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?

Yes Capsium exactly.

I was on the committee of the Outstanding pre- school many wp send their dc to,have volunteered in school and will be going to a meeting re our local library which is being dismantled- they want volunteers to keep it going.

So when Dave and co whiter on re sahp not wanting to get on he might want to remember that his "big society" kind of rests on non working people who actually do very much want to get on and are hard working.

I was the same capsium, at the school almost every day- they would phone me up if short of helpers for trips etc.

One of the valuable lessons my children have learned is how not to be dependent on employers to earn money. My children (14 and 16) earn £100-£150 a month, and have learned that from their saavy SAHM.

When I say 'idle life' I am not talking about a patent who looks after their dcs, whether it's a baby it a primary school dc.
I am talking about the very few parents who don't work but have a cleaner for the house, a nanny/after school club/whatever system and will put their own socialising/life before their dcs.

Having being a SAHM I know very well that it's not an 'idle life' when you actually do give your full attention to the dcs.

almond I don't agree with your analysis about people working longer so they have a career then.
For one technology changes so quickly now that their skills would be out of date after years being unemployed. I know mines into first career are.
Second, as a society we don't value older people which means that career advancement will always be given first to younger people.
And third at 60~70yo you will have list a lot if stamina compare to a 30yo. So when a 30yo will be happy to put more hours, do more travelling or will handle stress easily, it won't be the same for the older person.

So, develop a career between 50 and 70yo instead of your 30s? I don't think that's possible.

But Capsium you keep saying SAHP but the vast majority of carers and SAHP are women, the question is why is all this 'free' work left to women to do? Why do women bear this responsibility?

There is a lot of talk about choice but the truth is that for so many reasons choice is an illusion.

To those parents who aren't currently working - how many had a serious discussion about whether it would be the father or mother who stopped working for a while?

I hear lots of people talking about 'my choice' or 'our choice' but the decision tree was:

1. should I stop working to SAH with the kids for a while?

not

1. should one of us stop work to stay at home with the kids for a while?
2. who should it be - father or mother?

And even if it was that way round and 99% of the time people made a conscious choice that the mum should SAH then we would need to be asking why that was always the answer...

retro I agree that volunteering is essential in our society in the uk. Basically because we have a government that has decided to rely on the 'big society' whilst cutting budget and asking women to go back to work .
All these people are doing important work but are never seen as 'important' or useful.

The problem is when you do all these things, don't work but then need to go back to work for whatever reason and find that no employer is actually appreciating what you have done because you did do as a volunteer, therefore it wasn't done in a professional way.
If the issue is to explain and show to your dcs the importance of the contribution you make, then it's a different issue.

think YY to that.
Why us it always women? Why do we talk about choice when these aren't really choices, but have more to do with the pressure society puts on us? Eg mothers are better at looking after dcs than men etc...

DaVinic, I know plenty of SAHMs who have done that, including my own mother, various female university lecturers and other women who are succeeding in careers.

I entirely disagree that a thirty year old is more capable of handling stress than an older person! Why? Thirty year olds already have a load of stress from family life that work adds to. Older people have more freedom to focus on other things, including work. My youngest will be an adult in five years. I will be far less stressed and more able to travel than a parent in their thirties with a bunch of young kids.

As for technology moving on, there is no difference between somebody learning how to use a form of technology in their twenties or their fifties.
It isn't about a 'career break.' It is about starting in a new career in your fifties, as if you were twenty.

I think many of us rightly or wrongly think of women naturally as nurturers. From a historical or anthropological angle we do tend to see women repeatedly as the primary caregivers, so I am not convinced it is a modern construct.

I do know my OH is crap at looking after kids! Part of the reason I became a SAHM.

Retro
Auto enrolment in work based pension schemes are now mandatory for anyone age over 22 and who earns more than 10k per year.

I volunteered to help at school, went on trips and helped at Brownies and Guides - as a WOHP.
So did DP.
Many WOHP volunteered and were often able to bring their work skills into school- one of my friends is an Ecologist and set up a wildlife area at school with a thriving pond.
Im not sure where these things aren't seen as useful or important - although most of the people I know who volunteer do it because they enjoy and get personal satisfaction from it rather than because they need to be valued.

Think did you not read my post where I said we did just that.

There it goes again sahm having to justify their choices,the assumption that they are weak and bullied into being a sahp etc.It's insulting.

Would you ask a wm if they had had discussions re their choices?

almond I am not saying that some people can't. But most 60~70yo I know wouldn't be able to.

I've also notice that you are referring to academia. I was thinking business environment, big corporation, IT and engineering etc..,
Of course you always learn at 50! But if you have to fully retrain as a 50yo to carry on working in engineering then you would be employed as a newly graduate. Difficult to get a career going in that situation, esp if on the top you are asked to work shift or extensively travel, both if which I was asked to do.

So yes some people will be able to but I doubt that most people will.

I would say to my DDs that money is not important as long as you have enough to pay the bills and have the things that are important to you and your family. There is no glory in collating more and more money. As long as there is enough money coming in from somewhere then it is not necessary for both parents to work. They can both work if they want but if they would prefer for one parent to spend their time with their children then they should. It is not saintly to work and work until you have amassed yourself a fortune. Sometimes your time is better spent elsewhere. I would also tell my DDs and DSs that they should look at whether it would be better for them or their OH to be the SAHP. I really don't understand why people look down on those who have sacrificed a second wage to spend their time looking after their children.

I would say to my DDs that money is not important as long as you have enough to pay the bills and have the things that are important to you and your family. There is no glory in collating more and more money. As long as there is enough money coming in from somewhere then it is not necessary for both parents to work. They can both work if they want but if they would prefer for one parent to spend their time with their children then they should. It is not saintly to work and work until you have amassed yourself a fortune. Sometimes your time is better spent elsewhere. I would also tell my DDs and DSs that they should look at whether it would be better for them or their OH to be the SAHP. I really don't understand why people look down on those who have sacrificed a second wage to spend their time looking after their children.

I agree with teaching your dc that an education isn't the be all and end all if they aren't academic.
My dc have also learned the importance of not relying on an employer to provide an income and are very good at finding work themselves.
My eldest is about to buy a window cleaning round, he will do this alongside his other job and is a back up in case of redundancy. He hopes to be able to provide work for ds2 who also works full time evenings.

Actually deep I would question both a SAHM and a WOHM as to how they did their choice.
It's very easy to get influence in our decisions by people around. Some will be influenced by the 'nurturing' side of a mum. Others will be influenced by the 'you shouldn't be a weight to the society'.

As a general rule though it's women who stay at home in the uk. It's not always the case in Scandinavian countries. So it's worth asking why as a general rule things happen this way here.

retro - sorry my computer was hi-jacked so my post was waiting to go for ages and I did miss you say you made that choice.

But don't you think it is rare that this is the case?

It isn't insulting to say that structural inequality limits choices for women. It is naive to imagine that when out of 100 SAHP only 1 is a man then the 99 women making the 'choice' to stay at home are making it completely independently of external pressures, expectations and structural forces.

DaVinci The choice was partly economical, my DH has always earnt more than me. His profession is more lucrative than mine.

Although this was partly my choice. I chose to study what I did, accept the posts I did, including to be a SAHM. What can I say? I wanted to be the primary carer for my child. I could have perhaps pushed for different things but I didn't feel motivated to, I always thought being a SAHP was a valid role.

I have a friend whose DP isn't working and hasn't been for nearly 2 years. They still have childcare because he can't even conceive of the idea that he would look after his child all day. And no one (but me) thinks this is odd.

If it had been a woman the segue into being a SAHM would have been inevitable.

^I also breast fed until my DC was nearly 2, couldn't express very well and my DC would only really take milk form an (expensive) Haberman feeding bottle if I did. So this part was also easier to manage, not feeling pressured to returning to work.

DaVinci, but that is exactly the same problem that parents with young children have! Yes, some of them can combine caring responsibilities with working in IT, business, technology etc, and some can't or don't want to.

So more people would be able to have a career and financial security if we attempted to increase equality by breaking down unnecessary barriers for both working mothers of young children and for former SAHMs re-entering the work force. There will still be some individuals who can't progress in work either while young with kids, or while older without but by tackling both barriers for women we'd increase women's financial security.

I don't see the point in trying to push everyone into working when they have young kids. It just doesn't work for a lot of people and not everyone wants to do it.

Also, realistically, a woman who has kids in her twenties and is then a SAHM will re-enter the work force in her thirties or early forties, not her fifties. I was just using 50-70 to respond to a previous poster who mentioned those ages.

In which Scandinavian country are men more likely than women to have primary caring responsibilities?

As far as I was aware from UN reporting, women do most of the primary caring in every country in the world.

Think but men don't carry babies,put their bodies through shit,bf etc.We have different hormones. Yes I wanted my dc to have a parent at home but I desperately wanted to be the one doing it.Dp didn't have the same urge although he would have done it- he offered.

I do know some sahm who used childcare(nursery)- loaded ones.

Is pre-school childcare as all sahp round here use that thanks to the free hours?A few hours of pre- school in the run up to school is important.

I'm a SAHM and I made the choice for my husband to go to work so that I could be the one who stays home. He would happily stay home and be a SAHD whilst I went out to work but I'm not having any of that. I'm a better cook and a better educator for a start......
I don't know why people think that women have no choice in the matter of being a SAHM or not.

My feeling is that we as women have a greater biological imperative than men do to be primary carers.
we repeatedly in all types of families, all over the world, tribal families, extended familes, nuclear families. Even all higher primates will have a female as the primary caregiver.
I'm not saying that men can't or shouldn't but I think the ideas are even bigger than just society or culture.