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!

My mum stayed at home for most of my childhood and yet, as is common in most Asian families, it was me (the eldest daughter) who did all of the cooking and cleaning and laundary (10 people in the house and so no mean feat). I managed this throughout school and still got got really good grades. When at uni my sister took over. It's one of the reasons why many 1st-gen British-Asian women don't follow their stay at home mums' examples because actually most of us learned how to manage housework and chores around studies and work (unlike our mums who had maids in India/East Africa and so often struggled with housework). We know we know we can manage it all and so we get on with it.

It also assumes you think being a "good" SAHM is something to aspire to. Not everyone agrees.

"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"

Totally agree with this @Babbitywabbit and that's why I get annoyed with people who say "oh but it just happens that it's best for our family this way". It doesn't just happen. There are structural reasons for it (most SAHP being women). And that will never change unless people proactively try to change it like @honeylulu

"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."

And why do more men not find it "more interesting and fulfilling"? This is bollocks and completely ignores the social factors that influence the "choice".

Dads probably do fear discrimination at work if they take time off because they see how badly it happens to women. You only have to look at the maternity discrimination thread(s) on here to realise that

But why should the woman's career take the hit alone, when there are 2 parents? Totally unfair

Yup

If you are married to a very high earner, with the potential to make say, multi-millions, it can actually make economic sense for the family as a whole to have a SAHM. The DH can travel and work the hours he needs to work unimpeded. If the DH has the chance to make life-changing amounts of money over a given period, do you hold them back in the name of equal work opportunities for women? Or do you let the DH run with it and potentially change your children's futures and create the freedom and opportunities that everyone will benefit from as a result?

People make decisions according to their own unique circumstances. Not everybody equates their job title with their identity or self-worth.

Of course if you grew up with a working mum who was happy, you would say that was the preferable model - you don't know anything else! It's the same if you grew up with a SAHM who was happy in her situation. Children know if their parents are unhappy about their life choices or relationships - that's what is far more likely to influence their future behaviour.

So only WOHMs are good examples? I don't think so.

Decisions are not made in a vacuum.

Not all SAHMs are married to high earners! Many SAH because of childcare costs being high relative to incomes - this is a particular "thing" in London.

Why this assumption that mothers have to give up their career so that their husband can do so. About 1/3 of my friends are in a marriage where both hold a good career working FT. Childcare is either a nanny at home and or nursery/childminder/school clubs. Some have 4 children! Children are used to full on lives so I supposed maybe more prepared to do the same when they are parents themselves.

If childcare costs are high in London that is equally applicable though as a facto to whether men can afford to work, surely? We earned the same when we had our first child and half our net income of each of us went on childcare. So I would not say either of us woked at a loss or rather fo nothing. Sexists would say I because I am female worked at a loss but that would be ridiculous. Ultimately I earned more and became the higher earner. Glad I never gave up full time work. I am female.

I suspect marriages where the husband has the determination, skills and a dose of luck to make millions while the wife is happy to give up her career, are few and far between!

I don't know why some posters are getting so defensive about this. If you have a set up where you are both totally happy for one person to provide financially and one to be sole carer then that's fine.
The numerous examples on MN where women feel undervalued, or end up pensionless, in broken relationships, bereaved or simply struggling to get a job, would suggest it makes sense to consider the long term impact of the decision though

Mumsnet is full of posts from women with problems - a minority of which appear to relate to them having SAH for a period of time. You should weigh up every important decision you make in life carefully, rather than just bowing unthinkingly to the pressure of others, whether they be husbands or other women with bees in their bonnets...

Actually this is something that the job centre seem to trot out an awful lot for obvious reasons and i do think a lot of people think like that, and i do think it can be used to denigrate SAHM ....my mum was both SAHM till i was about 11 and then went back to work.

@roundaboutthetown don't tell me to fuck off. I haven't descended to personal attacks on here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

It's not just the greater good though is it - it's also what you'd like for your own kids. I'd like a more equal world where my dc can freely choose what they'd like to do regardless of whether they are male or female. Without these structural biases against women's careers and financial independence that everyone seems to want to pretend don't exist

And how else is anyone meant to respond to this AIBU other than giving their personal opinion? Are we restricting it to citing research studies only now? No I don't think being a housewife is a setting good example (= something young girls should aspire to / boys should expect from a partner). Parents who divide domestic labour and personal / career aspiration in a fair way IMO would be a good example (in an ideal world yada yada). So shoot me.

Babbitty - there are areas though where perhaps the majority of husbands are in that position and they all tend to have SAHMs. At my DCs school, most women are SAHMs or work very part-time.

Squirrel - of course we want our children to have as many opportunities as possible , but if my daughters genuinely felt that they would be happy to be SAHMs, I would definitely respect that choice, as long as the DH was supportive and finances allowed.

Of course - I just feel that you can't ignore the fact that the mans choice and the woman's choice come from very different starting assumptions even in this day & age. It's not an equal platform off which they can make that choice. As PP have said, often the DH earns more. Often workplaces aren't supportive of working mothers. Etc etc. That makes it a lot harder for women to "choose" to have careers when dc come along.

I would happily shoot you metaphorically, TheGrumpySquirrel, for forming rigid opinions utterly unaffected by specific circumstances. Interesting that you see careers to be set up as being against women, rather than against family life, though. What do you mean by that?

Or you could flip that and argue that in some ways (in this society st least) women actually have more choices and freedom because the choice to SAH is still more socially-acceptable for women than for men. It depends on which way you look at it.

Exactly grumpy. Of course everyone will have their own personal experiences, but the real issue is far broader and is about facts not anecdotes.

The fact is, even though females have been outperforming males at virtually every level of education for ages, they are massively disadvantaged when it comes to earnings.
The fact is that even though transferable parental leave has been a legal right for a fair while, take up is staggeringly low. Fact- a far higher percentage of females than males have inadequate financial provision for older age, and are more likely to end up with a poorer standard of living- including women who've been happily married but outlive their husband. Not to mention the problems many women face if the marriage breaks down.

As grumpy says- it's not an equal platform, and that should concern all of us, whether we're married, single, mums to sons, mums to daughters... whatever our own individual circumstances.

OMG, I give up. Of course things are affected by specific circumstances. But why is it ok that women in general still don't have equal opportunities? It's not a coincidence that the majority of "specific circumstances" mean the woman ends up sacrificing their career. That's outrageous, and I don't understand why people keep pretending it's not an issue.

Cost of childcare and job insecurity through contract work etc can means that many 'choices' are actually no choice at all.