to be totally fucked off with the antisahm comments on here?

[slackers]

Wtaf are you only a good role model to your DC if you are in paid employment?
Why does someone only be valid in society if they earn?
Why should I work only to pay someone else do a job to look after my DC? wtaf is the logic in that?
ffs

'In a way, though, is it (SAH) any more risky than relying on a dual income to pay the bills and then splitting up?

Yup it is, if you struggle to get back into the workplace after a long break.'

But you would still possibly have to sell your house and maybe half your income if you need two wages to pay the mortgage etc...So maybe it is better to say if you depend on someone else to pay/help pay the bills, you will be in a risky situation if you split. And many WOHM say they have no choice but to work, they need both wages etc. there are so many risks, loosing a job, divorce, ill health etc. Is it really worth not doing what you think is best just in case?

I do have some savings and am studying so hopefully I would be able to manage a while if it came to it.

Its not a massive risk in good strong relationships. But things can go wrong , and illness and Death could strike anyone.
I wouldn't make the risk factor the sole reason in deciding to work- I think thats placing too much weight on it. However, the stats quoted are absolutely correct: women are far more vulnerable financially. Also the figures show a frightening number of women are unaware of how unprepared they are financially 'for old age. Its backed up by what I see in real life - even among bright, switched-on women, a remarkable number are under the illusion they will just get all their husbands pension if he dies first, and stuff like that.

NY in the 3 examples I know of SAHMs divorcing, the women have come out an awful lot better than the man.

As a home HAS to be provided for any DC, the SAHM has been given the house and the men have usually ended up in a rented flat.

Yes the women have then had to go out and get jobs but as I have said they have ended up with more assets from the marriage than the men.

yes, but it's far riskier if you're reliant only on one wage, that's all I'm saying. And it does bother me that it's women who are disproportionately bearing the risk - and paying the price if things do go pear-shaped. You know your individual circumstances best so if you feel you've mitigated the risk or that's worth it, then all well and good.

I don't know individual cases, quick, but I do know that the evidence shows that divorce significantly increases the odds that a woman with children will end up poor, much more than men.

The only risk I could see if me and my dh separated and he acted completely unreasonably (which is highly unlikely) is that I would have to move house. Lots of kids move house so I doubt they would be traumatised. I'm certainly not going to base my child rearing decisions on a hypothetical house move years down the line.

Of course having a break in your career is not as good for your career as not but I think most parents who stay at home have thought of that and the upside of staying at home with the kids makes it worthwhile for people who choose that path. I have had my kids young and still won't be 30 when they are in school so I figure I have plenty of time for a career.
Had my dh been earning less than me he would have been the one taking the career break to look after the children. But he is older than me and graduated earlier so had been promoted a few times before I even left uni.
I'm entirely confident that being a sahm is the best for my family. It's what I wanted to do and what my dd wanted from when she was old enough to express her wishes. However I fully accept that different things will be best for different families.

What evidence is that NY?

We are poor now and would be poor with me working so not much to lose in that respect.

Academic evidence quick. It's not hard to find.

Daft reason to work, IMHO.

I'd be significantly better off married, divorced or widowed from DH than I would working full time in anything that pays under about 80K.

Someone was suggesting housewives were best at bringing up children. I was saying the ones who are housewives are on average the ones who failed at work and were not perhaps in the top earners so were probably less bright and may be not quite so good at child psychology and bringing up children.

Xenia - just where do you get your "average" stats from. For someone who claims to be so desperately intelligent, you do spout some rubbish - particularly on this topic. Sure everyone is allowed their opinion, but to try and justify them with some made up stats???

Women are able to make choices that should be respected - and that is by other women too. I find most do just that, I choose to be a SAHM, I have friends who do the opposite but that makes them no better/worse mothers or women. Stereotyping a SAHM v working mother is just ridiculous.

OP - just enjoy what you're doing and know that it is right for you.

Hoever the supposed offensive comment that on the whole stay at home mothers are the ones who did not earn much before and have fewer qualifications is surely correct. How many leading surgeons gives it all up to be a nanny/housekeeper in effect at home? How many women on £100k a year plus give it up? It's bound to be the brighter better paid ones who work on average.

Yet the press all the time spouts the rubbish out that mother at home is lovely, women can't "have it all (although of course men can) and imply children are better off with mothers at home. The fact I argue the opposite should not matter to any man or woman content with their choices but if I persuade even one woman to stick at her job so that we try to right the wrongs that are that 1% of property on this planet is owned by woemn and something like 10% of wealth only then I am making a start and doing good.

You go Xenia Girl!

I'll just Pissfart, though, if that's okay with you?

is surely correct well, yet more percentages quoted and averages to justify your stats.

If you say it, it must be true. I guess I just I just bump the trend in your analysis.

I'm not in the subculture of the stay at home mother so I don't really understand that type of language. Poty true to type the original poster had to use foul language in her original thread too. What is it with these housewives? Is a class issue the bad language - sympton of a small vocabulary? Perhaps we should have grammar lessons for them too.

I must get to bed. It was an usual evening as I was on television.

I own my own house. I have no mortgage. I receive the bare minimum maintenance from XH. Financially, I am better off without him. And my children like me being at home when they get home from school. That's what suits us. It doesn't mean it's right for everyone, but I was under the impression that what is important is the ability to choose. Without being berated or belittled.

I was a SAHM for 5 years. Now I am a FT WOHM. They aren't two separate species.

I always find it most strange that Xenia tries to put a weird feminist twist on belittling the choice of a hell of a lot of women.

And Xenia it doesn't matter to me that you argue that kids/mums are better off with the mum in work because the evidence doesn't support you and just saying the same thing over and over again doesn't change that.

Xenia You said that most "housewifes are probably less bright" the posters using hte language you don't understand, were being sarcastic.

"How many leading surgeons gives it all up to be a nanny/housekeeper in effect at home? How many women on £100k a year plus give it up?"

IME (anecdotal, but quite considerable), absolutely loads of high-earning women give it up (though not to be nannies or housekeepers) to bring up their children. Why? Because it is high-earning women with full-on careers who find partners who also have high-earning full-on careers and it is stressful and life-limiting for couples, let alone children, to try to have two really busy adults in a family.

Bonsoir, I agree that lots of women with good careers give them up to stay at home, and the SAHMs I know are certainly not lacking in intelligence. Far from it.

But it is quite a sweeping statement to say that it is "life limiting" to have two really busy people in a family. I don't feel that my life is limited by virtue of the fact that I am busy, and I don't feel that my family's lives are limited either. On the contrary, I feel that all of our lives are enriched. Speak for your own experience, by all means, but please don't make assumptions about those of us who manage just fine with having two careers in one household.

How many leading surgeons give up work to look after their children?

I have no idea do you?

Women come out of a relationship worse off then men.

Not in my experience they don't, many single mums I know are doing quite well. Most do not work or work part time.

Delighted you made it onto TV last might Xenia, it was really important we knew that.

The constant validation and admiration you require from others must be exhausting for those around you in RL. I am now understanding why being a SAHM would not be possible for you, not much back slapping from a baby.

I watched TV last night - is that similar? It was a documentary and everything! I must be clever - oh yes, I am clever , I Go Out To Work. Silly me