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?

Oh, I have only now tweaked who JaneParker is.

She had not (yet) mentioned lots of kids at private schools or how easy it is to make millions, so had not twigged.

Fideline - apparently someone did uncover her RL identity some while ago because there was a newspaper story on her and it was, I believe, linked on here. I can't remember too much about it because, frankly, I don't give a shit who she is - her views on women and employment never cease to rile me excessively so I ignore her posts. In fact, she is one of the reasons that I would quite like a "Hide poster" button.

No idea how I missed an outing-by-newspaper thumb! But YY to the 'hide poster' button (although it would render some threads unintelligible)

It was a few years ago, iirc. I totally agree that that level of outing is Very Bad Form though, shouldn't happen on a forum where we have anonymous NNs.

Oh, bless her, I loved X for her outspokenness. I did not agree with her at all, but her comments did help me look at my life a bit more closely. Her posts are as valid as someone saying they can SAH because they have planned their life so well. Some of the advice she gave on doing well in a man's world was fairly to the point (though God forbid that I call it a man's world ).

I think if someone challenges you, the question is why, not that they should not speak.

Oh I'm sure that the reason I felt "challenged" is because I considered that the paid job I did working in hospitals was perfectly valid, even though it didn't bring in a 6figure salary, and it fucked me RIGHT off to be told that it wasn't.

Yes summer I can't help but being fond of her blunt outspokeness (always having to curb my own )- I used to get quite irritated when it led to accusations she was male - but some of her views are really seriously below the belt.

But thumb is quite right - properly outting someone is just not on at all.

Agree on the outing, that was not my intention, just I wanted to say that in a weird way she helped me at a difficult time without knowing it, but that is probably true of this board generally

There is something nice about posting again, like getting a bit of myself back.

that was not my intention,

I didn't mean to suggest it was

And now I am off to buy myself an island cook

Summer - I think if someone challenges you, the question is why, not that they should not speak.

She doesn't challenge me as I am successful and secure in my own life. However if you say you don't want children with a certain IQ sitting in class with your children, tell posters airily that their dc are dumb/thick as two planks and many other similar names because they can't get into the top 5 private schools, airily regales readers with how she and her dc size people up at the poolside whilst on holiday and laugh at them if their swim suits are from certain stores, if that challenges you then you are welcome to her.

Well sorry if my light-hearted tease of Jane derailled the thread.

Just as we were approaching some interesting widespread agrrement too

barrack, well, I missed all that so can't comment; I was referring more to her insistence on gender equality in the house from the off. She was pretty upfront about the role her husband had played in raising her dc too. For me at the time, I was in a position of doing the lion's share of domestic stuff plus working full-time. It was that kind of forthrightness which was quite refreshing.

I personally neither care nor would know where other people's clothes come from etc, so I would tend to ignore those kind of remarks. As for schooling, there would not be vast differences in house prices and such a scramble for school places if people did not share her view, they just don't say it. (Seriously, ignore and move on? There are loads of posters who post less than palatable things, why demonise one?)

fideline, I know that was not your intention, I was just explaining. Reflecting on it, I think it is somehow remarkable that a woman is identifiable by her career path with dc, whereas a man would absolutely not be.

Well i'm glad you find her refreshing. No one has demonised her, but her comments have obviously led to some lunatic following her around the internet (didn't know anything bout that either!)which is why she is changing her NN all over the place, but she's obviously not wise enough to realise that to remain unidentifiable you need to desist from trotting out the same old crap.

Reflecting on it, I think it is somehow remarkable that a woman is identifiable by her career path with dc, whereas a man would absolutely not be.

Oh no, that really isn't the case. It's the specificity of the oversharing that makes her distinctive. It would be the same for either gender. She is actually much cagier about career details than she is about the TMI minutae of her personal and family life.

I don't voluntarily name change anywhere. I am glad we all live in a country where we can express our views. I don't like people saying above on this thread things which aren't my views and passing them off as being mine though. Eg I have never said nor hold the view that a life as a hermit on a mountain praying or washing the feet of the poor or earning £13k a year or whatever is wrong or invalid. I have never ever said that. I have often written about routes to happiness and always said that internal contentment I am lucky enough to have flows from eating in the way I do, lots of sleep, water, moving; that love and family matter.

I have said that I like selective education which is segregation by IQ and I am not the only grammar school supporter in the UK by the way..... I certainly hold the view that children often do better if mothers work full time in careers they enjoy and that working can mean you are putting your child first. I am glad I live on a planet where people hold different views and I adore it that I have 5 very different children all with very different views. If they have an opinion on something that is brilliant. It would if they were dull and boring and had no views that I would be unhappy. Difference of view, debate, disagreement combat power achievement are then things that make many women very happy, triumphing over other men and women and anyone who likes to suggest women are all lovey dovey nice as pie things in some kind of mutual appreciation fest is very sexist. Plenty of women adore ambition and power. These are human values not male values.

Yes, at that point in my life, the comments I mentioned above were refreshing barrack. Nothing wrong with that.

Loads of people overshare. The issue lies with the tracking down, though maybe we all need to be more careful.

I am slightly taken aback at the ill-feeling, I genuinely meant to be positive about a poster whose comments as detailed had helped me.
But I have no wish to derail the thread further, so I will take my own advice and move on!!

But Jane it is equally sexist to suggest women that do fall more into the traditional stereotypical roles are somehow lesser / doing something less valuable. Or the ones that do not find conflict as invigorating as yourself, are somehow false, denying their 'true' nature

People differ from each other. Women differ from other women and other men. Men differ from other men and women. We may all have similarities too, but we are all individual.

The thing is Jane/ Ms X, at times you are very gracious, sporting etc and I certainly agree with you that there is massive social pressure on women to soft soap and water down there legtimate views. But you often cross the line from bracing, through acerbic to vile . E.g. you said something completely unconscionable on a memorial threas recently that literally made me choke.

It is what makes you so identifiable and thus the NCs slightly amusing.

their ^ legitimate views

Yes, we are all individuals!

Isn't that from life of Brian

If you want to be a champion of women you are going to have to find a way of winning people over to your way of thinking through supportive and friendly advice whilst still being frank but not alienating the very women you seem to think you are championing.

Which would also help you avoid all the "involuntary" namechanges.

Sorry to hear your RL identity was revealed though. That is very disappointing.

Barrack, that's going a bit far.

Plenty of posters systematically namechange. Not to necessarily remain unidentifiable but to limit the posts linked with any one name.