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?

Impatient I think sometimes when you feel strongly motivated in a particular direction the choice element seems so obvious it does not seem like a real choice, IYSWIM. Like would you choose to rescue your child from a burning building? Choice can be there but we act almost instinctively sometimes...(i say almost because I believe a lot goes into instinct...)

Capsicum - perhaps that is right as I have a vocational degree and could easily switch roles with my husband and earn just as much as him but I am happy in the SAHM role and don't think that anybody else could provide the full time care role as well as I do. I would constantly be questioning the ability of anybody else to fill my current role. I am motivated to provide the main care for my children so: off to work my husband must go.

I think you are right Capsium. Staying at home was a very instinctive choice. I could have gone bacK to work,( told my boss I would be off just 6 weeks), my OH could have been a SAHD, but when my baby came I had a deep burning desire to nurture myself.
Nothing else would have felt right. It didn't in the end come down to practicalities, although we had to make changes to allow that to happen.

Thanks for suggesting the Fawcett Society.i looked at the response to the chancellor's 2013 budget. The stats are pretty shocking for women.

On one hand the government does not provide jobs nor childcare, on the other it reduces welfare entitlements.

*“Ahead of this budget, Fawcett was clear we urgently needed to see much greater action on the 25 year high in women’s unemployment – 1.08 million women can’t find work. This can be attributed in large part to dramatic public spending cuts that are also seeing women bear 74 per cent of the cost to reductions in welfare support.

• See more at: www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/the-fawcett-societys-immediate-response-to-the-chancellors-2013-budget-statement/#sthash.tx2io2Cq.dpuf*

I always thought being a SAHP was a valid role.

It is a very valid role. Children will only be children once so you only get one chance to raise them successfully. Some people choose to work whilst raising their children whilst others choose to have a SAHP and either is fine as long as the children are happy and thriving. But for me, I can provide better care than anybody else so why would I choose to mess up this one chance by working outside of the home and accepting substandard care for my children?
I dont know why some people don't see SAHP as a valid role because I personally don't think there is a more valid role.

Why would care outside the home be sub-standard?

So few women EBF in the Uk so Im not sure why its being used as a reason to SAH.
A years maternity leave plus annual leave on top means that very few women return to work with tiny babies BF anymore ( unless some posters are in US)

MrsCripps I do not consider nearly 2 EBF. Just speaking from personal experiences. My child breast fed well, weaning took a while...

Handcream as far as I'm concerned nobody could look after my dc as well as I could(aside from dp and my mum).

My feeling is that we as women have a greater biological imperative than men do to be primary carers

I'd be interested to see any research on this as it sounds right intuitively but I'm not sure how much this impression is actually shaped by the gender bias in society.

The trouble is that it sounds horribly close to 'a woman's place is in the home'

...and when I had my DC the maternity leave was not a full year then....

YY to Impatient's last post- with bells on.

Mine were well over 2 capsium - I didn't say that WOHP automatically stop when they go back to work.

Thinkaboutit, I agree but perhaps it's because of the patriarchy we live in that undervalues caring in general.

We live in a greedy thrusting male dominated society where wealth is elevated above all else. It's this construction that devalues the status of women at home looking after children.

Think sooooo carrying your dc for 9 months and having monthly hormones connected to having babies aren't going to have an impact re wanting to be with your dc in comparison to men.

Not as far as I'm concerned, retro. I have no emotional linkage between my periods and my children.

I agree with the others- no-one could look after my children as well as I could.

How do periods bond you to your DC ?
I didn't have any for ages it was great as was EBF - so am it a bit

Well sorry I ain't being buying the poor downtrodden woman bullied into being a Sahp either.Every sahm I know wanted to very one- a lot.I also know a lot of wm who desperately want more time with their dc and would trade in a heartbeat.

I hope no one is bullied into being an SAHM; there are cultural norms around which gender parent it is, though, as there are around various professions.

Deep, many people look after my kids better than me, including their dad - lots of people are more patient and inventive than me.

I'm kickass at maths homework though

handcream

I believe that care outside my home would be sub standard to because I like to do things my way and believe a parent (or these parents) in our case are the best to care for their children.
Some people don't want to be a sahp that's fine but others really embrace it and treat it as their vocation.

My experience is identical to deepinthewoods.
If for some reason I had to woh then of course I would, but like I said before I'd move heaven and earth to not have to.

I doubt there are many being bullied into being a SAHM, i suspect there are a lot of men bullied into working to fund their partners choice. MN seems to only have spouses of SAHMs who love their job and wouldnt quit for all the tea in china

I'm not sure where the construct comes from but it feels very topsy turvy. The 1950's 'valued' the role of women at home bringing up children. I value choice and can't escape the feeling that the more motherhood is lauded and the caring role of women celebrated the less scope there is for me to have an education and a career and a life as a mother outside the home.

My care is better than others because no-one does it with as much love.

Especially those paid to care. My toddlers with given affection and love all though the day, a kiss on the head being strapped into a car seat, being told how much they are loved as they drift off to sleep on my lap with a story. Days with my LOs were punctuated by loving affirmation. Something I wanted my children to be immersed in as they grew.

I worked hard for 23 years before having my DC. I had a good career and I put myself through university working every available opportunity to afford it. As an older mother and in agreement with DH, I was more than ready to give up work and focus on the children. My kids know about my previous career and the importance of education. However they also appreciate the fact that I am there for them all the time - sports days, school presentations, helping out on school trips etc. and I am loving it!