To be shocked at how many of my (public) school friends are now SAHM

[TrophyCat]

Went to a baby shower last week. The mum to be is an old school friend and there were 8 others from our school there.

We all went to a well known public school, we all have degrees (3 from the bunch went to Oxbridge), and yet 5 of us are stay at home mums, 2 of the women that work don't have dc. So only 1 woman with DC has continued to work.

Most of us had careers before dc, but quit work after marriage and having children.

Interestingly, although a couple of us send our DC to private school absolutely no one has any plans to send their DC away to board ever.

I see this a lot too from my school friends and uni friends - they have family money and can choose not to work. Hardly surprising that families who can afford the school fees raise children who earn similarly in their careers/ partner up with someone who does. Amongst my school friends lots of the mums were SAHM of secondary school age children - if you have grown up with that you see it as normal.

If i could afford not to work, and didn;t have to worry about my pension etc I would be a SAHM too!

You’ll probably go back to work when your children are older though. You probably won’t be SAHM for life like the old days.

My sister has just gone back into the city after 15 years of being a SAHM.

OP. You do also have to remember that public (boarding?) school pupils will generally come from better off families. They may well have family/inherited money around which helps with stay at home decisions. That security helped me feel comfortable with being a SAHM.

How old are the dc? Maybe they’re planning to return

Without knowing these people and therefore making a massive leap, I reckon it's because they married equally high earners who weren't willing to make compromises on their own careers. So it was give up work or get a nanny/send kids to boarding school.

I doubt it was the cost of childcare as another PP suggested. More likely their husbands earn so much that they didn't need a second salary unlike many of us.

In terms of boarding school 30 years ago it was a right of passage for kids of a certain demographic not to go would be seen as a bold and rebellious move. Now it's much less common in general. Parents expect to be more involved in their children's lives and it's also much more expensive compared to salaries. It used to be a doctor could afford to send 2 or 3 kids boarding, now they wouldn't have a chance.

I also agree that if they're sending kids private childcare costs obviously aren't the deciding issue!

I’m just the same. I went to a highly academic major public school and we were encouraged to be ambitious. Almost everyone went to top universities and into good careers throughout their 20s. Then most of my friends stopped in their 30s when they had kids and are now either still SAHMs or have small jobs on the side (were now mid 40s). Only a couple of us kept working. I do think they’re very vulnerable - luckily no ones marriage has broken up (so far).

Perhaps they married for money

I think there is an assumption that they will remain SAHPs for ever, whereas they may find it easier to return to work where their DC are a bit older.
I say this as I went to a state school but was a SAHM for a few years, as I had my DC close together, and childcare for more than one child is very expensive.
When I returned to work, I worked part-time, and then as my children got older, I changed my job to work full-time.
That said, I feel that women who are SAHM forever, or after their DC become teenagers, make themselves vulnerbale if their marriage breaks down.

My school encouraged us to be ambitious so I was. A proper high flyer in my field. The I took maternity leave and discovered that I was much happier as a SAHM. I had been moulded into a competitive over-achiever when it wasn’t what made me happy at all. Perhaps that’s the case with your friends OP?

I went to Oxbridge (not from a private school), had a well paid job and a partner with a well paid job. I took time off when we had DC and became a SAHM until the youngest started school. Many families do this if they are able to finance it. Why does it strike you as odd?

Only 25% of mothers don't work so that proportion in your circle is unusual

I am surprised only by the fact that someone who went to public school and thence to University would have or attend a baby shower.

Doesnt anyone get that its about choice?

I have a high flying career. I have a great degree & professional qualification. I earn a lot and was ambitious. We can comfortably afford childcare and its very much worth it for me to work.

But... I dont want it any more.

I just want to stay at home with my babies, while they are little (eg not school age). Some women do just feel like that, from various walks of life and in a range of income brackets.

Totally agree.

Only thickies with no GCSEs who went to the sink comprehensive should be SAHMs. Obviously.

Are the numpties taking in in turn to start the weekly SAHM bashing thread? Whose turn is it next week?

Here's the bingo card.....

I would be so bored
What a waste of an education
Dependent on a man
Bad example to your daughters
What do you do all day
SAHMs are basically just unemployed

percheron baby showers are ok now because they are not gender reveal parties.

I don't see a problem with it as long as they are happy. I know privately educated women who are the main breadwinners in their families too. I went part-time after my first child and had a few years out after my second. It was good for the kids and good for us as a family. The alternative was very high childcare costs that would have eaten up most of what I earn. I enjoy being with my kids, so the idea of working hard to pay tax and childcare made not sense. The wonderful ting about being a parent now is that we can choose. 50 years ago almost all women would have been forced to give up their careers. In some countries the provision of free childcare creates a moral pressure to leave your baby and return to work. I think we have the balance about right here and we should make sure we don't judge other people's choices about what is right for them and their families.

Most of my friends are childfree (and I went to state school) but my Millfield then Oxbridge educated boss reports the same.

I wonder if there is a sort of bell curve, i.e. that lower earners find childcare cost makes working unsustainable, middle earners need the money and can't afford to jeopardise being able to pick up their careers again, and those most priveliged aren't too worried about either so have genuine free choice (which many seem to exercise).

I suppose it's time for a Bash SAHM thread as it's been about a week since the last one. Of course soon a poster will be along to play devils advocate and begin WOHM bashing for balance.

Women judging other women's choices coz the patriarchy doesn't deal us enough crap

NoIDontWatchLoveIsland - exactly how I feel, whilst it is very much financially wortwhile for me to work, I no longer want to. I am a single parent, no maintenance but have always had a "career" rather than a job. I was a high achiever. I am bored of it. I have reduced my hours at work dramatically, and now bring home less each month than I did as a trainee in my first job. Luckily I have savings and I choose to rely on those to some extent as for me, I want to enjoy my 40s, and spend time with my child and doing the things I want to do. Life is too short, I'm lucky to have this choice

What happens if you divorce after years and years of being a stay at home mum? Thats my concern. Watched my mum go through hell for the sacrifices she made whilst my dad got the benefits of a career and disposable income to make a woman half his age become a stay at home mum.
I'm not a bitter daughter at all lol

I presume its because you've married rich husbands and dont need to work....

It’s about wealth, enabling choices.

We’ve moved through this phase already and now am in possibly even more grrrr-making phase of my wealthy successful oxbridge (and non-oxbridge) friends all retiring aged 55 to spend more time in their houses in Italy and France, or doing non-exec roles for nothing for fab organisations everyone has heard of, with prestigious invites to rub shoulders with similar types. It’s just the way it is.

They’d better be married though, or they will be in big trouble if it goes wrong.