To think only women with rich partners are encouraged and celebrated as SAHM.

[malificent7]

If you are skint or single then you are seen as lazy for wanting to be a SAHM.

This is following from my 'terribly entitled' thread. I made it very clear that I had to give up my teaching career as it was destroying my mental health. I am now a skint TA but much happier at work and I alos have time for dd.

The amount of people suggesting that I go back into teaching to balance the books even though it nearly ruined me was strange.
I was being encouraged to take up a more family unfriendly job.

Whereas if a woman in better circumstances comes on and says that she is struggling to balance work and family life she is often encouraged to give up work if she can afford it an did celebrated as being a good mother.

AIBU to wonder if SAHM are less stigmatised if well off?

Exactly Ethel. We don't seem to be making any progress with work patterns etc.

Widespread broadband should make remote working easier.

Government policy towards parents of small children working should be supported by measures to make childcare truly affordable.

You'd expect so anyway. But it doesn't seem to happen.

Nobody is "trapped" into it. If when planning a child you can't work out the cost of childcare before hand then something is wrong with the education system.

It's not a privilege of the rich only, there are millions on benefits that are SAHPs.

There is a very unequal footing though but no party is strong enough to take the benefits away to make it equal. Nobody has to have children, it's a choice. You can't then moan about the cost of it or demand you don't have to work.

Completely agree with sheldon.

Nobody is "trapped" into it. If when planning a child you can't work out the cost of childcare before hand then something is wrong with the education system.

Well I should imagine that it's normally life events or changes of circumstance that contribute sheldon. You know, "the unforseen"; divorce, redundancy, bereavement, illness.

Eh?
Oh, you think poor people shouldn't have children? Only people who can afford to have "choices" should have children?

Or even just underestimating costs.

I know one first time mum who was absolutely outraged when she started researching nurseries in late pregnancy and found out what they cost for a 50hr week.

Luckily she and her DH were both fairly senior in financial services type jobs so there wasn't an issue around footing the bill. But I suspect a lot of people see their peers buy a house, forge modestly paid careers and start a family and naturally assume it's acheivable without looking at the fine detail.

It SHOULD be achievable.

I agree manmussion
We have enough money to privately educate 3 children, and planned ahead financially scrupulously before having children - no benefits.

But I don't for one minute assume that we couldn't fall on hard times. We have done all we can to insulate / hedge our financial position but life is uncertain and wealth is all too often transient. We are lucky right now, we may not always be and if at some point we needed to rely on benefits to get by I hope that they are there to help us get back on our feet.

Not everyone plans for all contingencies- life throws lots of unexpected tragic events at people.

Manumission - when looking at others as inspiration for what is achievable it can be extremely difficult to estimate the full range of resources at their disposal. Lots of people get capital injections for house purchase from both sides of the family, plus grandparental help with childcare. This can quickly be the equivalent of another salary in cash terms.

I don't work (though have my own income). We can afford for me not to work because of an inheritance I received a few years ago. I feel ashamed at times when people ask 'What do you do?' because I haven't been able to find an answer that doesn't sound a bit lame!

'Well, I walk the dog, go to the gym, shop, cook, clean the house, study, meet friends, wander about on the internet...'

I get the impression many people think I'm 'leeching' off my husband, but that isn't the case.

When people ask me "what do you do?" I tell them "whatever I want!"

Who cares what people think of your financial situation.

Manumission - when looking at others as inspiration for what is achievable it can be extremely difficult to estimate the full range of resources at their disposal. Lots of people get capital injections for house purchase from both sides of the family, plus grandparental help with childcare. This can quickly be the equivalent of another salary in cash terms.

Quite, but I can see how people might make the mistake.

We have done all we can to insulate / hedge our financial position but life is uncertain and wealth is all too often transient.

This is why I find the "children are a luxury" argument so bizarre. If only the people with unassailable financial positions reproduced, what would that look like nationally?

Yes, exactly, Manmission no one would have children ever!

We have done all we can to insulate / hedge our financial position but life is uncertain and wealth is all too often transient

I agree that wealth is often transient. When we decided to start a family we could easily afford it. The nursery fees were not a problem. Both of us being made redundant was not a problem because we had planned for short term crises. What we didn't plan for was having a child with a very severe disability for whom no childcare exists. We both stayed in work for as long as we could possibly manage but after childcare became unobtainable due to our child's needs and after taking a week off work every six weeks or so whilst our son was hospitalised we realised that one of us would have to give up work. We survived the first two years on a combination of one wage and our savings. We didn't realise that we were entitled to any benefits for our child. After the savings ran out we struggled along until somebody asked why we were not claiming dla and carers allowance. In all honesty, benefits had never entered our minds. Neither of us had claimed anything before except child benefit. I have now been a sahm / carer for a decade and it is much harder than working full time ever was. We just can't foresee everything in life.

God yes, wealth is transient. We are not badly off by any means but 6 years ago we had enough money to privately educate all kids. Dh lost his job and we had to move all kids out to state (which they all love and hasnt been a hardship wish we'd done it from the get-go!!).

It gives me a real sense of purpose and pride to manage my finances properly - saving, budgeting etc. Its hard and it has taken a few months to get to grips with it but I am feeling really on top of it at the moment.

FWIW no I wouldn't go on holiday or buy a shed as a matter of course!

In countries where reproduction rate is an issue, the state gives financial incentives to ppl to have babies. Japan, for example. In cases like that, children are not "luxury". Otherwise, I think it's simply a matter of personal responsibility to have children at the time when choosing to conceive. We obviously can't predict future unforeseen circumstances. And that is what state benefits are for to provide a safety net when unforeseen circumstances happen.

Re Japan, true, but the financial incentives are paltry compared with the practical and financial barriers to people having families at all, or at least more than 1 child, such as a total dearth of wrap around quality childcare, a continuing assumption that women will be SAHM's, despite this being increasingly unaffordable given living costs, very poor legal protection for working mothers etc.

Totally agree re wealth being transient. When we first had DD nearly 8 yrs ago we were pretty sure we'd be able to send kids to private school from age 4 if there wasn't a good state option (FWIW I'm hugely pro state education at primary level but we thought we'd have the option), afford a couple of nice holidays a year etc. but it just hasn't happened.

Also I would say I've been a SAHM, worked full time with 2 kids and now work part time and there is no right or wrong. All women should have the right to choose but society is not cut out to help. I actually paid to work (in terms of childcare) for a bit last year and it almost broke my heart. I never judge anyone For their work situation because I know how hard it is to juggle. OP teachers are under insane stress. I don't blame you one bit for wanting to be a TA and have more time with your child!

All women should have the right to choose

Why just women? What about fathers? And you do have the right to choose, you just have to pay for it yourself. Which is right.

As said upthread:

Everyone should have a choice, it's a shame that many can't afford to work when they want to and that many have to work when they'd prefer to be at home FT.

Families should have choices in a developed country's economy.

But Ethel, who should fund this choice?

Have you read the thread - people have made suggestions - raising wages, decreasing child care costs, etc. How is it funded in Switzerland?

I have read the tread and linked threads, the OP can't afford to be a sahp.
Why should the state fund her lifestyle choice?
Canada has 12 months of minimally paid maternity leave IF you qualify by having worked x many hours over x period of time in a job that pays into a certain program (very difficult if self employed).

Out calling having children a "lifestyle choice" is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous.