To think that many sahms don't consider the long-term implications when deciding to give up work? ***this is not a sahm vs wohm debate***

[wannaBe]

This is not a thread criticizing anyone or their decisions...

When I decided to give up work to bring up DS, I did so in the knowledge that for me, staying at home with my dc was the best thing. We were fortunate as well in that financially we could afford for me to stay at home.

Back then, I had in mind that we would have two children, so realistically would have at least eight years at home until the youngest started school, and even then, going back to work wouldn't necessarily be something I would consider as would want to be there for after school/holidays etc, and finding a job that fits in with the above is almost impossible.

So, fast forward nine years and the two children we'd planned to have turned out to only be one, and I've been a sahm for that long, although I have done volunteering in that time (reading/helping in school/chair of governors/PTA etc...) so haven't been sat on my arse as such (although the amount of time I've spent on mn does contradict that statement somewhat, )

Now I'm in a position where I want to go back to work. Actually, I've been in that position for about the past 1.5/2 years but due to circumstances such as moving areas etc have only just been able to start exploring the possibility seriously.

And I've come to a realization which, although I guess I knew deep down, I never contemplated until now. Even if you take the fact that there are very few jobs for far too many applicants in the current climate, the one thing that employers seem to want above anything else is experience, and current experience at that.

And if you haven't worked for a number of years then the reality is that they will take the person who has worked more recently, every time. And as employers currently have the pick of applicants (regardless of who you are) the chances of getting a job in the current climate if you've been bringing up your children for the past however many years is minimal.

So what I've basically realized is that being a sahm has made me unemployable.

I don't regret my decision for a second. You can't ever get that time with your children again and I'm glad that I had that opportunity and took it.

But in retrospect I do wonder whether I should have sought even a part time work opportunity sooner - even if it was something minimal.

And equally I realize that you can't tell someone who is just choosing to give up work to be with their children that they may find that they're unemployable ten years down the line when the kids are at school and they want to go back to work again without seeming like you're criticizing their decision/lifestyle.

When we make decisions we often do so in the here and now, not necessarily with the future in mind - not for ourselves anyway.

I think employmentwise anyone who is currently out of work for any reason has it extremely hard anyway.

The thought of never working again for the next 30 years is frankly rather depressing...

I dont think that anyone is in a domestic cloud but it stands to reason that if you are at home full time you are focusing on all things domestic a bit more.

Anyway good for you that you are content with your situation. I think we can see from this thread that many women have a real internal struggle going on and I know that can be tough to deal with.

I certainly don't think I could draw many conclusions as to the educational and intellectual profile of the SAHMs versus WOHMs I know. I can think of certain character traits I associate with dual-working families but that's about all.

Bonsoir, what character traits do you mean?

Families who tend to prioritise the individualistic over the collective.

I am fairly sure that the stat show in the UK that fulltime employment of a mother whilst children are pre-school age does show a correlation with reduced educational attainment by children. The results hugely reduce for part time employment, and reduce again when controlled for by the educational attainment of the mother. Very interestingly, employment by the mother is seen as a very significant factor in reducing the incidence of pregnancy before the age of 21 in their daughters - there is a clear correlation.

What none of the studies have been able to do is factor in the 'whole life' impacts of the lack of income to a family by a mother not working. So for example, if a mother did not work and therefore a family was not in a position to save towards university fees, will that impact on a child's decision to go to university - even if they are capable - because they will be in a huge amount of debt? So basically the mother stays at home to support her child educationally, but overall the lack of income from that decision impacts on that childs life chances anyway.

Bonsoir is it really so very wrong to put ones own needs first from time to time?

notyummy - in France, the very highest levels of academic achievement (the selective and expensive grandes écoles) are worryingly colonised by the children of... teachers, who have some of the shortest working hours of teachers anywhere in the developed world. The level of academic attainment and availability of a teacher parent gives children a massive intellectual advantage.

My downstairs neighbour is teacher (a very senior teacher!). He manages to fit in most of the childcare as well as doing his job... I see him collecting his DD from the school over the road for lunch nearly every day! His small DD has already jumped a class...

I think that if your own parents put their children's needs first, those children generally find it easier as adults to prioritise their children/families. That's why I talk about family character traits - they tend to cascade down the generations. If your parents didn't put you first, you might want to put yourself first as an adult, understandably!

The individualistic over the collective? What is individualistic about two people working hard, having a successful marriage, a happy family and working together domestically, professionally and emotionally to support their children. Actually, I think our children are far more independent, mature and practical because I work full time and collectively our circumstances have helped them in many ways.

Yes I agree there is sometimes that tendency. I do sometimes feel it's ironic that I put my time and knowledge into my daughters', rather than what I was trained for, but since my career wasn't especially well paid, the choice wasn't economic. As my eldest daughter applies to universities, I wonder what it is best to hope for her. I feel I've been lucky that things have worked out so far, due to having a lovely dh, but feel I would be reluctant atm to encourage my daughters to take a similar route: as others have stated, it is a quite high risk decision regarding one's future financial security.

It is tricky. Had an interview yesterday for a job I would have loved, been great at, was local, knew the interview panel because already worked freelance in the organisation. Just got an email - didn't get it. I didn't have a career as such to return to once dc at school but highly qualified and lots of interesting experience. When dc3 was preschool I studied a masters degree and in his first year of school went self employed and did voluntary work but I now want the security of a permanent job. Not so easy. But maybe it wasn't right, maybe I need to stick to self employed and push that, after all the job would have meant after school care for 3 kids. Time for a mince pie and a rethink.

Bonsoir I dont think you are on the right thread, this didnt descend into a WOHM vs SAHM up to now. It would be good if we could keep it that way.

That does make sense though Bonsoir - they understand they educational system (and my understanding is that if you know the system and drill your children the right way in the French system, then that will be a huge advantage. Imagination/thinking out of the box not needed!) A combination of time and knowledge would be a powerful advantage. But very few people are going to be in the position to have both.

The individualistic over the collective? What is individualistic about two people working hard, having a successful marriage, a happy family and working together domestically, professionally and emotionally to support their children. Actually, I think our children are far more independent, mature and practical because I work full time and collectively our circumstances have helped them in many ways.

When it works properly I am sure this can be the case. My observation of friends suggests that it is a really hard equilibrium to find, even with spare cash to smooth the path. I am not typical though, since moves every few years mean I think my role settling children into new environments is key and very time consuming.

What you say is true, notyummy, though all French people who have done a certain level of higher education are pretty well-versed in how the system works - it is, after all, universal. I am constantly amazed at how my DP can do homework with the DSS1 (who is 16) in any subject and knows the whole thing inside out and back to front and can see exactly what changes have been made to the curriculum since he was at school. It's the availability of an intelligent parent to review school work with that makes a huge difference to children in France.

It's an interesting one. I have a friend who had a similar experience - after years as an SAHM, which she was happy with, she applied for a job she thought she was perfect for and didn't even get an interview.

The economic climate at the moment is awful. Hardly anyone is getting work, so that doesn't help your situation.

I think in broad terms, though, you're right. Even if you're at home, you probably need to be keeping your hand in with a bit of part-time work or freelancing or volunteering or something. It's a shame, because if you've decided you want to be an SAHM, you probably don't want to be faffed with all that on top of looking after children. But I think it's realistic. Employers can be quite short-sighted and look at things like recent experience rather than the all-round person.

I don't think it's true you won't work for the next 30 years. I think it's a question of deciding what you really want to do and going for it - retraining if necessary. (Sorry, haven't read through every post, so all this has probably already been said.)

I'm in the same position as you OP. I gave up (my poorly paid) job when DSD came to live with us fulltime. It made sense as we needed someone to be there for before/after school and holidays. And we were TTC anyway and DH's job paid more than mine. She was 8 at the time. I went on to have 2 dds. 11 years later my youngest has just started school. So I'm ideally looking for part time/term time work but they're pretty hard to come by, so I'm pretty much looking for anything as my mum has volunteered to be my childcare. ANd I'm completely unemployable. I've applied for so many jobs in the last 6 months it's unreal, and I've not had 1 interview!

I am sure though that when my children are self supporting adults they will be glad that mummy has her own pension and won't have to live on cheese and baked beans whilst huddled round a candle for warmth.

And collectively I am fairly certain that my kids are pleased that we both work and are able to pay the bills, feed and clothe them.

alistron1 - how about your children never becoming self-supporting adults (or never attaining the standard of living they became accustomed to as children) because they failed to reach their academic potential because of lack of parental support.

We are seeing some fairly painful cases of this in the making...

LizzieBusy I agree - I was reading with interest until things started being twisted round based on anecdotal information to suggest that working mother=not prioritising children and working mother=less academically achieving children. I have an anecdote for you, my mother worked and my brother and I have 5 degrees between us, both with professional careers. So I guess there is always an anecdote for any situation.

The Ops point on the otherhand is interesting. I struggle with maintaining part time employment with 2 children, but (caution, here comes an anecdote ) have been repeatedly encouraged by older mums to continue working if I can - both working and non working mums.

I don't think Bonsoir is on the wrong thread Lizzie, she is surely pointing out the motivation behind some womens' decisions to stay in the home. This thread was at first balanced but it has acquired a fairly patronising tone that assumes a lot about women who are stay at home. From what I can gather there is an assumption that SAHM as opposed to the WOHM, has accidently fallen into their role, their family set up is akin to those experienced in the 1950's and they're over reliant on their poor hubbies who have to work ridiculously long hours to accomodate their desire to fulfill their life long ambition of being a domestic goddess!

It has to be said that maybe some of us did view at as Bonsoir said, 'holistically' and came to the considered conclusion that it would be preferable to work it like that.

The other major factor to this is that workplace culture in a lot of industries still lacks that flexibility needed to enable both parents to share the load equally. It's all very well being smug about your 'dual parenting' but it is simply not an option for some or is a disadvantages the family if both parents are overlooked for promtion because neither are seen to be giving enough back to the company with their flexitime requests and their prompt departure from work for child pick ups. My DP's workplace has one man who leaves at 5.30 3 days a week to pick up his daughter from childcare - he is always overlooked for promotion and this is in a large, famous architectural/design company - hardly forward thinking their approach to HR!

As working posted, companies are the biggest loosers (of talent) in these kind of scenarios but it is that reality (in the UK) that has to be changed entirely to enable women to have children and it not damage their prospects.

I'm not sure that anyone is being patronising Goldenbear. I know that a lot of people decide to SAH, both while their children are small, and though their whole school career, and that's an admirable choice if the whole family is in agreement and people go into it with their eyes open. This thread isn't really about that.

What this thread is about (or what I had thought it was about) was a different, but also very large group of women, who when their children are small, for a variety of reasons - desire to stay at home in those formative early years, cost of childcare, logistics of working - decide that they will stop work "until the children are at school". They never intend to give up their careers, just make things easier for a few years, and be around for their pre-school DCs. I was one of those people, and TBH, at the time, when DD1 was small, I didn't think about the bigger picture, and whether it would be easy to get back into the workplace, and I wish I had.

I am a sahm but i am trying to pursue a lifelong dream of becoming a writer. i have almost finished the first draft of a fantasy novel. i have had positive feedback about my writing but i know nothing might come of it. i hate the assumption that you rot away losing brain cells. i feel i have grown so much as a person and learnt so much.

Without wanting to completely derail the thread, the last few comments underlines that what suits a particular family depends on such a huge range of factors that it's impossible to generalise that one set up is better than another.

One important factor IMO is the earnings gap between the potential SAHP and the potential lone earner, especially if one assumes that most families live up to their means (i.e. roughly spend what they earn). If the two salaries are roughly equal, then the impact of having a SAHP will obviously impact the family much more than if the SAHP currently only contributes, say, 10% of the household income, where the financial impact will be negligible, so the benefit to the family of having a SAHP might outweigh the loss of the second income. In scenario one, the material impact might well outweigh the qualitative benefits. In my experience (again, it's anecdotal- I don't know everyone in the UK) SAHM's are more common in the latter category of families- i.e. those where the SAHP's earnings were not that significant to overall household income.

So, what's the point of this? I guess what I'm saying is that life is always about compromise and most people do make a rational decision about WOHP vs SAHP, but that decision will be different for everyone.

goldenbear we know full well that there are women who make the decision to SAH and think it is the very best thing for them and and their families - they certainly come aon MN and tell us all ad infinitum.

But this thread was about women who made the decision to SAH never for one second thinking it would affect their employability in the long term and how that in turn woulkd affect their pension provision and long term futures etc.