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?

so who DOES/did your domestic stuff and child caring Xenia? And did you respect this person ? Does she still have a relationship with your DC?

I think you made a fair point, upthread, about the influence of our parents. My dad was raised by a nanny, FT, and he loved his nanny a lot more than his mum (was the main speaker at her funeral and much more upset by her death than his mum's death, which sort of shocked me at the time).

Sarca, I disagere. Victorians worked in factories and pushed children up chimneys or left them with other siblings. My relatives on farms in the 1700s and 1800s worked and children worked in fields or were left with granny or a sibling at home. Women have always worked.

Working mothers have thrust at them every day a presumption that they are worse parents, something never said to working fathers so the whole thing is a massive feminist issue. I just think it's rather nice to give something back in helping parents realise a working mother can be a huge force for good and do not stay home for the sake of the children particularly if you don't like it or can't afford it as they never thank you and it's not better for them anyway. Do not be a sacrificial victim on the altar of male careers.

Very few working parents these days are like Churchill's (he was another who virtually never saw parents and very bonded to his nanny). Most working parents rush home to see children on work days.

Of course I respect people who have worked for me. Why would I not? In fact one brought one and then two of her babies to work with her. We were invited to her wedding. This is the point - extra people in chidlren';s lives enhance those lives. Also my older children have graduated so I see the longer game beyond did the toddler grab your leg crying whilst you left it at the creche at the gym or with daddy on Sunday and is it traumatised for life....

We are talking abotu 27 years of childcare here so it's a bit hard to generalise but for some of that too poor to have anyone to clean so their father did as much as I did, probably a bit more - never accept sexist men. Secondly we had a daily nanny for 3 under 5s, never wanted anyone living in and not got a spare bed room anyway and both made huge sacrifices to be home to see the children because we love it, bed time stories, home work supervision, music practice, huge part of working parents' lives. it is not as if you work and then send them abroad for 5 years nad don't bring them up. I've just got up the 2 who aer still at prep school. I am a parent like lots of parents and we spend hours with children. it's is just if you also work you bring an additional and nice dimension to things.

Xenia, you have twisted my point there a little. I've never said that historically most parents didn't work. Historically most parents didn't use wet nurses, Nannys or slaves. They did as you say, leave with grandparents/siblings until they were of an age to get in the field/chimney/equivalent.

I am not thrusting on you that you have done wrong by your children.

I am presenting the argument that there are other equally valid ways of doing it. And a woman making a free choice to be a SAHM is NOT the same as lying down at the alter of manhood. Anymore that a man deciding to be a SAHD is lazy, feckless, workshy or laying down at the alter of his wife.

I want equality of choice and opportunity for both sexes, something which we don't have yet. But the way to achieve that is not to deride those who chose to SAH.

The idea of the SAHM permanently devoted and attached to her children is indeed though a product of modern times, ie the last 2 or 3 generations.

Generally speaking (there is always an exception) poor women used to work constantly (at home, in factories, in the fields, washing clothes etc) and the children were left either to older siblings, roaming in groups or with older relatives, rich people always had nannies whether they were working or not.

This idea of women being devoted to the toddlers/babies/young children undivided attention is unique to our modern (developed) world, isn't it?

During the 1970's and 80's most of my school friends mums didn't work. Maybe this was a local thing, I'm not sure. There weren't any pre - schools or nurseries either. Well, once again not in our area. We just started school at 5 and mum took you and picked you up. My mum did have a lot of interests that took her out of the house and she was very independant. I certainly wouldn't hark back to a period where children were neglected or physically harmed. As a society we moved on from the awful times children had during Victorias reign. I don't think this is a good example of the advantages of women/mothers working.

Those who argue vociferously that parents should not stay at home with third children often use the disparaging term "housewife" An interesting bit of spin.....

Same here morethan, in my childhood I think it was seen as rather regrettable if your mother had to work. I think they were known as "latch-key kids" and at the time it was thought all the worlds ills could be blamed on this.

Where I live now is a very mixed area, council housing in one road and some much nicer housing the other end. I'd still say most of the children are dropped off and picked up by their mother.

There are very few people proportionally in 100k + jobs and those where they can pick and choose their hours, or use a nanny. Most people will be working hours which will need a childminder and/or playschemes and/or after school clubs which is a very different situation.

seeker I think that's because when the DC are at school all day and you're at home, presumably you are keeping the home going.

I had a year off when the DC were in about year 1 and during school hours I felt very much a housewife. I certainly wasn't actively parenting IYSWIM.

Wordfactory
you took a year off from work, this is not the same as making a firm decision to be a sahm. I don't have children at home during 8.30 and 3.30, unless one of the older ones come home. I don't see myself as a housewife although I do clean up, cook, keep house. I also do many other things like Maths, English, a HND, Degree, and now I am learning a language for the fun of it. I belong to many groups and societies and have several hobbies and interests. If your decision had been long term I'm sure you would have felt differently about it, as its a case of being fullfilled, surely.

morethan

I did give up my job and I had no idea what I would do, other than look after the DC.
And after a year of being a SAHP I knew that keeping house was not enough for me (in fact I hated it). And that the parenting aspect simply wasn't there during school hours IYSWIM.

I started a different career, that is flexible and I do from home. So I still do all the parenting stuff that a SAHP would do but I work too. I have a housekeeper now though.

However if someone is studying then surely they are a student not a SAHP/housewife?

I suppose what I mean is I don't see owt wrong with being a housewife, providing one is protected financially, and one wanta to do it.

I don't see why, though, that SAHPs try to make out they are parenting 24/7. Ful time Mum and all that. I've done it and it's not full time. A lot of the time one is doing what I pay my housekeeper to do. That is house work.

Wordfactory, sorry I misread your post. I thought maybe mat leave. I have always considered myself sahp as alot of the things I do during the day do involve the dcs. Its hard to explain really, but for me its state of mind. I think some people see it as just housework and maybe that is not enough, it certainly wouldn't be for me. I don't think I'm parenting 24/7 but I do put in a lot of effort to supporting dcs, well just one dd at school now. For e.g I use my time down loading resources and teaching aids. I do research on her bahalf, find things out she has asked me to do. I set work/ theory to support her interests, which allows her to get on with stuff when she comes home. It works for us, but I realise not everyones vision of fulfillment.

I veer between wanting to return to work, SAHM while children at school and homeschooling (nothing quite like an indecisive mind) and can see the advantages to all of them. I think what is hard is that until you are at that stage it is hard to imagine what it will be like and what I will be wanting.

I imagine if I was a SAHM I would have more time to make the costumes for the fancy dress day, keep on top of the house so that the time after school is spent playing together rather than a mad dash home after work in which to fit everything in. If I was working I wouldn't be home until 6ish, which would only give me an hour before bed with the children, followed by household chores. If I was at home I would be able to walk to school, walk back with the children, make dinner together, play, settle them etc.

I agree I'm in a lucky position to be able to choose. I certainly would find it easier to choose if I was able to return to work in a job where I could still do the school run etc, but that's not very likely!

I have just found this and thought it may be of interest to some

Seven out of 10 mums would rather stay at home with their children than go to work, according to a survey of mothers carried out by the website netmums.

Found this on yahoo finance, won't link sorry.

"I don't see why, though, that SAHPs try to make out they are parenting 24/7. Ful time Mum and all that. I've done it and it's not full time. A lot of the time one is doing what I pay my housekeeper to do. That is house work."

Don't think they do, do they? Well, I certainly don't. I do do shopping and housework but they only take up a tiny part of my day. "Housewife" is only ever used as a disparaging term. Pinny and a feather duster stuff. I don't like full time mother either, by the way.

And nobody has yet answered my question of some pages ago which was why is being paid to look after someone else's children an acceptable life choice- being a teacher or a nanny or something - but looking after your own isn't.

Morethan was that a Nethuns survey if their members?

Hardly representative of all women especially the ones on here

If SAHM were honest and admitted that they aren't looking after their own children 100% of the time, and that the rest of the time they are doing their own (non childcare related) thing, then I don't think anyone could have a complaint because it would be impossible for sexist men with agendas to disparage WOHM in the workplace and say things like 'but what about your children? Who is looking after them?' Because it would be accepted that the childcare stuff happens in the main outside working hours so the issues are primarily logistical (school runs etc) which do not need the love 'that only a mother can provide' to resolve. WOHM could just point to the amount of time those men's wives spend at the tennis club or whatever and explain that they were working instead of playing tennis. The problem is that so many SAHM pretend that their entire lives are consumed by childcare and stuff broadly to do with their kids. This then gives those men who are so disposed (and its not even most of them, these days - but a significant minority though) an excuse to push their own agendas.

I really do hope all you SAHM only have female children. Because you might be damaging their futures, but that's your call. If you have male children (and sadly I know some of you do) then you are potentially causing future problems for my DDs. So, you know, cheers for that. :(

I agree seeker, and if any do it is probably as a response to people having at go at them for being lazy.

Re. Your question seeker, I expect the unpalatable answer is money.

It ties into the idea that you must be earning money to be a worthwhile human being. I detest this attitude, but it is prevalent.

'really do hope all you SAHM only have female children. Because you might be damaging their futures, but that's your call. If you have male children (and sadly I know some of you do) then you are potentially causing future problems for my DDs. So, you know, cheers for that'

This is beyond offensive.

You might be damaging their futures by working/not working/being too affectionate/being cold/not feeding a heathy enough diet/never allowing junk food/being to lax/being to strict/choosing uncool clothes/making them materialistic.....etc etc etc

The idea that SAHMs can't raise wonderful, considerate, hardworking sons AND daughters. Is offensive.

Please show me where any SAHMs are arguing that WOHMs are in some way bad parents.

@sarcalogos I think there is something to be said for paying taxes making you a worthwhile human being. However we all do pay taxes, since there are many taxes other than income tax. Most of us realise that many of the most worthwhile non B ark jobs are not the best paid, I'd be surprised if most of the WOHM on this thread judge people by salary alone (or even primarily). I certainly don't and I'm delighted that my DCs are currently looking at paths which they know won't be as lucrative as my career currently is.

@sarcalogos report it if you think it's offensive. The problems professional women face from men who are living in the stone age are directly related to the attitudes with which those men were brought up. PErhaps if you had had to listen to idiot men using 'but what about your children?' as an attempt to further their own sexist agenda in the work place as many times as I have you would have a different view on the desirability of telling people that SAHM spend all or most of their time doing child related stuff, and that to be a good mother you need to spend that much time.

You can't blame women for the sexist attitudes of men.

Can you see the irony in that?

I won't report because to be honest I don't want you censored. Id prefer readers to see what your opinions are. I'm just staggered that in 2012 opinions such as 'women should do X to stop men getting at other women' still exist, especially as you've dressed the opinion up as getting away from sexism.

Paying tax is not the only criteria for being a worthwhile human beings.

After all children/students/those on very low incomes do not pay tax. That doesn't make them worthless.

I've never said that the only way to be a good mother is to spend ALL your time with your children.

In fact I have said more than once on this thread that I have a full time job.

I just believe in choice.

The problem is that so many SAHM pretend that their entire lives are consumed by childcare and stuff broadly to do with their kids"

Not on this thread they haven't. I have never heard anyone say this. How about debating with the people who are actually on this thread, not an imaginary audience of Daily Mail readers. That wqy you might learn something- not least how to debate difficult subjects without feeling the need to insult the other side!