re. SAHM/WOHM debates

[undercovamutha]

To wish that there would sometimes be some recognition that there is a middle ground between mothers parents who work 50 hours a week, and those who SAH.

WOHM could include anyone on a spectrum from working a couple of hours a week in the local shop, to working 50-60 hours a week in the City.

AIBU to think that the term WOHM, in the context of the kind of debates we have on MN, and in the media, is therefore a bit of a silly 'capture all' term.

"It's fair enough that people have a view on the right way to bring up children seeing as most people like to think they are good parents and I am sure this is the reason why the debate still goes on."

Actually I don;t think that. I have no doubbt that there are better parents out there than me, I don;t think that my choices are necessarily the best (who knows that?). My choices are a comnbination of necessity and choice and just to add a wrinkle into the mix, my parenting has changed as DS has changed and I have had to respond to that.

I have found that DS needs me around more as he has got older not less so I worked more when he was younger than I did now he is about to start school when many SAHM's are considering a move back to work.

I reality (as someone said earlier) it isn't generally a big issue in RL - a mixture of freinds have a mixture of situations and you can't tell which is which by a study of their children. Which is as it should be.

'Princess Twinkle-Tits and the Precious Moments Mamas' 'precious moments' is a bit of a guffy phrase. I am all for staying at home if that's what you want, but I fail to notice how it makes any difference to a child who sees its first steps, word etc. I can't remember who saw mine, can you?

I don't think people are that bothered in real life, and if they are rude to you about your choice there is always a comeback. If they work and you SAH, you can wheel out the precious moments stuff, and go on about Oliver James. If they SAH and you work, you can speak ve-ry slow-ly as if their brains have turned to mush. Both approaches are pretty much equal on the annoyingness front.

I think there needs to be a lot less lazy pigeonholing and stereotyping. Parents and families come in all shapes and sizes and do what they do their own way. We should be able to respect everyone as an individual on their own merits rather than saddle them with some lame label (or stupid 4-letter acronym) just so we can conveniently lump them in with others and make assumptions about them.

Ooh, MumNWLondon, I would define you as very lucky! (am jealous, can you tell)

If you are truly at peace with your choices, you don't get into slanging matches. Those 'arguments' are laced with bitterness, insecurity, lack of confidence.

Anyhoo in real life I find there is much more moderation and balance. I have lots of SAHM friends, I am a career bitch and funnily enough we don't spend our time debating our differences we just get on with glugging wine and laughing like drains when we get together.

It's on forums/TV/Daily Mail that it goes nuclear!

"Posieparker - whenever I read a posting where someone harps on about how they wouldn't want to miss all those precious moments, I think the person who posted it is a wanker."

Why would you think that? Surely a parent is allowed to want to see their child reach as many milestones as possible without you thinking badly of them, or did you actively miss everything you could? I just object to name calling and labels but you object to someone wanting to be with their child, how peculiar.

I don't really care how people combine getting enough money to live on and making sure that their children are cared for as long as every family has enough money to get by and children who are lovingly looked after. I do have a problem when parents are made to feel bad about a decision that works well for their family or when a parent ends up being pressured into an option that they don't want to take.

it bores me shitless, we really do make a rod for our own back with this one

You don't get it Posie - it's not about wanting to be there when your child does its first poo on the potty or whatever (a perfectly reasonable thing to want), it's about calling them precious moments

I don't think people do call them 'precious moments' but if they did is it really soooo bad to think of little milestones or times with their children as 'precious'? When did enjoying children and wanting to spend time with them be such a crime? why can't someone who has decided that their role in life is to nurture and care for their own children call that time precious? Of all the objections swinging from each side I would think this is the most pathetic.

I've never heard 'precious moments' on mumsnet or in RL. It's just easier for one of us to be at home sorting the kids out do the other can focus on work. Now DD3 is 1 this will change. That's life.

I think the decision to work or not (and it isn't a choice for everyone) is usually made by weighing up the sum of many small things - work, health, DC needs etc.

Ihave never had this debate in RL. I think it's because people usually have very good reasons for staying at home or workj g. And in the end it's none of my business anyway.

I did see see DS take his first steps and heard his first words but for the life of me I can't actually remember them.

Kew , its true
I have some picture where I honestly can't tell if it is DS1 or Ds2 unless I can identify the decor. Thank god we moved after DS1....

I remember DDs first worrds . In fact I remember her babbling but that is after DS2 didn't so I was waiting IYSWIM

Until we discuss SAHM/WOHM as part of 'family unit' decisions mothers will never escape judgement.

Sprogger, I do object to any group being labelled but 'precious moment' seems particularly patronising and shitty. It's just as annoying as the 'I wonder why she chose to have kids'.

The whole 'debate' is pointless. As if working mothers are going to down tools and rush back home to their kids taking their expertise and experience with them. My daughters' health and education are looked after by an army of working mothers who are excellent at their jobs.
The same hoes for SAHM- so many who found it too difficult to juggle a demanding career and small children, or who are foi g the best with the cards they have been dealt.

Being labelled the' precious moments brigade' is spectacularly unhelpful.

For those of us who have the choice to SAH or WOH, how can we be sure we have made the right one?

Keeping a career buoyant whilst being a SAHP is difficult to do so in order to feel that I have made the right decision to SAH it needs to have made a difference somewhere along the line.

I prefer to 'think' that my relationship with my DC is better than it would be if I was WOH. This may or may not be true, hence the debate. I think that there is a debate to be had amongst those of us who genuinely have a choice. The same goes for the private vs state school debate.

So, wrt the OP, the debate is way too broad -YANBU.

What is so wrong with that?

I despise the "SAHM-as-guardians-of-precious-moments" argument.

I work with young families in a mostly urban, poor, multiethnic area. Many of the women do not go out to paid employment. They work like demons in their homes, cooking, cleaning and taking care of elderly and infirm relatives.

They don't sit on the floor and sing with their kids, go to Tumble Tots or videotape the first steps.. they often come to clinic and say they can't find 10 minutes in the day where they could sit with their child and talk to them and if they did their mother-in-law would heap scorn on them for wasting time. Their children are as likely to spend all day in one room with little talk directed to them playing with the same toys as any child in any nursery.

Their experience is similar to my mother's and her mother's: my grandmother jokes that she realised that her fourth child (of 8) didn't know his own name when he was three because no one ever talked to him.

Maybe some SAHM's spend their time intensively interacting with their child - but I would be surprised if they accounted for even a substantial minority.

In the same way, I am very about women who say they enjoy every second of being a SAHM, women who say they enjoy every moment they are out at work and women who say that working part-time is just perfect. Seriously. I'd bed that everyone has days when they wish they were doing their life differently.

I agree OP. Of the mothers I know, probably 15% are total SAHMs, 15% are F/T WOHMs and the rest are somewhere in the middle.

I stayed at home with both DCs for their first year and then started little bits of P/T work; anything from a couple of hours up to 2 days a week; term-time only. Officially, I'm a WOHM but I don't really feel like one since work takes up the smallest part of my time and energies compared to my role as a mother.

Chill and Olifin - my point exactly.

I agree 100% with arses. No choice is ever easy or straightforward or without complications once you have a child. Or at least that's my experience and the experience of those around me. It's about achieving a balance but then again the balance is never quite right. With the exception of families who are super wealthy & think nothing of having a full time live-in nanny & to leave the childcare completely to her (and I've seen families with this set-up with SAH mums) the rest of us just muddle along as best we can.

I belong in the part-time working mum camp (at the moment unemployed actually so more SAH), and to be honest I sometimes find my days at home with DS- age 2- mind-numbingly boring. On those days the time just doesn't pass. There are other days with DS that are great fun. In general I enjoy & value my time with him & feel lucky that I work part-time and not full-time, and I hope to continue this way. The bottom line is that I always love having DS around, and I know that sounds like a paradox when I've just said all those negative things about having some boring, unbearable days. But that's the normal ambivalence of having and being with children, I think.

I am always extremely surprised that there are women who find everything about staying at home so delightful, when it can be unrelenting, boring and at times extremely irritating and unrewarding work. Spending time with children can also be a lot of positive things, but I think we know those as I assume we all love & care for our children (regardless of our working choices). It's the negative stuff that's not talked about so openly.

I think that both WOH and SAH are choices that have pros & cons but on balance I would always give my vote to mothers who work, as I feel that's offering themselves & their children a more balanced, long-term, realistic, open-minded view of life. That's my belief but I know each case is very very different. For a woman who is used to be immersed in a job she loves, who is also used to making her own money, it can be very hard or even impossible to stay at home full time and it may be, for many women, that it's simply not the right choice at all.

So all these debates feel beside the point when in reality there's no way (in most cases) that a woman who has spent years working in a field she loves & values would give that up completely to look after her children full-time when she can often access good childcare & use the help of her DP too. Assuming that giving up work & staying at home would be the right choice for these kinds of women and their children is so wrong-headed, when clearly, clearly it's not the right choice in so many cases: more and more women are going to work after having children, that's the reality despite any 'trend' towards staying at home motherhood which I believe is unimportant in the large scheme of things. This is what makes these debates so infuriating & insulting. It's not selfish & not a thing to be ashamed of if someone loves their work & values it and wants to do their work. And very often SAHMs try to guilt-trip working mums, and I feel that's what's shameful, actually. If someone enjoys doing childcare all day, that's fantastic, go for it. But don't make others feel bad to justify your own choices. If someone doesn't want to do childcare full time, fine too.

There IS no sahm/work debate.
Not until you get some silly twonk and we have had quite a few come on recently who start saying silly things like :
"why did you have children if you want to work. I was at my NCT group the other day and one offended me by saying ..."

or, "i work 60 hours a week and never see my kids."

THEN you get a debate. and only then becasue people object to such nonsense.

but in the norm, people don't care if you sah or work. coz just becasue no one really cares.

Brilliant post arses.

If only. some people get all fired up and believe that if you stay home with your kids you're lazy or thick, or that if you work you love money more than your children...

fgs........ calm down have a cup of tea.

Goodpost Maria. I am sahm and there are down sides to it. But I know my life, my qualifications, experience, earning potential and armed with all that info I think I've made the only decision that is workable for right now. (son on the autistic spectrum, so as it turned out, have no doubts at all) but it's not hard for me to trust that other people know their own life, earning potential etc.... !