Why is SAHM/ wanting children such a taboo?

[Jadeyspade]

I have always wanted to have a large family - 3-8 children would be my personal ideal however I understand why this would not be for everyone. I work outside the home however I prefer any work to be secondary to home responsibilities/ care of children.

It seems to me that to want a large family/ SAHM/ a family setup that would be completely the normal 2 generations ago - in these days (and especially on mumsnet) is a taboo?

My Grandmother was a SAHM with 5 Children - her role in life was "Wife and mother".. Deep down I have always wanted what she had. Since been an adult, I have worked extremely hard to get career/ delaying children etc to achieve financial stability. Despite this I feel trapped in this career and unable to afford the children I want despite working so hard. In all honesty, I would trade my career for the life my Grandmother had given the option

i am accepting that the reality is I may not fulfil my "large family dream" due to finances/modern lifestyle pressures etc however it seems to me that to admit to wanting these kinds of things in the first place e.g. SAHM/ a large family/ traditional setup attracts judgement and been frowned upon

I spoke to my 80year old neighbour recently - he was telling me that in his day, it was seen as a shame if a woman had to go out to work as it meant the husband not providing well for his family. I definitely feel it's a good thing that society has moved on from this and that women can choose careers/ not have children if doesn't want

However I feel it's a huge shame that society has gone so far the other way and on some level I don't think feminism has done all women favours. women are often forced through financial reasons to return to work and been a SAHM/ wanting children seems to be quite judged

I am unsure about feminism and it's place here. i basically believe if a woman wishes to work/ focus on career she should be free to do that. If a woman wishes more fulfilment in family life/ motherhood that's fine too.

I have been reading more recently about the rise of one child families/ threads about women feeling they have no choice to have a child/ another child due to nursery costs/ finances etc and think it's actually quite sad that society has gone so far this way in supporting family life

Thoughts??

It’s not taboo, it’s just expensive and often only possible if you’ve married a very high earner.

If you haven’t married a high earner yourself, how would you propose to pay the bills?

People on MN have a very myopic view on this as with many things. Reality is, financial destitution after divorce depends completely on so many factors other than if you are working or not. I haven't worked since having dc. We have a lot of money. If dh was to piss off which I doubt as we love each other dearly, we'd both be financially fine. We'd have less but would he absolutely fine.

I don’t think it’s taboo is it? Unless you’re having kids with your brother? I feel like given 50% of marriages end in divorce, there’s a fair amount of risk associated with becoming financially dependent on your husband (and even more so if unmarried). And you’ll read a lot from women who speak from bitter experience on mumsnet. I also don’t know any families who can afford for one parent not to work but that’s maybe just my social circle.

I actually think it’s more a case of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t as it doesn’t take long on childcare threads before the “why have children and pay someone to look after them” brigade rock up.

Excellent summary

That’s actually a good point. I don’t think women not working at all was very rare.

My great grandmother worked. She sold some jewellery and bought a pub after she left her abusive husband (and father of my grandad) which, as I said earlier, meant she had to leave the area and didn’t speak most of her own family again.

Both my Nanas worked, sometimes full time sometimes part time. My mum worked even when she was a single parent.

Needs must an all that.

That first sentence should have been ‘I do think women not working at all was very rare’

This

I spoke to my 80year old neighbour recently - he was telling me that in his day, it was seen as a shame if a woman had to go out to work as it meant the husband not providing well for his family

You are confusing fact, with one man's opinion.

My parents and their peers would have been in their 90s if still alive now, and that is not an opinion held by any of them, let alone all other friends I have currently in their 80s. I have known many, many people in their 80s and 90s where both men and women worked outside the home. What an odd thing for him to say.

I don't think SAHM is taboo and neither do I think feminism is to blame for the shift towards both parents being in paid work. Capitalism is. While raising children remains unpaid and unvalued by society, women have to go out to work.

If that’s what you want, and if that’s what you could afford, it’s your choice.

I wouldn’t want to be financially dependent on a man, I wouldn’t want to be vulnerable with regards to future working opportunities and pensions, and I wouldn’t want to feel economically disconnected.

But then I went back to work at three months postpartum and the ideal of having ‘3-8’ children sounds like my idea of personal hell as I have absolutely horrible pregnancies and found ‘staying at home’ largely impossible and unfulfilling. Babies are nice but they’re pretty boring.

I might wonder about the motivation of someone who had eight children, but I wouldn’t really judge someone who wanted to pack in work and stay at home if they could afford to.

Absolutely not for me, though.

Thanks there is some very good replies
The capitalism over feminism idea - I have found the most helpful. i apologise for offending people on this - I clearly have got this wrong

There is a lot of people making assumptions as well. Yes I have a child already and I love been a mummy and feel very fulfilled by this. I also am a nurse and I do enjoy my job although i mainly continue for paying the bills/ financial reasons rather than a sense of true vocation

My SAHM grandmother was working class. She was fortunate to have a good, kind husband and I understand how there could have been big problems if he was abusive. She told me all of her children were planned. Grandad was a lorry driver working long hours but he kept the roof over their head and the family were fed. My Grandma didn't have many treats materially but her children and grandchildren were everything to her. She was a very happy and inspiring woman

Quite a few of the older nurses I work with often had a few years away from the job when their children were young. They then would do return to practice when the children started school. This seems to me like a good middle ground. However, this mid way choice seems to me impossible today

Also I am definitely not judging one child families! What I am saying is I feel it's a shame that women often feel unable to choose the family size that they would prefer due to childcare costs etc. If one child suits one family, that's fine. However I feel my grandmas choice to have 5 children is a good choice too!

I am quite confused about several posts linking having children to the cause of environment problems. My Grandma and her didn't own a car or go on foreign holidays. I see many people today with no children or small families who have holidays constantly using planes/ expensive travel. I can understand how plastic nappies are an issue but there are alternatives to this

Since been an adult, I have worked extremely hard to get career/ delaying children etc to achieve financial stability. Despite this I feel trapped in this career and unable to afford the children I want despite working so hard.

As somebody upthread said, if you are planning to be a SAHP, the amount you have worked is totally irrelevant. You haven’t married a rich enough man. Before women were equal partners, whether or not a man could adequately support a family was a major consideration in whether to marry him. And it seems yours can’t.

the reality is I may not fulfil my "large family dream" due to finances/modern lifestyle pressures etc

So it sounds like you could afford a family, but not a six bedroom house, or multiple foreign holidays, if there were ten mouths to feed? The reality of having 8 children is multiple children in bunk beds sharing a room, lots of hand me down clothes and toys, and no foreign holidays.

I’m sure your DH could afford a 2 bedroom flat somewhere in a cheap part of the country, and you could put two sets of bunks in each bedroom with you two sleeping in the living room. Which is how people with 8 children usually manage it.

It was the same in the 1930-1960s - DM shared a bedroom with her two sisters, DF shared with his three brothers. Houses haven’t shrunk, people with 8 kids couldn’t give them a bedroom each.

Honestly it sounds like you’ve just watched too many episodes of Our Yorkshire Farm. The reality for most people with 8 children, both now and in the 1930s, is poverty, because 8 children are bloody expensive even if your DP earns well.

Please don't blame feminism.
Do you believe women deserve equality with men?
If so you are a feminist. If not can you explain why not?
I have been a SAHM because I wanted to, when they were little and absolutely loved it. We were absolutely skint but it was worth it for us. At the same time I got a degree (as otherwise would have gone stir crazy) but am so pleased I had all that time with them. I now work 4.5 days and love my job. Without feminism I would not have been able to have a career, where I am respected let alone paid the same as my male colleagues. It still isn't equal, despite DH half the cooking and cleaning (thank you feminism)I still do most of the mental load. But its a vast improvement from my mother's time.
The main reason why we can't afford to not work is the cost of housing. My childhood home was bought by my parents for £69k in 1982. It was resold last month for £1.3 million. My dad earned the national average when he bought it. It has been bought by some hedge fund wanker who is on £100ks. Blame the government for their obsession with house price rises, right to buy, lack of social housing etc NOT feminism.

I understand why you feel like that. I think many women are made to feel bad or looked down on for wanting to be a SAHM. That's not fair. I also had a real desire to take on that role. I have a very strong maternal/nurturing instinct (and no ambition!) so being a SAHM seemed to suit me. I was a SAHM for 7 years and now work part time (50%).
However, there are a couple of issues with this. Firstly, we were all completely dependent on my DH and I don't think that's a good thing. From his perspective it's a huge amount of pressure to be fully responsible for paying our large mortgage and all the bills. Yes, he's lucky enough to earn well but the fact is well paid jobs usually come with a lot of stress. He has, in the past, suffered with stress and depression purely relating to his well paid employment. Yet he feels under pressure to stick with it to keep a roof over our heads! He also wants to stick with it, I must point out as he sees it as his vocation. From my perspective it's not good as if he runs off with another woman, we're screwed. I don't like that feeling of being helpless and vulnerable. My financial security depended on him still being in love with me. I've missed 7 years of national insurance contributions which will no doubt have an impact on my pension.
Also, once the children were at school I found being a SAHM very boring! There's only so much cleaning, cooking and laundry you can do each day. Yes I could have swanned off to the gym or met friends for lunch every day but quite frankly I would have felt bad to be having a life of leisure while DH was working so hard. Now my DD is at secondary school and her life revolves around her friends. I'm really not needed so much. She's extremely independent now and can do a lot for herself. I do find it rather odd when SAHMs continue to be full time SAHMS once the children are at secondary school. It's like you only exist to take care of everyone else yet they're all capable of looking after themselves!
At the end of my 7 years as a SAHM I was sick and tired of the domestic drudgery. I wanted to get out in to the world, meet new people, use my brain and earn some money. For me, working part time once the children were at school was the best of both worlds. I'm still able to have lots of time with the children and be very present in their lives yet I'm earning money. It gave me a huge mental boost to get back to work.

I think raising children and doing many of the other things woman traditionally did like nursing elderly relatives, community work are completely under valued because guess what, what woman do (did) isn't important and doesn't bring a salary with it. It is so sad that capitalism can't support either gender to fulfil these roles. Slightly off topic but carers allowance is pitiful but we'll spend a fortune on emplying an army of people to assess needs , organise home care , review and monitor it in case someone is taking the piss. Priorities are all wrong in society.

Apart from for the wealthy it often takes two salaries to furnish a mortgage.
Doesn't help ambitions to SAHM.

@SallyWD
The point you make is a fantastic one but one society seems desperate to reject. People can do different things and take up different roles in different seasons of their life. The desire to pigeon hole is strong and unfortunately some seem keen to disproportionately penalise those who have taken time out from the workforce, whether it's due to ill health or having caring responsibilities for our old, young or the disabled.

The following analogy comes to mind. In the recent past women were expected to like vanilla ice cream on a cone (i.e. be SAHMs). This suited some who had a natural preference for vanilla ice cream, but many didn't particularly like vanilla and found the cone restrictive and left them vulnerable if the ice-cream fell off the cone and they had no ice cream at all. Even those who love vanilla ice cream may not want to eat it for the rest of their lives.

Then strawberry ice cream in a tub starts to appear (WOH) and some women begin to choose this as they prefer the flavour, find the tub more practical and it offers economic benefits because the strawberry ice-cream is cheaper. These women are initially shamed by the rest of society for not liking vanilla ice cream and made to feel bad for their choices.

Now, strawberry ice cream in a tub is very popular and really the only choice available to women. Vanilla is rarely available, extremely expensive and there is an element of shame associated with choosing it as it's seen as regressive. This suits those women who love strawberry ice cream but those with a desire for even some time eating vanilla ice cream feel a disenchanted and disillusioned.

I guess my point is that lots of women (and men) have nuanced preferences and don't want exclusively vanilla or strawberry ice cream for the rest of their lives. The illusion of choice is dangerous and we have a long way to go if we are serious about giving women real options when it comes to raising children.

I think it's wonderful if people can be SAHPs.
If you want to be a SAHM and you have sat down and fully planned out with your partner what you would do if you broke up in 5, 10 years time, set up payments into a private pension, set up legal protections for yourself, had a think about what impact your partner losing their job or entering a lower paid one,what economy fluctuations etc have on that plan, and have back up plans in place, what standard of living you and your kids would have AND made sure the plan is not dependent on 'my partners a great guy and a good dad so he'd definitely make sure we were looked after if we split!' - great, go for it!
But the majority of people don't, they might think briefly 'well I could go back to work and move in with my mum for a bit' - and that's not enough in a lot of cases.

Maybe you would be fine because you "have a lot of money" perhaps others are not so fortunate

I don't think it's taboo at all, more that if it's expressed as anything other than a pipe dream it's quite egotistical/ socially irresponsible to have 8 children.

It's also naive to do so without first doing a cold hard analysis of how vulnerable this makes a sahm (and usually the children too) in the case of relationship breakdown or change in financial circumstances, unless she is independently wealthy.

In the end "I'd like to be a sahm to 8 children" is a daydream in the same way as "I'd like to live on a multimillion pound luxury yacht and spend my days scuba diving and exploring tropical islands" - it's not a taboo daydream, it's just not practical for 99.9% of us.

We can't always have everything we want. I'd have liked at least one more child than I have too - it's very common but also normal not to have everything you want.

I think one parent at home with the children is actually what is best for the children and more conducive to a happy, well organised, purposeful life. I don’t think it necessarily has to be the woman.

But unfortunately, men are often shits and can’t be relied upon to be good providers or would mess up being at home with the kids. You just have to read threads on here about all the cheats or lazy arsehole SAHDs who are “great with the kids” but can’t be arsed putting on a load of washing or cleaning the toilet.

Capitalism has also contrived to require two incomes per household. It shouldn’t be like that and makes me angry.

I don’t know the answer, I think your dream sounds good and should not be outwith the realms of possibility. I am currently basically a SAHM (work one flexible day every week or so), but I know I’m vulnerable if something was to go wrong with DH. I think I could get a job again fairly quickly and do training to keep my qualifications up to date, and I love being at home with my children so I’m prepared to accept the potential difficulties for the upside of this time with them atm.

I think one parent at home with the children is actually what is best for the children and more conducive to a happy, well organised, purposeful life.

I disagree. If neither parent actively wants to stay at home with the children, then I think the kids will be better off with both parents working.

I don't think there is any inherent advantage to having a SAHP. I do think that there is a tremendous benefit to children if their parents are happy and fulfilled, whether they are WOH, SAH or whatever.

I do think there should be more state support for one parent (either) to be at home while there's a child under 3 or a relative living in the house needing care.

This is a minefield though as in countries where this is state supported to a degree (including with minimum state pension contributions paid while there is a child under 3) women's careers and earnings take a massive average hit and most women who take the 3 year break end up on track for pension poverty...

You are assuming that women in the past had choices,the same choices that you have.
They didn't.
Large families were the result of poor/ non existent contraception not choice.
Women were at the whim of their husbands,good if you husband was a kind, loving man.
Utterly grim if he was violent and selfish.
There's no taboo
Have however many children you like .
But you should be able to provide and care for them in all eventualities.
The issue is that society has to pick up the pieces if women end up with no home, income and several children to care for when these selfish men don't.

I don't find it sad at all that times have changed.

@Jadeyspade

"There is a lot of people making assumptions as well. Yes I have a child already and I love been a mummy and feel very fulfilled by this. I also am a nurse and I do enjoy my job although i mainly continue for paying the bills/ financial reasons rather than a sense of true vocation."

Ultimately the question I come back to here is, how does your husband/partner feel? Is he happy to shoulder the load of being the sole income provider (and the pressures that come with that)? Is he fulfilled by his job, and if so is he so fulfilled by it that he's prepared to take a step back on being a father to prioritise work so that you can pursue your passion?

It may be that you're fortunate enough to have married a man wealthy enough that he can easily support you plus 3 - 8 children on his income without burning out or working 24/7 and never getting to see you and his kids. For most people, that isn't an option - cutting to one income puts a lot of pressure on the person bringing in that income.