towards a STAHPs or working mums aren't worth listening to. Every child is different so the only ones who know what is best are the parents themselves.

There are too many people talking through computers saying what they think is best. There are also too many people taking the comments too seriously or too worrying too much about what other people think.

My wife is a STAHM so the perception of me would be that I don't do any housework and don't spend any time with my kid. I know that's a complete load of rubbish and that's all that matters/

My previous post was a response to the 'would a 40k women marry a 20k man'. I was on 30k not 40 but yes I would have been with my dp if he earned 20k or less.

So sorry for triple posting.

And yes I would have been with my dp if he was earning less than me, but I would not have given up my job.

Grazia1984 I didn't set out to earn less than my dp! He's 10 years older than me so had quite a head start on his career compared to me. Although our earnings were actually similar until he got given a job by a family member who gave him a significant pay rise.

NewLife4Me, would you have "*handed them over" to their father?

*that's a bit of a loaded phrase in the context of the OP. No need to polarise, is there?

SAHPing is often just a phase, isn't it? A period out of a whole lifetime. My mum, who would absolutely class herself as a SAHM, worked before children and after we were all grown up.

Grazia

I too out earned my dh and had a very successful business and career before having children.
There was no way I was handing my dc over to anybody else and it was my decision to give up my career.
We could have afforded a nanny and we both could have had fantastic careers, but after dc it wasn't for me.
Not having a career hasn't ruined my life at all and family including husband are well intact, I haven't made any sacrifices.
We are all different and all have varying values and expectancies of life.

jillbyeats

"But while I would hate to be handing over my children to someone else every day I do feel the negative connotations of being a SAHP and it is women who make the most hurtful comments. "

Irony is apparently lost on you.

I apologise for not reading the whole thread and if my points have already been covered, but I have witnessed some things in the past week that might chime.

Firstly, the old chestnut of women making a valid point that was ignored, then made by a man and picked up on as if it was a total revelation, with credit going to him. Allied to that, incredulity from men that a woman would know about a particular item (because they never thought to ask, or never listened). The latter has happened on 3 occasions this week to the same woman and one who was a previous "I don't call myself a feminist" type. I think she's coming round... Add all those together over a working career and how restricted is progression going to be? Along with all the other barriers faced by women, not men.

And my second point is that the choices facing mothers and fathers are not equal. I know there are plenty of equally committed parents. However I'm sure I'm not alone in knowing that there are lots of families in which the father has a choice between capable and enthusiastic child carers in the shape of paid carers or the option of the other parent going part time or full time at home and being the hub of kids & house and all that entails. How many mothers actually have that choice available? It's usually child care or working, isn't it?

I have no issue with SAHMs - why would I? - and I do think that their value is largely unappreciated and undervalued. Disclaimer - I do find that the total kid focus and playground politics stuff hard to get engaged with. I'm sure it wasn't like that in my SAHM's day? Maybe it's just where I live.

Would any £40k woman on mumsnet for example want to marry my £20k postman son for example?

A big issue is even though women under 30 earn more than men in the UK now they choose to marry men who earn even more. That might change but for now even alpha women want alpha men who out earn them and men tend to prefer women who are in a sense under them As long as that continues women will have the secondary pin money income and therefore be the ones who put their career on hold or as second best. When women routinely marry men who earn less then you won't be getting women on £40k whose husbands are on £20k giving up work.

Grazia I think that earning 10 times your DH is not something everyone can do, or decide to do now. Certainly not at the age of most of MN, where we have finished school, chosen and finished our degrees and done a decade plus of work. People are already on their path, so to speak.

The best hope for that is probably the next generation who are now in school. Encouraging them to pick (financially) rewarding careers that give them options. We know that they are equally (or more) capable than their male peers, we just need to make sure they believe it.

welsh, why does your partner earn a lot mroe than you do? I earned 10x my children's father as a good few women do so obviously I didn't give up work or go on a mommy track. It seems to be a key thing. When women well out earn men they don't sacrifice interesting careers. When instead men earn more women can ruin their lives and career prospects.

Welsh hairs, if you're not married you are even more vulnerable and if you don't return to work soon should make sure you're financially/legally protected as much as possible.

Also, ignore the in-laws!

Sorry - not RTFT, so only responding to the original post. My only misgiving about SAHMs from a feminist perspective is that it makes women vulnerable financially. I know too many women who got dumped for a younger model once the DC were in their teens, who had no pension of their own, no savings and no recent employment history. Men can devalue SAHM. It's not inevitable, but blimey did I see DH do it subconsciously. It almost wrecked our marriage. I was determined to be around for my DC at all times, so only worked once they started school and only in school hours. Even now the majority of my work if home-based. But knowing I earn a good rate PT and, if I needed to, could support my DC single handed by working FT has been a massive confidence boost. I worry not that women don't use their brain but that the world assumes they don't if they are SAHMs. I'd advise any woman to make a priority of her own financial security. It can be modest but it must exist.

MrNosey

I am a sahm of 24 years now and likewise as you say didn't decide on this route to enable dh career to progress, although it has taken him from school teacher to international acclaim.
The money hasn't improved though
I think it's inevitable if you have a sahp for the other person's career to take off.
This may not be the case for all but I've found that with friends of ours who both have growing careers one of them has had to take a back seat because it hasn't been possible for both of them to reach the top of their career.
A few couples we knew where neither wanted to do this and both wanted career to grow at the same stage ended up divorced as they just couldn't have it all, when they wanted too.
I guess that can be a huge factor when you have a family.

I was a SAHM for eight years. I don't give a monkeys what other people think. I gave my children the best of me during those crucial early years. I have never ever regretted my decision and have never felt a moment's guilt about my parenting choices. Each to their own I say. If you're happy with your choices who cares what anyone else thinks.