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?

1ucia

Fair enough to speak from observation and as you say, the OP has long gone but I think if you're giving advice on a forum like this its worth pointing out that your sample isn't remotely representative of most SAHMs so the advice you give probably isn't relevant to her situation.

I decided not to go back to work and I genuinely think it was the best thing for my children. They had the constant caregiver, we worked mostly around their routine, I did lots of activities and spent lots of time with them. The children benefited from it. If they were sick I was always there, always there to pick them up. Having one parent at home made it easier for my husband to work and not worry/bother with childcare.

It wasn’t great for me. I lost my pension, my career, confidence, work skills. It was very lonely, most women go back to work after maternity so the friends you met at baby group tend to forget about you once they go back to work. I felt I never had a break. I was childcare 24/7. There is no variety. At least with work you get to go home and get weekends off. My husband sometimes made comments about his money and would talk about being tired because he works all day. I couldn’t attend medical appointment because my husband wouldn’t take time off to look after the kids - it was physio so not something the kids could attend.

If I had the time again I would still be a SAHM. I loved that time with my babies. But you have to realise you could be making a huge sacrifice that could affect the rest of your life. Are you willing to give up so much?

thepeople - yes I agree and I’m not actually arguing with anyone. Would I have left work to live off the salary of a man for 18 years. No. I might have been SAH for a whole, but not all this time. Because if that’s all there was to it, he could up and leave and take his salary with him.

But people’s lives and the decisions they take are not as straightforward as some people on here like to make out. It’s only when you’ve walked in someone else’s shoes, that you can be certain what you would have done in their circumstances. And I’m trying to say that, where there are long-term SAHMs, the kind of stereotypes that get pushed on here don’t really apply, in my experience.

And I’m trying to say that, where there are long-term SAHMs, the kind of stereotypes that get pushed on here don’t really apply, in my experience.

You don't think that women giving up work so that their 'extremely driven' husbands can enjoy a stress free home life is a stereotype? Even though as you've said yourself, while you know 'hundreds' of women living such lives, you don't know one single man who has made a similar choice?

Sounds very much like a stereotype to me.

Tbh I think things have changed a bit. I'm in my 30s & only know 1 person who earns millions who does have a SAHW however everyone else who earns low 6 figures that I know of have wife's still working albeit p/t. I also think the courts aren't quite as generous as they used to be to the ex wife's.

Might be because you are making it a stereotype.
Few sahm's I know are as you describe.

Biggest regret of my life. If it’s workable do it. Honestly children adapt, you’ll get through the guilty feeling.

But you could argue any demographic is a stereotype. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen or that it’s any less real.

You know there are a lot of women who are expat. I have spent phases of my life as an expat too. I don’t think it’s helpful to just make sweeping statements about “women who set out to snag rich men,” Or “women who live off men,” etc etc. Sometimes life life pans out a certain way and, as I say, nobody should judge until they’ve walked in another woman’s shoes.

1ucia

You're right that there are a lot of damaging stereotypes on both sides of this and a lot of bitterness and resentment. I think we need to unpick this a bit and it would be helpful for all women to think about why this engenders such strong emotions and potentially blinkered views.

I've thought a lot about this and why it happens. If I'm totally honest with myself, when I think about SAHMs, I feel a mixture of jealousy and impatience (I'm doing this not to be judgemental but to try to interrogate my own feelings and to understand others).

I never had the choice to be a SAHM. I had to work because my then husband couldn't provide enough income and when my daughter arrived it rapidly became clear he didn't step up on the home front either so I effectively had to become mum and dad: I did absolutely everything: working, paying bills, feeding my child, cooking, cleaning, all of what's now called the "mental load" (arranging nurseries/childminders, all school-related admin etc).

My DD is now 9 and thriving and I am extremely lucky in that I kept my career more or less on track. I don't regret any of this now because its made me a stronger, happier and ultimately richer person than I would have been if I'd relied on my husband. Had my husband had his shit together more it may have been easier for me to lean on him but I now feel that I dodged a bullet here.

My life has undoubtedly coloured my judgement and I know at some level I am envious of women who didn't have to spend their children's earliest years scrabbling around to make everything work. And yes at some level I feel guilt.

I also recognise that some SAHMs I know have had the reverse problem: they had a relatively stress-free introduction into parenthood because someone else was doing the providing and one or two in particular now feel that they have become removed from the world of work because they have been out of it so long and worryingly dependent on their partners, even if these partners are honourable and supportive.

My point is that every woman has to make these choices which are usually pretty difficult and there is very rarely an obviously "good" compromise. Which is why we quite often bristle when we hear about the way things have worked out for others -- often its down to circumstance and accident rather than design, but its very difficult to hear about the benefits which others had which weren't available to you without feeling quite emotional.

Again, and sorry to sound like a stuck record, at the root of this is the lack of genuine choice for women here. It tends to be very all or nothing: balls to the wall for a career or stuck in a backwater with your kids. There are some women who have a good balance but not many. And at the root of this is the unwillingness of men to work with good compromise solutions whereby they reduce some of their workload in order to do more in the domestic sphere and allow their partners more chance to advance their own economic interests.

Yet again, we are fighting the wrong target. To put it very bluntly, and in full awareness that I sound like a scary feminist, we need to stop being angry at one another and start being angry with men.

OP's actual AIBU was about worrying about giving up her job to be a SAHP. And there were a LOT of answers saying, effectively, yep, you should be worrying for these reasons (which largely boiled down to: future employability, pension, job satisfaction and the possiblity that it would bite her in the bum should her marriage end)

So in respect of that, OP, YADNBU to worry.

You haven't appeared to want to listen too much to people who think it's a bad idea, or who had bad experiences to relate though so that's a shame. It has been a most excellent discussion.

For me? I had - against my will, due to circs - 3 years of SAHP. When it came to the last 18 months of my entitlement to parental leave with DC2 (not uk) i was climbing the walls with a combination of PND, regular depression, terminal boredom and lack of adult contact aside of other mums and my poor DP who worked long hours for shitty pay and then picked up all the slack at home.

So my DP took over the 2nd 18 months and it was brilliant for him and the DCs.

I live in a country, btw, where SAHM is a life goal. They love them. I started at a completely new job and i was the one who had to work like i wasn't a parent and parent like i didn't work and the early years were awful. I reject (and resent) the implication that women who work outside the home from when their DCs are very small are less of a mother, and i reject (and resent) the implication SAHMs are more of a mother. As a society we really have to look into, deeply, why individual families make the decisions they do, and also as women we should consider the impact our decisions make on the future generations of women.

Our hard won rights to work outside the home, have our own bank accounts, vote, own property, have custody of our children after divorce etc etc didn't just happen. We fought and won them and the endless sniping at each other really doesn't help. Why do women take the hit to their career? Often because they earn less. Why is that?

I heard a comment on the news a while back which said that a study conducted into men who had taken paternity leave (longer than 2 weeks) - proper SAHP stuff - took a hit to their earnings and career

No. Shit. Sherlock. And how will that information translate to the next generation of parents? How are we going to address this?

Im going against the grain here ,but I would become a SAHM if you can.I have been home with my DC (now older) and have never really regretted it .Many people argue that you will be unable to support yourself if you gave up work and your marriage crumbled ,however you would still have a sizeable drop in Income if you were alone anyway. What does DH think?He needs to be on board really .Will you be able to run your car do you think?Its very hard being stuck at home with no transport .Weigh everything up and think it over ,you have some time to decide really !

Again, and sorry to sound like a stuck record, at the root of this is the lack of genuine choice for women here. It tends to be very all or nothing: balls to the wall for a career or stuck in a backwater with your kids
I totally disagree. I think women has age have so many more choices. She can be a sahm, work pt, work ft in acareer or be a single mum and do ok without having to work ft.

Mem rarely get all these options. If his partner has made up their mind to not go back to work, there is very little he can do but support her or leave, the latter meaning seeing his kids eow if lucky. He has to support his family and that's that.

I get do annoyed at how many posters totally take this for granted. As said mum working ft, I experienced the huge pressure of staying in anon I hated, desperately wanting another career, fantasizing about another role, but knowing I was totally stick because I had to support my family to the lifestyle I got them used to. I had to cope with the major panic of hearing I could be made redundant and being petrified of the future.

This is the position of fathers whose wife doesn't work. All well when their job is secure and enjoyable, another when work is only a mean to an income. Sadly, the latter seems to become and more prevalent, the reason why, like OP, women are opting to be a stay at home parent.

I've mentioned already here that I'm very aware of the risks, and intend to take a fairly short career break as opposed to being a long term SAHP. I'm grateful for the experience of posters who have been burnt by giving up their career, even if they very much enjoyed their time at home, although I'm sorry that things have turned out this way.

I have noticed though a couple of posters taking umbrage with the idea of what is "best for the family", but I'm not clear on why this is always a bad thing. I appreciate this is often at the expense of the SAHP security and that's not always "best for the family" if that parent ends up single later and a financial burden etc. Equally I appreciate the concerns raised on a society level about reinforcing patriarchy.

But, also, for some situations is it not reasonable to say that a SAHM may genuinely be the best choice for the family unit? And although we're obviously very wise to be informed and clear on the fact that many marriages may well fail surely it's reasonable to do our best for the marriage and children as well and not necessarily just for us, given we do enter into marriage in good faith? For many situations the "best" will necessarily entail mother going back to work, continuing to keep in the workplace and invest in career etc. And for many children, nursery may not only be ok but might actually be optimum. However I think it is conceivable that there are situations where a family may feel a SAHP is a good option for all. This does come at a risk, but a lot of things do.

For example I do think a shortish career break (3-4 years) has been a good decision for us. Returning to my career would have meant I could not see my DC at all during the week and all drop offs, pick ups etc would fall to DH who is in a critical stage of setting up a business (during course of long term secure employment) and would have provided him with no flexibility. My company could not provide part time or flexible hours that would enable me to do the same role, so either way I'd be giving up my career. It might have been sensible to take part time work elsewhere though, I concede, though it would not have been at anywhere near the same level.

My DH's career is doing really well and I believe this will benefit our children even if we split up and he treats me appallingly, since however he feels towards me in the future, I believe he will provide for his children. I think I have enough security of my own and future prospects to ensure I am not a financial burden to my children in this scenario, even if I am much worse off than my DH and it's not the situation I'd really want for myself. As long as I am not a burden to children, I am comfortable with this level of risk.

We have insurance in case of death or serious illness, income protection etc. I believe nursery or other childcare is often a brilliant option for children and might suit DC2 better than being at home, but I think that DC1 has benefitted from staying at home for various reasons including a rare condition she has (the majority of medical attention I hope all being well will take place before she starts school) and I hope I've been able to provide an equivalent level of stimulation as we go out almost all day every day and pre lockdown, with other children

It's interesting that pps have mentioned homosexual couples they know and that many have opted to have a SAHP and am interested in takes on that from a feminism perspective?

Anyway the bottom line is I am very nervous about current prospects on job market but am making a decision shortly on retraining or instead planning to re-enter same industry at a lower level. Covid will admittedly make this much harder and has made me second guess our decisions but at the time I really do believe it was overall the best for everyone on balance, I have really really enjoyed it as well and it has been the best time of my life. I worked up to where I was very quickly after an industry change pre DC and hope that I'll be able to achieve the same in time. If not, I am taking steps to be as secure as possible even if I have any job and as I say if I can be in a position in my lifetime where I earn enough not to be a burden in old age and can give the kids enough opportunities (which I believe their DF would anyway if not even if we did have an acrimonious divorce) then I am happy with that.

Oh, I meant to add somewhere in my essay that I know I'm very privileged and my DH is very happy and positively encouraged my to be a SAHM in the short term. We're both agreed that I'd like to go into some form of employment once DC2 is 2 (though I'm now thinking of starting to look or retrain sooner given the current climate) but are clear on our expectations that this won't be at same level and that the balance of childcare will need to adjust accordingly.

Mem rarely get all these options.

But men do have all of these options. They, too, can give up their jobs, stay at home and make themselves completely financially dependent on their wives. It's just that very few of them seem to want it. Yes, doing so would be going against social expectations, but women strugged hard against social expectations for the rights we enjoy now.

If there really were a large number of men desperate to become house-husbands, I think they'd find a way to make it happen.

I also wish to clarify that the "best" overall option for any family may not just be that both parents are "necessarily" employed (which implies I'm only saying it's a good choice if it's strictly necessarily, which isn't what I mean at all) but the best even if a large part of that is because it's what the woman wants to do as well. Being a SAHP if you do not want to be is not a good option either.

I wouldn't become a sahm. I went back to work whereas a friend who had dc at the same time didn't. We both split from our dh around the same time too. Although I struggled and ended up back part time for a few years, I could keep up the mortgage repayments and kept the house etc. She had more disposable cash than me in the early days on benefits etc, but ling term I'm financially better off with financial security.

She's still living in rented accommodation 10 years down the line with little, to no chance of ever owning her own home. I'm almost in a position of being mortgage free and also having a reasonable pension.

I'm not saying either way is best, she spent the first 12 years with her kids, didn't have to juggle childcare and a job, but she has the added worry of finances and security when her dc leave home, whereas I don't

thepeople - thanks for your post and I totally agree. I mean, I can only speak for myself really and I don’t think there is a right or wrong - You just do the best you can really in a given situation. So yes, whole I do feel privileged in the sense that I’ve had the choice not to work since I had DC (and before actually); I’m also not entirely sure it was a “choice” because I actually don’t know what else I could have done, with 4 DC and DH being if the temperament / type that he is. So while I have no regrets as such, I’m definitely not saying that this us a way of life that would suit everyone - because it’s not.

I get slightly riled on here when there are accusations that women, such as me, are vapid or living some sort of Stepford existence because I don’t think I’m anymore vapid than anyone else. Then there is always the, “wait until he finds a younger model and you’re left high and dry...” But tbh, I can only think of one instance from anyone I know where this has happened. Obviously she was devastated, but not financially because half of everything was hers. Her life hasn’t changed dramatically and now he has a new partner anyway. Also, just because a man might have made a lot of money etc hardly means that women are suddenly throwing themselves at him. They’re just middle aged men for the most part. The “hobbies” escalate yes (cycling, cars you name it) , but that’s about it. I just let him get on with it really.

There are so many factors that come into it.

If you are 25, happy with just one a child, meaning that you can return to ft work at 28, even if at entry level, you still have a good chance to go.up the ladder and be a good contributor to the family. Not much of an issue.

If you are 30, earn say 2/3rd of partner so quite significant, and decide to give up work whilst kids are not yet at school, end up having 3, it might not be until you are late 30s or early 40s before you are back working ft. If by then you are starting a new career, or having to take a step back due to length of absence, the overall financial impact on the family can be massive as opposed to have continue to work and go up the ladder during that time.

It can be the difference between paying the mortgage at 70 rather than 50, retiring at 67 rather 60 or even earlier, this impacting both partners.

What might seem a good idea at the time making life easier for both parties in their 30s can easily end up as painful years in their 60s.

Not read the full thread as it's too long so I apologise if I mention something that's already been said!

I gave up work to become a SAHM and it's the best decision I ever made. I wouldn't trade the 2 year of being with DS for anything, it's been fabulous. And at the same time, I've witnessed 4 friends who went back to work when their children were around 7-8 months and it devastated them.

However, I am young in my early twenties and DH is early 30's so he was already settled in his career earning more, whereas I was fresh out of university.

Our plan is then when DS goes to school for me to work full some and become the main earner whilst DH drops his hours.

Of course we might split up. Of course there's a chance it could all go wrong.

But if you thought like that about everything you'd never get anything done.

But men do have all of these options. They, too, can give up their jobs, stay at home and make themselves completely financially dependent on their wives. It's just that very few of them seem to want it.

Let's be honest, how many wives would want their husbands completely financially dependent on them?

Let's be honest, how many wives would want their husbands completely financially dependent on them?

Probably not too many. But then,many if not most men didn't want their wives going out and working full-time in the 1970s. But women still did it. They were prepared to put up with social opprobrium and the opposition of their husbands in order to do something they really wanted. If large numbers of men really wanted to be house-husbands, wouldn't we see something similar?

Are you saying that the only reason large numbers of men aren't house-husbands is because of their wives? That if it were purely up to them, they'd all be at home, financially dependent on their wives?

@dontdisturbmenow that's a very good point. I was 28 when I really started my career after doing a job at a small company before, but worked my way up to a decent level quickly once I was in a company that had room for progression. I'll be exactly mid 30s or a year less when I reenter workforce so not ideal but if I have to work until later in life I'm ok with that as I feel DC1 needs me now more than then (our life and illness cover lasts until 70ish so if I can't work then we should be covered).

I've even considered my parents but each own their own houses so I think have enough equity hopefully to help provide care should they need it in the future. Incidentally my mum was a long term SAHM and although she was I suppose "shafted" in that my DF probably has far more, thankfully he was reasonably fair and she is happy with her life nonetheless and has worked ever since in a job she is happy in.

No, I'm saying most women wouldn't want a financially dependent husband.

dontdisturbmenow

"Mem rarely get all these options. If his partner has made up their mind to not go back to work, there is very little he can do but support her or leave, the latter meaning seeing his kids eow if lucky. He has to support his family and that's that."

In theory that's correct and that was historically the case. But as you can see from these boards, a very large amount of men manage to find ways not to support their families out of sheer selfishness.

Even in the more benign examples I think you're mischaracterising it. I can't think of any examples in my social circle where the woman has put her foot down and said: "I'm not going to work, you have to support me." I can think of several where its been too difficult for the woman to work for the first few years of having multiple children and then got harder to get back into the labour market. But none where the women have point blank refused to work on principle. And honestly the reason why the woman finds it hard to go back in the vast majority of cases is because the man isn't prepared to make the sacrifices he has to make wrt his working hours etc to allow the woman back into the workforce.

The balance has shifted very considerably in favour of women being expected to contribute economically to the family pot, but men haven't made the corresponding shift domestically.

Even in the most progressive relationships I know the men largely have to be goaded, bullied and nagged to do anything like an equal share of the domestic load. They require lists and spreadsheets and wall-charts and constant prompts to do things which women have done more or less instinctively for centuries. Because the men still don't fundamentally see it as "their" responsibility.