To ask if you had your time again would you have been a SAHM?

[DiscoPanick]

I've NC for this because of obvious reasons concerning linking threads and so forth.

What invariably happens if you take time off from your job/career and what if your H/P leaves you? Times had changed since alimony was granted. These days you'd leave with just the clothes on your back. That is if you didn't have personal savings or wealth.

Even if childcare renders you working at a net loss on a monthly basis, is it worth still having a foot in the door versus not.

The feeling of guilt concerning WOHMs is all well and good but will not ultimately put food on the table. (The feeling of guilt that is)

I'm just working through a few thoughts and need to consult with friends and others to see what others have done.

G12,we too planned our kids.both solvent and had careers.mapped it out
Part of that plan was choosing childcare,I had nursery booked when I was 12wk pg
And fwiw,majority people think they’ve picked the right person usually that’s the point
So being solvent,in a stable relationship doesn’t automatically lead one to be sahm

littlekiwi put it perfectly for me, very similar circumstances.

hi sm! long time no see

We had this conversation on a massive girls trip recently 15 of us our kids now late primary. Mixed answers. Some glad kept careers going as now more senior. Some regretful as felt they missed stuff with kids when they were little and that's now gone and kids older and those days over and jobs trundling on.

Interestingly not one person still a sahm. Everyone goes back. Personally found it a really good opportunity for a change but was in the wrong job when I got pregnant so worked well to have a few years out then a change of direction. Different if you love your job.

I was a single parent, stay at home mum. When my daughter started school I studied to keep my employment skills up to date; have always volunteered in the local community and voluntary sector; worked part time and managed with that and benefit top up. I very much saw this as my choice as I loved having time at home. We did not have much money but me and my daughter shared great times and both have lovely memories of our life together. I am nearly 60 now and in full time work. If I have grandchildren I will reduce my hours to be a stay at home grandma. I would do the same again because that's me, that's what gives me more pleasure than pursuing a career.

As a single parent I really had no choice so impossible to have regrets about something I couldn't do. Only way I could be a SAHM is if I quit my job and went on benefits which isn't something to aspire to.

In principle I never wanted to have a man pay my way nor did I want to be his domestic servant no matter how comfortable it might be. I never wanted to be that person who enabled a man to have a better career and I cringe when I read posts by SAhM who claim 'it allowed my DH to have an amazing career making more in a month than I could in a year.' Ugh.

I work ft and I have a great relationship with my dcs and feel working has given me an income and agency - both things I feel are necessary to have as an adult.

Windygallows, I agree some people don't have a choice, so there is no point in having regrets & for others working is a better choice but to address your other points:

As a SAHM I don't feel like my husband pays my way at all. Without me he would need to hire at least one nanny full time nanny costing 50-60k pre tax just to cover the basics of what I do. I know this because a lot of these nanny's are effectively my 'work collegues'. And I've talked extensively with many parents of my children's friends who hire them.
Also given the number and ages of the children it is unlikely a professional nanny with as much experience as I now have would take the full role. In my absence, my husband would probably need to pay for extra help on top of a nanny in various forms. I know that might sound crazy to some but that is the reality of what it costs in our area of the world. If he was a single Dad he would be a minimum of 100k down in his yearly pay versus having me as a SAHM. There is no way in hell I could bring in 100k in my chosen career. And it turns out I'm really good at what I do, so why pay someone else to do it. Being a SAHM doesn't automatically mean that a man is paying your way.
There are actually many spouses that you could argue 'pay' for their other half to go to work because of the loss they make on childcare. I have no problem with that and may choose to do it myself at some point but I would definitely feel I was having my way paid for more in that scenario.

Also I sincerely doubt that in cases where the husband makes more in a month than the SAHM could in a year, that those SAHM's are domestic servants. Its highly unlikely that there isn't any money for at least cleaner and there may well be enough for a full time house keeper, PA etc.

A fully time nanny is not a domestic servant. They may or may not have a responsibility to cook for the children and do their laundry but that is usually the limit of their domestic duties. So why would a SAHM automatically be a domestic servant?

Would you cringe if it was a stay at home dad who allowed their DW to have an amazing career making more money in a month than they could in a year?

Perhaps you still would, but I expect many would see that as really great and progressive.

I think it is a real shame that many SAHM's feel that they are 'less than' if they had a conventional career. It might not be for everyone, (what job or career is), but it is still meaningful work.

I don't think I would have been a SAHM because I enjoyed my career and I would worry about being financially dependent but I would have worked part time had we been able to afford it.

However, if I could change one thing in my whole life it would be to have taken longer than the 5 weeks maternity leave I was pressured into. Biggest regret ever and was so not worth it.

gothands I completely understand your argument and POV and it's expressed a lot on here. But for me I feel being at home and doing domestic duties for a man would be uncomfortable; I was the domestic despite working FT and I won't do it again. Women can say that they have an 'equal' relationship but I feel economic power dictates a relationship.

Am also uncomfortable with the idea of not having my own money and income and relying on someone else to buy me groceries and pay my rent. I appreciate not everyone shares this view and understand for some women this is the only option if they want to have a family.

But it's not for me and that's probably why I am single!

I’m afraid I find it a bit baffling this notion that these highly paid men need a wife
Need to have sahm wife or simply everything would go to pot.fall apart
That they’d be unable to maintain their salary & remuneration if it weren’t for sahm

In the absence of a sahm wife they’d buy in help they need to get job done
The tasks would be looked at,costed and someone would do it
It’s as simple as that

It’s not the actual domestic & childcare tasks that’s the complicated bit
The impact would be felt if the other parent was absent,as it would in most breakup. But again folk do get through breakups too

I chose to be a SAHM. DP supported this and has always been happy to support any choice I make. It does mean we have to sacrifice a few things for now but it is important to me.

I do not fear that my children will have a "traditional" view of what a father or mother provides for their family. I am a confident woman and this September I will begin studying again in the evenings for 3 years (although I may have the option to find work as a junior after 1 year as well). DP and I are very equal. I have supported him financially in the past and he does the same for us now.

We are not very well off but I feel fortunate that I can SAH and study.

My goal is to become self employed in a few years and potentially work from home and fit work around school runs etc. It may mean working full time for a bit but if that means I reach my goal which I think is best for us as a family then so be it.

Everyone is different as are their circumstances.

I’m afraid I find it a bit baffling this notion that these highly paid men need a wife

Obviously, in the absence of children, they don't. If you're talking about a family situation, then what you're missing is unspoken; they'd be unable to maintain their salary and remuneration unless they outsourced their childcare to a series of live in nannies. Because they would be unable to maintain their salary if they had to leave at 6 every night to do the school pick up. Or if they couldn't fly abroad as and when is needed. For many people, that's just not what they want for their children. A friend of mine used to work for one half of a "power couple" (for want of a better term). There was much hilarity when he came back from annual leave announcing, quite seriously, "We managed perfectly well on holiday with just the one nanny this time." And they employed one of their nannies, full time, until their youngest child was in the sixth form, because they openly admitted that she was the person to whom he had the greatest attachment. They went away for the weekend when he was small and he was ill. And inconsolable. Because he didn't want his mummy or daddy. He wanted the nanny who looked after him for 95% of his waking hours. That's the reality of that sort of world. It's not the life everyone would want.

So - could you have one parent with a "smaller" job who is completely responsible for the drop offs and pick ups? Of course you could. But the way the world is means that:

a) high earning people tend to meet and marry each other (generalisation, of course, but the whole "run off with the secretary" thing is a bit of a throwback from the 70s), so you often either have a situation where you both keep a "big" job and have an army of paid help - or one of you chooses to stay at home. Two investment bankers will see very little of their children. No way round that. There is no part time option.
b) if you're a very high earner and you've decided you don't want to rely on paid help, it's reasonably tax efficient to have the other stay at home; it can make more financial sense than having one person earn a relatively modest salary if you're married and you have a pretty equitable split of assets.
c). You could both take a job with regular hours. But the reality is that both those salaries are extremely unlikely to add up to even a quarter of a "high earning, long hours" job. And the work is generally a lot less interesting. So it's often lose-lose. Especially so if you see the primary purpose of work as being to earn money!

So, you're right in one sense - you don't "need" a SAHP. But the reality of not having one can be pretty bloody extreme and it's not a choice everyone would choose to make. And people tend to couch it in terms of "need" rather than say "we don't want to use paid childcare" because they don't want to appear insensitive to those who have no choice but to use paid childcare because they need two incomes to pay a mortgage.

And the work is generally a lot less interesting.

Speaking as someone in a profession (law) that can pay huge corporate megabucks or not a great deal, as a person in the lower range you mention my work is infinitely more interesting than the City type stuff. Personally I've always felt the salaries had to be that big to compensate for how boring the work is. Pals who've been in that sector tend not to disagree!

The rest of your post sounded pretty spot on though.

Speaking as someone in a profession (law) that can pay huge corporate megabucks or not a great deal, as a person in the lower range you mention my work is infinitely more interesting than the City type stuff. Personally I've always felt the salaries had to be that big to compensate for how boring the work is. Pals who've been in that sector tend not to disagree!

I wouldn't disagree either Beetlejizz! Not my area, so happy to stand corrected, but as I understood it, it's not at all easy to switch from one thing to another? So if you've been a corporate finance lawyer, you wouldn't be able to walk into a high street criminal firm. Or become a divorce lawyer. Or vice versa?

A friend of mine (who was/is a corporate finance lawyer) went back on a fixed hours, contract basis for a while. Her firm were busy and needed someone to help. But her opinion was very much that - understandably - she got the grunt work. Because if you're going to run a transaction, you need to be available pretty much 24/7. If you're going to leave at 5, you get to churn out the paperwork.

Wasn't meaning to cast aspersions on different jobs!

Erm, I do know know one person who moved from one area of law to another completely different (think social welfare to banking) so it can be done, but it basically requires retraining. Fortunately for him the starting salary was no lower than the experienced salary in the original specialism! People who do this are in a better position than a trainee because they already have the professional qualification, but that's about it.

Yes, it is pretty difficult and rare. People are more likely to move 'sideways' if that makes sense. And sometimes even within the same discipline there's not much similar, so for example if your specialism within family law is care proceedings, you'll know a bit more than the average about high net worth divorce matters but only a bit more- and vice versa. Even though you'd both be family lawyers.

I have recruited a bit in my area and I wouldn't necessarily rule out someone who wanted a change from corporate, but they would need a lot of retraining. Them being a qualified solicitor would be more use than not being, because it's always good to have another one about the place, but I'd still probably prefer a paralegal with experience in the field really.

Actually thinking about it I also know someone who moved from criminal to clinical negligence, with no prior experience of the latter. They were both biggish high street firms though, so although the specialisms were different, the environments less so. I suspect it might have been more difficult if she'd gone from a really small outfit or the CPS to somewhere like Hill Dickinson or similar. The culture can be as big a deal as the specialism, in some ways.

It can be done am doing it . Salary halved, but fits round children and I deal with people (often in intense situations) rather than banks and conglomerates so prefer it personally. Plus I don't have work round the clock or go and live in the far east on an afternoons notice..

Grobagsforever how fucking rude yes I chose to have kids with him don't know what I said to offend you

I’m afraid I find it a bit baffling this notion that these highly paid men need a wife. Need to have sahm wife or simply everything would go to pot.fall apart. That they’d be unable to maintain their salary & remuneration if it weren’t for sahm

You hear this a lot on mumsnet and I totally agree. What's really galling about it is that women with families who have these kind of jobs never have the same kind of support.

So they have to be immensely more effective and resourceful to keep up. The playing field is totally skewed.

What's really galling about it is that women with families who have these kind of jobs never have the same kind of support.

Why galling? If you have those sort of jobs, you earn a lot of money. And that means you have a huge amount of choice about what you do and how you do it. FWIW, I know four very successful women who have husbands who stay at home with the kids. Same set up, just different parents doing it. Helena Morrissey was on R4 the other day, talking about how they did the same thing; her husband stopped working after they'd had their third or fourth.

The women who reached the top I came across either had no kids or stay at home husband.

It's not that the dh needs a wife to be successful it's that successful people often work very long unpredictable hours and their minds are intensely elsewhere so that person either needs a spouse to maintain kids and household or a lot of paid support. Either way they can't commit to nursery pick up everyday. I know couples who have day nannies, night nannies etc. The other option is the lower earning spouse or the one less passionate about their job jacks it in to sahm.

The problem these days is that altho PT working is touted as best for mothers and kids you don't make headway at work that way so when kids leave home and you get made redundant, as I have, it is difficult to get a comparable replacement job. Seems it's either all or nothing....

I think I've found a middle ground. I work FT but at only 50 hours it's very manageable because I get 4 weeks of vacation and they are very understanding that I must take time for my DC who have ASD so have school and medical appointments.

I've been pushy with my career and I'm seeing the rewards now. I've just been promoted again, this time to the CFO role of the tech subsidiary of my employer.

Plenty of people back in Denmark and England think of DH and I as a power couple but it couldn't be further from the reality. We both work very hard and have made many sacrifices beyond what others are prepared to do. We also live below our means and keep our minds focused on the things that matter (family first).

"It's not that the dh needs a wife to be successful it's that successful people often work very long unpredictable hours and their minds are intensely elsewhere so that person either needs a spouse to maintain kids and household or a lot of paid support."

Exactly Kerala. Also, having a SAHP in that situation becomes even more necessary as the DC get older because it's difficult to find an after-school childminder who can properly help with homework, ferry DC around, etc.

I only know of one woman who is a global CEO. Her and her DH both managed to keep working for the early years because they had the most amazing nanny, but the eldest was falling behind at school because she was mildly dyslexic and needing homework support. English wasn't the nanny's first language and she couldn't really help. The DH quit his job to be at home and he got on the case - two years later, his DD sailed through the 11 plus and received 5 school offers which she simply wouldn't have been expected to achieve. Now his wife has been headhunted for double her previous salary and the DH remains at home, running a small property business as a sideline around 3 school-aged kids, while the DW frequently needs to travel.

Homework help is tough. We use an aftercare which is expensive but includes an hour of tutoring so the cost works out to be good value for money. We also supplement with art and science programs run by local museums at the weekend.