and disloyal to womankind to NOT find this offensive?

[Astrid28]

I am now a SAHM. DH runs his own company and it got to the point where I could give up work if I wanted to. I wanted to, so here I am.

DH transfers money for the food shopping into my account and I also use the joint account for other things, like birthday presents, DD's lessons/pre-school clothes shopping etc.

A friend of mine has described me on several occasions as being an old fashioned housewife.

I laughed and said I suppose I am! She then went on to say that I shouldn't be pleased with the situation. Don't I find my life boring, and what about my life when my kids grow up and leave home - what then?

I'm still very happy with my situation, but should I be?? Am I 'letting the side' down?

Why not?

I was under the impression that this is what has happened in some Nordic countries - quality daycare for very small children was so expensive to subsidise that it was cheaper to subsidise parents at home in the early months.

Millions of jobs are rubbish. Who'd be marketing director of eg Haribo in preference to being a SAHP?

tax break s for families -yes,but the comment was "tax break for sahm".my point being if mum doesn't work she cannot attract a tax break. the tax break is levied against the wage earner

However, I alsp know a woman who has a DH who is a dentist and has his on practice and earns a lot. She has a cleaner, both DCs at private scool and does nothing really apart from shop and have lunch with friends. She contributes virtually nothing.

If a man did that and his DW came on here complaining about it he would be condemned as a lazy scrounger

not the point is it? i mean, is there really a value in working when you don't have to?

if your other half earns enough in their one job to make your potential income look silly, what is the point (unless of course, you want to )

the point is, someone is criticising the OP without any right to do so.

so OP - YANBU

"Because we can make apparent 'choices' which are bounded by social constraints. Surely feminism is about changing sexist social structures, rather than merely celebrating women's choices within those structures? Of course, you might not agree about the sexist social structures..."

Interesting, FallenMadonna - particularly in light of the SAHM debate. I find it very difficult to know how much my own personal decisions re work are influenced by social constraints and what the Real Me living in Sweden (where I am starting to believe is where you need to live in order to experience a true egalitarian society) would do.

Ultimately though I am not sure that we can be swung too far by this argument that we have no real choice given social constraints ... If I agree that we need to change sexist social structures, does that mean that I have to go out to work and be a high-flying career woman just to prove I can? Or am I allowed to follow my own heart (albeit one probably prejudiced by social background) and stay at home (or whatever) if that suits me and my family better?

"as they were until recent times in the UK"

Blimey Anna, your definition of recent is on a par with my grandmothers. From memory independent taxation was introduced in the seventies.... Maybe early eighties but no later than that. Some FORTY-odd years ago anyhow.

There is not a cat-in-hell's chance of anyone introducing taxbreaks for stay at home parents. The economy is shot to pieces. You'd be more spending your time more usefully in fantasising about winning the lottery

No, it is perfectly possible to invent a system whereby the SAHP attracts the tax break and it is made against family income over time. You can have a system where tax breaks are carried forward.

I hope my daughters value education enough to get themselves interesting and fulfilling jobs, rather than rubbish ones. Oh and ditto for my son!

Be lovely if they choose to be parents as well!

scottish mummy: bankers (as they are, not as they should be); politicians (as they are, not as they should be); estate agents (as they are, not as they should be); game show host; air freshener developer; a "designer" for DFS; hot dog vendor; reporter for Grazia magazine; elivs impersonator, to name a few...

I was at university when it happened. So second half of the 1980s.

I don't mean that women shouldn't actually make choices just because those choices (and those of men too - not easy for a man to make the choice to be a SAHP I suspect) are not completely free.

My point wasn't about what the OP should do. I t was in response to all the posts that said that feminism was simply about making those choices. I don't think it is.

DH and I make choices all the time. Don't we all?

spray tan attendant; perfume spritzer; teleshopping presenter; finance "consultants"; advertising execs; window dresser; bingo caller; breast enhancement plastic surgeon...

risible that someone who doesn't work by choice looks down on those who do.all the jobs you cite give a legal earned wage.

It is perfectly reasonable to disapprove of certain jobs. Money earned is no guarantee of anything useful or productive having been achieved.

and economically unproductive sahp is no indication of quality input either

scottish mummy - why do you equate "economic productivity" with usefulness?

It can be a lot more useful to do unpaid labour than paid labour.

money is just receipts for gold in a vault (perhaps). it's just something we created. so many jobs that earn a decent wage do not contribute to anything except GDP and the world economy, and many actually harm mental health etc (eg status anxiety). While i agree that economically unproductive sahp is no indication of qaulity input, earning money is just taking part in a system that humans created and that now completely controlls us, to our own detriment.

I'm not sure that I am of the school of thought that jobs can be looked down upon. All people who work are paying tax and therefore contributing to society. All people who work are at least making an attempt at paying their own way through life.

There are a million jobs that I'd rather not do, and quite a few jobs that cause damage to the environment or to other people. But I think it's unreasonable to be snobbish about perfume-spritzers and people who work in McDonalds. At least people are trying.

unpaid labour doesn't pay the mortgage.fill the fridge.generate tax revenues to be redistributed for the benefit of many

yes whilst it may be worthy and interesting.or a step into another career.it isn't a great long term strategy to work for zilch.unless of course you can afford it and want to

Yes, our choices are constrained. But we have more choice than our mothers and grand mothers. That should be celebrated. I am not suggesting we stop fighting for more choice and equality, women are still the underclass of the sexes. The point is, women did not have the choice to stay at home or not. Now more of us do have the choice.
Celebrating womanhood is about acknowledging that women are wonderful, interesting and diverse. Not burning our bras etc etc. I want my daughter to grow up happy to be a woman.

I would be about the idea about paying parents to look after their own children simply because we seem to be unable to allow friends to look after each other's children without regulating them to within an inch of their lives.

Paying people to look after their own children - just think what doors that could open for OFSTED...

and the world economy is fucking the environment.

scottishmummy - I think we could all agree being a SAHP it more important than what a lot of people do in the City. I have done both and really know that now.

my salary doesn't control me.it has liberated me.gave me choices

where i live
lifestyle i maintain
holidays i take
choice of car
ability to save

at invoking the bra-burning