To be shm after children are at school

[Notthinkingclearly]

I have 2 dc who are 6 and 9. Since my first child was born i have been a stay at home mum. My DH works away alot abroad so I am often on my own. My Dc's have not been the most robust and have both had quite a few weeks off school with legitimate reasons over the last few years with hospital appointments. I have felt that if I had been at work I would have been a rubbish employee. I seem to be really busy all the time but feel I am constantly justifying to everyone why I don't have a job. I look after a relations 2 year old one day a week, help in school one day a week and I am a member of the schools PTA. I don't go out apart from supermarket or a walk during the week and only ever sit down to eat my lunch during the day. Am I as spoilt and lazy as I am made to feel?

I'm going back to work shortly and I've felt very very guilty about it because I don't "need" to work - DH is a high earner.

Ive done it for years and loved it.

You don't have to explain it to anyone!!

I think it's a wonderful thing to be able to be there for your children more. I'm planning on being a SAHM after my second baby for at least a long time. i have 2 law degrees and have built myself a good career and often people wonder why I'm more interested in my little boy and family. So I know this feeling.

It's what matters to you and what is best for your family. We can afford to pay the bills and have most things we want and live comfortably on one wage, so why go to work?

You could always consider working part time or volunteering in the future too. Your life you decide and anyone who doesn't understand probably doesn't have your best interests at heart. I bet it's lovely for your children to have you at home. X

"Please. Will the SAHM just stop being so sanctimonious."

Yes, those horrible sanctimonious SAHMs - let them burn in hell. Nothing like letting your disgust clearly show.

I don't understand why people are giving themselves such a hard time over this. As long as the taxpayer isn't funding your choice who gives a shit? Go to work or stay at home who cares? Not even your kids will care in a few years time!

I'm certain men don't fret on the internet about working out of home and whether people think they don't care about their kids or if they stay at home and others gossip about them 'sponging' off their partner. FFS!

For what it's worth, I work full time, sometimes my job's stressful but I enjoy working. I don't have family help but I have arrangements with other working parents and we all help each other out. I love my child, she is number 1. I don't feel guilty because she has to go to after school club or breaksfast club a couple of times a week. She knows I love her. DH and I don't care what other families do, this is our set up and it works for us. I think people who feel the need to overly big up their choices are insecure about their choices.

Nobody knows what the future holds so nobody can say with certainty that their family set up will guarantee that their child will become a happy, healthy, successful adult. Just do what you think's right for you and yours and fuck everybody else's opinions.

Isn't it slightly depressing, though, to get a job in the basis that your marriage might fail> Yes, by all means, work if it's important to you or if you have to but not to safeguard against something that might never happen. If you are to divorce, you can always go out and get a job if it works better but it makes more sense to cross that bridge when you come to it...

No.Men don't sit on the internet fretting about whether they can work AND be a successful parent. They simply assume, from a very early age, that they CAN. That's why they are noticeably absent on this thread.
Until men step up and take it for granted that children may well have an effect on their earning power and freedom, we will continue to be pulled in two directions over this.

If you are to divorce, you can always go out and get a job if it works better but it makes more sense to cross that bridge when you come to it

Might seem depressing to you, but if there is a 1 in 2 chance that your marriage will end, why wouldn't you protect yourself against that? You would for anything else that had a 50% chance of happening. You might feel differently about crossing bridges when you realise that 'going out and getting a job' is pretty difficult when you have been out of the workforce for 15 years and have few relevant qualifications or up to date skills. It's entirely up to you what you do, but how would you feel if you gave up your earning potential while allowing your spouse to maximise his and he leaves you for someone else and you are the one having to take a massive hit in living standards? This isn't just an urban myth, it is happening to women day in, day out. Women who were convinced their DH wasn't 'like that' and that their marriages would last. The ones who have kept a hand in the workforce inevitably find it easier than those who haven't.

I'd bet on a horse with those odds. I like a flutter ;)

I suppose I am optimistic by nature. I'd work it out. Loads has happened unexpectedly. 2 x redundancies, business failure, unexpected deaths, severe financial strain. We got through it. I

I'd bet on a horse with those odds. I like a flutter

Oh, don't get me wrong, so would I. I just wouldn't bet everything on the horse so that I would be screwed if it didn't come in... But as I said, it's a matter for the individual to decide. As long as people are aware that the days of long-term maintenance on divorce are over and that they are taking a risk by giving up financial independence. For some though, that is a risk worth taking.

As long as the taxpayer isn't funding your choice who gives a shit?

We receive tax credit top up plus DLA and carers
So please ladies, all be nice to one another regardless of whether you're WOTHM or a SAHM and save your vitriol for people like me who deserve it - skint bit unable to work

Men don't have these issues simple because the vast majority have no choice but to work if they want to eat and house themselves.

Many will have seen dad work and mum not so believe that's how it's done and they have no choice in life.

Likewise many women will seek a partner with good earning potential if their plan is to not work or quit work at the earliest opportunity.

If you are to divorce, you can always go out and get a job if it works better but it makes more sense to cross that bridge when you come to it

Yes because employers will be queuing up to offer jobs to people who haven't worked in years, have no upto references and out of date skills.

The wisest thing to do is to teach both sexes of children to always maintain financial independence and share the house and child related tasks. Far more equal partnership and a lasting legacy for the next generation and a better step towards equality.

Men don't have these issues yes because women give up things too readily for men
Mn is full of fraught threads about women giving up/reducing work.whilst men usually don't
Society and culture overtly and covertly reinforces to women that their role as mothers is at home

Well, I've known people who've done it. Lots of people keep their skills up to date via volunteering round here . The local library offers v affordable training on Office skills too. It depends what you are looking for.

Who says being at home is being unequal anyway? One is raising the kids, one is working. Both are doing something and contributing to the family, alb either not financially . The problem is being 'housewives', 'mums' whatever is so devalued. I've known plenty retrain later in life and get good jobs. Two I know recently became teachers

I think if anyone expects to be able to use the healthcare system, education system, receive child benefit or a state pension etc then they have an obligation to financially contribute and in the UK, that requires a significant contribution in tax. If you want to stay at home rather than need to stay at home then the partner with the earnings should be taxed at a higher rate to compensate for the lack of contribution from the person not working but still using public services.

Absolutely there should be recognition that parents may require time off working when children are young or for those caring for family with health issues and their contributions should be effectively considered as paid for those years but for a healthy capable adult without independent wealth to expect to receive from the state without fully contributing is far from fair.

I'd like to see a system whereby we have free nursery places for all so that women can work if they want to, where partners of those who choose not to work and who are not independently wealthy pay a different rate of tax to effectively compensate the state. I'd also pay full time carers a decent living wage.

I understand that everyone wants to look after their own and that it's not my business how an individual family structures their own affairs but that's not how society works and particularly not one which provides a welfare state. We all have an obligation to look at the bigger picture.

And please don't tell me that anyone has children to benefit society or that their children will pay my pension as that simply isn't how it works.

Surely household income is a consideration? Often, where both work, it's because 1 income isn't enough. Those who are single income are the ones who can afford it. Generally. There are always exceptions. What does it matter if someone contributes?

Because we cannot afford as a society to support everyone fairly if too many people opt out of contributing when they could otherwise do so.

We could all volunteer to help out in the NHS and help reduce costs. I'd agree that that is an equally valuable contribution. But we're never going to live in Utopia and have to work with the system we have which relies on financial input by those who are able.

And of course it's not perfect as there will always be circumstances whereby both partners work but their income isn't sufficient to pay tax. We need to be able to absorb that but as a general principle, we don't pay income tax and national insurance on the basis of household income but on an individual level.

I not saying that we don't need to look at the bigger picture about how we structure our working lives and whether we reward the right input from individuals but we cannot continue to take from a system without putting in. We end up with what we have whereby the poor and vulnerable are the first to feel the impact of the financial shortages.

So because I dont work and my husband does and we receive tax credits to top is up, he should be taxed higher thus reducing pur household income again?

Whereas if we both quit and survived on just benefits neither of us would have to pay any tax...

Momma gee. I hope you don't genuinely feel bad about your DLA and tax credits? From what you have posted on the thread you are clearly a legitimate recipient for whom those benefits are intended.
It's good the thread has calmed down again. I don't imagine people have meant nasty things said, but there were a couple of het up posters on either side. I imagine most mums can see benefit in both positions and that different families have different solutions. There will be some fiercely independent FT working mums who will never be SAHMs and some SAHMs who, even when their children are older, are happy not to work, at all, ever. The rest of us muddle on somewhere in between.

Blistory - What you will find is that in areas where there is a high concentration of SAHMs, the DH's will be earning well into the highest tax band anyway - certainly in London. Not only that, but the DC will be in private education and the family will have private health care. I can only speak for our area - Knightsbridge, Chelsea, Kensington, Fulham, Barnes and so on. My DH pays massive amounts of tax and is happy to do so. We have never used / taken a state school place from another child. He has created around 2,000 real jobs in the UK, about a third of which are taken by women. I am a SAHM though. Most of my friends are also SAHMs but only because their family can easily afford it and the net financial contribution to society for that family is already way above average. Also these SAHMs are not naive and know perfectly well what their financial status would be in the event of a separation.

" There will be some fiercely independent FT working mums who will never be SAHMs"
Men never get described as fiercely independent. I wonder why