in thinking there's nearly always an element of choice in the decision to go back to work?

[benetint]

I would never judge anyone (mother or father) for going back to work after having children. I think its entirely individual choice, whatever works for each family.

However I'm getting a bit sick of people saying to me "oh its okay for you being a SAHM, I had no choice to go back to work" when they clearly have a nicer car/go on holidays/live in a bigger house/nicer area etc.

DH and I decided that one of us would stay home to look after DCs till they were in school. As he earned more we decided this would be me. Its not been easy financially by any stretch and we've had to stay in a not-so-nice area, not have holidays etc etc.

But what I don't understand is people who say they have no choice in this matter. Surely if there are people out there who can't afford to pay for childcare then the people who can afford it are choosing to do so? (I obviously make an exception for single parents here, who can't rely on someone else's salary).

I understand that people may have to go back to work to support the lifestyle they currently have...but if they really wanted to they could downsize/move to a worse area/not have a car etc etc.

Anyway I'm not looking for s SAHM/WOHM debate, I'm just a bit tired of biting my lip every time I hear the same comment.

I'm intrigued by the could move to a crap area thing

I would love to live in my home town but in no way could afford to. So instead of living in a crap are nearby we live over 100 miles away in a cheaper area but better than the crap area near my home town. Anyway thats me

How do other people measure this crap area/good area thing? How far do you consider moving?

Of course there's always an element of choice.

I could get the house repossessed, go on the dole and move my dc into a hostel

Your opening post, OP, does rather make the assumption that all mothers have a partner with a wage that covers the basics. That is a rather big assumption.

I think some people have a choice and some don't. If your DP has a job that pays well, then for you to go back it's a choice. If your DP's job doesn't, or if he had to take a pay cut in the recession, then there wouldn't be a choice if the only way to pay the mortgage and not lose the family home was for you to go back to work. Everybody's circumstances are different. Like a lot of things on MN, one sweeping statement doesn't apply to everyone.

I could move to a substantially cheaper area (I'm in London). But there's nowhere in London cheap enough to allow me to give up work. And my employment prospects are way, way better in London than anywhere outside it. A couple of years ago I did consider moving to another part of the country, living mortgage-free, working PT in order to be with the dcs. But, given what is happening to my kind of job across most of the country, I could easily have been left unemployed and living on benefits.

My family's long-term financial security is best served by me living in London. That means paying London house prices. And that means working my arse off and not being with my children as much as I'd like. Oh, and we don't have a car and most years we don't go away on holiday.

Can I suggest you rephrase your point to: "AIBU in getting tazzed off by the inane, self-serving stuff people say when justifying their choice of childcare?" Because that would probably get a lot of agreement.

Yabvu.

If I didn't go back to work after ml we would literally not have enough to live off.

Going back to work is the default position and the norm.

Hairy. The default position and the norm? Is it? Says who?

More of the same since i looked last night . . . More people posting to say i have no choice as otherwise we'd be on benefits or whatever . . . Well that's your CHOICE not to be on benefits! Seriously how hard is to understand! And more people with bloody chips on their shoulder about the decisions they've main re work. Yes you've decided to go back to work or not. Good for you whatever you've decided. No one is attacking you for that, you don't need to be so defensive. If you were happy with the decision this thread wouldn't have got your back up, even though it clearly didn't intend to.

It is the norm. Most parents work. Something like 2/3 of mothers I think. Of course, niw everyine knows they have to move to a bedsit in a crap area, the prices of those will rocket! So off to the tents for some!

PooPoo, if the posters you are talking about or their partners made themselves voluntarily unemployed and then went down to the job centre and said 'no I'm not looking for a job. It's my choice to stay at home with my children, give me some money please.' I don't think they would actually even get benefits, would they?! So it's not actually much of a choice after all.

PooPoo, if the posters you are talking about or their partners made themselves voluntarily unemployed and then went down to the job centre and said 'no I'm not looking for a job. It's my choice to stay at home with my children, give me some money please.' I don't think they would actually even get benefits, would they?! So it's not actually much of a choice after all.

Gonna hide this thread in a minute because it's no good for my blood pressure.

THe car thing: I take it those of you who say it's possible to live without a car live with good public transport.

I only work 11 miles away, but it would take 3 buses and god only knows how many hours to get there.

And as for "I would live in a bedsit, live on pennies etc so my child wasn't in daycare...", what's with martyring yourself for your kids?

I grew up poor. It is shit.

"Going back to work is the default position and the norm."

There's a difference between "the norm" and "the majority". Just for example, most of us think homosexuality is as much "the norm" as heterosexuality, even though gay people are a minority.

So, it may be the majority position at the present time for people to return to work sooner rather than later, but that doesn't make it a "default" or "the norm". Staying at home is normal too.

It is normal for each family to decide what is best for them.

Staying at home has only ever been normal for people who could afford it. Generally the middle and upper classes, as every other bugger was working to survive.

Both my grandmothers had to work, as did their peers. THey didn't have careers, they did various jobs such as cleaning, factory work and on farms. THey certainly didn't have holidays and cars. 9 people lived in a 3 bedroom house in my gran's case.

But when their children were young, they would have stayed at home to look after them, yes?

Perhaps the people refer didn't want to be SAHM because they enjoy work or would find being at home with children all day mind numbingly boringor perhaps they think it pefectly reasonable that their children can be looked after by someone other than a parent and still thrive but instead of saying that to you, as you have made that choice they just say they had to go to work.

Ha-ha don't make me laugh. Is there anyone around who lives 2 adults + 2 kids in a bedside so they can be a sahm? What a fucking ludicrous suggestion.

I've got a choice today, pay the electric bill or the council tax.

For me, there is no choice is not wanting to leave the responsibility solely to my husband for earning the money.

Ok, so after childcare and commuting costs my salary does not bring that much in, but its an income that goes towards the mortgage, bills etc and can be fallen back upon if DH was made redundant etc.

Oh and the idea that giving up work and claiming benefits instead in order to be a SAHP....madness? What if we all did that?!

No. My gran's mother in law looked after them, then the older kids looked after the younger ones.

ANyway, why is it that all these threads are started by sahms?

Even with a DH on a low income, WARREN, I don't know how people manage. I did a tax calculator last night, after this thread got me thinking. I could bring in £80 a week in benefits, or 4k a year. Once that is added to my DHs salary, we could pay our bills, but would have to take to scavaging the bins for food as we would have nothing left in our bank.

Oh, or go into serious debt.

n.b if I wasnt working, we would even have a car to get rid of out of that.

I like working I realise that the OP is not-so-covertly insinuating that this makes me a Bad Person, what with me having given birth and all, but I like work.

I only have a very part time job and I have a choice about going back. DH was made redundant when I was 37 weeks pregnant so my choice is go back to work or face bankruptcy and homelessness even quicker. Not really much of a choice is it?

Can't win can I? I'm either a bad mum for working or a bad mum because I want benefits to stay at home. So I am a bad mum full stop because DH was made redundant, wonderful.

Sometimes people have to make incredibly unpleasant choices to just survive. When the only other option to the one taken results in disaster please don't dress it up as true freedom of choice.

Do you know what? There's an element of choice in whatever we do.

In virtually every case our choices are dictated by our circumstances because as a high functioning creature humans are pretty good at thinking about the consequences of their actions and choices.

Judging others based on the choices they make based on their own personal cirumstances is pretty poor behaviour whichever side it's on. We all do it to some extent but it's a pointless exercise to make a big issue out of it - especially when others will be offended.

As long as you are doing what is right for you and your family then why does it matter what others do?