Guardian article on SAHMs

[branflake81]

here

That's interesting Hassled, that your mother was a strident feminist and clearly went against the grain in working and achieving her amibitions, yet your father hated it!! I think as you say, anything which goes against the majority is a pressure. these days most parents work outside the home, so there is a pressure if you don't.
I also think that probably the biggest change in this whole issue is the fact that over the last 40 years or so, the part that education plays is hugely significant. It has been for a while now, the norm for girls to be educated to the same level as boys. The expectation is for girls to achieve well and go to university, whereas in our parents generation there was still quite a mismatch. Like a lot of my contemporaries, I met my dh at university, we both have careers, we both feel equally capable as parents and in the workplace. I'm sure it was far easier to slip into the role of SAHM if your options were fewer ie: if you didnt have high qualifications or training. And it does seem the norm these days that people choose as their partner someone who is equal in status. You don't tend to see blokes coming out of university and wanting to find a nice little uneducated homemaker as a wife! They want someone who is operating at their level.This is a huge shift from how things used to be, and one for the better I'm sure most people would agree.

Oh it's such a relief to read an article which isn't full of Daily Mail condemnation of mothers, isn't it.

Whoever said the article isn't making any strikingly original points is right, but it's just so nice to see common sense written down for a change, with no attempt to draw up a "them and us" battle line.

Agree that "full time mum" is a bit of a stupid phrase though.

''they want to have these beautiful homes, and it just isn't possible to do that and have contented children."

Why not?

I thought that too Pavlov!! I mean, like you have to be living somewhere ugly to have happy kids

Oh and agree with Madamez that SAHM is a middle class construct anyway, most mothers in the western world have simply never had a chance to be a SAHM. My mother worked all through my childhood - as a dinner lady, a waitress, various catalogue distributor jobs, cleaner, etc. - all jobs which she could fit in during school hours or night shifts when my father was at home. I also have a vague memory of going to a neighbour's house once a week and being given tea and cake and my mother collecting us later on.

Every single other woman I knew worked in those sort of jobs as well. The poshest one was a nurse. There were periods when these women would be SAHMs, but they would always get other jobs a few weeks/ months later. It's only recently that I realised that all those women were doing paid jobs at the time, we children never really noticed it, it was normal.

I don't think she's talking about the decor, I think she's talking about the price. (Re the beautiful houses)

Full time mum means to me that the mother looks after her children all of the time, she is a full time carer. Mums who work don't look after them all the time.

my Mum was a SAHM until I was about 10 and then she went to University, became a teacher and then branched out and is still working at 69 - because she wanted to. It wasn't "impossible" to do it 40 years ago - just different. MIL on the other hand has never had a career and now thinks she is too old to learn anything new (she is 64 )

IME, there are as many choices and ways of doing this parenthood thing as there are parents and it shouldn't be our job to criticise other people's choices or ways of doing things

findtheriver I find comments like that tend to make me frustrated and stop listening!

I actually found quite a lot of that article frustrating tbh. Although much of it was the quotes from people rather than the actual article itself. Many of the quotes seemed quite sweeping.

I for one, intent to continue having a beautiful home and a content child.

The problem with using the phrases commonly used here on MN -

WOHM -working out of the home mother
WA/IHM -working at/in the home mother
SAHM - Stay at home mother

is that the SAHM is the only one which doesn't emphasise the fact that you are actually working.

I think that "full-time mother" may be an (admittedly clumsy) attempt to emphasise the fact that they are 'at work'

I don't stop being a parent when I'm at work. Neither does my DH. If a SAHP has their child at playgroup for a couple of hours, does that mean they stop being a parent for that 2 hours?! Course not.
'Full time mum' is a ridiculous, meaningless phrase. Once you become a mother or a father, you are a parent. Full stop.

It was an interesting article. I agree about the comment that people are more materialistic these days, I was more that way when I worked f/t, wanted a better house, better car etc. Life is pretty competitive, many of my friends are and it gets boring. I also think house prices have alot to do with more women having to work, I don't see how it is a good thing that something that used to be affordable on one wage now needs two to pay the same thing. I am a SAHM and I love it and find it gives a sense of freedom and the ability to re evaluate life and whats important, although it also can be tough but I wouldn't fancy juggling a job on top.

But SAHM is also inaccurate. Most SAHM's don't just SAH, they go out!

LittleBella - you cant presume that, she said 'home', and thats how I read it. If she meant anything different, that would have been clarified surely?

Either way, I don't see why I can't have an expensive house and a content child either! If I and my DH find a way to work and afford the house we want, in a location we want, why does that mean my DD will not be content.

She will be. Once we have sold up and moved to our new place, she will have a garden - costs money, but she will benefit, it will have a bigger bedroom for her - cots more money, she will benefit. It will be near a better school - costs more money, she will benefit. I will be happier, DH will be happier - she will benefit.

I am not saying you have to have these things to have a content child. I am saying that having these things will not make a child unhappy.

Message withdrawn

I see your point Rusty, but maybe the word 'work' isnt really the right one to use regarding being at home. I see being a parent as being a parent - it is a state of being, not something which you switch on and off. I go out to work. When I am at home, I'm at home. Chores to do with the home (cleaning, tidying, shopping etc) have to be done whether you are working outside the home or not. I wouldnt call them 'work' - they're just part of everyday life. I wouldnt call bringing up children 'work' either. Children need feeding, changing, playing with etc, this too is part of life, not 'a job'.

How about:

MIPE - Mother In Paid Employment

and

MDIFF - Mother Doing It For Free.

Yes Pavlov but I think the point she's making is that for most people, the dream house is simply not achievable, simply because of house prices. For a minority, of course you can have a beautiful house and children, a minority of people live in fantastical big houses with up to date, expensive decor, dogs, ponies and happy rosy-cheeked children. I think that's what she's talking about, the "perfection" aspect of homes.

That's how I read it anyway.

Chequers agree - the implication being that women have to sacrifice - she's not calling for dads to do without a few things, is she? Or families? Just mums.

And also failing to recognise that for many women, going to work is doing without a few things.

Yes obnoxious.

Maybe LittleBella, but very poorly expressed. I read it like pavlov. A house doesnt have to be huge or expensive to be beautiful. And conversely, I know some very well off people who have hideous big homes! It's just very loaded isnt it - implying that you somehow have to be living in an ugly/boring house in a crap area to have contented kids which is clearly nonsense.

Message withdrawn

Findtheriver - does that mean you think childminders & nannies are not working? Or is it simply the fact that you are doing it for someone else that makes it 'work'?

If you are doing something that you would otherwise have to pay someone else to do, in my book that's working.

Yes, you have to do a certain amount of chores whether you work outside the home or not, but if your children are not in the house all day, or are with a nanny, there's a lot less cleaning & tidying to be done by you. (I've been a SAHM and a WOHM & I know I did a lot fewer 'chores' when I wasn't at home with the children all day)

ftr - I just think that that would be such a stupid thing to think, that she can't possibly have meant that!

(Am I too generous?)

Eh?? Of course being a CM or nanny is working! I suppose the definition of 'work' is something along the lines of 'engaging in an activity for which you receive remuneration and where there are certain objectives that need to be met'. That's certainly the case for a CM or nanny.
When I was home on maternity leave, I was caring for my two toddlers all day. I wasnt at work. I'm not saying being at home is easy, or passive or attaching any negative connotations to it. I'm simply saying that looking after your own children and doing the normal day to day chores of shopping, cleaning, cooking the dinner is not work.

ftr that is a very narrow definition of work - something that you get paid for.

It's called housework for a reason. Because it's work, that's done in the house.

Would you say that volunteer work is not work because it's not paid?