to worry about giving up my job to be sahm

[allthemteeth]

First time mom. DD is 7 months old.

I'm due to return to work at the start of March 21.

I always thought I would go back to work and DD would go to a nursery, but now she's here my feelings have completely changed.

I couldn't imagine going to work all day and leaving her. I hate the thought of not seeing her all day and missing out seeing her grow and develop.

I've not been overly happy in my job for a while now, I've stayed because although I'm only on an average salary, I have the benefit of a company car.

DH has a much higher salary and also has a company car so we could quite comfortably manage without my wage.

The issue is, I've never not had a job.
I've always worked full time and I worry about giving up this independence.
We've always had joint money so it's not as if I will have to ask DH for money or tell him what I spend etc, but not contributing anything to the "pot" just makes me feel uneasy.

I also worry about the social side of not working. I do really like the people I work with and I think I'd miss not being around other adults every day.

It's not really an option for me to go back
part time. My wage would reduce dramatically and I'd pretty much be going to work just to cover nursery fees.

I know I want to leave my job and stay at home with DD but there's just this feeling of losing myself or my independence for doing it.

Has anyone else given up a job? Am I
making the right decision?

“I don't consider picking a well off man (or one with obvious good prospect) and setting things up to ensure he would have to leave a large chunk of his earned money if seperated anything smart. Its actually quite insulting to women to call this 'smart'.”

This kind of comment is typical of the bland stereotypes some women seem to want to believe. Why? Does it make you feel better? This statement just reeks of ignorance, I’m sorry to say.

Maybe if you actually met some of the women you are referring to, you would realise that many of them have been with their husbands a long time - yes, predating the time when he was a “high earner.”

Maybe you would understand It is perfectly possible to set up finances in a way that protects everyone into the future.

Most families I know where there is a long-term SAHM don’t really have the mentality that they’re living off “his” income. There will be other investments, portfolios and types of income that they have developed over time. I’m not saying this isn’t a quite privileged position and I’m not saying that it’s common. What I am saying is, this set up is fairly common in demographics where there is a high preponderance long-term SAHM. These families are no less real than than the image of the SAHM as vulnerable that is pedalled in here.

I don’t know one woman who set out to marry a rich man fgs. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen in some circles, but the men I see who have become very wealthy have achieved this during the time they’ve been married.

Lelophants

"Its pretty antifeminist to chastise women for choices like this".

I have a bit of a problem with this line of argument which goes like this: feminism is about the right or women to make choices: therefore any choice a woman makes in relation to her own life, her fertility and childcare is OK because its her choice. It's a bit simplistic.

It's true that on an individual level feminism should be about allowing women to have choices. But that ignores the societal impact of the choices individual women make on other women. The reality is that we still live in a society which massively discriminates against women and makes it much harder for them both to bear and rear children and to remain economic agency over their lives than it is for men.

That doesn't mean that every woman is obliged to return to work after having children. But its not a get-out-of-jail-free card to argue that to not retain any financial independence and to basically perpetuate these very stark divisions of male/female labour is OK as long as its a "choice".

The more women who hand over all financial and economic agency to their husbands or partners, the harder it remains for those of us who want control over this and these things don't happen in a vacuum.

The solution will be slow and difficult and in my view at the heart of it is for men to be obliged to shoulder far more of the domestic burden and for this to be basically built into the expectation of all families. That's something which you can't legally enforce and it won't happen overnight but you can create societal shifts which allow this to happen.

Saying: "its my choice to decide to be looked after and supported by a man after I have kids indefinitely and that's the output of feminism for me" is a bit of a copout, in my view. For two reasons: a) because you're not really giving yourself the protections and independence which feminism was designed to engender and b) because it makes it much harder for the rest of us to implement this change across society.

So I get that there are plenty of women who are much more comfortable focusing on looking after their kids when they are young without the distraction of a full-time job and I don't begrudge them this. But I do think its reasonable to ask them to think about what happens to society when we perpetuate the idea that men are basically off the hook domestically once this happens.

You hear this riposte all the time on MN when a SAHM comes on and says "it works for our family" (for her not to work and to do all the domestic heavy lifting). Well, great that it works for your family: what about the other families and the rest of society? What about those of us who find it really hard to persuade men that they have a role to play, mainly because there are so many women who don't require their men to step up?

I know its a personal choice but I wish people would think a bit more widely about the impact on the rest of us of their personal choices.

Agree with a PP who said there is a complete dearth of male role models balancing family life and a career. And whilst there are a fair few dads who do school drop offs and pick ups, i doubt a single one could tell me what book band their kid is on, or tell me about World Book Day.

I do wonder why women consistently set such low standards for ourselves. Maybe it’s actually that World Book Day and book bands are a complete waste of mental energy and the men have a better handle on things by just not engaging with it?

1ucia

"Most families I know where there is a long-term SAHM don’t really have the mentality that they’re living off “his” income. There will be other investments, portfolios and types of income that they have developed over time. I’m not saying this isn’t a quite privileged position and I’m not saying that it’s common. What I am saying is, this set up is fairly common in demographics where there is a high preponderance long-term SAHM. These families are no less real than than the image of the SAHM as vulnerable that is pedalled in here."

There are families like this for sure and in this case the SAHM is sitting pretty, relatively speaking. But as you've accepted these are pretty privileged people and not representative of most young families in the UK today.

Also for all that its perceived as "family money", it is until it isn't. These investments and portfolios might well be in joint names but you can bet your bottom dollar that if they split the person who generated the cash will engineer it so they get the lion's share of it.

“Also for all that its perceived as "family money", it is until it isn't. These investments and portfolios might well be in joint names but you can bet your bottom dollar that if they split the person who generated the cash will engineer it so they get the lion's share of it.”

Again, my experience doesn’t really bear this out. In cases of divorce I can think of, the DH’s main concern has been that the children’s lives are not disrupted any more than they need to be. So the school fees are maintained and the wife tends to stay in the family home. In fact, I can’t think of any woman I know who has been left “high and dry.” It really isn’t inevitable.

Also, when people in here say, “oh you’ll never get back into your career after a ten year gap,” they are totally missing the point. The point being that many women have no intention of going back into that career in the first place!

It is obviously perfectly possible to have more than one career path over the course of a lifetime. Having “time out” as a SAHM an help you to re-evaluate what you want to do next. The career path that suited you in your 20s may seem very unappealing by the time you reach your 40s. I know a lot of women who have retrained or started up their own businesses, for instance. This happens all the time.

@thepeopleversuswork

Love love love your post. It's everything I was trying to say earlier and gave up trying to express it correctly.

I've sometimes thought that those of us who've insisted on our husbands sharing the domestic and childbearing burden, and having our own successful career and financial independence are helping smooth the path of equality for the next generation of daughters. Those who put themselves in the position of playing second fiddle to a man's career and doing all of what is seen traditionally as "women's work" sets the progress back again.

I don't think there will ever be true equality because not only do a lot of men like it that way, but so many women don't seem to want it either.

1ucia

Based on your snapshot (school fees/investment trusts) I would infer that you're talking about a particularly privileged demographic here. You may be right in these cases but respectfully this doesn't apply to the majority of SAHMs in the UK.

It also relies on the DH being as honourable as the ones you mention here. This is by no means something you can take to the bank.

No its not inevitable that the woman will be left high and dry in a divorce. Big "family" pot, decent husband etc the stars could all align in the wife's favour. But its a gamble isn't it? I wouldn't be prepared to accept that level of risk.

When do men get to take 10 years out to find themselves and reevaluate what they want to do? Or are they condemned to stay on the corporate treadmill whilst their wives pass the time in playgrounds and soft plays and then take the time to find themselves whilst the husband pays the bills?

Can’t you see that’s an absolute luxury? The patriarchy doesn’t just keep women down.

honeylulu

"I don't think there will ever be true equality because not only do a lot of men like it that way, but so many women don't seem to want it either."

Yep. The reluctance of both women and men to challenge these entrenched roles has implications not just for the couple but for all other women and men (including the couple's own children). You can argue that you don't want equality in your own marriage etc, and that's your choice and arguably a valid choice, but it isn't a feminist choice.

It may not be a popular view but I think you are going to argue that women have the right to equal participation in the labour force and that men have a responsibility to take up a greater domestic burden you have to walk the walk at least a bit to make it stick.

Not necessarily go to work in the City for 60 hours a week. But keep your hand in and make sure your DH/DP sees himself as playing a central role domestically.

Loelia - loads of men reassess their career path through life. Of course they do. My DH hasn’t had a “salary” as such for maybe 15 years because he has many roles. He hasn’t just had one fixed job since he was early 30s. Loads of men are like this - entrepreneurs, investors etc.

Also, when people in here say, “oh you’ll never get back into your career after a ten year gap,” they are totally missing the point. The point being that many women have no intention of going back into that career in the first place!
And that is ok if you go into being a SAHP with knowing that. But reality shows a lot of women expect to just continue where they stopped 4-6 years before, and then end up either retraining while still doing all SAHP work (no earnings...), or in 0 hours minimum wage jobs.
Go in with open eyes, and its fine. but don’t go in assuming you can always go back because that’s only true rarely

@1ucia

You seem to think that giving up work and making yourself financially dependent on your spouse is a risk-free idea with only upsides for the financially dependent spouse. You also say that you yourself know literally 'hundreds' of women in this blissful situation. I'm curious as to how many men you know who've done something similar? Is it also in the hundreds? Anywhere close? If not, why not? If being a stay-at-home is so great, why aren't men clamouring for the same opportunity?

Clearly lots of pros and cons to the situation and you just need to do you-what works for one family won’t necessarily work for another. I went back 30 hours when DC1 was 9 months and used a combo of nursery (3 days) and GPs (1 day) for childcare which works well. I would of liked to go back 3 days but this wasn’t an option at the time. I personally have never felt stressed between working and homelife I know DC is well cared for when I’m working and outsource things like cleaning and gardening so When I’m not at work my time is family time. I had no desire to be a sAHP I worked hard at my career and love my job and returning to work was also a turning point for my PND it gave me time away, identity and independence. I too thought I had a good balanced relationship but then was divorcing as DC turned 16 months and I am eternally grateful for having my job as it allowed me to buy exH out of the house and maintain mine and DCs lifestyle. I have one friends who is a SAHP and for me the issue I see is affording it and then there is affording it IYSWIM. They afford it in that all bills are paid, food on the table, run a car but there is little else left so all these lovely play dates, coffees and lunches don’t happen and I know they find that quite isolating. I think the advice would be different again if we weren’t coming through a global pandemic as the recession and impact on the job market is like nothing we will have seen before. My DP had a successful business prior to lockdown but as this relied on a decent amount of European travel this has shrunk significantly and it may not recover. He is looking at retraining into a more ‘stable’ field if things carry on and I suspect a loft of others will be doing the same. It’s ok being qualified and registered in a profession but in 3-5 years time many other people will be too and will have those years of contemporary experience on their CV which is something to consider. I take my hat off to SAHP I couldn’t do it I’m a much better mother and person having a work life. The cost of childcare is a long term investment so even if it’s cost neutral in terms of earnings/paying childcare the cost drops significantly at 3 but will have likely paid off for you in terms of work, if that’s what you choose to do.

IcedPurple - I’m not saying anything is right or wrong. I’m not saying anyone should if shouldn’t do anything. I’m just being honest about what I see. A lot of sweeping statements get made on here when the reality is that everyone makes decisions in totally different contexts.

As for your question about why I don’t know hundreds of men who are SAHDs to high-earning women, well that’s a very fair question. The truth is no, I don’t know any. If I’m totally honest, the pattern I see (broadly speaking) is that many of the DHs have, at some point, had careers in banking / finance. For instance, DH was an optional trader until the age of about 32 (he’s 50 now). Maybe it’s changed, but back then it was very male-orientated. I see a fairly common pattern that men who start off in this kind of industry, often leave and start up their own companies, while still having trading / investment portfolios on the side. They invest the money in ways that work for them and they have various non-executive directorships or consultant roles going on or whatever - ie it’s not just a case if having a set job description or given career / salary schedule. They don’t have all their eggs in one basket and it’s extremely full on and complex. For whatever reason, women are less likely to be like this. It’s a vicious circle, because many of the men I’m taking about are extremely driven and so it makes sense for them to have a SAHW, yes - otherwise family life would be very stressful. So I’m not saying there is equality in that these situations are not societally-driven - because they are! I am simply trying to point out that women make choices in very different contexts, so it’s pointless to stereotype.

Options trader - not optional!

It's not really an option for me to go back
part time. My wage would reduce dramatically and I'd pretty much be going to work just to cover nursery fees.

No, you'd be going to work to get the benefits of work, which you were clear on earlier in your opening post, to stay part of the labour market, to ensure your skills and knowledge didn't stagnate, to continue to be employable at an equivalent level in the future, to retain some independence, to know that if your DH turned out to be a colossal shit who left you high and dry a few years down the line you would have the building blocks in place... I mean, fair enough if you don't ^want to, but it peeves me when women say this.

I don’t know one woman who set out to marry a rich man fgs. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen in some circles, but the men I see who have become very wealthy have achieved this during the time they’ve been married
This is your experience, mine is very different as is that if my DD at Uni and friends who make a point of dating guys, studying law, medicine, Economics and political studies.

Ultimately, this was mentioned in relation to making 'smart choices', which I understand the poster referred to planning for pension etc... rather than picking the right man!

I think it is sad that sahm are automatically made to feel inferior and yes, I think there is an element of jealousy in it. I don't judge sahm in any way as long as it genuinely anoint decision which I don't think always despite what many claims.

However what gets to me is women turning into furies when seperation takes place and think they should be entitled to more than 50% of assets and continuing being looked after because ultimately they opted for a life choice that was always going to put them in a potential vulnerable position.

1ucia

"Having “time out” as a SAHM an help you to re-evaluate what you want to do next. The career path that suited you in your 20s may seem very unappealing by the time you reach your 40s. I know a lot of women who have retrained or started up their own businesses, for instance. This happens all the time."

Again, this is an extremely privileged subset of people. It's great if you want a total career change and are able to use a career-break to have a complete reset and do something more interesting when you return to work. I've known quite a few women do this with careers such as psychotherapy or gardening.

But again, this is only possible because they are not the primary breadwinner and have the luxury of being able to choose a second career that's "fun" or "interesting" or "rewarding" first and remunerative second because they are able to lean on the primary breadwinner while they are retraining and getting established in their new chosen field.

All power to you if that's what you want to do and it must be great but this isn't really what we're talking about here. We're talking about protecting your ability to support yourself and your kids independently of the primary income.

As for your question about why I don’t know hundreds of men who are SAHDs to high-earning women, well that’s a very fair question. The truth is no, I don’t know any.

So literally 'hundreds' of women enjoying blissful lives of cleaners, nannies and 100% financial security while being also completely dependent on their spouse?

But not one single man - not one - who has made the same choice?

You obviously move among people with very traditional notions of gender roles. "Extremely driven" husbands who need wives to stay at home to ease their lives. I guess it works for these 'hundreds' of women but it sounds grim to me. In any case, only a tiny number of people can afford to live this way so it's not really relevant to the current discussion, which is about a woman whose salary only barely covers childcare costs.

A good question as to whether something is empowering: are the people who are in power doing it?

@ShebaShimmyShake

A good question as to whether something is empowering: are the people who are in power doing it?

Exactly this.

I reluctantly went back after DS1 but only lasted nine months before I gave up again to be a SAHM. I had six wonderful years during which time I had DD1 and DD2 before getting a different part time role for two years before I went properly back to work. In my case it was fine I love my new job (different field to before) and my relationship with DH was and is secure and he has never made me feel bad about not earning all those years. For some it works for others it is a mistake, only you know how you may feel.

Iced - I’m not making value judgements here. I’m just being honest about what I see. And yes, I am talking about hundreds of people I know. I’ve been a SAHM for almost two decades, so it’s not that surprising I would have met a lot of other women in a similar position is it? And yes, DH has a lot of friends / work associates who have SAH wives too. I realise this is unpalatable you some people in here, But it discontent makes it any less of a reality. If I was in different circumstances, then I would have made different decisions, obviously. But I’m not, so I didn’t.

I’m not talking about the OP because she’s long gone by the look of it. But if this discussion is about long-term SAHMs, I know a lot of them and I am one and this is my life, so this is my perspective on how and why such a set-up comes about.

Sorry for typos (on phone) - “doesn’t,” not “discontent.”