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?

Summerflower
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?

Yes he does :) I'm sorry that my post was hurtful, I thought I had been respectful. The problematic part seems to be: 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'd like to clarify that I didn't mean that every woman who loves their child ought to enjoy childcare work as their day job. I just meant that some people who wouldn't have chosen a career in childcare to look after other people's children feel differently about providing childcare during the day for their own children.

I absolutely appreciate that WOHPs love their children very much and don't see their decision to WOH as making them less valid or loving parents. And of course they do all the childcare related tasks that SAHPs do when they aren't working. I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear on that point.

SAH vs WOH is a blooming guilt minefield of a decision for parents to make emotionally themselves and involves all sorts of considerations (and often financially not a lot of choice). Its hard enough without having to justify that decision to other people.

In my case, the decision was easy/made for me. I didn't have a job/career due to ill health so we were already on a (modest, now average) single income. We would have preferred to have a SAHP anyway, as DH grew up with that and liked it, and I had two parents working full time with a large family and could see the pressure and stress of trying to do that. We aren't in a great place financially, but I feel lucky that I can take time to enjoy being a SAHP before looking at my options to further my education or skill set for employment/self-employment as my condition improves.

I think that when most people say things like "I didn't have kids to put them in childcare all week" they are reflecting their own reasoning behind SAH - that they enjoy the time with their children and would rather do the childcare themselves - and don't think about how rude and judgey that sounds about people who do use childcare or how unfair it feels to people who wish they could afford to be part-time or SAH. We can all be a bit more sensitive to the tough decisions that other families have to make about their careers/finances/children.

I think I agreed with the other points you made in your post, summerflower. :)

Gawds, foot in mouth again. I don't mean by that WOH parents don't enjoy the time they have with their children...

[I think I'll bow out now before I dig myself deeper]

Maggie

I totally agree with your point about lower incomes finding it harder to justify (if indeed they need to).
People assume you must have a high income to be a sahp, they don't believe you can manage on a low income.
I have people say to me, well its alright for you, you must be very rich.
I don't mind this assumption as it is difficult to imagine any other way it would work, but it does work and I'm not the only sahp I know where the family has a low income.

A lot of my friends are sahm on a tight budget and I have max respect for them. The finances are better without them working due to childcare (regardless of what they would want to do) and they hold everything together using very clever ways to make the cash last.

I also know some women who are rich sahm. Most had maternity and night nurses, send kids to private pre school most days from age 2-3 and have nannies on hand too.

It is them I would actually like to ask them to justify their existence if I'm very honest and really letting myself get my judgy pants on.

Sorry. I didn't phrase that well.

I don't accept that other people do have to justify their choices, even to their DC.

But, the premise of the OP is that paid work is the norm and you need to justify your deviation from the norm. Why exactly does the deviation require justifying?

For not fulfilling your intrinsic career potential? Purely one's own private business - why would you ever justify that to your DC? You've probably found a range of unpaid ways to fulfil yourself, including parenthood.

For not filling your time productively? Well presumably you have been filling it usefully in some unpaid capacity (more likely several) and besides who are these young victorian moralists you have spawned that you need to account for that to them?

So maybe it is the lack of earned income that one might feel the need to apologise the children for? It is the main reason that most people work rather than pursuing their favourite hobby, after all (and yes for some for some lucky people the career is the hobby and the hobby is the career, but not most). I am quite aware it is possible to be happy and frugal but maybe the OP doesn't so maybe that would be a question someone would ask. But in this case we are talking about wealthy people so even that question makes no sense.

So, in short, I drew a blank as to the point of the original question

There is a definite strain of thought that feminism only really helped women of the "professional classes." Their achievements and opportunities all rest on using other women as cheap labour without whom, they couldn't make it all work. Meanwhile, working class women just ended up with double the responsibilities and not much to show for it.

I haven't thought this one through properly myself. It is interesting though. Articles like this one, www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/05/19/the_business_of_feminism_star_studded_women_s_conferences_empower_the_powerful.html
do make you kind of wonder.

I don't agree that feminism has only helped professional women. Working class women can vote today - that was achieved by feminism. I hope you've all voted. I have. I have ensured all the older children have. The younger 2 did class votes at school.

Secondly if your husband does not have the right to have sex with you whether you like ot or not (there used to be no rape in marriage in English law in my life time - feminism changed that). Thirdly if you divorce and don't work you can take (steal) half his assets and have maintenance often for life - that did not used to be the law. It used to be the case many years ago that on marriage the husband owned all the money and property. Fourthly you may well get residence of your children with you. In the past fathers often could take the children in the very old days. Fifthly it used to be permitted or overlooked if a husband beat his wife. These days it's illegal. Loads and loads of changes. You don't; have to give up work when you marry now. Your income isn't lumped with his for taxation. You aren't paid half what a man is because he works. All those tens of thousands of female local council workers in the last 15 years have won bit equal pay cases. Feminism has done loads for non professional women.

steal the assets?! Taking 50% of the family assets after divorce is the very bare minimum a sahm will receive. And deserves every damn penny.
You do make me giggle Jane!

I gulped at that point too numptie. How ridiculous. My OH has only been able to earn as he does because he doesn't have to look after children or run the home.
He can come back from a two week business trip to find the children well cared for, fed adequately and the house running smoothly.

Yes, jane you are right, but most of that was achieved in first wave feminism. The critique is of mid 20th century feminism.

Lots of good examples Jane . I would add maternity rights and the option to share much more recently.
I think limiting the original OP to what do you say to your DDs is wrong. I want my sons to grow up to be feminists too and they do ask - why can't you pick me up like Tom's mum does? Daddy's job is more important than yours isn't it Mummy?
Funnily enough DP's mum was sahm but always assumed / expected I would work post kids.

But none of Jane's 'Good examples' tackle the issue of the economic viabilty of paying for childcare if you are a low-paid woman cheminotte.

Family allowances, now child benefit, was mid-20th century.

Playgroups and later, early years childcare was second wave feminism.

Not sure of the origins of childcare tax credits, but these have enabled far more women to work than previously.

In the 19th century, the mother would usually have custody to age 7, whereupon it was given to the father. Early years childcare was never a paternal responsibility.

'stealing the assets', for balance my 'd'h spent the assets on a flat in his name before anything was finalised. Enough men fiddle the finances on divorce. As pp says, many men have relied on female support to get where they are. An equitable distribution of assets is hardly stealing...simply spending the assets is.

Access to contraceptive advice - feminism.

Access to abortion - feminism

One of the highest issues for working class women was number of pregnancies at a time when giving birth was more dangerous than going down a mine.

Biggest issues, even

And in the 1930s, one fifth of maternal mortality was due to complications from illegal abortion.

But no, feminism hasn't achieved anything for the working classes. Read Letters from working women if you are in any doubt about what feminism has achieved in the last 100 years.

Apologies for multiple posts. Will step away from phone now!

I wonder how many wives wonder why there husband had children only to abandon them to go off to work. Doesn't seem to count when it's paying for them not to work

Plenty of low or non earning households have SAHPs as tax credits allows people to choose to work little or not at all at the expense of tax payers. Daft to suggest it's just high earners.

Whilst not stealing as such, I do think its unfair that the person who doesn't work gets to take half of the other persons hard worked for assets and savings upon divorce. There can't really be an army of men that can't work without having another adult in the house. Their mums must be so proud .

As for the "sponging" comment. Poor choice of words but technically true. If you don't work and are supported by your partner you rely on them for your every need, be it tamped or food.

I don't berate women who chose to stay at home. However, I think they are often missing out on a large proportion of what life can offer. And why is it disproportionately women who are missing out on this part of life?

Work can bring massive satisfaction, meaning, learning, social life, travel, experience and dare I say it, financial independence.

I genuinely don't work for money (although I do need that too) but the perspective I get from what I do helps me parent my dcs much more effectively. And before sahm's, think that is having a go and calling them closed minded etc. it is not meant in that way, it is more that independence and having something just for you helps with mindfulness, confidence and therefore parenting IMHO.

"There can't really be an army of men that can't work without having another adult in the house."

But there does need to be another adult in the house if you have children.

Work can bring massive satisfaction, meaning, learning, social life, travel, experience and dare I say it, financial independence.

I take it you're not describing call-centre work or cleaning careers?

Happy my DH has refused jobs because we could predict it would impact on time at home and for his hobbies! I had a WAHD and would not have had kids with someone whose career comes first tbh.

Sue us for not maximising the government's tax take!

"have had kids with someone whose career comes first tbh."

But many feel lucky to even have work. It's not always to do wth career, employers demand 110% and many employees have to give it just to hold on to their jobs.

My OH took one days paternity leave and never gets lunch breaks- not that he wants to work so hard but because he is holding on tight to his job.

deep I get that and my parents had close to zero choice and I know we are lucky. Happy was sympathising with put-upon spouses - who may not be! The OP on this thread was talking about those who have choice then having to justify themselves.

"Good examples' tackle the issue of the economic viabilty of paying for childcare if you are a low-paid woman"... Can we change that raound show show the deep sexism within it?
"Good examples' tackle the issue of the economic viabilty of paying for childcare if you are a low-paid man".

Why do some women think women pay for childcare. It's seems a ludicrous idea to me. If you have a penis you are just as needing of childcare. It is as much the taxi driver or male nurse requirement to find and pay for it. There are many many average earnings couples out there who earn the same and need to pay for childcare. It is not a woman's issue at all. Men need the childcare too.

It's not what happens on the ground though Jane. Low-pay work is incredibly gendered and traditionally 'female' low-pay jobs pay less then traditionally 'male' low-pay jobs.

When a couple of limited income are trying to make arrangements for the woman to return to work after maternity leave, and discovering the high cost of childcare, they are going to be making so called 'better-off calculations' rather than subscribing to MC notions of paying half of childcare each, because they can't afford to do otherwise. E.g. If they are rubbing along on £400pw, then it is just not affordable to decide that the woman will work at a £50 per week loss after childcare.