shaming of mothers with a career?!

[rubopp]

Again today I’ve read a thread where a women is criticised for needing childcare when their child is under one.

AIBU to think if we had threads/comments saying ‘why aren’t you in a decent job to provide well for your dc?’, that they would be deleted?

There’s actually lots of evidence that children do well in life and thrive in higher income homes. No, it’s not everything and overall it probably doesn’t matter… just like it doesn’t matter in the long run if someone decides to stay home with their dc until their dc go to school.

What IS this shaming of mothers who dare to have a career?! Jealously? Narrow mindedness?

I find it mind boggling that people think you can take years out of a career and come back to it… in highly successful roles actually you can’t do that. Though I suspect those people who post such nasty things have no idea if they’ve never achieved that themselves.

There’s lots of benefits to being able to fund all your child’s activities, holidays, books, cultural trips especially as they get older and need house deposits, cars etc so let’s not pretend that the only way to raise a child is to live frugally and don’t dare to make anything of yourself.

Rant over.

What about mothers who don’t work?

Surely one’s genitals don’t impact whether they should have a job or not?

What if they have a partner who has a better paid job than they do?

What if they financially don’t have to work?

My partner was a SAHD because he got a redundancy package which allowed us to live on our regular income for nearly two years whilst not paying childcare costs. He had worked for many years previous to that, and has done for many years since.

Fortunately, he gets the ick about people who have ridiculous ideas about gender roles, so he is highly likely to not care that he gives you the “ick” 😂

We are in a far better financial position now than we would have been had he not taken a two year stint of being a SAHD.

But as being is a sahp is hard work and a working within the home, those are 2 separate things.

Lol why do you care so much about what I think? I’m just a random. Your post does not scream “happy and secure in our choices” to me 🤷🏻‍♀️

I'm not sure why a parent choosing to SAH with their kids would give anyone the "ick". I preferred to maintain my career personally, but I understand that people make different choices. Why do people feel the need to be so judgemental?

Absolutely this. In real life you can have a normal chat with another mum or dad at the school/preschool gate's about whether you work outside the home or not and no one cares . It's only online that there seems to be such hatred of sahms and we are always portrayed as a shower of eejits who are about to be flung into poverty by our scheming husbands. In fact on one memorable thread here on MN one mum said that she knows no sahms and if she met one she'd doubt if she could even be able to talk to her as she'd have zero in common with her. I thought it was hilarious

You have conveniently avoided all the questions which I asked.

Why exactly would I not be happy in my choices? My partner got to leave a job he hated, we had a significant payout, we had zero childcare costs, I got to progress in my career and then take a long maternity leave with my second, and my partner used the time at home to find a job he loved too. It was a long time ago, we both now work in fulfilling jobs, but my job is the “big job” whereas his earns is fun money (and he takes on the majority of the childcare and housework)

You know yourself that your views are antiquated. I suggest you stop letting other people’s husbands give you the “ick”

Its those (not so) subtle comments that get me "I stopped work because my child is the most important thing to me".

It’s giving off tradwife vibes for me.

Which is a whole ick in itself, tbh.

This thread is hilarious. In my world, women cream themselves over SAHDs, or SAH-DILFs 😉 No “ick” about it!

Yes, usually accompanied by the faux innocence of pretending that they weren't intending to goad or offend.

But SAHPs get lots of snide comments aimed at them as well.

People need to chill. It really makes no difference if you WOH or SAH so just do what suits you and your partner if you have one.

Teaching is not good for working parents. Only benefit is the holidays and even then the insets often mean parents having to find childcare ad hoc. There's a total amount of teacher hours needed at schools so if you go part time it maybe many many years before someone leaves or wants to go part time to put your hours back up, or there may not be the staff to allow for part time. Since most schools have become academies changing schools often means a significant pay cut. I agree that it's better than some careers but often see on here people being told to try teaching as it's good if you have kids, and it's not that simple.

Yeah. I currently do 3 days 9am to 4pm and will be doing 9am to 3pm, 4 days a week when DS starts school in September. Unfortunately these hours don't really come with seniority when I have just switched careers so not only am I working not enough/too much, I am also apparently undervaluing myself and my degree. eyeroll

This debate has raged on MN for as long as I’ve been here (nearly 20 years) and it baffles me.

When I was a SAHM I longed to earn my own money and have some respite from the DC but when I worked I was running around up my own arse trying to do everything and and keep the wheels on (with a supportive DH). I don’t think either situation is superior to the other, it’s just about life choices and cutting the financial cloth to the priorities of your own family.

Women need to back each other instead of this weird sniping about what is better. Breast vs bottle, working vs sahp, dummy or no dummy etc etc Jeez, ultimately all the kids grow up ok - neither choice is better, they’re just different.

I don't require others' approval as to the division of paid vs. domestic labour in my home, and I couldn't care less how they structure theirs. It affects me not one jot.

What is surprising is the number of women eager to justify their lifestyles, seek affirmation for their choices, or view someone else making a different decision from their own as some kind of personal affront.

You don't hear men splitting hairs over this stuff, and with the very good reason that they don't have to. Patriarchal society is structured entirely to their benefit and it's generally accepted that women are the ones who will make all the sacrifices to that end.

If we chewed the fat more over that instead, IMO we'd get further. All this WOHM vs. SAHM bickering is a treadmill to nowhere.

What I don't hold with is that women owe other women 'support' with their choices on account of the fact that we happen to share XX chromosomes.

We don't. And you don't hear men making this protestation about fellow XY people, either.

I assume the surprise is because you are by law entitled to 12 months maternity leave with job protection, and people expect particularly higher income families to be able to afford that time off, either by saving in advance or the fact that professional jobs often have generous maternity pay well above statutory levels (i got 6 months on full pay and made it stretch over the full year).

I took a full year off with both my kids (as did most women i knew) and have not faced any career penalty. The bigger career penalty is if you stop for a few years completely - much harder to break back in.

It's not 12 months of protection for your job, though. After 26 weeks you can only have it back if it's deemed "reasonably practicable", otherwise they can offer you something else with same pay and terms. My boss got shafted in my old workplace because the bosses wanted to keep the maternity cover.

My boss got shafted in my old workplace because the bosses wanted to keep the maternity cover.

No - They have to show its not "reasonably practical" for you NOT to have your old job back - the example often given in guidance is that this does not apply if a mat cover is still in the role. If your old boss had fought them on this they would likely have won.

Eg the default is up to 52 weeks you should get your job back - from 26 to 52 weeks your employer has to prove its not reasonably practical for you to return to it and given they are required to give you a suitable alternative on the same terms & conditions you can't end up out of work as a result.

She probably would, but they offered her management of another department on the same pay. Which she didn't want. They promoted her mat leave, and made her old position redundant. It was difficult to argue against.

Should add both mat cover and old boss applied for promoted role.

For me one school let me leave just after the kids, one finished quite early so could rush off by 3 and my current one I give the lessons I need off in March say and the timetable works with that. So one year I'll have a few lunchtime finishes and late starts, another year a few finishes early and a full day off. I've not had a big problem. If you are 0.8 you can often do most tlr but not hoy too.

That is not nearly as relevant where I live (not the UK). It is important to some people of course - and yes, I feel sorry for them - but most people just send their kids to the local schools and have the holidays they can afford.

Well luckily not everyone is so dismissive of careers otherwise you wouldn’t have all the amazing technologies and services that enable you to have a nice life while you’re looking down on those other people who “prioritise” work. Unless you think the washing machine just invented itself, your car just fell from the heavens, the supermarket just runs itself etc. It takes all sorts to make the world work.

When I had my children maternity leave was six months. My daughters were both in nursery by the age of five months and yes I have a nice career. I've enjoyed working part time until six years ago and now full time back in a full career in my early 40s. I don't really care if others don't or didn't approve as I made decisions based on my family at the times I needed too