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?

I'm glad I don't have to face the choice whetehr to go out to work or not, needs dictate I must. Have a sneaking suspicion that I need to do my job in order to be me as well as mum. Strongly suspect I am a better parent not being with DS 24/7 than if I was. So shoot me.

AS it happens I don't need to soul search as finances dictate that I work and therefore I don't worry my pretty little head about it too much.

just realised i said yesterday im not a sahm.but i am??????wot????i wasnt even drunk.

i hate sahm v wahm debate.were all doing best we can!

yes jammi, last night I was thinking the worst of these SAHM vs WOHM debates is how ´people feel who just did not have the choice

don;t let people guilt you out jammi - you need to be philosophical about the way your family works. DS undersatnds that mummy works in the same way he understands that he will have to go to school. He isn't going to be Oliver Twist! He goes to a lovely (not at all strange) childminder and has a lovely time, he isn't sitting in a garrett sobbing for his mummy.

Don't waste too much time stressing over things which don't work for your family.

But while we are on the subject, why would you infer an insult from that? I am sure a man/woman whose wife/husband works also, would not work with less gusto because there is another wage coming in. I am sure that DH does not leave the house each day thinking "I must work extra, extra hard today, really push the boat out etc, because DW doesn't". I am sure he is just grateful that he doesn't have to worry about his kids while he is working.

Sometimes it is possible that one partner can stay at home and sometimes it isn't. We go without a lot to allow me to do this and DH to do a job he loves and may one day reward well. It is as simple as that.

jammi, it is precisely you and others who don't have a choice that will be most affected by insensitive, so-called 'emotive' language.

A dyed-in-the-wool WOHM, like me, findtheriver and Kew (I mean that in an affectionate way) can take it like water off a duck's back. It is called developing a thick skin.

I can see how if you are not convinced about WOHM-ing that those remarks are most hurtful.

Jammi, I really do think that these are my children and wouldn't like anyone to think that this is true for their children. Research has proven that if, by a mother, working it has a large impact on the economic status of the family it is a very positive thing.

The impact could be anything from not having to live worrying about food bills to living in a nicer neighbourhood.

posie, can you really say that it is true for your children? Saying it like this, it sounds like an inflammatory question.

But what I mean is that I don't know whether my WOHM-ing is really best for my dcs. Precisely because I cannot turn back the clock and relive their early lives as a SAHM and then judge for myself whether they are better off with me at home all the time or less.

All I can say, is that my children seem happy, are meeting their little milestones and having fun with the current arrangements I have put in place for them.

Like I said earlier, I was gobsmacked the ease with which my 1 year old clingy bf-ed dd adapted to nursery and we did not look back from there.

If she did not settle in nursery, then I can say with more conviction that my consequent decision to SAHM, if it came to that, was best for her. But not if I never tried childcare in the first place.

There is one assumption that I do make, which is not that women are idle (because there may be some idle sahms but that must be rare) nor that they are rich (because mostly they aren't unless their husbands are in the £500k plus bracket or they've got a lot of inherited money) but it is that they were previously unsuccessful in their careers.

It's my observation that women generally don't give up successful careers unless they are in a career cul-de-sac. They might tone down the work or make attempts to go part-time but I don't know anyone who's given up a successful career. It's been too hard won. That's just my personal experience of course.

My children are secure, sociable, popular, doing well at school (those that are) and happy.......... I think I must be doing something right!!

thats funny qc, that you think like that

do you actually know any women at home with their kids, or is it just a guess you thinking they must be unsuccessful in their careers?

"But what I mean is that I don't know whether my WOHM-ing is really best for my dcs. Precisely because I cannot turn back the clock and relive their early lives as a SAHM and then judge for myself whether they are better off with me at home all the time or less."

Exactly blueshoes. There is always that sneaking suspicion that maybe they would have been better off. And if that was the case what would have been my options? Just the one. Precisely the option I chose in the first place - to go out to work. I could have chosen a more lucrative DH though. Curses!

Quattro, nice to make stupid assumptions. I was in a nice high earning job, thank you and loved it. Some of my friends who also gave up their careers are commercial solicitor, 2 barristers, MD (of a family business), physio therapist (she just delegated as this was her own business), homeopath (on hold until both children are school), nurse,etc.
Some people just couldn't stand the thought of leaving theior children or found that they couldn't be a great mother and a great solicitor/barrister/MD all at the same time.

I stayed at home for the first 10 months of my son's life, then 10 months later stopped for the following 4 years. I was glad to be there to see them do all those things, and glad that I didn't have to micromanage four schedules every day (which I am crap at and would have found very stressful) and make sure I got the right stuff to the right place with the right child. Before having children I was not in a career I loved, I was a in a series of not very engaging relatively temporary jobs.

I do not enjoy talking baby talk all day or getting down on the floor with babies, so I didn't essentially. I spoke to them as though they were adults and they caught up with me (are beyond me now at 10,13 and 14). I certainly do not enjoy wiping shit and puke all day. I did not study for 18 years for that. The only reason I did it was because it was my children and they needed to be clean. I'm not sure what credentials you need to be a "good" SAHM but I lacked an essential qualification there.

Having said all this, I do not regret a moment spent with them. HOWEVER, I do not doubt that had I been in a career that I enjoyed before having them, I would have been back at work very quickly. The simplest option at the time I had them was to take some time out. My husband was not earning a fortune, but it's surprising how much money you save by not going out to work. I was able to make quite a lot of things at home and entertain the children very cheaply.

I really always sit back in wonder at how nasty these debates turn. When returning to work is hardly a choice these days for most people, how can anyone be slated for it? Also I feel like Xenia does that the expectation that because the woman bears the child and breastfeeds, her career always has to be the one to suffer is DEEPLY iniquitous.

Also I think thought that many people stay at home for economic reasons. If you don't have a long term expectation of being able to provide a better standard of living in the future- ie if your earnings expectation over your lifetime are not high (as I didn't back when my second child was born- it seemed all struggle and no gain ad infinitum), then staying at home with your children does not actually make much economic difference either. I think the most determining factor in a lifetime's earnings is not whether or not you choose to become a SAHM/D for a few yers, but how focussed you are on going up the earnings ladder. If you are determined, nothing, not even the birth of x number of children will stop you from achieving that. And good on you if that's what you want. Why is it acceptable for a man to do that but not a woman?

However, if the long term economics of it are not that important (and to many people they aren't) potential life choices are very different. It's not really a question of choice more a question of following your personality. This SAHM/ WOHM or whatever is not really the right debate. There's no reason any of us should be sacrificing ourselves for our children. (cue 1950s frilly pinny and perfect piecrust)

If someone feels that, they should consider stopping doing whatever it is that's causing them to feel that way, and do something else. Our children don't want sacrifice from us. They want to grow up alongside happy, non-resentful parents who are happy in the path their life has taken.

Quattro - I don't think that the assumption is necessarily correct - simply because it assumes that people are only successful in their careers if they really care about them. It is perfectly possible to make a great success of your career without having a burning desire to "progress it". It may be, however, that that's the exception rather than the rule.

quattro - I think there's alot of truth in that. I was at the beginning of my career when I had my eldest and went back part time to try to progress and this proved impossible so I wasn't too bothered when 2nd child was concieved and the figures didn't add up.

Instead I have worked at home and tried to top up DHs salary as well as contributing to society. My kids are always crying with snotty noses as well even though I stay home!

That's a thoughtful post duchesse - of course I agree with you - but you put it much better than I did.

Yes I know a lot of sahms. I only know two with previously successful careers, and (a GP and an actuary) both were feeling violently miserable in roles that didn't suit them and just gave up in disgust. That's what I meant by a career cul-de-sac.

People who are enjoying their roles, in proper careers, thriving and pushing forward tend to be successful. And I've not seen anyone in roles like that give them up.

To add to quattro's and legalalien's point, at the risk of generalising hugely. I think it is fairly easy to coast into a middle management if you have the skills and work hard.

But to get to the top of your professional tree, you do need a 'fire in the belly' and deep joy at what you do. People like this include Xenia and Quattro. I say power to them.

For me, I would agree with Quattro and in that my decision to go part time was motivated by the fact that I did not feel a great loss to stagnate in my career, outwardly successful as I was previously. I have lots of women friends who are victims of their own easy success, but feel like a fraud for not wanting to go for that promotion. Of course, the decision to have children gives a convenient excuse. It was for me.

Legal - I agree with you that my assumption assumes a high level of personal engagement with one's work - but honestly how many top performers have you met without that level of engagement?

I was a SAHM for five years although I always did some kind of work as I needed the money. So I worked as a playworker - took dd to work with me, catered children's parties, did some sewing and sold on ebay etc. I think if you want to and need to work you will find a way of doing it from home and there was a big list of excuses given above.

I teach so my job is useful and tbh everyone's is useful as their taxes pay for education, health etc.

I did not enjoy every moment of being a SAHM but it was easier than working, not saying it is for everyone before you all pounce on me, but for me it certainly was.

I stayed at home until just before dd started school and then worked part time for two years , this is my first year full time. I know my dd has to go without the undivided attention and care she had before because I work and there are times dp and I feel very guilty ( note I said dp and I because this is about parents not mothers , although dp is a sp and not dd biological father but that is irrelevant). But dd also loves me working, she is proud that I teach, often comes into work and I am more fulfilled and so in some ways a better mum. There are also material benefits to working, we can now afford to move away from a town we hate and dd likes the clothes, horse riding, holidays etc. I am lucky that I have the holidays to spend with dd and I try and do as little work as I can during the day during holidays. This week I will go in for two days while she is with her Dad.

I would not have another child while we are both working as I do not think it would be fair. My job is very stressful and I could not give a young child the time it needs. When we move dp is also going to work from home so that we have more time for dd though and rely on things like after school clubs less. I recognise though that not everyone is in a position to work from home like that.

I was in a career culdesac tbh.

If it's a choice (and it is always a choice) between top flight career or putting young children into full time childcare to endless research saying it does cause damage, then it is selfish, at best, for two partners to chase careers.