Guardian article on SAHMs

[branflake81]

here

I've just been reading this - a well-balanced article, I thought. Interesting hearing the 68 year old ex-SAHM grandmother praising the social skills and confidence of her grandson in nursery.

I thought that bit was the oddest really. Did she never take her own kids out the house to socialise with other kids? There was probably less on for kids to do in her day but still I know my mother who was older has loads of stuff to do with us. I think people making generalistations about kids in nurseries/at home/with a childminder always get my back up as I know so many kids who do not fit that silly stereotype. But some people really buy into ie. I met a sahm who was putting her kids at 6 months old into a nursery becasue she could learn social skills there!

justaboutconscious - my (not particularly sociable) mother lived in a complete social whirl when she had babies and toddlers (late 1960s) - she still talks about it as being the most sociable time of her life. Probably depends where you live(d).

I do agree that it was reasonably well-balanced, but I was a little bit at the woman in the opening paragraph who thought that we could all be SAHMS if we "went without a few things". What, like heating, food and bus fares?

The reality remains that some people are in situations where economically they have to work outside the home, in the same way that others are in situations where to work would cost them financially.

When painting the historical context, the article forgot to mention that the 'Golden Ages' of SAHM were after the World Wars when the men wanted their jobs back.

I HATE HATE HATE the phrase 'full time mum', it is a steaming pile of misogynist cack. As if by working you cease to be a mother for part of the day.

haven't read this yet but will later. Agree with hating "full time mum". I call myself a SAHM (thank you Mumsnet)

I think there are many more expectations these days for us and different pressures. e.g. when my Mum was at home, she didn't waste time by bringing us to school and collecting us as we just came home on our own

I too find the phrase "full time Mum" really grates . We don't stop being Mums when we're at work.

I've only read it quickly but i think it's saying some Mums work out of true neccessity which is certainly true for us. It's not to ave luxuries though, it's to just keep our heads above water becuase of our horrendous mortgage.

Could we not just simplify the debate and say that for some people being at home with their children rather than paying someone else is preferable and for some going out to work and contributing to their family that way is what they do.

Whether it is by choice or not.

I get fed up feeling guilty for having wanted to stay at home and look after dts. But had I gone to work my entire wage (and I did calculate it at the time) would have gone to paying someone else to do the job I felt I could do better myself.

I have some friends who work, whose children are cared for by grandparents etc., who wish they could stay at home. And I have friends who enjoy what going out to work offers them (interestingly the option of SAHD wasn't thought about.)

What matters for the child is that their parents care and love about them and that is that. That is what will nourish them as they grow.

Perkin - excellent point. It really surprises me in this day and age that anyone can think having one parent at home is a matter of just 'cutting back a bit'. These people need to look at what it actually costs to pay rent/mortgage/council tax, heating/food etc . These are NOT luxuries! I consider any family that can get by on one income to be extremely fortunate to have the luxury of choice. And it's not going to get any easier: I can't begin to imagine how my children will ever buy a house/run a car unless something drastic happens economically.

The article isn't really making any stunningly original observations. I'm afraid that whatever path we choose (or have chosen for us by economic circumstances) we'll be judged as being in the wrong.

I'm bloody sick of justifying why I choose to work outside the home 3 days a week.

I think that I was very lucky to be able to be a SAHM, unfortunately a lot of people simply can't afford it these days.

My MIL is convinced that the only reason I work (or that any mother does paid employment) is that we just do it to fund the purchase of luxuries.

She follows it up with "well most of our friends have more money than us because I didn't work" etc etc.

Makes me so I could throw things. Most mothers have little choice in the matter now unless they want to live in a yute but frankly, even if women did choose to work for this reason SO BLOODY WHAT?????

Were we not supposed to have a choice?

And people think that feminism is no longer relevant? It makes me want to weep it really does.

Not sure about everyone else but I feel the opposite of this....

"I would have to put on this professional mask in the morning and pretend to be cheerful at work when I had been up all night with the children. At least if you're a full-time mother you can hide away, be grumpy and not have to pretend that you're having it all and doing it all."

IME I can be myself and moan a bit at work - all the other parents sypathise as they've been there too! It's when I'm with other mums I have to pretend to be bloomin' cheerful.

And please can we ignore the other stupid troll thread on this subject?

wasabipeanut - IME, that generation (MIL) often have an underlying resentment that they never managed to achieve their potential. Every generation has its pressures - currently its the ridiculous cost of living, but for your MILS generation it was the expectation that a mother would give up her career/life and make the home her sole focus, often until the kids were grown up. This must have been a huge pressure for women who were bright, well educated and wanting an equal relationship with their dh. My mother was a SAHM and occasionally made similar comments (not in a deliberately undermining way, but just expressions of surprise that dh and I both worked) and i realise now that it was because she was as bright and capable as my father, yet spent her life after marriage basically staying at home.

SAHM is an entirely middle class construct. If you're poor or single and stay at home with your DC you're not a lovely mummy you're a benefits scrounger.

meglet - agree!! One of the big perks of work for me is that most of us at work are parents, and i can have a good moan with the other mums and dads if I want to. It's the perfectly turned out (becuase they have all day to get ready!!) uber-mothers at the school gate who are the threatening ones, where you have to put the mask on and pretend everything is perfect!!

Those mothers who are able to have a job, be able to afford childcare and still have a decent amount of money coming in are very fortunate. As are those who have childcare provided by grandparents/family. Like TwoIfBySea, it was economically impossible for me to go back to work, as my job didn't pay enough to cover childcare. Fortunately, I accidentally fell into working from home. The extra money isn't much, but it's just enough to make a difference. However, compared to my contemporaries, the house we live in is quite modest, our car is not new, we are careful with money. However, I consider myself to be very lucky to be at home with the kids during their baby and toddler years - it's such a lovely time in a child's life. When my ds started school, I noticed no difference in sociability between him and contemporaries who went were sent to nursery. It depends on the child.

findtheriver - you're absolutely right. My mother was a fairly strident feminist and worked fulltime through the majority of my childhood - very unusual in 1970s Ireland. She would have been very very unhappy staying at home - she was ambitious for herself. My DF hated it, wanted a SAH wife and that had a lot to do with their eventual divorce.

It's ironic that now it would actually be a lot more socially acceptable for me to WOH, yet I choose to SAH (with a bit of P/T working from home). I haven't inherited my mother's career ambition at all, yet I have so many more options than women of our mothers' generation.

Findtheriver that's prob a fair point. You are clearly better at seeing things more objectively than me.

My own mother has been better than MIL though - she has openly admitted that she was bored stiff when my brother and I got older but by then it was too late. She didn't fulfill her potential at all so she's been much more understanding about me choosing to work outside the home.

It was my own mother who, by virtue of her palpable frustration and unhappiness, encouraged me to take the route I did.