Do you think the SAHM "model" is the one to which parents (& parents to be) aspire?

[lizinthesticks]

Is mum at home w/ the baby the ideal that most people are hoping to realise? And if not, what is?

Obviously in the absence of a large scale survey it's impossible to answer this question. But what's your impression?

Me, I don't know. I think the ideal SHOULD be a 50 / 50 arrangement - both parents sharing childcare and work. But I don't think others in general share this idea. And I suspect the SAHM is still pretty popular - as an ideal, i.e.

But it's really hard to know.

I think it is a very complex issue - aspirations change as circumstances change. When I was ten I aspired to be a nun (thanks to the SoM and the 'Black Narcisisus'), when I was at Uni I wanted to be an academic (i.e. spend all my time lecturing folk about politics either in the classroom or in the pub), in my twenties a job that made a difference and a boyfriend (that wasn't a wanker)were my 'aspirations'!

After getting pregnant I found my interest in the world of work, commuting, and living in London went off my radar for a while.

Now about to have my 3rd - I find myself scanning jobs pages again, and I have refocused on the outside world - but will put career plans on hold until bump is close to school age as that is what makes sense for my family. In the meantime I will try and refresh my skills/ training, finish my Masters.

Times have changed - we don't have jobs for life, we don't live in the villages we grew up in, we have 'portfolio' careers. I don't see it as an either stay at home forever or go to work 5 mins after you have had a baby situation. There are many approaches to raising a family and all have their compromises. I know my dh misses the children while he is at work and I envy his interaction with adults (that don't work in Tesco's).

I want my children to feel stable and secure and loved at home - so I provide that at the moment. I don't think it has to be the mother - or necessarily the parent, Grandparents, Nanny's or child minders can provide the care. My brother is a sahd (he's an artist and his dp is a civil engineer so you can guess who pays the rent).

Ideal schmideal! You do whatever gets you through the minute/ hour/ day/ week etc. etc.

OrmIrian, what a lovely fantasy. Ofcourse when they are older you wave them off to play in the fields and they only come back, rosy cheeked, at meal times.

I think I am ditching Samantha from Bewitched. She possibly had to do more childcare than I would actually want to allow in a fantasy. I think I will be a mother from early 20th century children's fiction, maybe from Swallows and Amazons. Did the Famous Five actually have parents?

In my posh town, people at least pretend that they aspired to be SAHM. I had to be quite confident to say openly that I would not want to do it. If I said anything about work in front of the pre-school mothers they would give me this Look....

Happy mother = happy child in most case.

I think that intellect/education/career choice does play a very important part in shaping aspirations around SAHM or WOTHing.

The simple fact is that someone who is in a low earning job is unlikely to be able to afford to pay for childcare and still make enough (any?) money by going out to work.

Therefore I would expect proportionately more people with low earning potential to be SAHM and possibly to aspire to be a SAHM to avoid having to do boring repetitive undervalued work. (Accepting that not all low paid jobs are boring and repetitive.)

On the other hand, I know very, very few people who are highly educated with good careers who aspire to be a SAHM for the long term, even the seriously minted variety!

I am interested in the topic at a macro policy level (what influences society as a whole on the matter) but at a micro individual level, I couldn't give a flying f*ck what anyone aspires to

There is something really irritating to me about the phrase 'Happy Mother = Happy child'. Maybe as my mum was a suicidal depressive type and still I was a very happy well adjusted child Or am I deluded. I have no doubt that all in the family being happy fluffy and lovely is ideal - but it is not very 'real'.

Findtheriver you did not say ONLY lower class backgrounds choose to be SAHM but that it was less likely that someone with an education/career would give it up to stay at home because the job is more valuable to them (no mention or childcare costs) That means an unskilled person will choose to be aSAHM because they've less to lose. Either way it seems to undermine the value of full-time parenting. I agree working full-time doesn't preclude you having a positive and valid input in raising your children but I see so many people struggle with the pressures of being a working parent that they fail to excel in either role and often become trapped in a cycle of opting out of difficult parenting issues so as to conserve energy/promote harmony.

For what it's worth I think children benefit greatly from having a number of adults involved in their upbringing rather than it being left to one main caregiver. The modern-day nuclear family is not ideal imo.

I did have a fairly well paid job (which I hated). I was a GM of a hotel and my DH is a chef. We worked out we need 2 nannies to cover us and we couldn't afford it. I don't think it would have been to good for DCs to have had 2 workaholic parents.

I will go back to some kind of work soon. I don't think many women aspire to be a SAHM forever. What I really would like to do is re-train to be a midwife but at the moment that is not very realistic.

Yes but soapbox - the personal is the political - though I have always thought that is a load of bollox But I love anecdotes me

Before I had children (when I was pregnant) I did aspire to be a SAHM. That's what I assumed was best and so thought it was what I should do. Then I had my child, and the reality hit me and I couldn't get back to work fast enough!

Now, I am exceptionally happy with my choice. I work part time, and for the bulk of that time, my children are cared for by my parents. In fact, they see more of their nanny than they do of their own father who just has a regular full time job (and probably more than most children see of their fathers). Thus, in my situation and for me, I believe I have found my ideal. I believe that my children gain more from their time spent with their grandparents than they 'lose' from me working. I also believe that they have got a very different relationship with my parents. My mum was a SAHM, but my aunt worked and her mother (my nan) did the childcare - to this day, my cousins have a much closer and more intimate relationship with my nan than I (or my bro) could ever possibly dream of having - to this day, you can still see it - so I don't think children necessarily lose out from children working, and I think using grandparents as childcare is more common than a lot of people think (a lot of my friends use it), and it is something that is almost entirely overlooked in these debates... yet I think it does throw a different angle onto the whole debate.

Just my musings though

LynseyKCalvert - I apologise for being so rude earlier, it doesn't happen often to me but when it does it's usually around people spouting rubbish like this.

"the pressures of being a working parent that they fail to excel in either role" Can you say, in all honesty, that you excel at being a parent?

"often become trapped in a cycle of opting out of difficult parenting issues so as to conserve energy/promote harmony." Yes, certainly, show me someone who doesn't do it at some stage, regardles of their working status. It's called being human. God, I'd hate to be your child.

Soapbox, as ever on such topics, talk lots of sense.

Lynsey - read the thread again! I have mentioned several times that one of the factors is that high earning parents are more likely to be able to afford high quality childcare!
I believe there are other factors too though. If you have spent a long time training for a career, you are less likely to give it up than if you see work as just a means of bringing home money.
I am sorry that your observations lead you to think that full time working parents are often unable to fulfil either their work or parenting commitments well. Personally I find that incredibly judgemental and pretty insulting to the majority of parents of young children, who are, actually, full time workers.

I'm educated, intelligent, had a 'high-flying, extremely lucrative career' and gave it all up to be a SAHM even though we could have afforded 'quality childcare'

what am I in all your tinpot theories? the exception that proves the rule?

This is the crux of the problem .. there is no one theory that explains our choices .. there is just us, and doing what's best / appropriate for us .. and then there's you and doing what's best / appropriate for you

theories and nonsensical qualitative research featuring different people in each research group over time with absolutely no control is just for the meejah

don't buy into it

Twiglett, this is about what one aspires to not what one does.

Of course there are well educated, career woman who for a time choose to be SAHM, but very, very few of those (in fact none I can think of at all amongst my RL friends) aspires to do this for the long term.

Did you really sit at university or school thinking my aspiration in life is to be a SAHM?

I aspired to be a SAHM if and when I had children - didn't see the point of doing it otherwise (that's just my own opinion, not a judgement on what anyone else does or does not do). I also aspired to be a tv producer, did that too - but was very happy to give that up. I am now aspiring to write books, at some point when I can hear myself think again. None of these things contradict each other.

aspirations are not fixed .. they are dependent on stage of life and previous experience

I think it is odd to say that one cannot be sitting in one's ivory tower at work aspiring to be a SAHM

who knows what I'll aspire to be next year once my youngest enters education?

I don't have lifelong aspirations just next stage of life aspirations, isn't thta true for everyone?

Twiglett - there's no need to be rude by describing data as 'tinpot'. I too, am well educated and have a lucrative career and also enjoy being a parent. As does my husband. Yes, of course it's about personal choices (within the boundaries that we have a choice).
But the data about which socio-economic groups are more likely to work is still valid, even if it's not the reason WHY people make their choices!

the 'data' I am describing as 'tinpot' is indeed tinpot .. it is the fatuous basis of all these threads in the last few days .. the 'research' covered in the papers .. I did not see anything robust nor scientific about it

Okay I am going to be brave and ask this unpopular question, because I am still wondering how it is that I don't personally know a single sahm. I mean there are some at the school gates but not many, I don't think, and I don't know them.

Is it a class thing?

ahhh no .. I said 'tinpot theories' didn't I?

there are a number of them here though, personal experience and desire does not a theory make

Most SAHM mums have moved onto working again once the DCs are in school. Once Dcs are at school you are no longer a SAHM just unemployed.

There's a lot of talk about what the individual thinks - which is very interesting, and thanks everyone for feeding that in. But I'm more interested in what our perceptions are of the generality. What do we think the majority want? What's the prevailing point of view, as it were?

I know someone above said there is no longer a singular ideal to which the majority "aspire." And I tend to agree - there's a plurality of ideas and practices going on. However, I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that there is ONLY a plurality. Rather, I suspect that the SAHM thing is still quite dominant - if not as a practice, then as an aim. I'm not saying the vast majority subscribe to it. But I suspect it's got more of a hold over us than it should have or deserves to have. Not that I have any evidence for this - it's just a really vague feeling I get.

I think Mums want to be one of two things.
The SAHM who can afford to be there, joins in all the clubs, has fun and loves it, never having to give up anything financially(sp).
The WOHM who has a job she loves, gets paid well for it and really enjoys it. She manages to juggle her job and family well, it works.

I'm not sure this ever happens.

I work p/t and would love to be at home f/t

but then I am an uneducated buffoon who knows no better

Well quattro I'm in the country and round about me are zillions of SAHMs. Many of whom have school age children and bugger me if I know what they do during the day. A very small minority of them do voluntary work or further education or do a lot of one kind of sport or something, but a shockingly high amount seem to sit around and drink coffee and have lunch together. Oh, a lot of them redecorate their houses as well.

To be fair, quite a few have said wistfully to me that they'd like to work but have no idea what they could do any more. I try and persuade them all to become magistrates but only one has bitten so far (and she is the incredibly busy, selfless, fundraising for charity type)