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?

Housework. I have noticed that some wohp's think their company owe them calls and privilages that employees without dcs can't have. I would be pissed off with this as an employer or employee to be frank.
I have had appointments cancelled because mum had to go home for sick child. Very sorry but not my fault. One was an annual appointment I really needed and have to wait a full year now. Needless to say I complained. Its ok being wohm but unless emplyers provide cover when their kids are ill, society suffers. This society suffering does work more than one way. I'd like to think if my dd wants a career, which I'm pretty sure she will. She is capable of fighting her own battles. Which I know she can now, lol.

My view is no privileges and fewer maternity rights (as that ultimately benefits women more). Be no different fromi a man or chidlfree person. Never be off sick. Have back up of back up of back up child care arrangements. It's why people come to me not other places for work and it's why I am pretty good and make quite a lot. No concessions, no difference if they have me than someone childfree. It is the pure right feminist way to be.

Some women wear their pregnancy like an illness, rub their tummy and milk it to the limit. They ought to be the ones out on their ear when redundancy calls and they rarely do well. Everyone knows who those hirkers are and ultimately it is they that pay the price.

"1. Support mothers who work. Don't disparage them as less good than SAHMs."

Aa an almost SaHM I am quite happy not to disparage mother's who work. I have every respect for them.

The same in return would be good though.

newport where ahve I disparaged SAHPs?

Not directed at anyone in particular but the general opinion that SAHM's have, no value, set a bad example to their children etc etc.
One post where a poster said that I hope you SAHM's only have daughters etc.

I'm going to stick my neck right out here and say that I think that due to improvements in household machinery making chores very easy and non-labour intensive, and much smaller family sizes, we might actually be giving our children too much attention if we are SAHP whose chief focus is their children.

I see it a lot with mothers at my daughter's school. These are teenaged children who barely have to wipe their own bottoms, let alone help with household chores, work things out for themselves, or rely on public transport at least once in a while. Or course it is possible for children to learn these things with a SAHP but I think that intelligent women need more than a child or two to look after- it's easy it seems to end up doing far too much for them.

Xenia - how will fewer maternity rights (which ones are you talking about ?) ultimately benefit women ?

Also "never be off sick" does this refer to just pregnant women or just in general ? I havent read the whole 26 pages! But how would this also work ?

Xenia, I part company with you here...

Fewer maternity rights would put pregnant women in a vulnerable position, which cannot be either just or beneficial to encouraging more women in the workplace. Of course it would be better if we had 'parental' rights instead so individual couples could decide who took what time off rather than it being assumed.

It's not always possible for women to go back to work in a matter of days as you did. Some have health problems post-natally, can't or don't work from home and need to breastfeed a newborn hourly... This can go on for months.

Some, as I did, suffer from crippling PND. This is not weakness, is is the result of chemicals, hormones and (in my case, anyway) trauma. I would have been unable to go back to work sooner than I did, and would have had to take sick leave, I guess, which would have hardly helped my career prospects.

Maternity rights need to be protected to ensure women stay in the workforce...

Some women suffer ill-heath in pregnancy. I was fortunate not to, and worked until fairly late, but for some women, pregnancy related illness will also prevent them staying at work as long as they might wish to. A friend of mine had SPD so severely she couldn't even sit, let a lone walk, without dislocating her hips and was bedridden for the last 3 months of her pregnancy. She had intended to work up until the week before her delivery. She wasn't a shirker. Another friend had bleeding throughout her pregnancy and ended up on enforced bedrest for six months. She wasn't a shirker either. These women need protection in law.

I'm interested to know what your back up of back up of back up is. Genuinely...

We have no family close by who can step in when a child is ill, our friends all work ? even those with children of their own. DH and I have to manage that ourselves, when it happens, alternating time off to cope, making up the work in the evenings (sometimes through the night). We couldn't afford to employ a nanny in addition to school fees to cover that remote possibility... I'm genuinely interested in how you manage having back up of back up of back up. I know you employ a nanny, which makes it less likely to be an issue with childrens sickness than for those of us using nurseries. But do you have a stand-in nanny if your usual nanny is off sick? How does that work?

db
xx

Xenia,I get the impression that you would rather have been born a man.

designer yes, this.

To be honest, it's difficult to understand poor pregnancies etc if you've never experienced it.

I had always been in rude health and thought I would skip through pregnancy like a fairy. I was wrong. I was ill throughout and signed off by the doctor at 24 weeks.

"If we are breeding daughters to stay home unless they are infertile then surely at 14 they shoudl start cookery and housekeeping and babycare and then leave at 16 for some fashion, finishing off if they want to snare a rich husband and then start baby making at 18 whichi s when women are best suited for it in many ways. Why bother wasting time on A levels and degress if your life witll be nappies and keeping a husband happy and cleaving only unto you?"

Because of course that's exactl what I am doing.... Bloody hell, Xenia, you really are a piece of work, aren't you!

My smart, motivated feminist daughter has loads of role models in her life- including, it may surprise you to know, me! Others are academics, politicians and artists. And business women. And teachers and nurses. Lots of different sorts of women. Some of them are even poor!

Xenia how far do you think the fact that your husband was a teacher when you were in the summer of your life and employed in the City was a factor in your success?

I greatly admire your energy and support a lot of what you say, but how would you have chosen had your husband been in the Foreign Office instead, with postings abroad? Who would have compromised, and how?

And do you think that you're fighting a battle already won? Ok, there's a disparity in boardroom representation for now, and in the judiciary and elsewhere too but we're catching up. There seem to be a bright young generation in place and another coming along with no particular sense of limitation by gender. It was a very real issue when you were starting out - and even the proportion of women recruited to MC firms were very different then ('82ish maybe?) - but I think you may be talking to women whose choices have been made and who can't go back.

I also think you should allow for the fact that others' choices are circumscribed by circumstances and what life throws. Not everyone lives in London, can command a City salary with all the childcare and domestic options that that affords or has the opportunity in one household to combine two careers - that might be purely geographical. Frequently there are limitations which can't be overcome.

I also think it's central to try to achieve a happy life, which rarely comes from busting a gut. That may come from enjoying a particular line of work, it may come from money, it may come from caring exclusively for children. But one size will never fit all.

Xenia you are unique.
Trying to get others to be exactly like you are is never going to happen.

'But one size will never fit all'. Exactly right.
SAHMs can be good role models, WOH mums can be bad ones. And vice versa.

@morethan Thanks Apparently all went well. The little one has another one on Friday (which I will be there for) then they both have singing exams in July (again, I'll be away, but it's no biggie for singing because they are both superb but only doing it for fun, singing is DD1's 4th study thing, although she's doing grade 7 which isn't bad for a fourth study). I am always a wreck when they do music exams though so frankly the further away I am the better! For them anyway.

Many SAHMs do go back to work eventually and then they are being a 'role model' for their children. Or perhaps some may view it that being a SAHM is a good role model too? It's not all black and white.

Metabbilis, really pleased it went well. DD does violin, singing, piano and sax but the order of preference changes, with the weather apparently. She is lower grades atm, but only 8. Funny how a common interest can make 2 totally opposed people be civil,. I know what you mean, dd is confident but I'm a wreck already.

I'm trying work and too many questions to me above but briefly...
Husband a teacher is a bit of a red herring. We both rushed home (me because I was breastfeeding) to be with the chidlren. We had the nanny in thes chool holidays and he worked then. He worked 6/7 days a week as had in effect a second career outside teaching horus and his teaching hiours were to 6pm as ex boarding school and then often taught in the evenings so I don't think he was really your classic shorter working hours teacher.

Yes, I am really really hopeful. Most women work Few of those men in their 20s of my daughters' friensd are remotely sexists and girls give them a wide berth if they are as indeed I did in my day. Clever girls avoid sexist men. Women under 26 now earnm ore than men. More women than men under 40 are millionaires in the UK. We are getting there but many gains will be lost if women cop out to be home in their 30s and never get on a career track again and only about 15 - 20% of positions of power are with women in the UK.

(Singing seems to bring us all together on this thread which is rather nice. Mine do those singing exams too - in fact I accompany them on the piano and fix meetings around the exam date)

Don't really have time to [put the thesis about some maternity rights hurting women. If you get 3 months off on full pay and your husband gets nothing it will be muggins mum off the career track, regarded as slave a home and who becomes expert with the nappies to male incompetence. She becomes the person who does the children. If you both change as many nappies and mummy is back at work quickly then fewer sexist patterns develop in the marriage and everyone is much happier. however women have babise and men don't so I certainly would ntol change the 6 weeks at 90% pay women get whereas men don't. I think that's a fair reflection of recovery time if you have a baby. if you need more (see others mumenst threads) and are ill then sick leave should be the thing. Another reason to be cheerful - this government in a year or two is giving swappable rights to an extent to men.

Oh come on Xenia, it's hardly a red herring that your exH was a teacher. I had lunch with a friend today who is a freelance artist/graphic designer (a very good one, much in demand for multiple projects) who was bemoaning the fact that it is very hard for her to work as much as she would like, and has the opportunity to do, because her DH is on the road so much - he was travelling in the Americas and Asia for the past three months and has only been home for a weekend. Of course it makes a difference if you are both home at 6pm (which is unheard of in my world).

@lovechoc Being a SAHM can be a superb role model, obviously. It all depends how a SAHM represents what she does and why she does it. If a SAHM is up front that she is doing it because she wants to, or that she is doing it because she can't afford not to, then that's fine (well, option 2 isn't fine but option 1 is certainly an example of someone having the power in society and in her relationship to do what she wants rather than what anyone else wants her to do. What could be a better example?) If however a SAHM claims that kids need a mother in the home and they would suffer if anyone other than a mother was doing that 'full-time' caring role than that is not a good role model at all. Not if they believe that (because it's not true) or if they are only saying that to justify their choices (because that would be being dishonest). If women choose to be SAHM because that is what they as individuals want then I'm all for it. My problem is with those who try to make wider claims either for the role or for women in general.

I have equal problems with women who claim that women who don't WOH must be bored. I would not be bored as a SAHM. I have more than enough internal resources to ensure that. I sure as hell wouldn't do any more childcare than I do when I'm not abroad, though.

For the person above who was snide about getting the way my DC's school organised things so as not to discriminate against WOHMs - this did not involve rescheduling things outside of school time. Parents evenings concerts etc are already mainly in the evenings. The change was demanding more than 5 minutes notice for evening events, daytime events, stuff like that. The school was operating on an extremely JIT basis. Now we have a term planner. Much better. I have never been to a sports day in my life and nor do I wish to go. I probably miss about 50% of the concerts/shows. Which is the single thing that I mind most about the travelling I do (well, that and the actual having to be in foreign countries) But my kids are in a LOT of concerts and shows (which are now starting to conflict sadly) so I reckon I still end up going to more than most parents, whether SAHPs or WOHPs.

Metabilis - and what about a SAHP who does it because both parents agree that the education provided by the school system falls an awful long way short of their expectations and that one parent at home, driving the education strategy of the family (as well as doing a lot of other things) will ensure better outcomes for the DCs?

Wow missed a lot- bastard work getting in the way.

Wordfactory- glad I'm forgiven and I love your list, I'm definitely on board with that. Having re-read a lot of your posts I think we are closer to agreement than was immediately apparent earlier.

Db- I don't agree with everything you've said. But things about 'parental' rights instead of 'maternity rights' make sense. parents should be able to decide to split the parenting between them in the way that works for them.

Xenia, I don't think progress for women comes from emulating 1950s man. Tbh I don't think this is the way for progress in industry in general. Im keener on finding a greater work/life balance for more of the workplace, which takes into account the needs of men and women.

Xenia - why do you keep on saying that SAHMs are 'slaves' ???? In what universe is that the case? If you are an intelligent sensible woman you do not have to be a 'slave' in the home??? Part of your job is to ensure your DCs do not see you like that and that they have the practical life skills - shopping, cooking, cleaning up, using the washing machine - that all of them will need when they leave home. It's so rude to keep repeating that about SAHMs...imo.

To use the term 'cop out' about women who make this choice is also insulting, and frankly ill informed. I know many women who have made this choice, and for myriad reasons, which are complex and valid. They are also achieving many things while being SAHMs, and contributing widely to the community and not just their standard of living - for example where would the army of voluntary workers come from if everyone was a high flyer? You made your choice and I applaud you for it, but why the need to undermine the choices of others with insulting language? Women are individuals - lets celebrate that.

and yaaaank that chain just got rattled
never fails

We don't need everyone working at the top! How on earth would that be realistic? Who would clean the toilet you use when you go for your break at work in your office? Who would serve you when you have your lunch down the road on your lunch break?

People who work in mundane jobs are vital to society! Being high flying is not the be all and end all and it doesn't make you the cream of the crop! All people should be valued for their role in society (those who make contributions to it).