To think that "working mums set a great example to their children" is largely nonsense

[Blinkyblink]

I grew up with a SAHM. It was bloody fantastic! Picked up by my mum, home after school, she came to assemblies, sports days, plays etc, I was able to have friends over after school. Plus I just loved being with my mum after school. There was something homely, comforting and cosy about it.

I didn't give the fact my mum didn't work any thought whatsoever. I worked like a dog for my GCSEs, a-levels, degree, professional exams and got a good well paid interesting career. I gave it up when I had my first child 7 years ago.

I'm a SAHM now, however next year I'm jumping in at the deep end. Will be commuting and long hours in a professional role. A number of people have said to me along the line "oh you'll be setting so much of a better example now for your children".

Am I alone in thinking "wtf?". A 7 year doesn't give a flying fig about whether his mum works. He/she would MUCH prefer mum to be picking him up from school, making his dinner, helping him with his reading, not having to go to a child minder / holiday clubs in the holidays?

It certainly didn't stop me pursuing a very good career, and the school I went to (private academic girls school) the vast majority of mothers didn't work, and many of those girls have gone on to have great career success (medicine, finance etc)

Is this just an argument pulled out by working mums trying to make themselves feel better? I'm going to be a working mum on a few months, and I'm pretty damn sure I'm not going to think that my children are benefiting from the example I'm setting. I think some people forget how self absorbed most children are and seeing you dash off to work to do something important really isn't either here nor there for them!

The facts you're stating are absolutely true loopy. But I'm not totally convinced it's as simple as 'men getting what they want'. There have been quite a few examples on here of women being quite honest about preferring to take on more of the domestic load, as a trade off against not having to work, or working reduced hours.

And there's the fact of take up of shared parental leave being extremely low, despite having been an option for couples for quite a while now. It works by the mother choosing to transfer some leave - it could be that more dads would be happy to take it if the mums let them.

Plenty of very boring working people out there, so that's not a very accurate stick to beat sahm with.

I'm much more boring when working full time as I've literally no headspace for anything other than work, house, kids. IME people aren't interested in the intricacies of other people's job or office politics, regardless of how fascinating you find them.

I don't even have a Netflix series on the go, that's how dull it is.

Much more likely that the dads fear discrimination at work if they take time off.

It's not at all simple, and should be talked about more when women, and especially mothers, are so underrepresented in many jobs and positions of power in society and men are so underrepresented AH and in occupations like teaching, care work.

Possibly loopy. It would be interesting to actually know more about why in 2017 there is still such inequality, despite legislation to try to even things up. I suspect the causes are multiple. I hesitate to put it all down to men wanting to protect their economic power though.... I mean, we've just had examples on here of some women claiming 'work is boring' and that they think they have the better deal by working less than their partner. I do wonder why they're happy for their partner to bear the brunt in that case. Or are these women married to men with more interesting/ rewarding jobs than they have them self? If that's the case, then again, the question needs to be asked about why women aren't setting their sights higher in the workplace

Cross posts there loopy!

Yes, there will be lots of factors. Strong social conditioning of boys and girls that continues through to adulthood.

Some women prefer to be with their children day-to-day and find this more interesting and fulfilling than any paid job. If they're in a financial position to do this, then they will. It works for many relationships because bothered the man and woman feel like they're getting the deal that suits them best. It's as simple as that really.
Any lifestyle is a good example as long as it's a positive choice.

The fairly obvious fact is, you are making lots of sacrifices if you pursue a prestigious career that involves long hours, lots of power and lots of responsibility. David Cameron looks one hell of a lot more relaxed and happy now he is not Prime Minister... And look at how much he was mocked if he was thought to be "chillaxing" too much, or if it looked like he was trying to prioritise his family time over matters of national importance. He was supposed to be at the beck and call of the country 24/7. You would have to really want or be groomed for power to accept that.

Re my comment about sahds being common in teaching, I don't mean amongst male teachers. I have several woman colleagues, often in a senior role, who earn more than their partners so they have chosen this set up. I can think of three colleagues apart from myself, including a head of English and a head teacher where the dad is at home.

Yomaa- yes I get what you're saying, but the issue is really about the gender divide isn't it? Given that women and men can be equally capable of the skills and intelligence to perform in the workplace, and men can be equally capable of the tasks involved in child care and domestic jobs (with the sole exception of bf directly from the breast) then there is no intrinsic reason why there seems to be such a divide.

Let's face it- there are highs and lows to both working and being a SAHP so logically you would expect couples to want to share those more equably

Quite a few women still marry a man who is a bit older and who earns more than they do which is another factor. Not all by any means, but some.

Mary I definitely think that's a factor. The average age gap in male/female couples is 5-7 years (though can't remember where I heard this) so that's 5-7 years head start in having a career before you account for time off for maternity leave too.
So it's hardly surprising that the male partner often earns more and it becomes "logical" for the female partner to be the sahp or part timer.
I have absolutely no idea what the solution to that is.
Personally I went back to work and insisted on being full time after we had our first (my husband is 14 years older) and by the time we had our youngest I was the higher earner. It was bloody hard though, on all of us (not so much now so I'd say it paid off) and I can see why people don't do it.

I thought the average age gap was less than that? Or among couples who get together in their in their 20s and 30s; I think ive read it's larger among couples who get together when older.

I agree with you honey that you feel the benefits of continuing in work at their greatest after a while. When you're paying out most or all of your income on childcare, you really are doing it for the mental stimulation, pension and social benefits. It feels like all your christmases come at once when you start making immediate financial gain again

Your mother staying at home didn't influence you at all, but you gave up your career when your child was born?

Yeah, right.

When people talk about setting a good example, they don't mean the children's immediate happiness.

More the daughters' happiness when they accidentally marry abusive men and can leave immediately because they always did paid work.
(Okay, to be fair, people probably don't consider that when they see a woman earning her own money as more feminist, but that's the reason why having your own money is better)

Abusive men have a nasty habit of getting abused women to stay in a relationship with them even when they are working. Some women leave their abusive husbands in the morning to go and work for their abusive employers, then home again and repeat. Life isn't so simple that paid work is the answer to everything. It really does depend on the individual circumstances. It is not necessary for most people to assume that they are marrying an abuser, any more than you should assume you are employed by an abusive employer.

If a SAHM set a good example for her children, then of course they are more likely to repeat what they experienced. If a WOHM set a good example for her children, then likewise. There is no point telling someone who is repeating a patrern that they have seen work that they are setting a bad example of anything, because that's just fucking patronising claptrap.

Vestalvirgin- the potential for being in an abusive relationship is a factor, but I wouldn't say it ought to be a major one in deciding whether to work. There are lots of other benefits, both immediate and in the medium and long term, quite aside from the 'what ifs'. Having said that, a relationship Where both partners are able to earn good money and also play a hands on role in the home is better prepared for any of the curve balls that life might throw

"Your mother staying at home didn't influence you at all, but you gave up your career when your child was born?

Yeah right. "

This is actually something I've considered a lot recently - unconscious patterns of behaviour and our preconceptions of the norm. My mother was a SAHM and so am I, though I stayed in education to postgrad level and she left school at 15. Ultimately, I will never know whether coming from a different background would have led me to make different choices. How do any of us ever know? All I can say is that I did what felt right for me after the DC.

I can say that I certainly would have returned to work if we needed the money because my decisions would have been made in a different framework. Also, if DH was in any way controlling around finances, or it didn't feel as if it was all family money, that would have been a different matter as well.

I don't know. My mum was a SAHM most of my childhood, although she went through phases of working part time. It was always very clear to me that the house was her domain. She did lots for us but it was never cheerful - always grudging that she'd slaved over dinner or done all the washing and we were so ungrateful. She seemed lonely a lot of the time and like she was having more kids to fill the void - Ditto with religion and other things she clung onto. I think the bottom line was she had dreamed of being a professional musician - but at some point, for reasons I could never quite fathom and long before I was born as her eldest, she had given up on the idea of doing it professionally. She still played and sometimes taught others but there was a sadness there and a jealousy of others who were succeeding. There still is.

My mum was a high income single working parent. I never wished she was a sahm. I value the quality times we shared and was grateful with the things I was able to experience because she could afford them.

I became a single high income working mum too. Kids in FT childcare before they were 1yo. Now teenagers I've asked them if they'd ever wished I'd been a sham and both said definitely not and from their behaviour I'm convinced they were honest.

I think it's about personality. We are all clever, ambitious, confident and independent. Both my kids sought constant stimulation and social interaction so childcare did suit them well. I expect a lot of it down to genetic any way.

What I can say without a blink of the eye is that if at any time I'd believe that me working was detrimental to their health and happiness I would have quit my job on the spot. I might have been a FT busy working mum but my children well being always has and always will come first.

My mum worked her arse off full time in the 89s for me when it was the done thing to give up your work or work part time. Unfortunately her profession, at that point, did not offer part time work. It was all or nothing. She plumped for all. I now work full time in a fairly demanding job so I think she's rubbed off on me that way. However, it's not really anyone's business.

80s not 89s

If a SAHM set a good example for her children, then of course they are more likely to repeat what they experienced. If a WOHM set a good example for her children, then likewise.

So children only follow good examples? Don't think so.

Sorry that was a quote - bold didn't work