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?

And yes it hasn't been a sacrifice at all, it's nice to fill a life with stuff you enjoy.

Exactly Thumbwitch. Isn't it all about a parents choice to be free to look after their own child? I actively didn't WANT to have to go out to work just to pay someone else to have all the fun with my kids that I could be having. I love being with them every day.
Surely feminism is and was all about freedom of choice, not a doctrine that all woman should work because they can work.

Retro

There is plenty of vitriol both ways. Of course you notice that directed at your choice more whilst I notice that directed at WOHMs ( "why have kids if someone else is going to raise them?" Etc) more.

Jane, I think you make an important point about being able to direct your own career, if you like, to get to the stage where you can work for yourself. I think it is important what we advise our DDs. My DD wants to be a marine biologist, not much scope for owning her own business, and I have no idea the possibility for flexible working.a
But having experienced strong opposition to my own chosen career, my inclination would be to support DDs choices and not say, well, how will that work if you have children? I would not say that to DS.

My point below was that sometimes you do have to be present and it's not sexist behaviour for the people present. Not always, it is rare to work so hard but the benefits are worth it for a few.

I also think the language about sahms is telling. Belittling things that you don't do.

I guess it's not unusual to find fault with the path you don't take.

There is plenty of vitriol both ways. Of course you notice that directed at your choice more whilst I notice that directed at WOHMs ( "why have kids if someone else is going to raise them?" Etc) more.

I don't think I've seen a remark like that since c.2008. The 'sponging' and 'bottom wiping' jibes seem to be repeated constantly on MN these days though (and I'm a WM so I doubt it is some kind of confirmation bias at work in my head).

On the other hand Jane's remark about the pursuit of power and ambition being a natural human desire sounded chilling to me; I don't think I have ever felt a second's desire for power in my life. So maybe it is differences in motivation that inform our perception rather than our current working statuses.

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

Well he was an extreme left-winger Jane which seemed to be very upsetting to you despite his recent demise.

(But I'm sorry I brought it up, let's all play nicely )

I think the thing about the pursuit of power/ambition is that we are all different; leadership is a quality as is, say, curiosity so different people bring different qualities to life. A curious person might be more interested in how things work, a leader will be more ambitious. These qualities and people should complement each other broadly in society, in an ideal world.

summer Yes I agree. I also think leadership is not straight forward. If I think I can communicate an idea, that I think is right, well, so that people take it up and this in turn affects how the leadership operates, then that is good enough for me in terms of power.

Communication is so easy these days....everybody has an audience.

No one ever really answers the question about why you would have kids if your not going to hardly see them,usually they just have a go at who ever asked it.

The why have kids line is used plenty on mumsnet - pops up on every aibu thread about sahm vs wohm.

I think the defence would be that wohm DO see their kids. There are no hard and fast rules in bringing up children, there is no guarantee that anyone will be happier 24/7 vs evening and weekends together. It is utterly simplistic and very offensive and self righteous.

I think there is more vitriol at wohm because of the nature of the post. The sahm that more than insinuate that wohm are failing their children are leveling a far harsher criticism than any 'sponger' comment could ever be seen as. Far more personal and upsetting.

Also I am a huge advocate of flexible working. My whole aim is to never sit in an open plan office for just the reason of being there (mostly because I loathe them). It's worked so far once people see the benefits.

But I know that it's possible due to the work I do, it doesn't take much to imagine that other people can't push this, and they shouldn't feel bad about it.

No one ever really answers the question about why you would have kids if your not going to hardly see them,usually they just have a go at who ever asked it.

I wonder the same thing every time every time I read/hear about any parent who barely sees their conscious child during the working week due to 12/14 hrs out of the house. Perfectly reasonable thing to wonder about hardly-there mums and dads (although difficult to phrase respectfully to ask).

'Why bother having children if you're going to work' is a rather different question and not one I have noticed on MN much, but then I tend to disregard the more outre remarks of both lunatic fringes.

The sahm that more than insinuate that wohm are failing their children are leveling a far harsher criticism than any 'sponger' comment could ever be seen as. Far more personal and upsetting.

Maybe, maybe not. I always think the saddest aspect of the sponger jibe, however, is that it is an attack on family; It smacks of individualism above all else. I'd hate to be in a family that worked like that.

It's a pity there is belittling language, prods and digs on both sides. No one is winning from it. These threads never get resolved.

Irl people are much more generous.

Hmm having read a fair few of these threads I have to say I've rarely seen "why bother having kids". I have however seen sahm having to justify their choice(just why) and reply to quite openly nasty posts by saying on the odd occasion I do it because I want to be with my kids and don't want to pay somebody else to do what I want to do myself.

I have noticed some posters openly bait such answers and twist words.

Well the constructive way to posit 'why bother...' is 'You work 80 hr weeks? Don't you find it hard that family life only happens at weekends?' (which i, for one, am geuninely curious about re. mums AND dads) but it has sod all to do with the SAHM v WOHM debate. It's more of a work-life balance issue.

The SAHM/WOHM debate has genuinely undergone a huge shift I think. In 2008ish when I first read MN, it felt very much as though WOHMing was still the beleaguered 'position'. Now I think there has been a reversal and SAHMs are the group who by default feel the need to defend themselves.

IMHO it is a completely false debate to be having at all and it would be great if we could all move onto something wider and more nuanced encompassing working patterns and practices for both genders but hey ho, maybe we'll get there eventually.

I have noticed some posters openly bait such answers and twist words.

Yes - this.

I would much prefer to do the broader issues. But people make it personal, it only takes on dig and that's the direction the thread goes.

And I didn't even realise this was the feminist section, do it better here if anywhere.

The original post was an obvious spring loaded trap for SAHM. It was loaded with:

1. How can you justify your actions?
2. Particularly, when they are such a bad example to your children
3. You are just living off a rich man

I haven't been participating in these threads since 2008, thank goodness, but this particular thread was pretty aggressive against SAHM from the start.

The original OP is not about most people's lives anyway. It goes along with the comments made by Helle Thorning-Schmidt about very highly-qualified women becoming SAHMs. It applies to a tiny proportion of the population, the sort that get over-analysed in the UK press.

I can't really see that household income level has a significant impact on the OPs question, the main thrust of which was how does a SAHM justify her decision to become and remain a SAHM? Specifically how does she justify that decision to her daughters?

It's arguable that a higher household income lessens rather than increases the need to justify, if one even accepts that there is a need to justify.

Hmmm...I'd just say they sound utterly privileged anyway thus their children will likely be aswell, so they have nothing to worry about.

The sort of things well off middle class people worry about have me in stitches.