to think that this article is just another way to sneer at sahms? Motherism?

[usuallyright]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/18/sorry-but-being-a-mother-is-not-the-most-important-job-in-the-world

Whilst I agree with some of it, I don't like the sneery tone. There are many similar articles around at the moment about Mothers who choose to stay at home.
Imagine if someone wrote a similar article about working Mothers.
It's just another excuse to pour scorn on Mothers and their choices, which are often complex decisions, not a knee jerk decision to be a martyr..

I think a big problem is that we judge ourselves too much.

It is impossible to 'have it all', you just physically can't do it. We make the best choices we can, but we will always have a level of guilt as mothers and as women.

As WAHM mothers who are 'not there 24/7 for the children' and as SAHM who have 'sacrificed their career for the children'. Whichever you do you are giving up something and you are judged by others for your choice, and you have to justify this within yourself - you can never win.

In the grand scheme of things it has not been that long since women started on the road to gaining an equal footing in society and I do think things are (slowly) changing as a whole. At least we have choice now, which we didn't previously.

Yes Grennie, I think that's much more likely.

I live in a different universe lol I have just decided

MillyMolly and usually it's not relevant except I slightly bristled at MMM's post about the also working. The 'SAHM are better' argument falls down if you are also trying to claim you run a business. I have a couple of personal experiences with SAHMs running 'businesses' that actually cost the family money but seem to exist either as hobbies or so they can say they are 'reiki practitioners' or 'aromatherapists' or whatever. They convert a room of the house into 'studios' and spend money on training etc but it's not really a going concern. It is a bit of a personal bug bear if I'm honest and no, not entirely relevant but MMM brought it up.

I don't get how viewing a business as something that should make money is patriarchal? Capitalist, yes, but not Patriarchal?

To my mind, a woman running a viable business from home is not a SAHM in any case, but rather a WAHM.

Certainly have met the Reiki practitioner or Aromatherapists type of people.
What my friends do pays for little extras sometimes a little more. They are not interested in job titles. They are classed as SAHM's as we have husbands whose work allows us to SAH and not work full-time.
Whilst it is great if parents can organise their full time work to pick up children at 3pm or drop off at 9.00 am but if you work in London full-time you are most likely leaving the house at 6.30-7 and not getting back till 7pm. My dh works all over the world for weeks at a time so to ask him to do a weekday pick up at 3pm if he s in S.Korea, is not going to happen so I personally am unable to share childcare.
Probably because of where I live I really cannot get my mind around a full time job allowing you time off work to pick up children at 3pm.

Fair enough Millymolly, that's one of the reasons we chose not to live in London, and why we have both chosen careers where the need fir sudden travel is limited - though DH did spring on me yesterday that he was going to have to go to India this Friday!

At the end of the day, it comes down to priorities, I suppose. For us, it was important that we should both retain our financial independence and have a good work life balance. For others, it's easier to divide things out so that one person works and the other stays at home. Neither is inherently right or wrong, just what works for each family.

I will take this sort of bumph seriously when articles pop up all over the place about fatherhood and fathers' choices and lifestyles and the amount of sheer drudgery that goes into the lives of so many men. It's not all fluff and sequins for most men either.

See I don't believe in women being 'drawn to' a particular type of work alark. That is inherently sexist as a position, it assumes women are better at caring and are just delighted to turn that caring spirit outwards to 'heal' others.

It may of course be true for some women but it's extremely difficult for anyone to be sure their choices aren't influenced by living in a patriarchal, capitalist society.

alark No, not scorning 'healing practitioners' (well yes, I admit I do slightly scorn Reiki and the idea of paying someone to tell me what to smell but that isn't relevant here) but it is more the idea of people who mess about at stuff and try to make out it is more than it is. This is a human trait rather than a gender biased one. I certainly know many men who are great at it!

Do you reckon a socialist society would have space for Reiki practitioners? Suspect not myself. But that's besides the point

Mathanxiety Yes, yes, that.

YY to Jinsei's point. To a large degree there is an element of choice. These are fundamental issues about the person you choose to have children with. What are each persons skills, strengths and aspirations? What do you each want in life? Do you want one partner to take on more in terms of earning, which may mean long hours, being away and more pressure, but balanced out by the other partner not working? Or do you each want to perhaps earn a bit less as indviduals, but have a balance of career and home.

My situation sounds like yours jinsei. It works for us. But there is no right or wrong, and other couples choose differently

Sorry, dont have time to read the whole thread but wanted to add that sneering at SAHMs is very common place & has been for quite a while now (probably increasingly prevalent since the 1980s IMO).
My DW always used to get very strange looks when asked 'what do you do'? & she replied 'im a housewife' (is that still the appropriate term?). It was as if the question poser could not comprehend the response!

Well yes Wilson and the bigger point is of course women are 'drawn' to nursing / reiki etc and men become brain surgeons. The same urge but somehow channeled in a different direction.

But then we come full circle because of course the problem is the time and money investment in training women to be brain surgeons doesn't make sense if they train until 27, practice until 38 and then step off the career ladder to be SAHM for 5 or 6 years, only to struggle to come back as out of practice / inflexible etc. etc.

If you have a small business you can set costs against tax, this could be petrol, heating for an office, phone costs so even if your business isn't hugely profitable, you might not be paying the tax that a paye person does.

I had a fabulous childhood despite my parents both working full time and often long hours. Just because most of my time was shaped by either school or childminders doesn't meme it was bad. I knew my parents both loved me and I felt secure. I just knew that if we possibly could, we wanted to have more input on shaping our daughter than my parents had with me.

The point I'm making is that they weren't the greatest influenced in my life in my early years because they weren't with me enough to be, in the same way my hubby isn't now. As I got older and needed less sleep, I got more time with my parents.

Hubby and I were lucky to be able to indulge in our desire to be the main influence on shaping our daughter and it just so happened that circumstances meant it was me.

Of course me own desire to be the primary adult in my daughters life meant that she missed out on time with others. Just because I'm her mother doesn't mean I can always be better than everyone else.

There are pros and cons for working, and the amount of time with and away from our children and great childcare is very beneficial to children as they get to mix more with other children, maybe have more of a routine, learn that they need patience as the adult has to be there for a number of children, learn to be flexible. The childcare may be more experienced with children, certainly the case for me as I have one child and didn't have experience if babies before having my own.

I do find it strange though that our schools are needing to teach more of the skills that parents taught in the past because parents don't have the quality time with their children to be able to do it. Many of my full time working parents don't have time to read with or do homework with their children, let alone cook from scratch or teach other life skills and I find that sad.

If we buy this wreck of a house I will still be a SAHP but coordinating work involved. In two years we could've made 5 times more what I could've earnt in 2 years part time. In that sense it is a perfectly credible option in generating income for the family.

Joys mum- I think it still comes down to individuals and their choices about what is best for their family. I went back up to full time work from part time when my kids started school, and we've never found it a problem to cook decent meals and supervise homework. Conversely, I'm sure you could find homes where just one or neither parents work yet the children aren't necessarily eating better quality meals or getting better school results. It's all a lot less black and white!

Janey

I totally agree, you have a choice who you have children with and who you are attracted to.
I don't understand the sneering and having to defend your choices, what does it matter if your family are happy.

No one is saying all mothers should WOH! All people have realistically pointed out is that if you take a number of years out of your career, it will inevitably have some impact. It doesn't mean it's a disaster; it doesn't mean that women shouldn't do it if they wish to, just that there will inevitably some impact in terms of loss of earnings, pension and perhaps career progression. I mean why would anyone expect otherwise? Does anyone seriously expect to stop working in a career for say, 5 or 10 years and walk back in on the same salary as someone who has kept working all that time and kept pace with any new developments?

I have always worked apart from two maternity leaves totally 6 months. For five of those years I worked 3 days a week; the other 20 or so years have been full time. Even just those 5 years of part time have knocked my pension contributions back, and in fact my pension was a big factor in stepping back up to ft as soon as the children were both in school. But I would be deluded to imagine that it would be otherwise. How on earth is my pension going to be the same as another woman who might have gone back full time after 6 months out?

I consider it a perfectly acceptable trade off for the pleasure of having 2 extra days with my lovely children when they were little. I wouldn't have it any other way. I didn't want to stop working completely but neither did I want to work full time until they were age 4.

It seems to me the issue here is for families to make their choice, one which suits all members of the family, and then get on with it, without getting hung up about what others do

totalling 6 months

I wasn't sneering. I was despairing. we are trapped. trapped by expectation and social pressure as much as by the structural and support dimensions.

Either way what we do is wrong.

Or for the sunnier of disposition it is right either way - I just see more stuff telling me I am doing wrong than right. I get all the 'everyone should be happy with their own choices and butt out of each others business' and I totally agree but as a reaction to the debate it doesn't help much to say it - I think there needs to be real change in the way 'motherhood' is viewed - to stop it being a stick to beat women with, whatever they choose.

which is all I thought the original article was saying.

I agree with you Janey68 it's certainly not black and white at all. It's not easy to make the right choice if you are lucky enough to have a choice. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And just to make clear; I have enormous respect for women who work hard at keeping their skills up to date even while not in paid work. I also do a fair bit of recruitment in my work, and would never be put off a candidate simply on the basis that they have had time out of the workplace. In fact my most recent appointment has been a mum returning to work. I'm just being honest and realistic: a woman in this situation will be competing against other people who may have the same qualities and skills and also be currently working. It's only right that employers don't discriminate: and if current experience is the tipping factor in deciding on a candidate then so be it. I would appoint someone who has been a SAHM if she's the best candidate for the job. I would not make some special allowance for her simply because she's been out of the workplace a while though: that would be wrong