In being bored senseless with being a SAHM

[cazza40]

I have been at home with my 2 kids now for the last 3 years - before this I worked 4 days a week. I stopped working as I was exhausted - I worked a 6 day week in 4 days (!) and did everything at home too and by the time I had paid for childcare was hardly making any money at all.

The first few years were fine as I was renovating our house , had the 2 young kids to look after. Now both are at school and I am insanely bored with how mundane my life is. Does anyone else feel like this or AIBU ?

I think there are a certain misconception that at women who stay at home do so despite their dh's wishing they would get a job and contribute.

I would like to go back to work after ds3 goes to school full time but it is dh who is really opposed to the idea. At the moment he can concentrate totally on his career, he can plan working away, networking in the evenings etc. in the sure and certain knowledge that I am in going to be sorting out the kids come what may. He is absolutely opposed to this changing by my returning to work.

He would have no problem with whatever I did or didn't do during the day as long as it didn't impact him. As far as he is concerned, we made that choice as a family that he would work for us and I would stay home and facilitate both our family life and his career and for me to change that now is actually unfair and a bit stupid.

I couldn't care less what SAHM's with school age children do. Why should I? What the hell has it got to do with me?

Families arrange themselves in many different ways , why do people feel the need to malign other's choices?

karma - I was responding to the posters (and there were a few!) who raved about how wonderful it is to be SAHM of school age children, because of all the lunching, reading, art gallery visits etc... If it's really that wonderful, isn't it a teensy bit unfair to be doing it all while your partner finances it for you? But of course, perhaps these posters are over- egging the pudding a little.....

I am sure you are right, and the reality for most people is that there is still a grind of domestic stuff to be done, and of course if you don't organise before and after school childcare, the school day (for pupils) is incredibly short, which leaves no time for days out etc

I don't think it is unfair, if the working partner is gaining from the arrangement too. For my DH, that means being able to plan his work without having to consider childcare arrangements. It's unfair, but people who have to leave work dead on the dot to collect DC, and not travel for work do often pay for that in terms of career progression. My DH hasn't had to worry about that. Unfortunately it's often the woman who ends up taking responsibility for the DC, even when they both work. I know people say to share responsibility, but all that happens than is that both careers suffer. That was partly our motivation in me SAH.

I think it would be unfair to SAH and then expect DH to do lots of housework, once the DC are in school.

Sorry, random italics.

karma - matter of opinion, of course, but I don't believe in reality both careers need to suffer. In reality, most children are fairly robust, and don't have endless days off sick. If you organise good childcare arrangements, with some back up, then honestly, for most people it's not that often that something unexpected crops up. And I speak as someone with a dd who needs fairly regular hospital appointments. DH and I share these between us, just as we have shared the (very occasional) days when a child was ill off school. Parents have the right to do that. It hasn't affected either of our careers negatively. TBH it's a pretty big sacrifice to decide one parent needs to be at home right through the school days, just on the offchance that a child gets ill etc

Pagwatch - re: pensions, I wasn't referring to you personally, as clearly you have made financial arrangements. But you are naive if you think most SAHM do - read the newspapers, a frightening number of women have no personal pension provision, or if they do it's woefully inadequate. I also know in real life a shocking number of intelligent, educated women who bury their head in the sand over this, or assume that because they have a high earning DH at the moment, that means they will be ok even if they outlive their DH by 20 years. Your situation is not the norm - the statistics bear out the fact that many women will be scuppered come the twilight years of their life. It's a really worrying issue IMO

Yes, karma is right. The other issue which is more fundamental is if you have a long marriage what happens when people change - the career man wants to stay home and plant roses or the careeer woman suddenly wants to become a housewife even though the deal they entered into, the basis of the marriage almost, was we will both always work full time or woman's place is in the home etc. It's the ability to adjust to a p artner who changes and cope with renegotiating things which is very important.

My advice is always both work full time as it's much more fun and can be better for children and helps women retain the gains they have made. However it certainly then takes more organisation by both people - men as well as women every day in the UK arrange childcare because of working late or abroad.

It's working women with sexist husbands who have the hardest job of all. Never marry such men.

"I also know in real life a shocking number of intelligent, educated women who bury their head in the sand over this, or assume that because they have a high earning DH at the moment, that means they will be ok even if they outlive their DH by 20 years."

That's what life insurance is for

Yes, we both have life insurance too, but I assume you're joking if you would rely on that to fund you for the rest of your life!!

I've been at home for nearly five years with two children (obviously under five) apart from a brief few months where I went back to work after DS1 to find I had been demoted.

Being a SAHM to two very young children has it's moments but it has had some really dark patches, particularly after DS2 arrived and I got hit with PND and real trouble coping all alone all day with it all. I'm now just bored to death of lego and adjudicating in ridiculous arguments and am waiting to hear if I've got a job I've just gone for. I desperately hope I have - I really now need some time and space away for myself. I'm sure I'll be much happier and appreciate my family more when I get to have a bit more space for me.

So in short, OP, YANBU. Good luck!

Life is so short-how can people honestly relish working the best year of their life when their kids are little?I assume people often do it because they have no choice, but clearly many would rather work. Great that today that choice is available for those that want it.

I really do marvel at people who assume work is invigorating and stimulating. I did a 'rewarding job' and it was not invigorating and stmulating a lot of the time- there was a drudgery and stress far more exhausying than parenting a little one, in it too. I would far rather be walking round a botanical garden exploring plants/birds etc with my son than marking 200 books and dealing with recalcitrant teenagers...actually I taught mainly lovely teenagers but still I don't miss it.Still I am only 18 months into full time mumming.

I don't envisage being at home once ds is at school though so maybe knowing i only have a limited time of this blissful existence makes me appreciate it so much- i feel sorry for mums having to go back to work to be honest, when babies are little.

But yes- long term I am aware i will have to get back out there to build up a pension, bring money in for the luxuries we now happily have given up, etc but for now being the creator of my own day with my son .....well it is heavenly to me.I know it is a luxuryphase in life and i appreciate it accordingly.

Interesting that you assume (18 months into parenting!) that the first year is the 'best year' of your child's life.

Having done this parenting lark for 20 years, I'd say every phase is special, but there isn't a 'best' - they are all different.

And of course, as has been pointed out many times, we all do the lovely wandering around gardens with our little ones - even those full time working dads don't miss out on those experiences.

I just don't care what other people do and can't raise the interest to judge them on it. I think it is sad that the presumption now is that if you can work you must, even if you neither need (as in you don't need state help) nor want to. Dd is still very small so none of these issues affect me yet, but I know both SAHM and working mothers of school age children and respect neither group more, nor find them more interesting etc.

My mum was a SAHM for years, my dad certainly doesn't find her dull nor did he wander off to more interesting pastures, how dismissive of not only women but men as well to cast such aspersions. People can be interesting without work, some of the dullest people I know are workaholics.

violet- just a typo- I mean the child years actually- sorry for mistake.

Luckily I'm in year 27 as a full time working mother now and youngest are still not teeangers. It's been lovely and for those of us who like to work full time I still feel over 27 years of it I've had plenty of time wandering around with little ones. In fact it's likely because of the number of chidlren I have spread over so long I will have done more house with chidlren than most housewives.

missic - OK, but children are technically children up to 18...... and it doesn't mean that you are missing out on their childhood just because you have another dimension to your life involving work... Men don't generally agonise over this, they just get on and enjoy great relationships with their children -including the walks in the park, football, snuggling on the sofa with a book.

Glad it works for you, and clearly you intend to get back into the workplace when your ds is at school anyway, but many women are happy to take maternity leave, and retain their current career, often going part time when their children are small. There is no need to feel sorry for them!

It's very important women work so daughters can see woman doesn't equal person who earns nothing and just cleans the house. Most of how our children turn out is because of what we do not what we say.

Most parents of both sexes who work full time feel they have a lot of involvement in the lives of their children and that often as not the children do better for the fact the father and mother are working rather than not.

Xenia, I don't think that my children will see me as someone who just cleans the house. I am raising my children to realise that it is important to be educated and able to support yourself (as I am). It's important not to need another person to support you because you cannot support yourself, but it is okay to make life choices that don't bring in money but have equal worth to your family.

My children know what I did before being a SAHM. They also know that I considered it to be in their best interests for me to become one.

In my roundabout way, I'm just saying that paid employment is not the only valuable contribution to a family.

One day I will get the hang of the italics!

Yes, and not all sons of housewives except their wives to give up full time work when babies come along and not all daughters of housewives will stop full time work but even so the roll modelling is surely that women don't work when they have children and that isn't a role model I would want my children to have. I would want a more sexually neutral one - eg you could do 3 years at home full time and then your husband could.

That wouldn't work for a lot of people though, Xenia. My DH earns a lot more than I would. His salary has enabled us to have the size of family we want and be able to support them. My children know full well that women don't all give up work when they have children. I worked when DS1 was a baby, but gave up when expecting DS2. They know that both their grandmothers worked when they had children. They are intelligent enough to realise that people have different lives and make decisions accordingly. When they look at our family, they will know that I chose to be a SAHM, but that other people often choose differently.

If DH had earned significantly less than me, then I would have continued to work and he could have been a SAHP or WOH, whatever suited him best. I asked him and he said he would be happy to SAH if I earned enough to support us. It's not a gender issue for us.

Thart is the fascinating issue at the heart of most inequalities between women and men today. Women still largely marry up. The man is older. He may be a bit more clever. He may be slight better educated. He in 4/5 times earns more therefore when it comes to whom stays home the one who earns pin money or the one who can put bread on the table it's going to be the man.

So next qustion is did you subconsciously choose a man who would earn more and does ht really rather like a woman who earns less because until that is no longer so women will not make anything like the progress they coudl which is ultimately to the determinent of our daughters (and indeed those of our sons who might prefer to be home)

My DH is 6 months younger than me. We met in 6th form, so earning potential wasn't established at that point. Our educational opportunities were pretty similar - we both went to university. I became a teacher, DH works in sales and marketing. When we first set up home and had a baby, I was the one with the job and was supporting our family. I haven't 'married up', I'd say I married my equal. His earnings overtook mine, so it makes sense for him to continue working.

In terms of being more clever, I think he is in some ways, but not in others.

My DH has his faults, but he has never attempted to dominate or control what I choose to do. If I wanted to WOH, he would support that. He has benefitted from me being a SAHM, both personally and professionally, but wouldn't want that at the expense of my personal happiness.

You are making some quite sweeping generalisations there, Xenia.

Yes but it's an important topic to consider. Why do most women give up work and men don't or cut back on work, it's because men in 4/5 marriages do earn more.

Do women therefore pick higher earners because they want to look up to them? Perhaps not but if not why do they marry the better off older man? Presuambly because subconsciously they refer the MD to the street sweeper because one will be able to keep them. If that's not the reason why do they marry men who earn more? If I earned 10x my chidlren's father then it's not hard to decide who would give up work if that were needed - it never was as the first nanny stayed 10 years but he said even before we married that as I would earn mroe he would stay home if one of us had to and again like in your case it made pure economic sense.

There are many role models available.