if I'm totally fed up of people assuming SAHMs are rich and idle?

[bohemianbint]

I am one, because I CAN'T AFFORD TO PUT TWO CHILDREN INTO CHILDCARE.

I did initially go back to work, but got shafted by my boss and am about to take him to court. We are not minted and I don't spend my time watching tv, eating bicuits and buying handbags. More's the pity. I will go back to work my my children are older, for definite, but for now, I'm stuck, whether I like it or not.

I find it hard to believe I'm the only person who can't actually afford to work?

conniedescending, I am impressed by your list. It is a collection of possible options I have never seen before in one place. Thanks

posie - I'm sorry the snotty nosed children upset you!! My children thrived at their nursery and are very happy and well adjusted thanks! I am NOT questioning your decision to stay at home! You are the one who can't resist the little comments that imply that WOHPs children are missing out! Just read your last post!!
If you want to stay home - fine!! Just don't try to pretend that those of us who are parents and work are missing out in any way at all - we're not!!

findtheriver...........this is the way I feel, not you, me. The example just shows how I feel about it, it pulls at my heart strings, I couldn't give a shit whether you feel you miss out or not, I don't want to and feel that I would if I worked.
It's your choice but you seem to think a SAHMs reasoning for SAH isn't valid.

The feeling of whether you are 'missing out' is very personal. Like findtheriver, I don't mind missing milestones, could not care about snotty noses (if fact, my dcs have snotty noses for more than 5 minutes even when I am home with them) and relish the stimulation my dcs get from nursery. I still feel I am doing a good enough job and most importantly, my dcs seem happy.

It would make a huge difference to my satisfaction of pt working if my dcs were not thriving.

The point in all this is that both WOHMs and SAHMs, to the extent they have a choice in matters, is they both value their children's happiness in equal measure. It is possible to achieve that either route.

Therefore, the decision whether to WOHM or SAHM, at the end of the day, whether we like to admit it or not, is what the mother wants for herself - whether it is to witness all milestones or have the balance of work and a family life. I am happy to admit I work for myself.

I'm a SAHM and I have no problem with what I do. Nor do I havea problem with what any other woman chooses to do, whther that be work, stay at home, outsource her ironing, whatever.

I wasn't working when I got married (I was recovering from an illness) and before I had children my working life was rather erratic, to say the least. My husband is int he Army and we moved around a lot. I picked up voluntary work here and there and at other times I stayed at home. We 'inherited' a cleaner at two postings and at other postings I did all the housework myself.

I acknowledge that I'm lucky - we can afford a mortgage on a decent modern three-bed house one salary and there's enough money left over for savings and small luxuries. We don't go out as much as we used to and I certainly am busy with my son and another little one on the way.

We live near my parents (babysitting on tap when needed!) and I may well look for work when my children are at school.

In the emantime, I love being at home with my child. I am not lazy or idle (I knit, sew and embroider). I keep my brain active by reading (which I have always enjoyed) and other interests. I don't know about whether it is possible to be unable to work because one can't afford it but I can sympathise with anyone who finds thenself in the position of feeling as though they have no options. I have options and I'm grateful for them.

I honestly don't judge others - surely we're all doing the best we can, by whatever means at our disposal, for our children and families?

I agree with findtheriver on the use of emotive language: snotty noses, crying children... in every single thread on this "debate" nurseries are depicted like XIX century institutions that will scar our children emotionally for life. Nannies are depicted like unfaithful carers, who will self themselves to a better offer. etc
I don't agree with this, because my experience has been, is indeed totally different.
I think I enjoy being a sahm, it worked for our family, given that we started it in a foreign country, with little or no help. It worked because I'm quite apprehensive and don't know how to delegate. It worked because we could afford it. It worked because the children went to nursery part time since they were 12 months or so, as I wanted them to learn English asap and I could have some space/little time to work.
But I have also felt extremely "envious" of those friends of mine who kept working full time and seemed to enjoy what they did. Plus, it turns out that their children are absolutely fine. At least now. We are not sure what adolescence will bring....

I am neither idle not rich.

Something tells me I f*ed up somewhere along the line

Look, this is how I see it (and then I really must get on with some work!!).
Many people have no choice whether they work or not. So there is no decision to be made.
Of the people who DO have a choice, some decide to work, some stay at home. What strikes me, is that those who choose to work, are usually very honest about their reasons: they need the stimulation or whatever. They are upfront about it addressing their own needs. Conversely, women who choose to stay at home often use their children as the reason -eg it's 'better for them',rather than just being honest and saying that this is what they, the mother, want for themselves. I have respect for someone who says,'I'm lucky enough to choose to stay home, I don't know whether it'll be better for my children or not, but it's what I want to do'. It's the spurious attaching of different reasons that I think annoys WOHP. eg I have a friend who has recently become a SAHM, and she's going around saying how she's done it because it's 'best ' for her child, when we all know that's bollox! - she's hated her job for years and looked for any opportunity to give up!!
The other thing, is that as you get older and wiser, you realise that there are SO many variables in determining how our kids will turn out. The mother I know who was most into attachment parenting, never let her ds out of her sight and had him permanently strapped to her chest for his first year, now has the most irritating, whiney, never satisfied 10 year old i know! Conversely, the most lovely, well adjusted, bright and confident teenager I know (puts my own kids to shame!) was with a CM full time from the age of 11 weeks!! Now that's something I could never have done - I wouldnt have wanted to work full time when my kids were pre school. But it just goes to show, we only have so much control over how our children will turn out; there is no 'right' way.

franca - I agree about the emotive language that is always used on these threads. 'Leaving your children with strangers' is always one that winds me up.

The main reason those of us who work get pissed of with the smug, thick variety of SAHMs is that they can never stop banging on about how life as a subservient appendage to a man is being a 'proper' woman. Because make no mistake, a SAHM's job involves servicing a man and keeping him happy as well as all the childcare. Because if there's no MAN in the picture then you're not a SAHM you're a benefits scrounger and should get a job immediately.

oh yes . The "stranger" who looked after dd at nursery for 2 and a half yrs wrote her the most moving, loving card when we left to go back to Italy (see I'm good at emotional language )

But, some women that stay at home do believe it's best for their child and them, why shouldn't they say it (well maybe not to you or other WOHM as it's a little rude). I do think it's best for my children to have me at home and really hate the idea of someone else looking after them more than me. I would hate my dcs asking for me or Daddy and us not being there. Emotive or not I don;t want my child to not be cared for by me for days during the week whilst I'm at work. There is research that says children in ft nursery under 18 months are emotionally damaged, but this is then balanced by research that says children who live with an unhappy SAHP are emotionally damaged too.
Why can't you respect other people's decision if you're happy with your own?
If I think that I wouldn't want my child in a nursery or at a CMs all day what business is it of yours. I can only think people that feel bad about their own decisions would be challenged or upset by the reasons or decisions of others.
Likewise I have no problem with WOHMs who say they wish they could spend more time with their children instead of defensively denying that they would want to.

Actually, I get the feeling that my DD will like nursery when she does go, and I think that she'll get a lot out of being with the other children (although I do make sure that she sees other children on a regular basis, I'm not that lazy ). But it just isn't worth the extra stress on my physical or mental wellbeing for me to work either from home, or part time in the evenings and weekends, and working full time would put us in a worse financial position (like the OP). Why should I? It would impact DH very negatively too, if we didn't share childcare evenings and weekends. We're both tired enough! It's the best situation for all of us at the moment, and I don't give stuff what anyone else thinks. Which means, I think, that I need to step away from this thread.

By the way, am I the only person who has never come across this divide in RL? We have about a 50:50 split in our friends and the only difference that I've noticed in either the parents or children is that the age difference between siblings is smaller in SAHM families.

Well I would be rather be guilty of emotive language than insulting language like you madamez. During this thread SAHM mums have been called, smug, thick, insecure, pathetic, subservient and/or benefits scroungers. You managed to get most of them in to one post. This is because we dare to say that we prefer to be at home with our kids. Why does it bother you so much? SOME of the WOHM on this thread just sound so bitter it is scary. If you are all so happy with your choices why are you so angry and apparently resentful of ours?

It is nearly always the WOHM on these threads that become unpleasant. I truly don t understand it. I don t judge anyone for the choices they make. I don t give two hoots whether mums work or not. We all do what suits our families the best don t we?

Anyway Mademez, what about SAHDs?

ALmummy, the smug thick ones are the ones who claim that WOHMs are unnatural, and it's not me that wants to label a single mum as a benefit scrounger: just that this is where the distinction is made by other people (if you're being paid for to stay at home by the state rather than by a Man, you're seen as idle and a parasite even though you are working just as hard at childcare etc as the mother whose male partner just happens to earn a fat salary) and there is still a problem with too many people seeing it as a woman's purpose in life to service one man.

Madamez, who are these women? Fat salary usually means cleaner, nanny etc.... so that woman is more likely to lunch and manicure than serve.

Yes MadameZ there is a problem with "too many people seeing it as a woman's purpose in life to service one man". And you seem to be one of them

"Because make no mistake, a SAHM's job involves servicing a man and keeping him happy as well as all the childcare."

I do not service my DH. I put a meal in front of him each day and make sure he has clean pants and sock, which I think is the least I can do when he is out of the house all day. He has two days off a week, I cook on one of them and he cooks on the other.

My view is that neither of us could have the life that we want without the other. I couldn't get to stay home with my kids if he didn't go out to work to make that happen and he couldn't go out to work at all if I wasn't around providing round the clock childcare. Our contributions are equal.

socks that is.

Sorry was feeling a bit emotive when I wrote that post.

Emotive language, yes - e.g. : "My DH works very hard so we can afford for me to stay at home."

So anyone who can't afford that has a lazy DH.

Who said that UnquietDad? because that is not what I said in my post.

To clarify DH does shift work, overtime and is not on what could in anyway be called a regular work schedule. It would be extremely difficult for me to get a job and our children to be cared for. At least three nights a week he does not finish until the early hours of the morning and we don t know from week to week, which this will be.

The point I was making was that while he may be the one that goes out to work, he would not be able to do that and do the job he does if I was not making the contribution that I was. Where is the subservience in that? I didn't say or imply anything about affording to be able to stay at home or lazy husbands.

That is interesting, unquietdad. I never thought of that before.

On the issue of emotive language. I can understand how some SAHMs choose to do so because they feel it is better for their dcs.

But we could all be more aware of the implications of what we say, both SAHM and WOHM alike and understand that a person who made a different choice could very well read it differently:

SAHM: I want to care for my children properly and not leave them with strangers who will emotionally damage them.

WOHM: I go to work to get a life and for intellectual stimulation. I also want to contribute to society.

It is a continuing education to be on mn. Everyone has the right to say what they want, but it would be a sad thing if you did it in ignorance of the negative effect it could have on others not so like-minded.

Wasn't accusing you...
It's something I've heard on here though.