What's wrong with being a SAHM?

Roseandlily.
I don't want to read and run.
Congratulations on your baby, please just enjoy being a mum and take things as they come, we never know what till happen in this life, and may you and your DH enjoy your babies and your life together.
Don't put too much pressure on yourself to be the perfect mum, and enjoy the first few months of motherhood, then see what seems right for all 3 of you.
No 2 families have the same needs and wants, so always be open to change and so long as you talk to your DH about all the things that go on in your little family, you stand of having a strong relationship.
Don't forget this will be a massive change for him as well, so budgets are important to sort so you both don't feel controlled by the other person.

But more than anything else share the love.

Interesting topic. Most problems seem to arise from the fact of what happens if one of the two wants to end, or does end, the relationship.

With regards to the money, I don't understand anyway why people don't share. You chose someone to share your life with. Except money? And if you do split up, for sure the other should pay for the parent that stayed home. It was hopefully a join decision to have kids, and for one to stay home, the loss in career progression from that simply has to be recognized. Might be a good idea to write contracts upon having kids. Even if neither stays home and you pay for a nanny, the mother will lose out I would guess up to a year, in terms of sick days, actual labor, recovery, and whatnot. That should also needs to be recognized imo.

Yawn.

On the off chance that this is real, and FWIW I lost confidence right at the post about your SAHD, don't do it unless you're married. I'd also think hard about whether you want to SAH with a partner who's apparently that useless with money. Even if he does let you control the finances completely, you don't necessarily have any way of enforcing that. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with SAHing (the arguments about the societal context and implications are correct and relevant but you should still do what's best for you). And even if there were, blaming the women who do it rather than the society around us would be misogyny. But you need to get some ducks in a row first.

People always talk about the husband leaving but, for many of us, even 2 jobs make us interdependent - if I leave, he is just as fucked as I am if he leaves. The issue only applies to those who could survive on one income in the first place, surely? So, it's not so much a feminist issue as a money/class issue.

It may be your reward but you may pay for giving yourself that reward of things don't go to plan i.e. Husband leaves you unexpectedly.
Definitely right about two dc and working mums needing constant adult interaction! I definitely can't take too much dc babble. Maybe that might change when dd is older (now 4) I got very bored and enjoy adult interaction a lot. I originally planned to be a sahm and feel lucky I am in a position to keep working as not everyone has a choice.

My dc are all at school now. As a pp said, it was easy to continue work when I only had one child - I was back at work within a couple of months. It is harder to work when you have more dc.
My youngst is at school now. I find that the schools seem to want a level of parental involvement that would be difficult to manage if working. My older ones come home with stacks of homework they want help with.
When they were little, I kind of assumed they would need me less as they got older, but it's just that they need me differently.
I know plenty of women do all this and work, but my old job was pretty full on and I don't want to do it all.
I'm not bored. I never needed my job to stop me from being bored or to keep my mind active. I enjoy having days when the kids are at school and I can do whatever I want. Having put in all the hard work when they were small (I used to child mind when the older dc started school. Stopped when having youngest), this is my reward

Maybe sah is more suited to people who don't get lonely or crave constant contact with other adults.

SAHM to one school age child is totally different to SAHM to multiple pre-school age children. So I think perhaps we were talking at cross purposes there.

I have to confess I don't understand why anyone would become a SAHM for a single school age child without engaging in some outside-the-home activity, whether that be work, volunteering, or something else.

Apologies to anyone I offended. I spoke from experience. I worked full time in a demanding job in the aim that I could equal my h load and pay. My career would take a big hit if I stepped out for a while. I openly said at interviews I wanted a job to further my abilities so that I can show my dd that it's ok to work and be a mum. When dd started a private school nursery that expected homework etc I was doing the school run then starting my hour commute then getting home late and dd wasn't getting any homework done etc so I quit my job as I didn't have to work financially I just didn't want to fall behind in my career but i also didn't want that to be at my dd expense either.
When I stayed at home I got up later. I didn't look after myself as well as i did when I was at work. I took on more housework than I wanted to and found myself nominated as sahm before I'd really decided that was what I wanted. I also started applying for work again and was told my gap had affected things and when I finally got a part time job I found my confidence was quite low from spending days at home without communicating with adults and my brain just felt stupid after only a few months off. Ok I'm not saying everyone has this but I speak from personal experience and other mothers saying to me they never even wanted to apply for a job after a year or two off as they felt incapable of even managing an interview by that point.
My advice remains to try to work in some capacity as many women do lose confidence and get used to getting up late not meeting deadlines etc and when their children don't need them women are often left with not much to show for it.
I also went to divorce my h and my solicitor told me it was 50:50 of assets but of course I would get no spousal maintenance these days and I would be expected to get at least a part time job, which had I left a big gap would be on considerably lower pay than had I remained in work the whole time. So the law doesn't agree with sahm either apparently which again is why I say women it's always a risk to be a sahm.
Again ime I wasted a lot of time being a sahm. Once I'd cleaned and done all dc things I'd still have a lot of time on my hands. Boredom set in for me. I don't speak for everyone but I know many women feel how I feel and feel trapped after long periods as a sahm. I felt trapped and bored and every minute I was with dd was lovely but she's at school 8:30-3:30. It doesn't take that long to uphold household duties. Even to have time to yourself that still leaves a lot. I was speaking from my own experience and not meaning to offend but I think my experience does sum up what many women have happen when they become a sahm. Fwiw my mum was sahm and I never felt it was overly useful expect when I'd phone her to bring stuff I'd forgotten. She always says she loved it but loving it is not what is being asked here. I loved my career but it always had to come second to raising dc. Same as choosing to be a sahm because you love it should. Ime it's a big risk for women. Not doubting there's still many things that could improve this situation though.

I'm a feminist and have been a SAHM for 10 yrs. the two are not incompatible.

The key (In my situation) has been that DH and I are on an equal footing in all ways. We have one joint account, all the money that he earns is family money. All our assets are jointly owned. We have equal access to money and we are totally open about money etc. And at home, we share the load. DH has a time consuming, stressful job - yet he still picked up the baby and got on with bath time when he got in, when the children were younger. Yes, getting dinner on the table falls under my job description - but playing with children and clearing up after is part of his. Working FT does not excuse him from sharing the load at home - which is a FT job in itself.

Being a SAHM and a feminist are not mutually exclusive. But a lot of women find themselves in relationships that become horribly unequal especially after they have children.

IME it's not the first child that changes everything, it's when the second child comes along. That's when childcare becomes unaffordable, and the school run difficult, and the number of days off needed to cover sick children untenable for one parent to carry alone, and clubs and activities need lots of ferrying around... And so it becomes easier all around for the mother to stay home rather than go back to work, or she goes back to work for a short time then takes a career break / resigns

02/08/2017 09:55 AdelicaArundel

Rose
I rarely post in here, but I lurk and learn. There are many knowledgeable people here who have considered views and seem open to having their views challenged.

You are apparently a woman and are posting in the feminist section. Yet you've opened by stating that you are not a feminist

It astounds me that any woman can declare she is not a feminist.

But I see this a lot from younger women, who have not yet entered the badlands of juggling babies and work and how your identity and societal position changes once you acquire the status of mother.

Pre-mothering women seem to think that they won't be like me. That they won't become haggard and harassed and stridently feminist.

Well, I think I was probably like you once....until I was dealing with non-sleeping children and then getting up to go to work in the morning.

It's tough going.

You've asked what do feminists think is wrong with your plan?
Nothing wrong with it.
But I doubt that it is a plan made with a full understanding of the personal, financial, societal and long-term implications of that decision
^
One of the most perceptive posts I have ever read. Agree entirely

'If a woman wants to be a SAHM, is it not valid, in terms of feminism, to win the fight for equal rights within the home? To fight for economic equality, and equal division of labour, in this context? If women have achieved well, in terms of equality, in the home arena, should that not be celebrated alongside those who have achieved well within paid employment?'

Yes, exactly.

Women get criticised whatever they do and blamed whenever things go tits up WRT to children.

I would say the wohp has an obligation to share the wealth indefinitely upon divorce. Certainly for as long as it takes for the sahp to make up lost ground. After all, the wohp benefits forever from having no break in career and lots of home support.

Completely agree. I read something recently about families having post nups drawn up to protect the SAHP in the event of divorce. Excellent idea IMO.

Men should not be allowed to drop out of their DC's lives.

I've been a feminist all my adult life and a SAHP for much of it too. See no conflict there whatsoever.

Instead of blaming being a SAHP for losing confidence in the workplace, what about blaming the prejudice and discrimination prevalent in the workplace?

Exactly, Batteries. If a woman was sexually discriminated against at work we would not say, choosing to work is not a wise choice, in terms of feminism. We would not tell the woman she is putting herself more at risk for experiencing patriarchal oppression in the workplace. We would not warn she will become vulnerable if she becomes financially dependent on the wage she receives from an employer. We do not deter women from working in male dominated industries which are full of sexist attitudes. We cooled be instead advising women to set up their own businesses instead of being employed.

If a woman wants to be a SAHM, is it not valid, in terms of feminism, to win the fight for equal rights within the home? To fight for economic equality, and equal division of labour, in this context? If women have achieved well, in terms of equality, in the home arena, should that not be celebrated alongside those who have achieved well within paid employment?

What if a sahm is so just because she wants to be at home with children?

Is everything to be judged by financial gain and career progression? The point is having a choice. It should be just as easy for women as men to get back into the workplace - if that is what they choose. We need to understand that some might not for personal reasons.

The question to be asked is why don't as many men make or, indeed , have that choice?

it's so easy to slip into bad habits

Talking about women like they are children doesn't exactly further the discussion blubber.

Instead of blaming being a SAHP for losing confidence in the workplace, what about blaming the prejudice and discrimination prevalent in the workplace? The lazy attitudes of husbands who 'allow' the woman to work but only as long as she can still do school pick ups etc, drastically reducing her career flexibility?

It's not the case that being a SAHM og itself makes you depressed / work shy / afraid of communicating with other adults / insert shitty prejudice here. That's just what is said about SAHMs as part of society devaluing the choice.

I would say the wohp has an obligation to share the wealth indefinitely upon divorce. Certainly for as long as it takes for the sahp to make up lost ground. After all, the wohp benefits forever from having no break in career and lots of home support.

I agree that helping sahp who want to rtw after a time would also be beneficial. If this happened and the sahp was hekped to make up lost time properly, then the amount of financial support needed from men post divorce would decrease. But that financial support should certainly be there until the sahp has truly caught up.

Bear in mind that women are usually the rp after divorce, with many fathers dropping out of any meaningful responsibility for their children. This makes it really difficult for women generally. Men should not be allowed to drop all the work involved in raising dc while keeping all the money!

I disagree avoidingcall. I think the government should put more measures in place to allow the sahp to be able to work after having children. Going to work is good to stay in touch with adults and it's so easy to slip into bad habits staying at home including losing confidence to ever go back to work even when it's possible.
Staying at home full time only allows for further financial insecurity at some point. How long is the working parent supposed to provide for the non working parent in the event of a divorce? Once children at primary school, once children in high school? Makes more sense that child care was made financially accessible for all than putting further stress on the working parent?

So the way to change it is to take away the financial risk of sah. For the state to recognise the risk and ensure that sahp receive proper financial support in the event of divorce and to compel fathers to actually parent. I think that not seeing your dc or skimping on child support should be as legally and socially unacceptable as drink driving.
If men knew that their sahp had a legal entitlement to half the family money, that a sahp's work was recognised as having value to him, then they might respect it more and as a result choose it for themselves. Which in turn would help negate discrimination against women in the work place because we wouldn't be the ones who always take time out with men never doing so.
It would protect women who stay in bad relationships for financial reasons.

Yes of course the current set up, employers etc, is bad for (some) fathers too, but nowhere near as much as it is for mothers. Men are almost always choosing not to take the financial risk.

Thereby taking all the financial risk.

I think that's a really interesting way to look at it. Because with any risk comes a reward trade off. And what people are prepared to accept for a given reward varies according to their tolerance for risk. So, yes, I absolutely accept that I took the financial risk, but I got the reward of being the primary carer for my children when they were small. So I was prepared to bear that risk. My DH didn't get to spend anywhere near the same amount of time with them, as he was working. His financial risk was less, but his reward of time with his kids was lower.

Yes, it's definitely true that women are more likely to cut back on work.
Upthread it was said that work hasn't adapted to recognise demands of parenthood - employers don't care at all about family, they just expect you to be there and do the job. That has had negative impact for both men and women.
I'm sure lots of men would like to be home more but the way our society is just doesn't allow it.

My point is that men become fathers and work FT and parent around that. So their financial and labour market position remains the same or even improves. Women much more often parent AH for some or all of the time. Thereby taking all the financial risk.