SAHM or private school for DC(s)

[Gatorade]

I have a 4 month old DD and I am starting to think about what I want to do in relation to going back to work and future school options (these decisions appear to linked as affordability starts to come into the equation).

We could comfortably afford for me to be a SAHM and send DD to a private school (well pre-school nursery first, but then through the private school system), this again would be ok for a second DC. The difficulty would be if we have more than 2 DCs, if we are lucky enough we would like 3 or 4.

If we were to have 3 DCs I would need to work at least 3 to 4 days a week to ensure that we could maintain our lifestyle (which is quite basic really, we are not extravagant people) and fund the school fees from earned income.

I am not too worried about my own future career, I feel I have achieved what I wanted to in terms of work before I had DD and if I don't have a professional career again in the future (if, for example I take 10+ years out of the workplace) this wouldn't concern me.

So my question, what would be more beneficially to my DD and future children, having a SAHM or going to private school?

People asking why the sexism of all this (so very very many women at home and very very few men) surely they understand the siginficance of it? It means women are mired in a situation where they have no economic independence with all that entails and means in the wider world there are fewer women. it means those of us working can end up being the only woman in a room of 20 men because 20 women the wives of those men are in the home counties making cup cakes. It has an impact on daughters who see - ah mothers stay at home having married someone rich enough to keep them. It is a very very worrying trend all over this week's papers thankfully high lighted by Ms Booth QC.

I certaily agree with this above " what I wonder, is why more women don't put up more of a fight with their employers or partners or ride out the early years for the sake of the long-term instead of being so ready to give up work."

On a practical level yes it's hard for Mr Misogynist son of the housewife who would rather like his dinner cooked and someone else dealing with the children when he gets in rather than having to share 50% of the chores from 7 - mid night with his wife but he should put up with it because if the couple keep at it and the children are then at nursery and then big school with no career sacrifice for the woman then benefits flow from that in all kinds of ways. If you could take 5 years off and go back to your £100k a year job and all your customers remember you and youre reputation is intact and promotions on track that's fine but that is not how it is. Most women give up work or go part time that that really is it - zero, zilch career jsut about over, on track to the bottom and early retirement and no hope to get on that board or earn £1m a year or whatever. It is the nail in the coffin.

I couldn't actually have done my job part time - apart from anything else the commute would have madenit impractical. And there were no local jobs at anyhing approaching my level - managing a benefit office did not appeal !

And I did fight the issue with my partner -and won!

You haven't commented on my views on money- I'd be interested.

You have one 4 month old DC. Your thoughts on being a SAHM are going to evolve as your DD gets older - your experience of new motherhood doesn't indicate how you will feel about it in 6 months or a year's time. See how you go. Work out, realistically, what your window of opportunity is for returning to meaningful, well paid, f/t work is. Is it 1 year? 2 years? Longer? As you approach that time - then decide, but do it with your eyes open. If you take your time about it, your decision will end up being made for you.

Xenia - I chose to give up work and look after my children. No one forced me to, no body said that because I was a woman I had to.

I wouldn't come on here and critisise a mother for working if they had to or wanted to. And if I did I would be jumped on as being un feminist. But it seems like it is ok to have a go at mums that choose to stay at home. Saying that I am setting a bad example for my daughters by staying home is completely your opinion.
Yes at the moment my 3 year old thinks daddies work and mummies don't but by the time she is old enough to be making her own career decisions I would have thought that she will know this is not always the case.

My 5 year old does already say that when she is older she wants to be a mum and work in a zoo so she obviously knows by that age that you can do both.

Yes I am financially dependent on my partner (no inheritance or massive savings here) but personally for me I can deal with that. He doesn't have me chained to the sink, if I haven't cooked dinner when he comes home... He makes a sandwich cooks his own.

I was never going to have a million pound a year job, I am probably your average semi professional worker. I never had high aspirations and I didn't live for work so to me I have sacrificed nothing and gained a lot.

You obviously enjoy your work and chose to continue that's great and lovely for you but others choose differently and they are not morons or down trodden slaves they are just not the same as you.

Houseworkprocrastinator.
Big fat ditto. with you 100%

My apologies to fivecandles, I misread your post and presumed you were beoing judgemental.

Even when mine are/have been at school although I have my own life to a certain extent I am still revolving my choices around them. What I cook to fit in with meal times that vary, being back in time to collect dd, to ferry her and accompany to activities. So it pretty much does revolve around kids and dh, whom I support a lot as well. Its a 5 way mutual support, in that we all support each other.

It is absolutely a feminist issue, that after children it is almost always women who stay at home (or, if remaining in work, compromise their careers) and men who continue to earn money.

On the "presenteeism" issue, interesting think tank report advocating part-time working: www.neweconomics.org/publications/21-hours

I thought the success of feminism hinged on real choices?

Your last post Xenia is much less offensive, and I do understand your argument and agree with your points about it being a shame that in an office of 20 most are men.

But, the way to fix this is not to belittle the choice to stay at home.

Let's instead work towards it being a real choice. Which it already is for the lucky wealthy .

There is no right answer to your question OP, it depends on so many things. Here are just a few:

Your background, both financial and family
Your marriage
Your financial situation, savings, property
Your standard of living expectations
Your career prospects / effects of career break
Your children (healthy/ill/special needs)
Your emotional feelings regarding parenting eg. SAHM vs. Childcare amongst many others

Some, like Zenia, have extreme views like all women should work or it sets a bad example. But most of us make a choice based on their own situation and do what works best for our families.

For me, the best solution is to be a SAHM, for a multitude of reasons, so that means they will never go to private schools. Its the right decision for us though, we are happy. Being a SAHM is the best thing I have ever done and its been a privilege to do it for the last few years.

A really interesting article about this very thing:
Why women still can't have it all

One of the most realistic and balanced I've read...

db
xx

I read part of her article. Esssentially she is pretty useles. Many women fail. She couldn't hack it. Lots of women can. She shoudl not write articles that women cannot have it all (ie work and have a family) as it is not true. Also why didn't she write one calle d- why men cannnot have it all and just reverse the sexes? Presumably because she is sexist. Many people of both sexes are pretty incompetent. The can hardly manage to get themselves up and dressed or in school or work on time.

However the bottom line is that unless and until as many men as women give up work or go part time I will continue at times to be the only woman of 20 in meetings. That is not good and not rights and women have a duty to correct that. They don't correct by going on to a mommy track.

(Actually to be fair in yesterday's meeting everyone indeed was male except for me but not a single one of the men had children. On the board I sat we almost got up to 50% women. I was the only one with children and a good few of the men didn't either although some did. However there is not parity yet - few boards are 50% women and women stupidly take on more at home than men, more fool them).

'And I did fight the issue with my partner -and won!'

But you fought to stay at home. My question is why more women don't fight to be able to work AND be a good parent equally with their partners. If the workplace and their husbands did more to accommodate family life with the assumption that both mums and dads are equally important and their parenting is important then less women would choose or feel pressured to give up work.

And Seeker if it was the commute that was the problem, why couldn't you move house when you began planning your family? I don't mean to hector I'm just genuinely interested in the reasons women choose not to remain at work.

'I thought the success of feminism hinged on real choices?'

But actually it very often isn't a choice. Women feel they HAVE to give up work because the cost of childcare is prohibitive or because their husbands won't help out or their employers won't allow them flexible hours or whatever.

And I'm not sure there's the openness or understanding about the choices that are then not possible when a woman 'chooses' to stay at home for example, suddenly she may have no choice about how she spends the household money, her choices about where to live and how to school her children may be limited, her lack of pension may remove all sorts of choices, and if she chooses to return to work after her children are in school she may find that there isn't much choice there either.

'Let's instead work towards it being a real choice'

I suppose that IS my point but it's perhaps not helped by women who romanticise the life of a SAHM or who give up work when that may not be what they want to do or what is best for the family long-term because they aren't more assertive with their husbands and bosses. That's the work that needs to be done on both an individual and collective level and when raising the next generation.

But Xenia it's interesting what you say about women who aspire to marry rich men because I read a report recently that said that 'marrying up' is much less common that it was. It's now much more likely that male doctors marry female doctors rather than female nurses and so on. So that raises some interesting questions. If a man is attracted to an independent, relatively wealthy, ambitious woman what happens when she has children and gives those things up? I think a lot of us know what often happens in that scenario. Another elephant in the room when it comes to becoming a SAHM. The challenging of stereotypes of women being feminine and homemakers and passive has worked in that men are not necessarily looking or expecting these qualities in a woman any more.

'Researchers analysed the backgrounds and marriage choices of women born in 1958, 1970 and 1981 to see how female aspirations have changed across the generations. With post-war social mobility on the rise, women born in 1958 were more likely to "marry up" than "marry down". Some 38 per cent of women of this generation chose a partner in a higher social class, while 23 per cent married someone from a lower class. A total of 39 per cent married someone in the same class.'

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/marrying-up-is-on-its-way-down-7626980.html

It's interesting isn't it because I think we're still influenced by the idea that lots of women look or get a man who looks after them financially which may have been the case for our own mothers but this information suggests that women have and need to get better at standing on their own two feet.

"She is pretty useless" !?

Jesus.

Really?

A senior academic at Princeton, who lectures, writes, is published. Respected in her field. Held senior government office.

Who decided that living in a different city from her children, who were struggling, for five days a week was a sacrifice too far... And that makes her a failure in your eyes?

Xenia, maybe you should read ALL of the article before passing judgements like this, it's the least you can do, really, before deeming the author a "failure", a "useless" woman who "couldn't hack it".

She's still working. She has a career she loves. But has realised that in order to make her life work, herself and her family happy, she needed a job where she was in control of her own schedule. Which is what I decided.

Necessarily as the world stands, this means that some roles are incompatible with the way many mothers WANT to structure their lives. That's maybe not ideal, but it's reality. Some jobs may require a sacrifice too far for both our own wellbeing and our family's... That's not about "not hacking it". It's about understanding what's important to you and those you love and making decisions accordingly. That's not being useless, that's being human.

If a man was the primary carer of his children then he would have to make the same decisions.

You argument seems to be that we don't have a 50/50 split in all roles...

From my experience, my desire to be at home for my children, the sadness I feel when I can't be (and as a working mother I'm not always home when I'd like to be) is very different form my husband's. He's just got back from a week on business in India. He was fine with that. There is no way on earth I would contemplate leaving my children for a week. I'm sure they would be fine. I, however, would be miserable.

I don't know if that's because I'm conditioned by a patriarchal society, brainwashed by "the man" or whether it's just biology.

All I know is that I want to have as much time with my kids as I can, and that has changed the decisions I've made about my career.

I don't feel like I'm useless, or a failure, or that I didn't hack it.

I still have a career and a job I love. I work on my terms and I have more time with my children. I may not "have it all' but I have a balance in my life, and that, I've found, is more important.

db
xx

Sorry, this is how things are now from the same article, 'However, today's generation of brides, born between 1976 and 1981, is for the first time more likely to "marry down" than "marry up". While the majority, 56 per cent, marry in the same class, those choosing a spouse from a lower social class account for 28 per cent, while only 16 per cent of women are marrying men from higher social backgrounds.'

Xenia- 'she couldn't hack it many woman can'

What utter bollocks. She is a woman who was rising incredibly high up the career ladder. Much much higher than the majority of men or woman ever will. There are simply not enough senior government posts to go around the billions of adults on earth. Only the very talented get as far as she did.

And yet, she AND many of her contempories feel torn and lied to about having it all. There is a really important message here.

Being nasty about women you perceive as 'weak' when in reality they are just human and feel torn between their need for career success and their maternal instincts is just abhorrent. This does nothing to advance your cause Xenia, if anything it makes me consider being a SAHM mum more seriously, who wants to part of your uncompromising world?

db and Sarca, I relate to what you say. I feel the same need to have a close bond with my children and I am lucky enough to be able to combine the sort of parenting that a SAHM does with paid work in that I work only school hours and when the kids are in bed. BUT I don't think it is only women that feel like this. I think men are better at repressing such feelings and assume (however unconsciously) that women will take up the burden of childcare. Both men and women have centuries of that as a model so it seems 'normal'. They don't always debate it, it feels 'instinctive'. But I think it should be debated with all of the consequences for a life time of that decision being in the open. And I think it should be recognized that a lot of what feels instinctive and obvious is because of social structures and prejudices.

One of the things about being middle-aged is that you appreciate having choices far more. When you're young there are a multitude of choices and as time passes you have fewer and fewer. So an important part of the equation for me is making decisions that preserve as much flexibility as possible.

Take the OP who currently has the option to work or not to work. If she exercises the option to stay at home, four or five years down the track she will find that the option to work effectively no longer exists, because her work options will likely be restricted to minimum wage jobs.

The OP is also working from the premise that divorce will not happen. Which while of course one hopes that it won't, the reality for nearly 50% of people is that it does. If not divorce, what happens should the OP's DH become very ill for instance, and so be unable to work? This happened to us. Without my job, the DCs would not have their private schools. They also probably would not have a roof over their heads. Or not this roof, anyway.

I don't understand why the OP's question is couched in the terms that it is - ie work or private school. It's really not a binary issue. There is one option - work - that allows for her to cater for future eventualities (private schools, pensions, potential divorce, illness in the family) - and another option - stay at home - which leaves her vulnerable and essentially choiceless.

I'm an independent gal and I shy away from options that reduce future flexibility and ability to cope with life's vicissitudes. It's not practical.

The other elephant in the room which tellingly, has barely been mentioned at all here is the impact on fathers of having a stay at home partner. It's not good. In fact, fathers want to work less hours and be more hands on as dads. So, again, more reason for there to be more negotiation between men and women and between people and the workplace. It is so often assumed that the woman will give up work but it may be the case that actualyl the father is deeply unhappy with this.

Article about working fathers here: www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/20/working-fathers-report-ehrc

Five thanks for agreeing

I also agree with you that debate should be widened to include the role of fathers in all this.

To create real flexibility there must be debate, discussion, and compromise within each individual family. The way raising children should be undertaken is inherently a family issue and it should be treated as such.

Society should be seeking to support the valid choices that men and woman make. We should be raising the status of child carers and promoting flexible working that benefits everyone.