To be a SAHM/Housewife with children at school?

[Pinkbutton85]

I've been a SAHM for the last 6 years. My youngest will be starting school in September and I'm unsure of what to do next. Financially, I don't need to work at present. Would you still be a SAHM if you didn't 'have' to be?

Nope, I choose to work because I enjoy my job and work life and feel it's the right example for my dc. But I'm not really someone who likes housekeeping etc. My mum was a sah-martyr and I knew that wasn't for me at a young age. Dm is happy and content though and still with df, otherwise she'd be screwed.

So, if we both have to be in work, who will look after them? You haven't given me an answer.

It is pretty unlikely that both employees have to be in work. Most employers are quite understanding nowadays. In the event that they weren't and you got sacked you would have to be a SAHM for a bit i.e. in the same position that you are in now so surely not a big deal.

I really don't want to drop my DC at a holiday club at 7.30am and pick them up at 6.30pm every day for six weeks in the summer. It would be exhausting for them.

It's not inevitable that if you work your children will be at holiday club from 7.30 to 6.30 every day. DH used to use our annual leave for a lot of it. With slightly older children some employers will let you work at home sometimes. In addition many parents work part time when their children are young.

'' your husband said “ok you’ve been home for 5 years now, I would like to swap and take over your responsibilities and you can go out and earn the money and further your career”...how many SAHMs would take them up on it?

Yet will claim 50/50 in a divorce as they have sacrificed their career?''

So what if that does happen to those women? What is it to you?

I'm not a circus act and would hate to have to juggle, I'd be crap and my dc would have missed out on so much.
Putting your dc first is different for individual families, what works for one may not for another. Why is this so hard for some people to see.

If your husband said “ok you’ve been home for 5 years now, I would like to swap and take over your responsibilities and you can go out and earn the money and further your career”...how many SAHMs would take them up on it?

Excellent point and I'm guessing very few.

It is SO NICE being a SAHM to school-aged children, particularly if you have money. All these people who are saying they'd be bored and so on are utterly lacking in imagination.

Equally, anyone who says it's a sacrifice and their husbands couldn't cope without them etc are completely deluded.

I'm a sahm parent. I have a disabled child so work hard enough already. Plus no childcare for profoundly disabled teenagers.

So what if that does happen to those women? What is it to you?
It matters that when some women don't make informed choices regarding their financial security and then down the line start trying to argue that the law should be changed to give them all the protections that they chose not to have.

Personally, I'll always tell women to make an informed choice that works for their family. But if they give up work for years to be a SAHP, living in DP's house, not on the deeds, not paying their pension etc then I don't want to hear them complaining that the law should automatically afford them comparable rights to married partners when they've chosen not to enter into legal contracts that would protect them as the mote financially vulnerable party in the relationship.

Dont - have you been out and completed a national survey of all SAHMs because you seem to assume great psychological insight here?

SAHMs are as varied as the next woman, you loon! Some are bored; some love it; some have DHs who are subtly forcing them into that role; some own it as a choice and the best thing they ever did. There is no such thing as a typical “SAHM.” They are not a monolith, so who are you actually talking to? Are all women who have jobs doing these jobs for the same reasons? Are all jobs the same? Do they have a hive mind as well? You’re talking nonsense.

Meh I couldn't care less if they want the law changed or not. Doesn't affect me.

Dh and I both currently work full time although we have incredibly flexible jobs- dh works 5 days compresses into 4 which allows him to do all morning school drop offs and 1 pick up. I work 3 days 8-2.30 in one job then 2 full days in the other. Dc only goes to after school care once per week. On the surface this is fantastic however I've just handed my notice in on one job (2 full days) as it's incredibly stressful and I'm often working into the evenings. We are under staffed and workload is horrendous. I have set up my company this week and plan to do contract work. I am incredibly lucky that I have this option but many don't. If money was not an issue I would work 2.5 days.
I do feel proud of myself that I have studied and worked hard and I am financially independent and should anything happen to dh I could support my family on my own. That gives me great peace of mind. I also like to think that I am being a good example to dd. One of us are always at school events. I'm a school governor and a member of pta so very involved with what goes on in school and community. It's all about balance- if you can get it!

How do you have your own income and private pension without working? Genuine question!

Because I had a bloody good job before and in between SAHM/SAHW and invested wisely! Oh and a rather nice golden handshake helped me along the way. And I'm very good with finances.

SAHP, living in DP's house, not on the deeds

Anyone with an ounce of sense would have their name on the deeds.

I think a lot of posters aren't being honest. I will be. I'm envious of women whose husbands can make enough money to allow them to be at home.

It's not that I would be a SAHM myself as I like working out of the home but I'd take up some sort of meaningful charity work if I could.

Given I grew up poor, I would feel very vulnerable relying on DH for money.

Why does any thread about SAHP result in these kinds of arguments?

If you're a SAHP you're lazy, can't be bothered to work and have given up all your ambition, drive and financial security whilst your poor partner (if you have one) has to suffer being the sole breadwinner, working long hard hours to support you spending the day watching This Morning with your feet up. You're a tragic case because nobody could honestly get fulfillment out of only spending time with their children and keeping a nice house running smoothly.

If you work full time you're a hard arsed career bitch, a 'part time parent' who clearly has no thought for your kids and wouldn't be seen dead at a school assembly or summer fete. You're too busy being selfish and putting your needs first, and putting upon your friends and family and anyone else you can rope into dealing with the offspring you popped out. Work, money and naice holidays is all you care about, but at least you're a good role model to your kids because you're contributing to society.

And if you work part time or from home then you're failing at both because it's obviously impossible to stretch yourself between a job and being a parent. You must be doing half the effort at work and half the effort as a parent.

Seriously, I don't see why people don't realise there is no right answer. There are positives and negatives to whatever your situation. I'm just lucky I get to choose what I want to do. Don't hurl abuse at someone else just because their choice isn't the same as yours.

Dont - also, you do realise that in the majority of families, all finances are joint, regardless of who earns what or who contributes in non-financial ways. Bank accounts and investments in both names, all other assets such as properties, etc. So in the event of a split, it’s the overall wealth of the family that determines how vulnerable you are.

How do you have your own income and private pension without working? Genuine question! Inheritance?*

We invested in property that will provide us both with a pension. Dh is self employed so has had lots of time to spend working on our houses. One property was bought with a small inheritance, the rest at auction for peanuts.

Very eloquently put Koalas. Personally I couldn't get het up like some on here about other people's lives.

I would go back to work personally. For us I was the bread winner and dh the stay at home parent, he didn't need to go back to work as I am in a stable job where I earn enough to comfortably support our family and have a good pension scheme. Even so he went back to free lancing (he works in IT so gets to do this from home with occasional trips and meetings), which suits us, most of the time projects are short and he mostly over estimates for clients how long projects will take in case of illness or another kids/house related things he is needed for. The extra money is being put into savings for a car for the kids for university and for a house for them for one day. It also can help pay for holidays and just generally making sure that our family has the best possible quality of life now too (Christmas presents, holidays, days out ect) and we the safety of knowing that even if I go mad and run off or I lose my job or I die that the family is safe and looked after.
This makes it sound like he earns millions, my salary contributes a lot to most of these things but there is not upper limit really and even if there is we are nowhere near it, your holidays can always get nicer and your saving for the future can always be more. also having him keep his hand in the pot means that if he ever wants to go full time again he can.
I guess if its not financially necessary it depends if you want/had/have a career and how flexible that career is, no point in getting a job where the salary is entirely taken up by child care and you don't enjoy it.

Meh I couldn't care less if they want the law changed or not. Doesn't affect me.
I care because there shouldn't be pushes to limit people's living arrangement choices by forcing contracts on them by virtue of living in the same house. I get fed up with hearing how some women think they are a common law spouse (not a thing) and should be allowed to stay in their DP's house until the kids are 18 etc because they've been together 5 years. Not a chance. If anyone chooses to place themselves in a precarious position or lots ignorance and naivity that's their doing.

People can, and should, make whatever decision is right for them and their family, but it should be informed and there's no come back if/when they dislike the outcome.

Um, can I just say, while I have been staunch in the defence of SAHP's, I have not put down WOHP's anywhere, and never would. (Given I've been one, that would be rather silly). It can be damned hard juggling, and I applaud their hard work and ingenuity, in making it work for them and their family.

Dont - also, you do realise that in the majority of families, all finances are joint, regardless of who earns what or who contributes in non-financial ways. Bank accounts and investments in both names, all other assets such as properties, etc. So in the event of a split, it’s the overall wealth of the family that determines how vulnerable you are.

Which for most people, is far less relevant than future earnings, which are not adjusted in perpetuity.

I’m in a similar position and ended up doing a part time job close to home once the dc got to junior school, just to keep my hand in and stay employable. I did find that quite frustrating as knew I was capable of more iyswim and seeing my friends get ahead of me career wise was quite painful even though I loved having the free time and seeing the dc.

I’m now heading back to full time work which will be challenging as I’ve been spoilt for a few years but I’m really looking forward to ramping my own career up and getting my independence back.

It’s not like it was years ago, adults are expected to work or at least do something, the typical footballer’s wife type who got status a few years ago now gets grief in the press for not being a productive member of society (what do they do all day, what are they for type comments.) Times have moved on.

Some on here will say they “gave up” their career but I saw it as a gift of a few years while the children were small tbh and was very grateful for the time. You just cant get stuck there as it’s precarious for your long term financial security especially if the marriage breaks down (not saying yours will of course but it’s sensible to protect yourself).

Alaskan - not necessarily. How would you know that?

Koalas- I haven't seen any SAHM criticise WOHP.
Just the other way round.

I think it’s wrong to be financially dependent on someone else unless it is absolutely the best thing for your family but otherwise it’s just outsourcing the adult responsibility of finances to someone else. Not fair and not good for anyone.

Most parents of multiple children of an age to still incur childcare costs are financially dependent on someone else though. Very few of adults can bring in enough to cover all household costs and all childcare needed, even wraparound, with no assistance from a partner or the state. Neither DH nor I maximise our earnings, but even we did we'd still be short, and we're not low earners.

I think every time a woman stays at home or goes part time it sets feminism back, if I’m honest.

Only if you're a capitalist feminist, and a rather narrow minded, specific model of work focused one at that. This mindset is going to have to die within our lifetimes because we are proceeding towards a future where we will require the wage labour of many fewer of us than we do now. Personally I realised quite early that the workplace, though often fun, was best enjoyed and experienced in doses lower than 40 hours a week. DH too.