What's wrong with being a SAHM?

Well, he's here every weekend loopy, and depending on travel, some evenings/mornings.
If we were both woh, that could be the reality for both of us. As it is our dc have one parent who is home. It wouldn't necessarily be the case that if I woh, he would be at home more.

"many couples tag team as their children grow up depending on where they are in their career/how much they like their job at that time/their geographic location of job/childrens' needs etc"

That's not what I observe at all: I see women making the career compromises, full stop.

DH "does as much for the DC as time allows". So time when paid work allows.

Your mother isn't generally going to have an affair/leave you for another daughter/fall out of love with you

No, but she might get ill/have a change in her own life circumstances/get older and frailer and not feel up to the same level of childcare anymore/feel that she needs to split her time between her grandchildren if your siblings go on to have children....

Your mother isn't generally going to have an affair/leave you for another daughter/fall out of love with you

It's pretty age old and world wide, for older generations to take care of the kids

I was always socialised to forge ahead in my career - I found it a biological drive to want to stay with my dc

That's a bloody good point - I'd wholly agree with that (as someone who took the opposite decision in the end).

I'd say one thing I never realised until I had children and walked the walk: we do need to respect people wanting to stay home with their dc in the early years even if that wasn't our choice, it is as natural as wanting to carry on with a career you've fought hard for. Yes women are socialised to be maternal, I was always socialised to forge ahead in my career - I found it a biological drive to want to stay with my dc, albeit one I didn't listen to for various reasons.

I think women helping other women to try to overcome patriarchal problems (over priced childcare being one of them) is a deeply feminist act.

...or alternatively, you are getting another woman to do child centred/domestic work for free, thereby reducing its value further in the eyes of society?

Tagging on - I think that people see their individual decisions as just that - individual decisions. Fair enough.

But the feminist analysis of that is to see how people's individual decisions are framed by quite powerful social structures, underpinned by very powerful ideologies: socialisation of women and men into feminine and masculine roles; the organisation of work along the lines of male life patterns.

I think this latter thing is what is difficult - the way we organise work and business is around a male life cycle. Men don't get pregnant. So we've been trying to squeeze a very different life pattern into an old, outdated mould.

I think women helping other women to try to overcome patriarchal problems (over priced childcare being one of them) is a deeply feminist act.

I don't think it's impossible for SAHP to be represented well by working parents - there are some people who are so conviction centred they know they'd never have made a different choice but for most of us, where we fall on the full time to SAHP line is largely a question of circumstances.

I do feel the real injustice is that first of all people can't own their choices without feeling judged (although some of that is in my case because I'm second guessing myself), and secondly that there is not enough provision for SAHP getting training to return to good jobs. Surely there is a way to talk about retraining at al ages of life without making people feel bad about themselves as no good ever comes from that.

In the end we all just do feels right at the time.

This is the nub of it. And - given everyone's situation is different and people have different views/personalities/needs, what's right for one family may not be right for another. People lose track of that, I think. At the end of the day, if you have children, they need to be cared for and there needs to be money to support the family. But how they are cared for, how much money you need and who needs to earn it? All a matter of personal choice and opinion.

Plus - I've noted all the talk of dependency on here and one thing leaps out at me. I probably know just as many working mothers who are dependent upon their own mothers as I do SAHMs who are dependent on their husbands. The cost and inflexibility of childcare means that it's often a grandparent who is required to step in to some degree or other. Does that affect whether work is seen as a feminist choice?

I am married to a 'corporate suit' and in all fairness, he does as much for his dc as time allows. He certainly doesn't think that because he has been at work all week that he shouldn't have to ever drive them anywhere or take them to the park or make them food or any of the other stuff that parents do to look after their children.
He certainly doesn't believe that looking after them is beneath him.

I would say that when looking for a partner, what they do for a living is less important than who they are - it comes down to whether they respect and value the work that goes into caring for a family and being a good parent, or not. And that is something which isn't linked to career choice imo. There are lazy arse men from all job and income brackets who think that raising dc is beneath them - if they are not at work they are entitled to do nothing at home and devote all their 'free' time to their hobby.

My dh does think that money and career progression are important because that gives us the money to support our kids properly. It's as simple as that.

Also, he has had to work as he does because his is the only income. I have to say that while we both were happy for me to sah, it has put pressure on him that I regret. I am a bit conflicted because I really have valued sah, I am married to a man who respects what I do and freely admits that it has helped him career wise, but at the same time it wasn't a sensible financial choice for me and has almost forced dh into a job with long hours etc in order to pay for it all.

Otoh, lots of people work just as hard and earn a lot less, so there is no guarantee that me woh would have resulted in him having a less stressful life. He might have chosen a full on career anyway. Who knows...

Could go mad thinking about this. In the end we all just do feels right at the time.

I suppose even calling them SAHDs is a bit much. Because they are working and earning generally.

From a personal perspective DH and I never felt we needed a parent who didn't work.

We had one year, when I didn't receive any dosh, when we lived abroad. But TBH during that year we used more child care and domestic help than we ever did before or have since. So I'd be stretching it to call myself a SAHM.

But had DH wanted to give up work I'd have been up for that. But I wouldn't have expected to suddenly quit caring for my DC or doing my share of domestic responsibilities.

I fact I know a lot of SAHDs because I work in the arts where lots of people don't make good $$$ and we tend to work at home a lot. Their approach to it is very different to the SAHMs I know.

I think hopsalong was referring to marrying a man prepared to be flexible and open minded about combining family and work rather than a corporate suit who has to put in the long hours to climb the greasy pole and won't ever be inconvenienced by sick children and school pick ups.

In truth, many couples tag team as their children grow up depending on where they are in their career/how much they like their job at that time/their geographic location of job/childrens' needs etc. These are all to be considered, but the feminist view is that it shouldn't be the default that the women takes up the parenting slack so Mr Big never has to concern himself with such pettiness as fitting around school activities.

I mean, I don't see women on this thread complaining that they want their partner or ex partner to be a SAHD.

It seems to be SAHMs who want to be SAHMs or WOHMs who want their partner or ex partner to work as well.

'Men don't do it because they're socialised to believe it is unacceptable to do so.

I totally agree with this and I never knew it was so widespread until I came on here.
However, not all men are. Don't you just find a man who isn't like this, or is that too obvious.'

I suppose you try and find one if you want to be a full time WOHM and support a partner at home, but maybe many WOHMs don't want this set up?

Men don't do it because they're socialised to believe it is unacceptable to do so.

I totally agree with this and I never knew it was so widespread until I came on here.
However, not all men are. Don't you just find a man who isn't like this, or is that too obvious.
I knew the steady corporate type wasn't for me, I think they're wankers. I didn't want the one who went for promotions and judged success with a large salary, it does nothing for me and imo it's soulless.
Sorry if you are married to one and don't see them the same.
My point is I didn't even look at this type, or any other I didn't like.

Don't women know what type of man they want? Do they not see the flaws and personality traits. Do they not discuss the their values, expectations, personal plans for their future.
Do they not know what they are signing up to?

*I love the idea of striving to be the best mother, home maker, having the tea on the table for when he gets home stuff. I love the idea of it all

It's sweet that you're so in love with the "idea" of it all. Wait till you get to the reality.*

Oh, I don't know. I got to spend all day, every day with the people I love the most in the world. Who matter to me the most. And for whom I am the person (or one of them - no disrespect to DH here) they love most in return. The reality was pretty lovely, I thought, albeit not financially rewarding. And now they're that bit older and they have to go to school, I appreciate it more - because that time, and that opportunity, is gone forever. Did it have its ups and downs, like anything does in life? Of course - because it is real life and not a film. But still something I'm really glad I was able to do. In fact, if you pushed me, I'd go so far as to say I feel pretty grateful to my DH that he made that possible (in the sense of it being an actual and meaningful choice that I could make).

...and I'm more of a "wait till he gets home before I open the wine" than a "tea on the table when he gets home" type, in all honesty! (DH would definitely concur....)

I was talking to the father of one of my DS's friends today about how expensive it is to pay for nursery for two children under 5, why it will make more sense financially for us to have a nanny once I go back to work, etc.

He said something to the effect of: yes, because you might as well just stay at home with them. Emphasis very much on the 'you' as the mother.

I don't earn a fortune, but it does make financial sense for me to go back to work and pay for a full-time nanny. In the long term, it definitely makes sense. Not that this matters at a personal level, and I might well choose to go back to work if I earned less, or to be a SAHM if I earned far more. But behind the remark (of a nice man) there seemed to be the underlying assumption that my work wasn't well-paid, and so needed justifying.

In reverse, I was thinking, it would have been a super rude comment for me to make to him (they have a second child on the way; we just had one). And I doubt he would have said it to my husband!

How do you deal with these irritating prejudices about women's work, wages, value? How does one correct someone without looking like a touchy strident loon?

Yes, many families can't afford to even cover childcare for both to go to work, and many mothers who do work are incredibly precarious positions, making them vulnerable to discrimination.

I wonder how many SAHMs stayed at home because of pregnancy / birth complications, being passed over for promotion because illness+young children = no promotion, and could see that after three or four years of that (the amount of time it takes a lot of two child families to have their kids) their DH would have advanced beyond them anyway, whether they chose to work or not.

Part of the reason I stayed at home was the fact discrimination against me started pretty much when I became pregnant. Could I prove it? Could I fuck. Also I had HG I could barely think straight let alone instruct lawyers.

So I guess I played right into the hands of those discriminating against me but who wants to play poker with one card? It's lies to pretend I would have been any more secure if I'd stayed at work. The minute I decided to have children I became vulnerable, in work and out.

Nobody is saying the choices are made in a vacuum.

Men don't do it because they're socialised to believe it is unacceptable to do so.

If it's so great, why don't more men do it?

These choices are not made in a vacuum.

'But us pesky feminists just like to point out that somehow it always 'makes sense' for it to be the man that goes to work and the woman to stay at home. And that many women are disadvantaged in the long term by a 'choice' where they bore most of the financial risk. That is feminist structural analysis, not taking a pop at individual women '

It's a very limited feminist analysis. Us pesky feminists would like to point out that not all advantages and disadvantages are measured in economic terms, and that there are many advantages to being a SAHM.