Justifying long term SAHM to DDs?

[whenwilltherebegoodnews]

I have a few friends who, because their DHs are high (6 figure) earners, are able to be SAHMs, and have no intention of ever returning to work. These women are all at least degree educated and previously had successful careers.

I just wonder, in such a situation, how a long term SAHM encourages her DD to realise her academic/career potential, if the example she sets is that her education is only a short term requirement until she meets a high earning man?

I'm not trying to start a bun fight, I'm genuinely interested. My own mother is university educated, and has always worked in some capacity, successfully managing her own businesses with being the main carer, and encouraged me to be financially independent.

Personally, I feel I have invested too many years, and too much money, in my education and career to give it up forever after only 10-15 years. I like to think I am setting a good example to my DD that career and family are not mutually exclusive.

So how does a long term SAHM reconcile this? Am I thinking too simplistically?

I agee Mmm - it does depend on personality. However saying that you can make him a Lemsip or passing the sick bucket doesnt really justify staying at home forever does it?

What seems to be indicated by some is that their partner is paying their tax (!!) and if the relationship breaks down - well they can always go on benefits...

There doesnt seem to be any thought given to the fact that they are relying on either one person to fund their lifestyle or the government.

squizita, I struck out "raise" and replaced it with "stay at home with" because I realised it sounded like I was saying working parents don't 'raise' their children - which of course, was not my intention.

I don't have DDs, and I am no longer a SAHM, so I can't really answer the OP.

However, my Mother was a SAHM - my Dad earned a good salary and she didn't think that she should work. She thought it would be beneath her, or would be perceived negatively by her friends and acquaintances. She was a complete snob. She was also very bored and unfulfilled. Yes, she did keep the house tidy (with a cleaner) and the garden was immaculate, and we always had a cooked meal...but she didn't do a lot else. Never collected us from school, took us to activities. She was odd and had a lot of issues.

So my point is that my experience was quite different from the wonderful world of SAHM as portrayed (probably very accurately) by many posters.

I have a good education and choose to work. I had 3 years off (2 children) and was well and truely ready to go back to work. I was bored. If I had DDs I would tell them the same as my sons...get a good education and you will have options. I would expect that they would probably want to work in a career that they find interesting...and the education opens the door to the interesting career.

I took 6 months off when I had DC2. Partly for medical reasons. It didn't harm my career at all. For DC 3 I was working in US and only got 12 weeks. I've made various career choices since then to fit my family circumstances and have no doubt that this has limited my options although I still fall comfortably in the earnings bracket set out by OP. To me, those were sensible balanced decisions which enable me to be pretty flexible. As a result of my decisions others - male as well as female - in my organisation have been able to do the same since I set a successful precedent. People who think working parents have to be in an office 9-5 5 days a week are out of touch with the way the world of work is changing. It's a shame. If we show others , especially our kids, that demanding things be different can work, then things can improve for everyone.

If we show others , especially our kids, that demanding things be different can work, then things can improve for everyone.

Yay!

Sabrina Sorry, my bad. I misunderstood entirely. :)

Its fabulous coming home to the smells of home cooked food but its even better if your 16 year old has the life skills to be the one providing it

I find it curious that SAHPs are advised not to make a virtue out of SAH if they do so primarily because of financial necessity, and yet WOH is very often presented as being a virtue, despite also usually being a financial necessity.

Personally I am of the 'work to live' not 'live to work' mindset. I appreciate that for some people their careers are a vocation and they feel differently but large numbers of people do work which they could not and would not do if it was unpaid.

This is not to say that there can't be benefits to paid employment other than the wage. Some work has intrinsic value, it may be stimulating, challenging, sociable. Maybe work has helped you gain new skills or knowledge which you value. Maybe it helps other people and you can see that it is helping to make the world in small part a better place.

On the other hand, there are plenty of jobs which do none of these things. They need doing, or are profitable to someone to be done, but they aren't fulfilling beyond the value of having a paid job which gives one money to do other things.

And of course the benefits (other than income) of a paid job can be achieved by doing unpaid work or by other means.

Whilst women ought to have the same job opportunities and pay as men, I don't think that the desired goal of that should be to have two adults both working hugely long hours just to be able to afford the basics of life. I don't think that work is that virtuous. I think we should be trying to bring down the cost of living and increase flexible working so that women AND men have more choices about their work/life balance. There ought to be room in people's lives for unpaid work because it is not valueless. Parenting, caring, volunteering, learning, gaining skills, creating etc should have value in society, because they are important.

Not that I should need to say it in the feminist section, but of course educating women is still important if they don't do paid work for a period of time, even a long period of time. It gives them choices and helps them in the unpaid work they do, which society at large benefits from.

Morethan - of course one must do what makes them happy, there are many ocassions where I have cursed work and my inability to attend something at the school in the middle of the day but between us we manage. I have a supportive DH who does as much as me around the house and I know that is unusual. TBH - if he hadnt had been like this I would probably not had children.

However as a women I am supporting myself and contributing to the economy. Why some seem to think their choice isnt funded by 'someone' is puzzling.

No problem, squizita. I dislike arguments that pit women against other women intensely, and normally steer well clear of them. This one was in FWR, where I normally hang out though.

Thinkaboutit Yes, my DH has had (women as well as men) laugh in his face. Why? Because when he was a lad his dad worked shifts ending about 4am. He would then sleep until early afternoon, so as far as DH was concerned upon returning from school, he had a SAHD. He thinks of this as normal. His mum was a SAHM (very community/church involved so often out in the evenings) and therefore his 'normal' is quite different to the norm it seems.

Other people have said the most awful offensive things about this being weird when he talks about this being a great childhood. Why? Logically, it sounds wonderful (if only it were possible for us) for their whole family!

But it's 'different'. So his mum was 'bad' for having hobbies in the evening and his dad 'weird' for cooking dinner and pushing the hoover round.

squizita, you are attacking me on a point I have not made.

I don't say SAHM is golden or idealised or the best way, just say how it has evolved. I am not talking about victorian times or work houses or mills. I am talking about the fact we are mammals (so historical in as : since we exist, not since the advent of modern society).

I don't think women should stay at home,a nd neither did I say that anywhere.

I do think (office) careers/work in general are overrated. This is true for men and women. And unpaid work (looking after your own kids) is under appreciated.

This is illustrated by some posters saying you are not worth anything in society unless you pay tax.

I am not using an "it's natural" argument to say women should stay at home. I am also not saying that women should stay at home (where have I said that?). I was just responding to a poster saying she is baffled as to why it is so often the woman staying at home.

I don't find this baffling, I can see how this happens (this does not mean this is how I want things to be, can you appreciate the difference?)

Surely if all women stayed at home the country would be bankrupt. Someone has to pay for the NHS, schooling etc.

I find it curious that SAHPs are advised not to make a virtue out of SAH if they do so primarily because of financial necessity, and yet WOH is very often presented as being a virtue, despite also usually being a financial necessity.

This is interesting because it may be my cultural background (as well as some comments online) but I find the assumption to be SAHM= great mum, wonderful! and WM= poor thing, has to do so to make ends meet OR she's an unnatural child-neglecter.
The assumption seems to be win the lotto = give up work in a flash.

On a personal level sits uncomfortably with me as too simple because of the nature of my job - as mentioned before, it's within the 'caring' professions and in my experience many colleagues have masses of moral purpose because they are mums and want to make society better for their DCs.

Just the casual "if you had a 6 figure income, you'd quit" type assumption.
Or the "but your DCs will be cold, lonely, raised in a badly run creche' assumption.

This may well be cultural though. I come from quite a Catholic/traditional background.

Brave thanks for clarifying - for some reason it came up on its own not in the context of a reply. :)

Well handcream though it is unpalatable to me as a feminist the argument that women entering the workforce has driven down pay is fairly strong. If you double the number of workers available employers will take advantage of it and drive wages and therefore taxes payable on those wages down.

handcream, most women don't have a choice, really.

I think most women have to work, no? Not many families can live of one income these days.

If I did not work we could not even pay basic bills.

How many women stay at home their entire working life?

*What seems to be indicated by some is that their partner is paying their tax (!!) and if the relationship breaks down - well they can always go on benefits...

There doesn't seem to be any thought given to the fact that they are relying on either one person to fund their lifestyle or the government.*

The husband pays more tax, being a sole high earner, over the 40% tax threshold than a dual income family, whose combined wage would be way over the 40% threshold but whose individual wages are not. Simple. Also this situation affects being able to claim for tax credits and family allowance. So effectively more tax is being by the husband, on a single wage, which balances out the lower tax rate of the dual income family.

In my own situation, although my DC had a Statement of SEN and received part time schooling for some time, I never claimed DLA. Mainly because, I saw the SEN as temporary (others did not) and something that affected mainly schooling. I did not see the Statement and extra funding, the school received, as something that would be received for the whole of the time spent in school and my aim was for my DC to progress far enough for SEN not to be an issue. The Statement has been ceased - so we are well on our way. So this involved really focusing and building on successes, which is difficult to do if you are trying to claim DLA (to claim you have to prove how disability adversely affects your life). I fully appreciate some people rely on this benefit for income, but we did not need to, which I consider a luxury, so did not cost the Government that. I am thankful for this.

So as for costing the government more? Not sure about that one....if my DC had not progressed, my DC would have cost the government much much more. I have had to be very involved in supporting the education my DC received.

Our first point of call when my DH was made redundant was for him to get another job. Lived off the payout in the meantime. If he had not got one the options were to down size / maybe buy a business, which we could run ourselves - which we could have done. Not the Benefit Office...

I don't think I do cost the Government more.

I can see the point if the OP as to what to say to a dd.

I gave a job that is unusual and not well 'respected' even though it was taught at master degree level. I am self employed which means that I can juggle a bit my hours and make them fit what works best for us as a family.
However the influence if school means that I gave to 'fight' so that my work is recognised the same way than the one DH does, a more 'normal' standard and fully recognised job, even if his education was 'less' than mine.

In the same way, defending the idea that women aren't the only ones that should do hw or look after the dcs IS hard, even though both of them can see DH been very involved both in HW and parenting....
I found that having strong arguments as to why I do work like I am, why I don't work two days a week, why DH dies do a lot if he and why it's normal etc.....
I would imagine that to be even more true if I had a dd.

Explaining why education is important, why you have made and putting into perspective within the family dynamics, what is possible it not and more importantly putting it into the perspective of the equality of genders.
But you need strong arguments and to be fully convinced by them if you want it to have an impact.

Think -Or immgration will do that... tin hat at the ready....

Speaking as someone whose DH does earn well over 100K, its funny, its a lot of money but all allocated to various dreams that we have for your family. We have no debts bar the mortgage, however I like the nice holidays, I like my children going to schools that bring the very best out of them, I like having a nice car, not having to worry about losing my job (and if I did getting a big pay off because of my age and grade).

You do IMHO grow into your income and things that previously were not possible suddenly become possible.

Having said that - would I want to win the lotery - no - not really. You see what 50 million does to people. 1 million would be enough for me to pay off the mortgage, have nice hols a few times a year and see the chidlren through the rest of their private education. I would still work though.

My mum was a sahm,I totally respect and am grateful got her choices.I never rem the need for her to have a strong argument.My sister and I both got degrees and careers and worked at school.Education and qualifications have always been highly regarded in our family.

My dsis is the main breadwinner and successful in her career.At the moment she desperately wants more time with her dc.

Hey ho at least dd will have a good role model in order to counter effect having a wastrel as a mother.Does the good role model crown get taken away if dsis gives up work any time in the future?

I like nice schools that get the best out of my dc(you don't need 100k to favour that),not interested in fancy cars or holidays(although I'd like to travel with the kids more). We make the best of what we've got.In some ways I'm glad my dc are having to work hard and don't get luxuries handed on a plate.

Retrospear

Hey ho at least dd will have a good role model in order to counter effect having a wastrel as a mother.Does the good role model crown get taken away if dsis gives up work any time in the future?

Yes this is the thing I hate about these sorts of conversations. SAHMs are made to feel they are a drain on society. Never mind that there can be SNs, SENs, illness, caring roles, volunteering, added in to the mix.

It seems to me that some can be very smug about the employment they do, which is paid. Because the work I do is not paid to me in a salary, is it really less valuable?

^....Good job I don't think so or I would be in a very sorry state....