Don't give up work to be a SAHM unless

[akaemmafrost]

You have a HEFTY private income or can work from home.

I gave up work, usual reasons, wages would barely cover childcare, WE wanted kids to be at home with a parent.

Fast forward. I now have two dc, the father of my dc cheated on me, physically, emotionally and financially abused me.

One of my dc has SN and cannot attend school for the moment.

I've been out of work for 10 years now, I have no profession. In 6 years time our child support will stop as will most of our benefits. I will near fifty having not worked at all for 18 years.

My future is shit. Utterly grey and bleak. All I have to look forward to is a state pension. While my ex earns a fortune, travels the world and has new relationships.

This is reality for me. So think long and hard about giving up work to stay at home because no matter how shit your job is it's preferable to my future don't you think?

And it was all decided for me by a man who decided he hated me and didn't want to be married anymore and a child being diagnosed with significant SN.

It's that simple.

[Offred]

What is your point and just what is your problem with me explaining? Maybe you should think a little before making nasty comments. The "shouldn't have kids then" comment blueshoes made is often (nastily) directed at mothers who go to work (why have kids if you don't want to look after them) anytime it's said it is pretty nasty. So is haranguing people about contraception/fertility. My point is simply that because women carry and feed babies they will always be economically disadvantaged and dependent in this system, there are ways the state can help with this, ways employers can help with this and actually more stable and productive economies often have systems which better support families making employers, workers and the state better off. You've already identified our system is not working...

[blueshoes]

Offred, you are taking things way too personally. I don't know you from Adam. I don't know your circumstances, nor those of anyone else on this thread outside of this thread.

[Offred]

Maybe you should not make personal comments at me like "don't have children" then....

[blueshoes]

Offred: "My point is simply that because women carry and feed babies they will always be economically disadvantaged and dependent in this system, there are ways the state can help with this, ways employers can help with this and actually more stable and productive economies often have systems which better support families making employers, workers and the state better off."

I agree that employers can help with this with more flexibility. I agree the state can help and it already does. But not to the extent of paying parents to stay at home to look after their own children. Any one who is fertile can produce children. We don't need to encourage people to do this. The state should however encourage women to remain economically active even whilst they have children because that is a virtuous circle.

[scottishmummy]

you're seeming to answer two posters at once,quoting someone else addressing me
you disclose what you want but don't infer you were made to
back on thread govt won be housewives it's risible and economically untenable

[blueshoes]

Offred: "aybe you should not make personal comments at me like "don't have children" then...."

It is NOT about you.

[Viviennemary]

What countries give universal benefits to support families. They give tax breaks. I know child benefit used to be a universal benefit here till it was means tested recently.

[Offred]

loads

Universal benefits don't encourage people to have children and keeping women in work is not a "virtuous circle" because the vast majority of people will never pay back what they take out.

[Offred]

Blue shoes - so why make that comment at me.

Scottishmummy - I haven't replied to someone else and directed it at you. I replied to the question you asked me which was about what blueshoes said.

[Offred]

It is about everyone, you need to realise that it is a nasty attitude "don't have children then" it is quite privileged to actually have good control over your fertility and it also further blames women who take responsibility for children they have had with useless men even if they were planned.

[impty]

So back on topic.....

I have been a SAHM/ housewife for 13 years. Marriage is great, not abusive in any way. My being at home as meant that DH has a very successful career.

But posts like this make my blood run cold. Things can change, and if they do where will I be left?

Fortunately the type of work I did, I can do at home. Since reading this post I have decided in the New Year to make time each week I actively persue my own career. I don't expect to earn very much in the first few years. If I work hard at it though I will begin to sell my work, make contacts and improve/ hone my skills.

It's a start. I'm really looking forward to a new phase in my life.

[blueshoes]

Gosh Offred, your grasp of economics is tenuous at best.

Who is paying for your 'universal benefits' if you think women should be entitled to be paid to stay at home to mind their own children and that keeping women in work doesn't even claw back enough over that woman's lifetime to pay for her way.

You are indeed living in lala land.

[blueshoes]

impty, I do think your plan in the New Year is a good one.

My parents just celebrated their 48th wedding anniversary. But the way was not smooth. When I was growing up, my mother had no option but to stick to her sterile marriage for the sake of her children despite my father's many infidelities. My father was a provider but not much of a husband.

She drilled into her daughters never to be dependent on a man, a message my sister and I got loud and clear.

For me, it acts as a counterweight to allow me to stand up to my dh if, god forbid, he did anything that was threatening to me or my children. My prime role as a mother is to protect my children whilst they are still dependent on me. I cannot do that effectively if I am beholden to a male to support me financially.

[Bonsoir]

Almost inevitably, whether mothers prioritise their personal financial independence or their home life and children's upbringing is coloured by their own experiences in childhood. Women who grew up with happy, trusting parents who were kind to one another are much less likely to prioritise an insurance policy in case their partner leaves them.

[blueshoes]

Unfortunately, growing up with parents in a happy marriage is no insurance to a life partner deciding to trade up their aging model for a younger one or just being a dick. The risks are still there. Plus there is no insurance against a breadwinner dying, becoming disabled, losing a job ...

[blueshoes]

"breadwinner dying, becoming disabled, losing a job ..." Just to clarify, a happy marriage is not insurance against any of these happening.
But of course you can buy actual physical insurance against all of these eventualities. Shame there is no effective insurance you can buy against being left by your breadwinner life partner.

[Bonsoir]

I disagree - and there is lots of research to prove it! The biggest predictor of a happy family is having grown up in one, and modelling that same happy, trusting and kind family is one of the most important things we can do for our children.

[Offred]

I don't think it is my grasp of economics that is tenuous. Universal benefits are cheaper and more effective at tackling inequality. When benefits are means tested much of the money goes on admin, error, fraud and bureaucracy, it also creates stigma which disincentives claiming by those who need it. If you looked at the data on public spending it tells you that, universalism has also been studied. Why do you keep making it so personal blueshoes. The fact is universal benefits cost less and work better.

[Offred]

*dis-incentivises even

[Letsmakecookies]

Bonsoir that might be the case, that a predictor of a happy family is having grown up in one.

However, I have met many people who grew up in very happy, sheltered families - what happened then is that when they ended up in dysfunctional marriages, they didn't have the experience to cope with their partners bad behaviour or to see through the lies. In a way projecting their parents happy marriage and their own happy upbringing, sheltered them from fully understanding/accepting what was going on in their current relationship and knowing how to deal with it.

[sieglinde]

All sympathy, OP. I think your words are very timely. I always tell my dd this; don't EVER rely on someone else to provide for you. So much can go wrong, so many things. I say this though I have been happily married for 26 years. My dh has never been unemployed, but he was almost made redundant in 2008, and I have never forgotten it. Anyway, I am the main wageearner.

OP, I wonder if you should give up, though? I totally get where you are coming from, but maybe there is some hope, something you can do?

Retrain in a trade? Online learning? There is def. online accountancy stuff about, and then you can work from home by setting a low, competitive rate for local businesses? Or copy-editing from home? Or tutoring?

[Bonsoir]

Do you think sheltered upbringings are happy ones? I don't usually think they are - sheltering your children is a form of denial, which is dysfunctional and usually unhappy, though that unhappiness is often not allowed any form of real expression. I agree that sheltered upbringings generally result in some unpleasant surprises in adulthood for those who have not been brought up to deal with the realities of life.

[Letsmakecookies]

Bonsoir a very good question. I think it depends to what degree. I think that too much parental guiding all decisions and too little independence in children actually can cause quite a difficulty when the children become adults. It makes real life hard to understand and cope with, and standing on your own feet harder. I suppose the dysfunctionality comes in part from not allowing your children to have boundaries, as by default if you are sheltering them you are over-controlling and often not teaching them expression of feelings.

But all families are dysfunctional in one way or another, if you agree with people like John Bradshaw, since dysfunctional behaviour is learned and passed on, unless you actively try and identify and get rid of it.

I think a child who lives in a family with protective, caring parents is happier than one who's dad drinks to excess and shouts at mum, who in turn lives in a codependent bubble. These children often end up in dysfunctional relationships as adults too, and find it just as hard to cope with real life.

So what is a happy childhood?

I think it all can be summarised by Philip Larkin:



They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another?s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don?t have any kids yourself.

[Bonsoir]

I'm not that pessimistic . I live by the maxim "Don't do anything for your children that they can reasonably do for themselves" and I definitely create the opportunities for them to see the world on their own (ie without parents around). I find the idea of children spending the vast majority of their days in an institution (nursery/crèche/school/playscheme) absolutely horrific and one of the most dysfunctional situations that could arise.

[sieglinde]

I hate the Larkin poem, tbh. So smug, so certain, so smartarse. Larking pretty much exemplifies everything I hate about Britain, including the rabid Thatcherism.

Adrian Mitchell wrote this:

They tuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to but they do.
They give you all the quilts they have
And add some pillows just for you.

True too. Is being tucked up the same as being fucked up, as Mitchell implies? It can be.