Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

why teh article in the Times mag is cringe inducing

88 replies

WarrenPeace · 10/07/2010 11:11

apart from its "nothing new there" general theme and i DONT CARE whether women work after birth or not at all but sheesh these bits

" i like the role of a fifties housewife"

then one woman bleats on about how hard it is and no status and her cv on her t shirt ( ie she only has a degree fgs) then says her H wants to swap but she " wouldnt for the world"

then laura allen HAS to put a cupcake in. " i dont sit around all day eating cupcakes" er no.

then Layala Rodham SERIOUSLY says "i like to have a hot meal on the table when steve gets home"

OHMY CHUFFING GOD

OP posts:
MathsMadMummy · 11/07/2010 20:40

I haven't 'established myself in my own right' if you mean by having a career. ATM 'myself' is a mum because it's what I want to do right now. admittedly I'm in the process of establishing my future self (studying) - but I don't see what's wrong with doing it this way round.

is it generally thought of as worse to be a young SAHM than an older SAHM then? (genuine question)

MumInBeds · 11/07/2010 20:41

Why trapped?

When dh and I decided to start a family when I was 21 and that he'd stay at work and I'd stay at home until our children were at school or longer if we home ed we both did so on the basis of trust of each other. Our youngest is now 7 and for the past 3 years I've been working part-time school hours and plan to continue that way for the next few years. Am I trapped? I certainly don't feel that way, dh and I are a team, we're happy that way and are enjoying seeing our children developing into the amazing people they are.

Spero · 11/07/2010 20:43

Of course you are not 'trapped' if your relationship is amazing, supportive, loving etc, long may that continue.

But statistically, not all of those relationships are going to make the long haul. And what happens to the women then?

WarrenPeace · 11/07/2010 20:44

i agree they hadnt really got careers they all seemed pretty aimless even the teacher.

was WET article about pretty wet naiive women

OP posts:
MakemineaGandT · 11/07/2010 20:45

Well, good for you MathsMad and MumInBeds....you are lucky though that nothing has gone wrong....quite apart from trusting your DH there is always the chance that he might be unable to work for some reason. Good luck to you and I'm sure you're doing a great job and your children are wonderful....I'm not criticising you, honestly, I just know that personally I feel more confident having professional qualifications and a career under my belt before having children. I guess it also means that people look at me in a slightly different way (their issue/problem, but true all the same) so I don't feel I have to be so defensive about my decision to be a SAHM. I think I'll bow out of this one now as I don't want to provoke another dull old SAHM thing.....too much of that already. I just came on the thread to say that I found those girls a bit tragic

WarrenPeace · 11/07/2010 20:46

yes its not about working or not working
they were just DIM and couldnt see any ramifications to what they were doing

OP posts:
MathsMadMummy · 11/07/2010 20:50

ok... didn't think I was being defensive TBH, I know you ween't criticising, was just wondering why people think it's bad to be a young SAHM. never really thought about it before.

MathsMadMummy · 11/07/2010 20:51

(sorry it's a bit tricky as I haven't read the article)

emkana · 11/07/2010 20:53

I don't know what you're on about saying they were young and didn't have a career yet, surely that was the whole point of the article, the angle from which they were looking at the whole SAHM thing?

TrillianAstra · 11/07/2010 21:27

From the title and cover it sounded as if they were saying 'these young women chose SAHMing over a career'.

MathsMadMummy · 11/07/2010 21:36

that's what the journo said she was looking for - young mums who had decided to stay home instead of embarking on a career. d'you think some of them hadn't had a choice?

also were their kids planned?

TrillianAstra · 11/07/2010 21:43

One of them gave birth a couple of months after graduting university. That might make it more difficult.

OK, so kids instead of embarking on a career. So not even starting. It wasn't really phrased that way in the journo's bit of the article.

redllamayellowllama · 12/07/2010 20:43

Right then, I'm going to out myself and respond to some of this.

By the time I chose to leave my teaching job, I was 2nd in charge of (a very large English) department in Newham with other whole-school responsibilities. So fairly established, despite my tender age. The beauty of teaching is that you can return to it as teachers are always in demand. I believe that being at home will only enhance and add to the skill set I have already developed as a teacher. When I return (which I will be doing in 5-ish years), I'll be 31 - the same age many teachers are when they begin their career.

We claim no benefits (bar child benefit which I believe everyone with a child currently receives), so I have no guilt whatsoever about that. I don't "live on welfare, and probably rely entirely on it in their old age, as they are probably not contributing to private or work-related pension funds since they're not working outside the home." I am financially savvy and have put other things into place to make sure that I will not be at a disadvantage when of retirement age (which, lets be honest, is a long way away for me). Teacher's pensions freeze when you take a break and then you pick right back up where you started. From the looks of things, that will still be 38 years of pension that I pay into. At least.

My comment about not spending my husband's money on clothes was removed from the context of the conversation. I am a horrible spendthrift and find it much more difficult to justify purchases when I know that I am not 'earning' the money. My husband has always highlighted to me how much we would have to pay someone to receive the care Isaac gets from me and encourages me to think of all money as 'ours' that I'm free to spend as I see fit. But I can't and that's my issue entirely. I've had financial independence since I was 14 and I find it hard not to be. But, it's for 5 years.

My son was very much wanted and planned. As is the daughter I'm expecting in September.

"Settling down at this age to being a housewife and mother is a sure fire way to single parenthood, penury, loneliness and regret" Such optimism. As someone who watched my mother make a series of bad choices with men, I would argue that there is no guarantee that any marriage or partnership will work, regardless of whether you work or not, are young or old. I didn't enter into marriage lightly and I'm married to a wonderful man. I thank my lucky stars I met him when I did - all the more time to spend with him. I'm not going to be a housewife forever, this is merely a 'career break'. And I don't really like the term 'settling', it implies that there was something better out there. And I know there will be eye-rolling and everyone will think I'm naive, young and foolish. And so be it.

And as for the cupcake comment - it was intended to poke fun at the idealised image of the 50's housewife and highlight that my life is nothing like that. Because it really isn't.

And as for the styling of the shoot, clearly not down to me. But, hell, how often am I going to get photographed in Vivienne Westwood?

I made it very clear to the journalist that this was my choice and I am an advocate of freedom of choice. I wouldn't judge any other mother for the decisions that they have made regarding childcare. My friends find themselves in many different positions - working full-time, part-time, from home etc etc and they're all fantastic mothers.

mathanxiety · 12/07/2010 21:14

Redllama -- you are so right about nothing in life being guaranteed. And a woman who has children will, on average, end up poorer, if she has children and a marriage ends, whether she works or not.

You are perhaps lucky or perhaps smart to have chosen teaching as your career, as this is one of the few where you can return after an interval at home with young children, combine childcare and work hours, where a contributary pension is available, and where being a woman is not seen as a drawback. Other areas of employment have none of those benefits for mothers. You 'snooze', you lose on a lot of career tracks.

If the others in the article were just like you, the Times obviously picked a very small group to write a very broad article about, with whatever pov it had in mind. Most women do not have the options you have. I suspect the Times has some notion that women should not be taking up valuable places at work that men need, and that being a young stay at home mum is a perfectly fine and financially viable option for all, which it may or may not be. Most women who either never get onto the career track or opt out of it to have children will never again make a contribution to a pension fund on a par with a man who started out at the same time as them, or return to the exact career trajectory they left. Most women are effectively penalised for the decision to become a temporary SAHM, and of course those who never start a career will face serious financial consequences if their current financial arrangement with their partner breaks down. (A good few do rely on welfare, but maybe not those who would have been on a career track to begin with anyway)

BTW, I didn't mean to offend with the remark of mine you quoted wrt welfare and not contributing to a pension, just thought it wasn't the usual Murdoch take on welfare or the possibility of mothers receiving it. Because most mothers who opt to stay at home do receive more than just child benefit, and will require welfare in their old age.

redllamayellowllama · 12/07/2010 21:28

Lucky/smart. A combination of both. Teaching is in the blood - my Mum was on her own with us and I treasured school holidays as we got her 'back'. I loved my subject with a passion and I enjoy the company of young people. Plus, I knew I wanted a family at some point and teaching was something that would facilitate that.

I think you make a lot of valid points and I agree with all of them.

But, they don't apply to me. I didn't agree to be interviewed to represent a demographic. Just myself!

TrillianAstra · 12/07/2010 21:35

Dammit redllama - you were the one who I pointed out as 'there is the only one I feel Icould identify with'. You sounded (and sound here) a lot more on top of things.

Did you get to keep the clothes?

redllamayellowllama · 12/07/2010 21:38

No I bloody didn't.

Was expecting a box from Vivienne with 'this belongs to you' on it today. Somehow, it didn't materialise.

TrillianAstra · 12/07/2010 21:40

I take it back - I don't relate to people who quote SATC!

FioFio · 13/07/2010 08:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TrillianAstra · 13/07/2010 08:31

It's so difficult now that we can't link to what we're talking about. Probably better for redllama's privacy though.

tortoiseonthehalfshell · 13/07/2010 08:40

Ooh, this is the article from that journo who posted here a few weeks ago looking for "Yummy Mummies", isn't it? So it was specifically looking for highly educated, young women who had chosen to stay at home despite having the opportunity to go out to work.

"neither of us will look back and wish we'd worked more when our children were just learning to walk/talk/play/think/paint/question/laugh/run"

Oh, okay, HandyDad. So you're both at home, are you?

goodnightmoon · 13/07/2010 21:49

I don't have any problem with young, SAHMs. My only worry is if a vast swathe of girls decide it's easier to get married and have kids early than to get a job or nurture a career (and some of the women said as much). There is already a widely held and unfortunately technically true belief that the way to get rich is to marry rich and sod the career.

On a cattier note, I did find it amusing that the women were dressed to the nines, since they have chosen a decidedly unglamorous way to spend their youth and presumably have little opportunity to dress that way on a regular basis.

I was also extremely disturbed by my DH reading me redllama's quote about it being her husband's money - and actually suggesting that I adopt that attitude, despite me not being one to buy anything even slightly indulgent, AND I work full time!!! (plus we have separate bank accounts, fgs.)

MathsMadMummy · 13/07/2010 23:41

Probably a lot of girls think that. I can smugly say I didn't. I certainly didn't marry for money we haven't got much! got 2 lovely kids though, and a good career ahead of me after I graduate. still gives me 30+ years to pay oodles of tax

my main reason for being a young SAHM was... wait for it... I wanted kids we were ready so we went for it. didn't want to get trapped in a career and feel I had to go back when baby was tiny because of money.

again though, personal choice blah blah. my mum was a SAHM, she had me at 35, 2 MCs after, which all probably influenced my choice. and my dad was made redundant at 40ish, we were thrown in the wotsit financially, so age is definitely not an indicator of security!

sorry waffled on, not bad considering it's typed with left hand as baby's on the boob

slouchingtowardswaitrose · 14/07/2010 23:29

Link please?

secunda · 14/07/2010 23:37

I think it's a fab idea as long as you make sure you protect yourself, which is difficult if you don't have a career. Although I don't disbelieve that it is possible to trust your DH and have that trust rewarded forever, I have known/heard of far too many women whose husbands fucked off/shagged around/'became a different person'/truly horrible human beings with no indication of this at the outset. I think in general the only person you can really rely on is yourself. If you are married, at least some division of the assets must occur if you divorce, but I really worry about women who 'don't feel the need' to get married. If you have children it really does make you very vulnerable.

Swipe left for the next trending thread