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.

We have both worked through all the child-rearing years. I wanted my children to know that raising children is a joint parental activity.

yes. would still be a sahm.

ex is not a twat with money though.

This thread is ancient! I was a SAHM for 5 years although I did do some hours self employed in evenings and weekends. Only a few hours a week when the kids were small and ramped up to equivalent 3 days a week by the end of the 5 years. Would do it again, everyone told me what a penalty it would be quitting my job for a shitty insurance company.it didn't seem shitty at the time, it was well paid and I was filled with self importance but they treated mother's terribly and no flexibility was offered.

Anyway, 7 years after I quit I have a brilliant job with far better prospects than if I'd remained as a manager in an insurance company. The pay is excellent and I've gained new qualifications in the past 12 months.

I'm glad I had all those great times with my babies, I met so many amazing people and learned a lot more about the world.

It also means now they're 7 and 5 I feel no guilt working full time now, both me and my husband have flexible jobs and I know that grass isn't always greener. When I was a SAHM mum we had a lot of fun and I think I did a pretty good job, but doing homework with them was always boring, I didn't do loads of baking, the house was a mess etc.

I'm fascinated by this MN bias of 'back in the old days, fathers worked, mothers stayed at home'.

All of the women in my Scottish working-class family have always worked - not just pin money, they were business owners, managers, entrepreneurs.

My grandmother, mother, sister and I were raised to believe that you always, ALWAYS earn your own money, and are dependent on nobody.

I find this thread deeply depressing in 2020.

I had 3 under 2 so it was easier to go to work. I did give up work however when my first was 6 months old and I was 5 months pregnant so there was no point really. Had my 3rd on a Friday night and was sat at my desk on Monday!

My mortgage needed to be paid also.

Agree LadyJaye, working class women have always worked.

It’s a small number of women overall who stayed at home and only emerged with the rise of the middle class as a concept designed to illustrate that a man earned enough to support non-working family members. It was never, and is not now, about what’s best for children.

There’s been one woman in my family who stayed home - my mother - every other woman has worked for generations. My mother desperately regrets not having had any career. I think of her every time someone trots out that ‘you don’t wish you’d worked more in your deathbed’ nonsense.

Naturally on page one there’s someone bleating about raising their children themselves.....these women just have absolute contempt for their husbands don’t they? Happy to take his cash, but convinced he’s not raising his own children even when he’s paying for every mouthful of food they eat.

12 weeks was enough and then I was back at work. Any longer and my brain would have atrophied plus I didn't do all those years of training and study just to throw a vacuum round and clear up puke and shitty nappies. We didn't have a mortgage so we could afford a nanny. We didn't have a mortgage because we both worked overseas and earnt enough to buy the house outright. Sort of made sense to me.

It is not great for modern women either way- if you chose to become sahm quite often you feel guilty and judged by family/friends for wasting your career, not having financial independence.
If you chose to stay employed you feel guilty and judged by the same friends and family for not spending enough time with your precious babies.
Even if you do a part time job you feel guilty because you are not doing enough for both your career and your children.
Society expects too much with very little support

I work 2 days a week and I would do that again. It’s long enough to be a nice break and have a bit of freedom but not too long that I don’t feel like I’ve missed out. I did have a full year of maternity leave with both of them though and I don’t think I would have been happy being a sahm long term.

@Petalflowers

Yes! I didn’t have children for someone else to, bring them up. It meant we compromised on house, holidays etc, but it was worth it.

Did you home-educate? If not, presumably you don't think teachers are "brining your children up" so I wonder why you think childcare professionals do.

I definitely would not have been a SAHM. I would not want to rely on my DH, however lovely he is, to support me. I also didn't fit in with the yummy mummy competitive parenting crowd (mind you, who does, but I think some people are better at faking it).

But working FT was quite stressful at times and it would have been nice to work PT when ds was small (I did work 4 days a week until he was 2 but then changed jobs and had to go back to FT). Later on (once he was about 9) both DH and I worked flexibly/PT and it was much easier, we shared the load, both of childcare, and making the ££ to live. Since then I've work one year FT and the rest of the time I have been PT/freelance and able to work predominantly or fully at home.