akaemmafrosts's SAHM thread. AIBU?

[garlicbaubles]

Here it is. I have had to hide it. I keep blurting un-sisterly remarks at the posts - or, more accurately, at posters' general reluctance to observe what I consider to be blatant facts of life and an unwise sense of entitlement.

I agree with the OP.

AIBU?

Catgirl, I think your employers are on much shakier ground binning CVs from women with children but not from men with children; DH and I split time off when the kids are sick and I know a number of other professional women in financial services who do the same. Surely women with kids in your line of work tend to be more likely to have this kind of set up, given the salary levels?

It's anyone who has been out of work for a while

DH is SAHD and they would bin his CV idiots

But they are pretty sexist about who will need time off for dependents, even though they can see from me that it isn't always the woman

It's that kind of thing that makes me worried about moving jobs

I just cant see how being a sahm with no financial independence is that feminist an option. And thats not because i dont value it, of course it is valuable.

I don't think it is possible for being a SAHM to not be a risky option. Why should people on minimum wage have to subsidise that lifestyle choice in the event of divorce, death, redundancy, ill health....? For divorce, one income can rarely support two households in the way they have been used to living. These risks should be discussed at pre-marriage courses and antenatal courses so families are aware, and do what they can to protect themselves.

Srircha

No-one is saying staying at home isn't a great thing to do. Just that it can, often, leave women in a very vulnerable position and set them up for an extremely impoverished retirement if something happens - not just divorce but death, illness of the man etc. we need to sort these issues out do that women can stay at home of they wish, without taking on all the risks while the man takes none

really interesting thread. I haven't read the original thread, bar the OP which I totally agreed with.

I got pregnant with DD1 unplanned when I was 24, I was starting a masters & DP was starting a graduate medicine course. I finished my MA & have stayed at home ever since... which has left me in the pretty position of being 29 & basically in the position of a recent graduate, except with a 4 year gap on my CV. DP is now a doctor. I really, really regret making the choices I made then, but at the same time it was/is important to me to have been at home in the early years.

Being 29, I am now the age where my friends are considering having children & I sound like a maniac anti-SAHM when I go on at them about not giving up work. But I think it is a massive mistake.

Rosabud - yes, everything you said at 07:38. I'm asking whether we can consider the problem(s) from a pragmatic, feminist point of view without stumbling at the first "It's not fair!" so to speak.

I've posted a few things I think might work, or help, admittedly in a fairly pessimistic frame of mind (!) Others have also posted theirs. My chief concern is retrograde thinking, which I feel is becoming more prevalent and which leaves women exposed. I would really love this forum to be able to move towards concrete, realistic proposals that could help parents protect their financial security in a variety of circumstances.

Sorry, posting in a rush and I could simply have asked "What are your ideas?"

Garlic bauble, I admire your intention. I will try. But I have more questions!

widowWadman if maternity leave is for 3 years in Germany, does that mean that your job is open for you to return up til then?

That sounds like it might support those who have struggled to find child care or leave our very young families. Does it work like that in practice?

It doesn't solve the problems of the sahm who have not got any significant work experience before starting their families though.

I spent 10+ years working in employment law, but am currently (as of reasonably recently) a SAHM. My experience is that Catgirls description is very apt for her industry. City firms, particularly trading and banking, live in another century. It's not that representative of other employers though. They likely to be worried by long periods out of work, but more accepting of qualifications, temp jobs, volunteering as recent experience to get back into work.

I think one of the hardest things for women looking to get back into work is the lack of easily available wrap around care. I am thinking about returning to work after a couple of years at home and I just have no idea how you deal with getting back into a job with school age children. Babies were easy - I had a nanny. School covers such a small part of the day. And such a small part of the year.

Galaxy. . .it is a challenge. Many people round here choose schools on the basis of the after school clubs available, or which school a local child minder does pick ups from. I have found a child minder worked for me for school pickups and Wes relatively inexpensive.

Further up thread we noticed how the German school day is from 8-2. And in Italy they have a summer holiday of nearly 3 months.

In France school starts at 3 and must have garderies. Plus there are options for school holiday.

Maternity leave is fairly terrible though (4 months) Andretti is an expectation in many social circles that you will give up work. Some women in my circle of friends don't have their own money at all. That scares me shitless, even more do since DS arrived. I need to know that I can provide for him if (heaven forbid) anything happened to DH or we split.

Sorry most rather than must re: garderie

Leafmould "widowWadman if maternity leave is for 3 years in Germany, does that mean that your job is open for you to return up til then?"

Yep, that's the case. If it's twins, up to 5 years. Plus you can (with your employer's agreement) work up to 30 hours a week for your employer or anybody else without losing that right. I'm not sure though how long you're protected from being sacked after your return.

The whole business has to be thought through. A woman has a husband who has a very good job. Or the other way round. Or they both have very good jobs. They decide that one person stays at home. Then one partner wishes to split up. Why should the working person support the other adult.

Widow, that sounds great.

I have been thinking this through, and I think that only a limited amount of progress can be made on securing the status of SAHP while such massive inequalities exist within society.

While there are haves and have nots, men and women will use the power of having over those who haven't. We can create a tax credit system which does allow low waged parents to maintain their financial independence. We can create a more generous package of maternity rights as in Germany, we can develop child care so that more parents have access to it, but there will still be families where the wage earner has power over the SAHP.

Galaxy it isnt just city firms. I find it hard to employ people returning to work just because there are so many young graduates desperate for jobs and completely overqualified. I work in the media.

WidowWadman

So these great maternity rules in Germany are coincidental with even greater levels of resentment between WOHM and SAHM?

Ewe - But that isn't quite the same. Catgirls was describing routine binning of the CVs of people returning to work. Isn't what you are describing more just a very competitive labour market - and of course a very youth orientated sector. I haven't done a lot with media companies, but I did now a lot of advertising ones and that was a similar set up.

I have heard bad things about the German maternity leave rules actually in terms of them discouraging female participation in the labour market. It means that employers are very loath to employ women of child bearing age. What business can easily cope with someone gone for five years? And they only get about three months of paid leave. Combined with the whole 'raven mother' thing, people I've known who worked in Germany found it very, very hard.

Is it Sweden which has very strong maternity and parental laws, but the vast majority of women work in the public sector? I think it is a difficult balancing act. Allowing very long periods out of the workplace can actually work against women. It can actually force them out of the private sector and mostly into the public, creating workplace segregation and further ingrained sexism. And, of course, in most of these jurisdictions, even if leave can be shared, it is mostly women who take it. Or at least who take the majority of it.

Galaxy paid leave is between 12 and a total 14 months at 2/3 of last pay (capped at a certain level) if leave is shared between parents. 12 months if only the mother takes it, 14 if the father takes at least 2 months, too. - They can be taken consecutively or at the same time.

I quite like this model which encourages sharing of paternity/maternity leave however in reality it's still the single earner daddy model that is held in higher regard.

I think the long leave (3 years is when traditionally nursery education starts, and nursery hours are not designed to enable normal working hours) is counterproductive, and having this right to 3 years leave long increases the pressure to take it.

All in all I'm glad to be raising my children in the UK rather than over there.

Ah yes, sorry, it's four months at full pay isn't it. I'm getting my jurisdictions in a muddle. Which one is four months. Netherlands? Spain?

Pretty much the entire economic system we have now (of most people being in paid employment not just outside the home but some distance from the home) is dependent on the unpaid labour of a designated class of servants who do all the domestic work and care for all those unable to care for themselves. This class has historically been known as 'women'. And the economic model only works properly when the servant class knows its place and expects nothing but its keep.

I think the answer lies in people somehow stepping up to their responsibilities when becoming a parent.

It is just way too easy for one parent (and it is usually the man, though not always) to walk away. The courts may catch up with them eventually, but there are ways around the system.

I wish it was possible to force people to be responsible for 50% of EVERYTHING that a child needs. Whatever the relationship between the parents, once a child is born, EACH of the adults should have to provided 50%. Married couples may reach an agreement that they will trade, ie, if you work x number of hours outside the house, I will look after the child in return for the financial equivalent.

Then if something happens, both parents know their responsibilities and their rights.

Sadly, illness/unemployment/death/special needs children etc are far more 'normal' than most people believe. The number of families who just assume that they will have healthy kids, never become unemployed or too ill to work etc. I know how hard it is, but every adult really should be thinking ahead - putting money into savings, pensions etc. I do think that having welfare has made people a little blase about the possible long term effects of some of their decisions. Look at how angry people are at the idea of working beyond the age of 60. People see it as a right to retire and have a pension, when really it's not.

Having children is expensive, living is expensive, and every adult should be prepared for that.

Wow!
I thought I'd found the feminist chat forum and then read comments about sahm's having a 'childlike attitude to money' being 'naive' and that it's 'not feminist' to be a sahm.
I'll go and have another look for the feminist forum. Because it isn't here.
Unless the word 'feminism' is being very loosely interpreted here.
(but thanks to Scircha and thanks to Rosabud for the most sensible paragraph in the discussion:

However, the arguments for parents choosing not to become SAHPs are centred around economics and, as sirrachgirl says, fear and mistrust. So we are allowing parents to lose a choice over how their children are cared for because SAHPs are not valued economically or not looked after economically. We are also advising people not to be SAHPs because the system is flawed and, if divorce occurs, you will be penalised, rather than saying, we need to change things so that SAHPs are not penalised on divorce. Since when did feminism fall into the trap of arguing against something because it doesn't fit into the mould created by the patriarchy? Particularly since, as many have sadly noted here, due to the economic set up of our patriarchal scoiety, the vast majority of families will find SAHPing inevitable