To suggest that a new mum who "has" to go back to work, reluctantly, after maternity leave, could down-size from her five-bedroom house and thereby afford to stay at home?

[Twoddle]

I have a good friend who really does have to go back to work when her maternity leave ends later this month. She and her husband genuinely can't afford to live without both their salaries so, as much as she'd like to stay home longer, she can't.

Another friend's sister, however, was pulling the "It's all right for some mums, hanging around at home all day - some of us have to go back to work" line. Knowing that she lives in a four-bedroom house and is having a loft conversion and buys everything new for the home and for the soon-to-arrive baby and has a bit of a clothes-buying habit ... well, I tactfully and carefully suggested to my friend that maybe her sister didn't have to return to work so soon if it was important for her to be at home for longer with her child. I said she could downsize to a smaller home, maybe cut back on some spending, and then be able to afford to extend her maternity leave - if she so wished.

Said friend warned me through a steely glare never to say such words to her sister, and the atmosphere was abysmal between us for the rest of the evening.

Was my suggestion so unreasonable, in the circumstances?

Silly me for playing devil's advocate ...

I challenge any deluded person to watch the tribal women series and see happiness that exists just being true to the important things in life, family and community. No money chasing, career driven hollow existance..but one that embraces the baby and child carer, the wife, the husband, mother, father, brother, sister etc.
Makes this SAHM/WOHM debate quite silly really. Best find me a lovely island

for some women, it's really best for the entire family that they work outside the home.

i had to go back for money, but i also had PND and tbh at that time, it was FAR better for DD1 to be looked after by her dad at home.

i really think women passing judgement on one another like this just undermines the right women have in life to make these choices and smacks of misogyny.

and i don't see the point in comparing our society to a tribal one. we don't live there.

Who would you say was a 'deluded person', TwelveLegs?

Tribal schmibal. I'm with expat on this - we don't live there. It's not relevant.

Also, some women derive a huge amount of satisfaction from their careers, and yes, some of those careers do provide them with good compensation, women like doctors, surgeons, scientists, etc.

Others enjoy having the option of combining their careers with their roles as parents.

Others are lone parents who successfully combine their careers with providing a good home for their families.

But somehow they'd all be better cooking monkeys men bring them?

Some peoples' definition of devotion to family and community is different from others, why is that so hard to see?

Think of all the careers women are in which serve the community AND they're mums, too. But this isn't as indicative of showing devotion to family and community as the life of a tribal wife?

Twelvelegs...how is it a hollow existence to have a fulfilling and worthwhile working life? It's perfectly possible to be true to your family, community etc etc and have a stimulating work life!
Wassup - yes, of course it's a case of people not keeping up to date with their skills, rather than the fact that they've had a career break per se, that keeps them from stepping back into their career. But the fact is, having a number of years out of your career often goes hand in hand with being out of touch with skills. When I'm recruiting, the best people for the job are usually people with up to date skills and experience. Not always, but 9 times out of 10.

I work FT and feel this is true to important things in life like making sure I have a pretty damn good pension when I retire, paying for my children through university so they don't have to start off in life with huge debts and just generally making sure I can provide for my family if anything should happen to DH. I certainly don't see myself as money or status-chasing, but yes financial security like pensions and savings in the bank is of major importance to me and things like no money in the bank would freak me out and make me unable to sleep at night. Whenever I read about people who talk about their downsizing and financial sacrifices I always think they mostly talk about superficial things they have sacrificed. I rarely hear them say that they have sacrificed having a pension so they will probably live in poverty in old age.

And I agree with findtheriver. In my profession just going on mat leave for 6 months is considered pretty risky business. Personally I am happy to recruit and have in the past recruited women who have career-gaps of 2-3 years on their CV. I have to say they would have to be very convincing in an interview though. I don't think its wrong to take a career-break, but I don't know the person and they are competing with people who have not had career-breaks. I would wonder why they felt they were not able to juggle work and children and these are questions I could't ask in the interview. So for me it would be a major risk.
On the other hand, people taking career-breaks to travel around the world or do something completely different for a few years actually attract me in a different way. It's probably not entirely fair I must admit.

I genuinely believe that life without the struggles of materialism is better, I feel sorry for people who need status in order to feel valued. I manage to keep my finger in many pies whilst I raise my children and have the financial stability to do it all and return to my business when they all reach school age and so know it's not so easy for most. I can't help but think you miss out if you're not around much when your babies are growing and that they surely miss out on you.
Shame on employers who are prejudice against the mother who feels she puts her children first making choices that may mean staying at home.
I am so shocked that in this modern era the needs of children are so ridiculed and belittled that WOHMs think they are somehow more valued for not staying home.
Fairymum and findtheriver, you have just proven that in RL WOHMs do have prejudice against SAHMs when they return to work and this is far more sinful than occasionally conversing about the disbelief of someone elses choice.

Twelvelegs I also feel sorry for people who are so caught up in materialism and competing. They never seem happy really.

No, if you read the posts intelligently then you'll see that there is nothing disciminatory at all against SAHM Twelvelegs. You are talking rubbish. I simply stated the fact that someone who has been out of a career for a number of years, is less likely to have up to date skills and experience. That applies to men amd women, so the fact that you link it to SAHM is your prejudice. What is wrong with an employer wanting the best person for the job?
Twelvelegs, I'm afraid your prejudice shows hugely. You keep harping on about materialism, when actually many of the posts from working women have been about the value of stimuating employment in OTHER ways than money. And if you can't help feeling that parents miss out by working as well as being a mum or dad then again, that's YOUR prejudice. Maybe you find it threatening that some of us are parents AND work AND don't feel we're missing out!

Employers like myself often have to make a selection from a long list of candidates. To be honest, someone who had a career break of +2 years would have to have a pretty killer-impressive-cv to even get on my short-list to be interviewed. Simply having that break would just quite simply rule her out of already stiff competition. It is nothing to do with ridicule and belittling. Its to do with getting so many great uptodate cv's, you'd have to stand out a mile to compete.

I don't know what you are talking about when you say materialism. Are wohms more materialistic than sahms?How ridiculous. I wonder who has the most time to shop
Having a pension is not being materialist. If you think that, then YOU are delluded. And if you don't think its important to have a pension, then you are definatly setting your own children and their generation up to never be able to make the choice to be a sahm as they probably have to work like slaves to pay for the masses of old people who don't have pension....

'I feel sorry for people who need status in order to feel valued.' - About the only bit of your post I agree with Twelvelegs.
But then whoever said they only feel valued through work (apart from possibly the men Xenia described who feel driven to earn shit loads of money in order to keep the little wifey at home?)
I work for all sorts of reasons: because i do a worthwhile and interesting job. Because I want my children to be raised to aspire to getting a good education and a career that inspires them. Because there is a big wide world out there and I want to be part of it. And yes, it also gives me financial independence (even though I am happily married). I feel valued as a mother, a wife, a friend, and yes, as a professional.
Exactly what problem do you have with that?

I agree with your comment about materialism fairymum. The most materialistic people I've come across were those sad mothers where DH used to teach, who DIDN'T work, and had all day to get their nails done, go for lunch and compete with eachother over who was having the most expensive summer holiday. Most working mums I know have far better things to think about.

Perhaps the most important thing is that you feel you have made the right choice, I feel that I have. Seems like most have to sacrifice something whether it's time with their children or their career, quite crap if you ask me.

Then say what you mean Twelvelegs. You feel that you have made the right choice, so stop assuming that everyone else is somehow 'sacrificing' something. We're not.

haven't read a single reply but my reaction is

WHY is this anything to do with you? keep your nose out and your opinions to yourself. sheesh.

This has turned into another fairly sterile sahm-wohm debate.

I am glad that Twelvelegs has the financial security to enable her to be a sahm, including presumably the pensions and skills points.

The OP's original question was AIBU for commenting on someone else's lifestyle.

The answer to that always has to be yes, doesn't it?

I doubt there'll be many women who agree with Twelvelegs. But it's important women with those views know there is another view -that working parents often think and know that is best for families, that there is not some kind of God like status of mother at home which is "best" for children. For many of us we think it's better for families if women work, not just an awful thing we have to accept because we were stupid enough not to marry a rich man, that we actually think it's better. Of course no one has to agree with that.

What is status anyway? Most women in good jobs and professions will get a range of things from their work. Mine happens to be well paid which is quite nice but it's also intellectual challenging which is fascinating and perhaps the main motivator in doing it. I also do help people and businesses and have done for 20 years and will do for another 20 - 30 and that's hugely hugely satisfying too. But I'm a Catholic and I'm not particularly materialistic (although it's pretty good to be able to afford 5 sets of school and university fees ad live in a big house, have a horse, an island etc) and I hope I'd never solely be defined by my job. When I give talks I often say ignore all the CV bit (which someone tends to read out at huge embarrassing length) and say the most interesting bit of the CV is that I have 5 children.

my wife has done both. The SAHM and the working moms sneer at each other. There is no "right" answer! We notice that often, those who are insecure about their own choice, are the ones keenest to criticise people who make different choice. My own view is that children benefit in different ways from SAHM and working parents.

My own mom has nearly 10 children and she worked her entire life (until recently). None of us think that we have missed out.

findtheriver, some of your posts have implied quite strongly that you think that the best way to find fulfillment and satisfaction is to have paid employment. In my opinion at least, that is a pretty materialistic outlook. I have an enormously fulfilled life, and I'm not paid a bean, and have absolutely no status so far as most people are concerned.

I think it's a shame to raise children to believe that there is more 'value' (however you measure it) in paid employment than there is in self-fulfillment, day-to-day life with pre-school children and active involvement in your community. (Of course, it's possible to all of these things if that's what floats your boat.)

'I work for all sorts of reasons: because i do a worthwhile and interesting job.' - Well, yes, I think I do an interesting and worthwhile job too, believe it or not. 'Because there is a big wide world out there and I want to be part of it.' - whereas SAHPs are cloistered agoraphobics? I have rarely felt less involved in the 'big wide world' than when I was metaphorically tethered to a desk, staring listlessly at a screen and doing someone else's bidding all day long.

Any parent who is better suited to paid work than to full- or part-time childcare should absolutely do that, no questions asked. But yet again on MN, we are seeing a pretty poisonous mess of assumptions about the kind of parent who makes the choice to stay at home.

To be fair, I think there have been assumptions on both sides of the fence, policywonk.

It does come down to individual priorities, situations and beliefs - the bit where it gets nasty is where it is implied that those who choose one way or the other are somehow not doing the best for their children, or are driven solely by materialism, or are freeloading off their partners.

There are rubbish WOHMs just as there are rubbish SAHMs, and good WOHMs and good SAHMs - being one or the other doesn't necessarily mean that your child will be happier or that you're a better parent.

A child doesn't have to have you around all the time to be happy - but it does need to have parents who make the effort to be involved and loving towards their children. That's all we're all striving for at the end of the day, and none of us have any right to judge each other's choices, because we don't know their children, their families, their financial situation, or what makes them tick.

Children need to learn that families come in all shapes and sizes, with all the permutations of work/notwork, and that what matters isn't the amount of money involved or how often mum or dad is at home, but how much love and support exists in that family.

The most important thing is that we stop beating ourselves, and each other, up for our choices. We all do our best, and that's the end of it.

So nerrrrr.

She could cut down on the clothes buying habit though, probably needs the 5 bedrooms to house all the crap she buy's.
YANBU, to think it but I've long since learnt to keep my mouth shut, generally people like that don't like hearing home truths about putting keep up the capitalist ideal before the welfare of the latest accessory, sorry the baby.

'YANBU, to think it but I've long since learnt to keep my mouth shut, generally people like that don't like hearing home truths about putting keep up the capitalist ideal before the welfare of the latest accessory, sorry the baby. '

Just because someone sees life differently from you, has a different perspective or even different goals - there's nothing illegal or even immoral about the goal of making lots of money if you come by it honestly - doesn't mean they're wrong.