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 ...

LittleMyDancing I will remember this brilliant and down-to-earth advice whenever making choices in future 'I never try to decide what the right thing to do is, I just work out what it is I can do without being miserable'.

op YANBU having an opinion, YABU being surprised at your friends reaction to it (refers op to 'popcorn' and 'has this kicked off yet' emails) .

Thanks GirlySquare, I'll let my sister know you liked it! She's a pretty sound person and she helped me a lot during a really tough time.

Good post Xenia

Have just read through this. I don't think the op was being unreasonable, although surface appearances can hide what's really going on.
Two reasons that I work (freelance mainly from home, so best of both worlds but tricky at times) is because I really love what I do. Surely that is a big deciding factor?

And the other reason is that I want my dd's to see that working isn't necessarily just to maintain a lifestyle( I earn comparatively little) but is something fullfilling.
Quite a few posts imply that the only reason they are working , is to earn money...I know it's the main one, but not the only.

Absolutely plumandolive. In fact I would go further and say that if we don't raise our children to believe in the importance of achieving as well as possible educationally, and the workplace, then we are failing them. The majority of our children's lives will be spent as adults. Once they are 18, they will be off to Uni or whatever, and even in the years leading up to that, they are becoming increasingly independent, making their own decisions. If we don't equip them to know that adult life is far more fulfilling if you are doing a job that is interesting and worthwhile, then we are doing them an injustice. And as children learn best by experience, rather than just being told in an abstract way, then it makes sense that it's an extremely positive experience for them to have parents in fulfilling work.

Her children, her house, her choice.

I'm driven mad with people asking me when I'm going to get a job. I have to go throught he whole spiel of how I couldn't possibly earn enough to cover childcare for two! And why would I want to leave my children to do a mediocre job that wouldn't leave me any better off financially!

Drives me nuts.

So, YABU, just leave her to do it HER way.

findtheriver, yes, and it's even more important at the moment, in the current climate which is so precarious; to give our dc's the idea that feeling fulfilled holds importance as much as the four bedroomed house.
But I also think many people are completely fulfilled creatively and the rest, bringing up a family and making a home. I'm crap at house stuff and find it boring. It's just something personally I feel I want a bit more, and want my dd's to see that.
Having said that, when they were small, I worked around their needs, work took second place and was fitted in; I bf them all for ages.

It also has much to do with how old the children are too doesn't it? When they're all at school, cm's can pick up and work is far more feasable.

Xenia, frankly I'm appalled by the idea of men who prove their earning power and their wive's devotion , by having them keep the perfect home for them. What age are we living in that women can also enjoy this "status"?

Well, we live in a flat and still can't afford the mortgage on one salary. We still thought about downsizing for that reason at one stage.

Not many people would think of the whole upheaval of moving house just to give up work. Besides, depending on when they bought, the mortgage might not be that large. Our mortgage for a flat is massive compared to most people who bought large houses only 2 years prior to that.

Also some people don't feel as strongly about working/childcare as others. Their choice.

Agree plumandolive. And I think one of the real dangers of what you say in your final sentence, is that actually, underneath the surface, many women don't enjoy this status. At the school my DH used to teach in, there were a number of mothers exactly like this. Their day revolved around the school run, the gym, and lunching with eachother. Many of them became extremely meddling, unable to involve themselves in every aspect of their children's school lives. They had a dreadful reputation with the school staff. It is beyond me how any person can make a fulfilling life out of going to the gym, lunching, and picking the kids up in the status symbol 4x4 paid for by hubby. Strikes me as a bloody awful role model if you want to raise children who are interesting people!!

obviously meant 'unable to not involve themselves...'

These are really complicated issues that couples have to decide on together. We both work full time. DH works far longer hours than I do but earns less - this is worth it for us as now as we are hoping that in a couple of years I will be able to take some time off as he will be earning much more. At the moment it's not really ideal - too little time for kids, too many childcare probs/dissatisfactions, but it's not so bad that it would be worth trying to move house now so one of us could stop working. I think the stress of moving and working out how to manage our finances would vastly outweigh the positive aspect of having more time with the kids. I don't want to pack in my career anyway, because I like it, and nor does dh, and one has to be careful about picking the right time for a career break/change. So, yabu to stick your nose in.

That's also a really important point googgly. Work and family are too important as issues to take a narrow view - you have to look at the whole family over the long term. If you give up your career totally, it can be incredibly difficult to pick it up again when you choose to, at the level you want. I currently employ several women who are way overqualified for the job they are doing, but they have been out of the workplace for a number of years and their only chance of getting back into their field is by starting is by spending quite a few years clawing their way back up. That can result in feeling bored, mentally unstimulated and resentful, which is hardly good for the woman or those she is living with! I think there are very many reasons these days why it makes sense to keep your hand in regarding the world of work, whether you are a father or a mother. Money is only part of it.

findtheriver, so in a way I think the status point relates to the implication of the op. Less status symbols, better quality of life. The mothers you're talking about don't sound fulfilled and dispel boredom in other ways - although I suppose their "meddling" in school life could be translated as "helping" or "fowarding the prospects" of their dc's- all part of the job of an ambitious parent eh?

It's people who are struggling to make it all work on two salaries that should be looked at. It's not fair or right that this happens. Childcare is too expensive, it seems easier in so many other European countries, where paternity leave is a given, and mother's have long well paid maternity leave.
When the dc's are young, I think this is important; up until school age at least.

Findtheriver, I think your sort of opinion is exactly the type that causes so much resentment. Why should you employ women who are over qualified? Why didn't you give them a role at the level they should have been at? I went back after a break and went in at a higher level than I left. I absolutely refused to be demoted. Why should I be demoted just because I had a few years having my children. I didn't suddenly become completely incompetent overnight.

Also, your view of SAHMs seems pretty harsh. Although I do work full time and have lots of SAHM friends, very few of them do absolutely nothing. Some help a lot at school (which I admire hugely), some work part time, some do voluntary work, some care for ill relatives or special needs children.

I think this 'stereotyping' of women is quite damaging and more often than not, it's perpetuated by other women!

Wassup - I did not employ these women in other posts because they are not up to date with skills and developments in their field. It's all ver well saying you 'refuse' to be demoted - maybe your situation is different - but it's the employer, not the employee, who decides whether someone gets the job!! I need the best people possible working in my department. I would not turn someone - man or woman - down for a post if they were the best person for it. Why on earth would I?? I have targets to meet, and ultimately I want my dept to run as effectively as possible. The fact is, it does tend to be women, not men, who take career breaks of a number of years and can end up not having all the necessary requirements to do the job.

YANBU, if someone lives in a huge house they can downsize in order to stay at home to raise their kids. It really is as simple as that. If she cut down her spending on clothes and got things second hand for the baby then it would take the strain of them financially.
We dont have a lot of room in our house but we make do with what we have. Same as many other families do!
Unfortunately the way the housing market is atm, wouldn't make it easy for them to sell, that's the only downer.

then it's a case of people not keeping up to date with their 'skills' (whatever they may be) rather than them having a career break.

At my old accounting firm, I knew a few men who took a year or so out and went on those charity projects in Africa (nothing related to accounting, so building etc.). None of them were put down a peg when they came back. But if a woman goes on extended maternity leave, suddenly they've 'lost' all their skills. I think it's discrimination.

I went back full time after almost 6 years out. It was bloody hard work but it can be done. Women do not need to be done down just because they have had a 'break'. If you read journals etc., all you will find you are lacking once you're back at work are office gossip skills.

Wassup... in a perfect world...if you lose a few years it can be very hard to go back to work having missed out the intervening changes.

I don't think findtheriver is demeaning sahm atall, her comments were directly related to some women whose husbands seem to think it's a badge of honour to have wives at home when they could be earning 5k- these women don't really enjoy this so called status, and their evident lack of stimulation can be diverted.

I don't get why some WOHMs are so bitterly against people choosing to stay home. Yes work can be fullfilling, but also boring and stressful and takes time away from the family. If (paid) work defines people, then what about retired people? Shouldn't they go back to work? The thing with todays society is that only that which makes profit is valued. It hasn't always been the case. For me, I don't care what the government bleats on about, they care about the economy NOT my kids/family's wellbeing. I don't hover round school, although I do help when asked, which can be quite often with 4 kids.

Wassup, crossed posts. I admire you for that; many people wouldn't have found/made time/energy to keep up in those years and maybe more should.
I wobder how possible a six yr break returning to same level would be in most professions though

jellybeans, I couldn't agree more about the value placed on monetry gain and symbols of success rather than a fulfilling and meaningful life...god, sorry, getting a bit heavy here.
I just think that the fulfilling and meaningful part can be achieved by homemaking ( hate that word but can't think of another) and raising a family for some people, while others feel they want something morre in order to have a meaningful life.
Neither should belittle the other.

I think it's possible but you have to know and WANT to return. I always knew that I would (I had a break largely because both of my children were in hospital for extended periods and then we moved and then suddenly it was 6 years...time went by so fast!).

A life full time at home just isn't for me but I have no problem with those who do it. It would have driven me stir crazy. So I guess it was in my interest to try and keep up to date and carry on talking to people in my industry etc. and I must admit it was quite hard work but I guess it paid off in the end.

I think if you can demonstrate to an employer that you have kept up to date and you are very enthusiastic and confident after a break (even if you have to pretend, I certainly did!), then you will not be judged.

Also, and I hesitate to admit this really but it's the truth, I think I was seen as a 'favourable' candidate because I'd had my kids and completed my family (I never actively said that but I think this was the impression as both mine are school aged now). I do think sadly that 'women of child bearing age' (dreadful term!) are seen as a liability in the workplace, especially in small to medium sized businesses.

Tbh, I don't regret having a child, and leaving my profession behind. I can always do a course to familiarise myself with the skills I first learned a few years ago now. It's not the end of the world. I agree with jellybeans comments, why do we need to earn money in order to be seen as successful in life? surely contributing to family life is seen as valuable too? ok it's not paid, but I personally find it even more rewarding than going out to work. Not everyone sees it like that though.
I have asked DH if he is resentful about me SAH but he understands it's the best option atm since DS is under 5. Circumstances may change when he gets older and I can return to work part-time.

just want to add i have nothing against those who either need to work or want to work as mothers. it's all to do with personal circumstances and we shouldn't judge others on that.

exactly scottishmumm007