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?

OK in hindsight to replace the phrase "SAHM", "full-time parent" was probably not the best term I could have come up with!

Isn't it funny how these threads go. We get agreement and then a little bit of dissent, followed by a more or less full on slanging match, followed by calm and an agreement that we're all doing our best, and then someone comes and posts something just a teeny bit antagonistic and it all starts over again.

Bit like my children actually...

Knackered, nothing personal -- you do not need to justify why you go out to work. Certainly not to me.

Not only are we all different but we change over time.

I was a SAHM to dd when she was a baby, that was right for us then. When we have our next baby next year (hopefully) the right thing for our family will be for me to take six months and then dp to take over in a part time capacity with some outside help. Both decisions were right for us at the time.

Sakura- I have to agree with abatdead's analysis of your post. It does seem v odd to me to think that women (or men for that matter) have an 'inherent or intrinsic' value to society just by existing. Surely women are worth more than just looking pretty for their husbands when they come home from work? I find this a v strange notion in the 21st century.
Both WOHM and SAHMs make valid and useful contributions to society an the OP sounds v sensible from the posts I have read.

"It has always been hard to come up with a good name for SAHPs. Housewife, home-maker etc - none of them flattering!"

If you are at home looking after old or young people who can't care for themselves then you are a full-time carer.

It's just a shame that so many people don't see looking after babies as being as valuable to society and as worthy as looking after the elderly or disabled.

by the way thank you for kind words agreeing with me

"Average national salary is in the region of £24k"

Yes - average salary. But I was talking about professional households.

For goodness sake - the average salary for social workers in this country is over £30K a year, and the same for teachers. Those are for professional public sector workers. I should imagine that professionals working in the private sector earn more than that.

The point I was trying to make is that when discussions degenerate into disingenous comments about being forced to work in order to stop your children starving and going naked - well, it's a bit shite really isn't it? Given that so many posters on this thread are professional women living in households with two very good incomes......, enough to work, pay the equivalent of a second mortgage in childcare, and still afford to shop in Jigsaw...... (or into trusts for the children so they can go backpacking around Guatamala to look at poor people when they're 18, without having to go to the trouble of working to pay for it themselves, or to put down a deposit on a nice little flat in Battersea....).

Kewcumber - you didn't read my posts properly. I was talking about group childcare - nurseries. Babies being looked after by childminders or other individuals within the family home obviously have a very different experience of care than those in nurseries - of course they do.

And before anyone jumps on me - I don't think (and didn't say) sending a baby to nursery is abusive or cruel, and have had my own children in them on and off over the years.

Re: my views being 'narrow' - how so, when I have also said that having two f/t working parents is the best option for some families?

I don't think "carer" in any way equates to "parenting". "Parenting" covers a range of skills, activities and emotions that "caring", which is about ensuring comfortable survival of dependents, does not.

IMO, "parenting" covers three things:

• love, affection and enjoying the company of one's children
• ensuring the comfortable survival of one's children (including earning money, giving baths, feeding, chauffeuring etc)
• the development of one's children's potential, be that by instilling table manners, choosing a school, taking them on educational outings and travel, helping them decide on A levels etc

Sabire your comment regarding "into trusts for the children so they can go backpacking around Guatamala to look at poor people when they're 18" is patronising and nasty. FWIW dh grew up in a not so dissimilar country, but that's neither here nor there. Do you not want to be able to provide for your child's education once they reach the age of 18 so that they can become professionals without starting life with a huge deby around their necks? Or does your responsibility end once they can buy their own booze?

I do not think one can equate being a carer with being a parent either.

This is regardless of whether a woman works or not. I'm sure wohm don't think in terms of being a carer when they get home from work. As I didn't.

Also I wouldn't say that society views raising or parenting children as less valuable than a carer to the elderly or disabled.

I meant "debt" of of course not "deby"

The "carer" part of being a parent is much the easiest part to subcontract to others. The other parts are a hell of a lot harder to subcontract, IMVHO. The problem is, the three things tend to carry on pretty much simultaneously throughout the day...

I really don't see how salary enters into the equation either. Some people live in expensive areas, some earn more than others - there's such a wide range of incomes and outgoings within the both-working couple that it's pointless to make any kind of assumptions.

It's meaningless to try to separate out the various facets of 'parenting'.

As meaningless as trying to separate out facets of someone's character.

A parent is something you become when you have children - it doesn't switch on and off. And I agree that parenting is a lot more than just carrying out 'caring' tasks.

Sabire - your view seems to be that working mums who say they have to work are not being entirely truthful, and that if they wanted to they could stay home. Perhaps they could. But what if they don't want to? Perhaps they say they have to work, not because the family would starve if they didn't, but because they would be miserable if they didn't.

I really don't see why there is any point on passing comments on people's career choice and bringing salary into it, be it as a working mum, a stay at home mum, a doctor, a plumber or an accountant. I would hate being an accountant, even though I'd earn more money. I'd love to volunteer in an animal shelter even though I'd earn no money. People balance earning power with career satisfaction (this counts for SAHPs too) and ultimately make a choice as to what's more important to them, or find an acceptable balance - why is this difficult for some people to accept?

Don't dismiss attempts at analysis just because you haven't thought of them yourself, violethill . Character analysis, to use your point of comparison, is an endlessly fascinating and valuable exercise.

A lot of confusion arises from poor analysis. It is not sufficient to give birth to be a good parent - parenting is an acquired skill.

FWIW, I've been back at work ft for a month now, and was home today cos DD2 has a tummy bug (though she's been fine today). Good lord, I am so absolutely certain I made the right choice!!! Being back at home today really reminded me why I went back to work!!

I entirely agree that good parenting requires more than just giving birth (or fathering!) a child. The point I made was that becoming a parent is what you become when you have children. Whether that is a good, bad or indifferent parent is entirely another matter.

I fail to understand the first sentence of your post Anna, unless it's just another excuse to show us (yet again) endless emoticons

sabire

You just can't stop with your assumptions can you! MN is not exclusively populated by dual income middle class professionals on super high salaries, whether you believe it or not. Yes there are SOME but most people, the majority of people in this cuntry don't earn that much.

"The point I was trying to make is that when discussions degenerate into disingenous comments about being forced to work in order to stop your children starving and going naked - well, it's a bit shite really isn't it? "

You may find it annoying, but for many people it isn't disingenuous. It's the reality of their lives.

Besides all that why shouldn't a professional mum who has worked hard to well in her career keep that career going and also enjoy some benefits from her hard work? There is nothing wrong at all with good quality childcare.

Oops by cuntry of course I mean country. That was a typo, honest !

and

Hear hear Janos

(About the first post, not the cunty bit!)

Sabire as someone who was a SAHM until her dd was 4 and then only worked part time for 2 years I find your post distasteful and hurtful.

We will be trying for a baby soon and as I said earlier I will take 6 months out and then return to working full time and my dp will then go part time.

We fall into your 70K category and we could if we wanted to have one of us at home full time. But tbh we don;t want to, firstly we are more than just parents, we are people. We will need pensions and the onus is on me in particular to earn that pension. I do an important job which contributes to wider society, it is important. My dd has been set an example that women can be successful working in and out of the home.

I grew up in a poor house, my opportunities were limited because of it. I don;t want that for my children. If my dd or future child wants to backpack around Guatamala I hope I can help her pay for it, travel is important. My dd has an idyllic life, in a lovely home surrounded by hills, animals and beautiful countryside. We couldn't give her that on a lower income, while that is not the be all her childhood is a lot nicer than mine with parents stressed about money on a council estate in a grim northern town. My dd loves art, dance, music and animals, by going to work I can pay for her to pursue all of those interests, she will leave our loving home an articulate interesting young woman brimming with confidence. This holiday she has spent half her time at a local art studio learning how to work with clay, that costs money. The other half has been spent at home with me learning how to sew, bake and garden. She is hardly ignored or hard done by.

If I want to shop in Jigsaw I will do. I find this notion that the moment you become a mother you must deprive yourself of any pleasure in life abhorent. If we are honest we are all selfish on some way and I think it does children no harm to realise that parents have wants, needs and desire that are not necessariy linked to being a parent.

I really do not care what others choose to do with their children as long as no one is forced into a role and it works for their family. This is not an attack on SAHP, I was one for five years, it is an attack on those parents who think there way is the only way to raise a child in a loving home.

Of course having said that I may decide that when our baby arrives I will not be able to be parted from him/her and I may stay at home for 4 years again.

MORgueOSKY - very well said