Likened to a prostitute for being a wife?!

When I was talking about support, IWill, upthread, personally, I just meant in terms of not being overly critical concerning other women's choices. I know giving practical help was also mentioned though, later in the thread. I will help people, where I can, when fair, but I do not feel obliged to give unpaid labour. SAHP does not equal other people's slave. We are not a free resource to be used by people who do paid work. You are right there are benefits and drawbacks. And I agree concerning divorce.

That's really good to hear. Who gets the call from school if a child is ill?

This call comes to either partner and kicks off a series of furious hushed conversations where you hear your colleagues negotiating: 'but I have a meeting at 3pm...I did it last time etc"

But we are in civil service type roles - if we leave, no one dies, no deals are lost, no one fails exams.

A colleague's wife is a GP - if his kids need him he is the one who goes as she simply cannot leave her work.

I don't really 'get' why a sahp should feel obliged to return to work once the dc start school. School hours are really short, holidays are long and children still require a lot of time and input even when teenagers. Sah costs women in terms of money, pensions and career development and having done it for years I don't fancy being told by society I now have to start again career wise or do a little job that fits on with school hours or he considered a drain on dh. Bugger that! School days are my time to do as I please - my reward for doing all the night shifts

Also not understanding why it is wrong for a sahm to not feel obligated to help with child care for wohp. Unless wohp are going to top up my pension or share their wages I don't see I owe them support. Sah and woh come with different benefits and drawbacks - you make your choices.
Better, imo to focus on what happens post divorce. Society should recognise that the wohp (usually the man) has done well from having a sah partner and the court should insist on an equal division of the money. That would do more to increase societal recognition that 'women's work' has financial value.

AHellOfABird we have those conversations too.

I'm not actually sure which way round ours are now, Bert. I've never seen it as an issue as we always contact each other anyway, ditto if a child is too ill to go in after one has left for work.

I'd love to know how many "first contacts" are fathers, even when both parents woh.

Bert, at our school, we put down the order of preference for calling, whoever is called though rings the other one and a discussion is had about diaries for that day and coming days (assuming a 48h exclusion)

"TBH in my workplace most men with children have partners who are also working and most of them have childcare responsibilities ie: picking up dropping off etc. Some men are on compressed hours to assist with childcare. This is public sector thiough."

That's really good to hear. Who gets the call from school if a child has thrown up?

TBH in my workplace most men with children have partners who are also working and most of them have childcare responsibilities ie: picking up dropping off etc. Some men are on compressed hours to assist with childcare. This is public sector thiough.

And- sorry again. It was always very clear that he and I had equal "time off" And that he was just as capable a carer as I was. Too many children are being shown that men are somehow less able to look after children than women- and this is an awful thing to be modeling to them. This, ridiculously, meant that I sometimes had lie ins I didn't want and weekends away when I didn't particularly want to go ..................

Locating well I've never been the kind of person to totally support my DH being a workaholic who does no childcare or housework. I discussed when we had our DC how important it is to be involved if he wanted to be close to them. So he changed nappies, does cooking, irons shirts, cleaning etc. The traditional types have frowned on this from time to time (MiL, BiL), since that is what SAHMs are 'meant to do'. I have heard this argument on here too. However, thankfully, my DH does not think like this.

"you experience them as having an unfair advantage"

That isn't what I said. They have an advantage in their careers, sure, but DH and I have other advantages re balance etc.

If caring responsibilities are part of one's remit, of course one thinks about them occasionally during the day. Both DH and I have good jobs; he definitely does more family admin than me during the working day though. It's socialisation at work in your group, OP.

Another thing I forgot- we also made a very conscious decision about how we talk about and use money. We agreed that there would never be the slightest hint of "We'll have to ask Daddy"

"Which is why I am a very supportve friend to those parents of my kids friends where both parents work"

Yes, me too. I am always very irritated by posters on here saying "I chose to be a SAHM to be with my children- I'm not taking on anyone else's"

i've also always done paid and unpaid work, both at home and sometimes outside the home, making sure the children know why and what I'm doing. We've also always talked a lot about why we (much emphasis on the "we") made the specific decisions we did about work and child care- and the different decisions other people make. We've also been very clear to them that we were incredibly lucky to be in a position to make the choices we did- and (maybe channelling Xenia a bit here!) that a good education and a good career path ultimately gives you more choices.

The only way to know, Dozer is to ask the women that SAH. I do and wanted to. However, I will say there can be some element of 'burning your bridges' to the decision. This would be less alienating if the SAH choice was more supported amongst other women. As it is both women who SAH and WOH get a raw deal, partly because of the lack of support from other women, regardless of how men behave.

I totally accept that by conforming to the High flying wohd,SAHw model we have taken the easy option. Which is why I am a very supportve friend to those parents of my kids friends where both parents work. I hugely value the fact that some of my friends have taken the more difficult route of continuing to work, which will help make it more possible in the future to combine a full on career and parenting. So I do more than my share of teenage taxi-ing and sleepovers for my friends, whilst they do more of their share of changing the world.

Perhaps I've not been clear. I think family friendly working policies are of the utmost importance (both DH and I have them in our work place and would not be able to manage without them). I applaud you for your support of them, and I think they are just as important to the SAHP, as to the WOHP.
However, in many cases, the role of enabler/facilitator to the earner/higher earner, means that the non/lower earner must be fully supportive of whatever hours/travel the higher earner is expected/wants to do. The higher earner therefore perpetuates the model that they are free agents to focus on work and money ( for these are of course key to overall family happiness ).
I'm not sure how women's choices are improved in this sort of situation.

I don't think working PT or SaH is a free choice though, it's based on economics, societal expectations etc. 50% of mothers SaH but only a tiny proportion of fathers: if it were a free choice, many more men would make it IMO.

Locating, is feminism about choice for women or not perpetuating traditional roles for the male and female?

If the former, and women are indeed preferring to stay at home, then this can be a feminist choice.

If the latter, then choosing a traditional role is not considered a feminist choice. However this is frowning upon women's free choice to stay at home, which is just as subjugating as being forced into a traditional role.

Personally I am a SAHP. However I still believe in family friendly working practises. Should I not? Because they do not perpetuate me being the SAHP? Without them, (they do exist where my DH works) maybe my DH would be stronger competition...

The thing is, if everyone were to advocate practises which supported just their own choices, working practises might be a lot worse for women, what with the statistics quoted upthread. Perhaps it would be a good idea for women to support each other's choices instead?

And if a family can afford to pay school fees, they can afford childcare fees surely, even if they live in London!

men reaching senior high paid roles should theoretically be well placed to change working culture But they don't. They perpetuate it. Because it suits them. And because they see no need to.

Totally agree with Dozer and Mrsfrumble. This concept that men must be facilitated and enabled to work long hours, be workaholics, in order to pay for school fees etc is really damaging IMO. Damaging not only in terms of the inequality and expectation it CAN bring to a marriage /parenting (being 'told' to be a SAHM!!!), to society in terms of expectations of people working FT (that they can drop family commitments and travel/work late at a moment's notice - not necessarily possible with two WOHPs and a real issue for SAHPs wanting to get back into the workplace) , and in terms of modelling behaviour to DCs ( not necessarily re WOH/SAH but in terms of being present).

However that is an aside to the prostitution question, which doesn't seem like a correct analogy at all. My issue with the SAHM/WOHD set up is not the SAHM element. But the WOHD who very often is away all week, working ridiculously long hours, travelling etc etc. In order supposedly to fund an idyllic family life. To me, the 'idyllic' family life INCLUDES the paternal input if at all possible.

( If my DH told me I had to be a SAHM, i would be upset that he felt i was someone whose life he felt he had the right to determine. This is the part of the OP that dusplsts inequality).

I love being around for the kids and it just works for us

^^

This.

As a family this is what works for you.

Everyone is different, being at home looking after children would be a special kind of hell for me regardless of how much a partner might earn.

I would not enter in to a marriage where I was expected to do that but that doesn't mean no one else should and I have friends who are in a similar situation to you OP.