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?

Not to necessarily remain unidentifiable but to limit the posts linked with any one name.

Well yes - I do that, but Jane seems to be saying otherwise. So I am concerned that she doesn't understand how she is revealing herself/causing hilarity/comment.

billin uhum.

How could you possibly not link her posts with one name

Linked by advanced search.

How do you mean Bill?

I don't know what you're talking about, i certainly haven't been using advanced search to find her

Bill anyone searching Janes notorious previous NN (or her others), won't bring this thread up.

This is all a bit intrusive, really. I do regret posting once the thread had taken this turn. It was well-intentioned, but misjudged. I would say the same for the continuance of the topic.

Yes, you're probably right.

Sorry, that wasn't clear. I meant that frequent changing of name but not style or details was probably to limit the number of posts any one search throws up. Not saying anyone here did AS.

Anyhow, I'm uncomfortable with this whole thing so am going to stop posting now.

I don't get why we all think child care options are so dreadful and oh so harmful

All this "need to be there when my kids come home" is just falling for the patriarchal crap about good muvvers.

I live my life totally differently. We are ALL equal in my house, no-one needs to sacrifice martyr their dreams for someone else. We all love and respect each other, and our individual needs.

So, I do a job I love and would never give it up for my ds's, and they would never want me to. They are proud of what I do, interested, and their after school club 'trauma' is literally nothing in their lives, because we compromise and make sure they also get to do what they want and need to do.

I don't get this "give up everything" to look after dcs....there is literally no requirement it do this in our very advanced and supportive society.

And in summary, I do wonder a lot about why woman sacrifice ALL their own needs for their doc when there really is no need.

Yes, OP, you are being too simplistic (not to mention smug and judgmental). Your friends are educated intelligent woman who have made a choice to look after their children themselves. You make it clear that you are not prepared to sacrifice your career for your children and you seem uncomfortable with the fact that others have.

You assume that the best example to set your DD is to juggle family and work. When in fact you should encourage your daughter to reach her full potential for her own sake. Perhaps point out that a good education and qualifications will stand her in good stead for the rest of her life. Whether she chooses to be a working mother or SAHM it will mean she is never be wholly dependent on anyone as she will always be able to support herself. It gives her choice and independence.

I worked in the City for 12 years and gave it up last month to be a SAHM to my DD. It was not an easy decision; being a mother is the hardest and most relentless job I have ever done. It is also the most rewarding. In terms of having time to "laze on my arse" (as one poster sees it) the easier option, for me at least, would have been to go back to work and consign my DD to full time nursery.

I dont feel that I have set her a negative example. I would find it far harder to justify to her - when she's old enough - that I could have been around for her formative years, but prioritized money or career over her. I hope I'm setting her an example of selfless love, and that she (rather than corporate clients) benefits every day from my education.

Bill & Summer, I agree.

I have name changed but have the same posting style, views and family/work/life details. Anyone linking me to different names would get a very full picture of me.

I am not desperately trying to stay anonymous, but if someone did take against me and advance search all about me they wouldn't get everything from one name iyswim.

To make a link between nn is a bit low, but I appreciate fideline didn't mean it in a nasty way. I think Barrack has been a bit shitty though, attributing statements to Jane made under a previous nn, which may be taken out of context. (The IQ comment being one).

Ladyblah

I'm sorry but what utter tosh.
Being there for my dc when they came home from school was not for the sake of my dh as he was sometimes there too.
It was because they liked it and I enjoyed it.
Childcare isn't harmful, did somebody say it is?
For me its sub standard to what I can/could offer my dc when they were little because a parent is the best provider in our case.

So you don't criticise childcare but it's substandard. Riiiiiight.

Sahm are always far more critical of wohm on these threads on mn.

If being a sahm is about setting an example of selfless love though then I'm not sure it is good. That would be a very skewed version of real life. There is no selfless love. Having children is not an act if selflessness - far from it in fact.

Going back to something mentioned before the name change related derail...

Companies employing people working 18 hour days and who need 18 hours to get the job done (aren't just hanging about to look good for the next promotion) aren't employing enough people - that's two workloads. Not only is it bad for the individual who will likely have high stress levels, poor out of work relationships and potentially burn out. It is bad for businesses because people are less productive per hour .

One problem is that people who work hideous long hours and make many sacrifices to reach the top may not feel inclined to change things. How often do we hear "Well I'm a woman and I managed to reach the top, if others just worked hard enough/smart enough they could do it too." I certainly heard in the discussion about the sexist atmosphere of PMQs, the long hours etc in parliament a former MP (female) saying that that's just how it is, its rubbish/hard for men and women, and if you can't hack it then you shouldn't be there. (May not have been her exact words it is a while ago now).

One shouldn't have to go through what these pioneers do. Public life and career success shouldn't be limited to those who can shrug off the sexist atmosphere around them. But when token women manage to succeed in male dominated careers and industries, (often by working much harder than the average male colleague in order to prove themselves worthy), they are held up as examples of the possible.

We need to address the structural inequalities that make some workplaces hostile to people (who won't always be women) with caring (and other) responsibilities and a life outside work. Everyone should be able to have both time for work, and time for life outside work (whatever that looks like).

I love spending my time playing with my toddler, reading to him, sharing the world with him and yes, I change his nappies. Not because I'm a martyr but because on the whole it is extremely fulfilling work. I don't think anyone would question that if I was paid a decent salary to do so as a nanny/child minder/nursery nurse.

I appreciate that not all women would choose this kind of work as their day job (though most parents can't escape it the rest of the time!) but some would or would if it is for their own child who they love. It is work that needs doing and it is no less valuable because I gave birth to him and no one pays me to care for him.

I will probably be a SAHP for a while because I intend to have more children and I am considering home schooling as a possibility. But as many have alluded to, I do see that it would be wise to work on my skills and possible income streams to supplement the household income in case of a rainy day. I intend to work from home self employed around my caring responsibilities - when DS is napping or DH is home to take care of him.

I'm hoping that my dc will understand that my choice to be a sahm for 8 years was because I didn't want to miss a second of their childhood, and that I was lucky enough to have that choice, though it meant a lot of financial sacrifices. And that had I been a bigger earner than DH I would STILL have chosen to be a sahm, because despite my expensive education and good career till I had them, being a sahm just felt utterly right for me and was worth every penny pinching minute.
DH doesn't have a 6 figure salary, or anything like it, and I am now setting up my own business, and yes it's hard after a break like that to get back up to where I was before salary wise. But I'll get there!
I have made damn sure they have understood just how equally valuable both working parents and sahp are' and I think they have a well balanced view of the roles of a family.
If DH had been passionate about being a sahp I think we'd have taken it in turns to be the sahp with each child.

Random tangent - I don't think MPs get maternity pay.

spiritedwolf, entirely agree about the pioneer attitude. I was writing a project proposal and wanted to build in one of the assistant posts as part-time to suit a SAH returner or someone with dc who wanted to work less. I was advised not to, as we would not get the best person for the job, the implication being that if you were committed you would not be there part-time. I was told this by one of the senior women in our organisation.

What I don't like on your post, although you are not the only one who has done this, so apologies for singling you out, is the very loaded emotive language, that you SAH for a child that you love, and the language of escape around working etc. There is no question that WOHMs love their children. Surely your DH loves his dc?

It is funny, DD was telling me last night about her psychic abilities, so I said she could predict the lottery numbers. She said, why? We don't need to win the lottery, we are happy.

I am not going to say that is all that matters, it is not. I am doggedly continuing to work flexibly, because I am a parent with dc, and I think my organisation, which prides itself on being a thought leader, should be able to accommodate that. I do think that if people don't consciously try to change the work culture, it won't change. It just struck me that the senior woman I mentioned has a supportive dh who has picked up the childcare over the years. But I don't, so my working practices will be different.

A slightly meandering post. I need to refill my coffee, I think.

I think my point was that one can work, but still prioritise DC, and that is neither less valid as a parenting choice, nor as a work choice. It may be seen as less valid on both counts, but that brings us back to the broader issue of societal attitudes. Nothing ever changed by people doing things the same way.

"All this "need to be there when my kids come home" is just falling for the patriarchal crap about good muvvers." Yes, I agree.

On the topic of how work is worked. I moved from being employed to owning. If you can own you get more power. I am certainly encouraging the older children to pick careers where ultimately they could own rather than just work for someone as that can give you power so that if you choose later as it fits your life you can work at least partly for yourself. One reason my children had two grandparents who worked one to 79 full time and the other part time still at 85 is because they had work (engineer/doctor) which meant they could ultimately work for themselves which gives you more choices.

In the publishing part of my business I have a few people dotted around who either write for me or typeset and not just in the UK. They can fit that around whatever else they do and it can work well whether that's to ensure they keep up a very time consuming hobby or as a father or mother because they want to spend more time with a child.

I do though (and I was on Radio 4 talking about this earlier this year and also Woman's Hour) want women to be informed - to know that in most jobs when you start out and build up your credibility and indeed learn if you're only there 2 hours a day surprise surprise you don't learn as much as the surgeon on the job for longer hours. I am not a great supporter of people working when tired. I am a morning person. I try to stop work at night at reasonable hours. I try not to fix meetings which start late. Once in a while long working hours or through the night is fine but sensible employers try to ensure that is not all the time.

By the way I have never been sexist about parents at home. It can be equally as tedious, income reducing, career destroying and bad for children whether it be a man or a woman at home. You do tend to get more vitriol against working mothers (never fathers of course because husbands are saints to work so hard....) from women who don't work than vice versa but I suspect the reason for that is mothers who are out at work simply post less or don't post at all. The important piont is that we all open our eyes to the position of others which is why I post on line in various places to get to hear the views of people with whom I might disagree or never have heard from, why I've enjoyed some business travel to places like Iran and Lagos - because you hear a different view and your knowledge is ever expanded.

(Don't remember any nasty post of mine on a memorial thread! That would be very unkind.)

Right I'd better get the children up for school and look at what work emails have come in overnight.

"I don't get this "give up everything" to look after dcs....there is literally no requirement it do this in our very advanced and supportive society.

And in summary, I do wonder a lot about why woman sacrifice ALL their own needs for their doc when there really is no need."

Because some women want to. That's really all there is to it. Not everyone is like you, there is no "sacrifice", no "martyring" - some women WANT and CHOOSE to do this. You didn't - your choice, you're happy with it, it works for your family. Other people do - their choice, they're happy with it, it works for their family.

Try to expand your mind to see that not everyone wants the same as you do.

I had enjoyed picking up the dc from school, when they are little and are not yet in clubs all week, it's nice. I like the work too, so I do both.

I don't get the 'muvvas line. Why belittle? It sounds defensive.

Utterly incorrect re more vitriol against working mothers.

It is far more the other way and nastier, as if sahm really are worthless.It is also getting worse and there seems to be a carte blanche to be as utterly unpleasant as posters feel like with zero need for restraint.Not so the other way round.

The poster on the other thread referring to sahp as "spongers" is a case in point.Fide made an excellent point re how getting free childcare off grandparents is hailed as good however pooling family finances is "sponging".

There is a creeping mindset that being a sahp is utterly worthless and I find it concerning on several counts,not least because it reduces choice and can thus be seen as anti feminist.

I find some of the sneering and belittling attitudes from some wp on here akin to bullying.Thankfully you never see it in RL except in the media.