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?

Dh and I currenyly both work full time but are around for all school pick ups, drop offs and after school. My kids arent bothered though they just want to play with their friends. I think some parents care more than the kids tbh.

Lol, how funny that out of the long post I wrote, that is the phrase you are interested in..

It jumped off the page. Very very strange choice of word.

My DC both went to nursery, nether have poor language skills or consider any of the nursery workers to be their 'pseudo-mother'. This is total claptrap and assumes that if you are a working parent you therefore never speak to or interact with your child. Utter bollocks.

But FWIW, this^ paragraph was also odd/bollocks/willful misunderstanding. How would you describe the anthropological purpose of childcare?

I feel strongly that unless more women keep their careers going and reach senior positions where you can enable change, existing patriarchic working practices will never be challenged.

And this ^ is yet another wholesale buy-in to corporate/patriarchal work patterns and extremely prescriptive.

It is very important to me. I never, ever want to be in the position I have witnessed both within my own family (although exacerbated by DV in my mothers case) and in friends. Watching women around me struggle when their marriages went wrong and they have been left with very little financially is tough. After having been out of work for so long, it can be very hard to find work post divorce.

It was also a seemingly judgemental opener to a post complaining about judgy comments.

(cunningly disguised admittedley)

It is very important to me. I never, ever want to be in the position I have witnessed both within my own family

Fair enough. Important/unimportant is entirely different from right/wrong, though.

You said 'wrong'. Why?

No wilful misunderstanding on my part - read the thread!

I don't need to Mme I've been here all along.

The PP's use of 'pseudo-mothering' was a job description of childcarers not a value judgement on WOHMs. So why are you spouting some nonsense about your DC not regarding the employees you outsource childcare to as 'pseudo-mothers'?! Of course they don't! Who said they would?

Have you read the thread properly?

I strongly believe it is wrong to be financially dependent on a man.

You still haven't explained this^

I am going on assumption no one has memory impairment,or need their own post c&p
It's odd to reproduce posts,and in bold too.bit passive aggressive
Get own with making your case without reproducing posts

Mme we are informed by our own family history that's for sure.

I live a life informed by a fear of poverty.

A quick example : I can't at a gut level understand people who will rack up debt to study an Arts subject. But I know at a logical level it's a positive choice - it is something I just couldn't do myself even when full grants were available!

For me it's not "wrong" for only one partner to earn (if there is financial stability!) but I can see why you could not feel happy with that.

I am the SAHP. My DH provides us with income. However I do have financial independence, as I look after the bulk of our savings (this makes sense economically as it utilizes my tax allowance.)

Childcare has never been entirely straightforward as my DC was Statemented with SEN. When faced with SEN childcare can be expensive, suitable childcare can be difficult to find.

Thankfully, because I was a SAHP, not having gone back to work, this was less of an issue. The Statementing process is grueling, lots of appointments, lots of aspects of it to make sure all the information is correct and action taken are appropriate. If we were a family of two working parents, well, I think something would have had to give.

It made sense for my DH to be the one that worked, as he always earnt much more than me. Yes, this is a gender stereotype but one which works for us.

As far as setting good examples, being a burden on the state etc my DC has required extra support through the education process. Someone has to give it. I fitted the bill and there has been a huge positive progression. To me this is very valid, it means a great deal. It means a child who quite easily could have failed is succeeding.

Why "wrong" to be financially dependent on a man?

1. The moral argument - it does other women and your daughters down and it ensures men continue in power across the planet.

1. The practical argument - men disappear, pay nothing and don't see or help with children -plenty of women experience this so if you stop work you are taking a massive risk with your children's futures and happiness and could be plunging them into later penury.

1. It makes for unequal unbalanced marriages where women serve and clean and men work, where there is unfairness and inequality.

1. Income is the best indicator of child outcomes so working as a mother may be one of the best things you can do. Also children thrive with seeing two parents and a carer/grandparent not with just one adult - a mother - seeing to most of their needs. Children of working parents often do better so the moral imperative on women may well be to work.

scottish have you seen the confusion that ensues when people aren't clear who is responding to what on a heated topic?

Jane Financial independence is not solely about earned income. A SAHP can have savings, investments and property, potentially.

Jane Some of those are good reasons to consider working (some of them figured in my own decision to resume work) but none of them prove Mmes insulting assertion that 'financial dependence on a man is wrong'.

I am also more than a bit dubious about points 1 and 4.

Jane

Income is the best indicator of child outcomes so working as a mother may be one of the best things you can do.

If this were true we would have been in a much easier position. Thing is you cannot buy your way out of everything.

It's precarious to not earn own money,and be dependent upon waged partner
Yes some may have own money,savings but it's not the majority
Most housewives are dependent upon waged partner,and have no independent means

The our money,family money is a false construct.its earned by the salaried partner spent on all.sometimes the responsibility to manage the money falls to female(again stereotypical role) but it's not same as earning it. Managing someone else money isn't security

And what capsium said

It's precarious to not earn own money,and be dependent upon waged partner

Even if that is wholly, straightforwardlly true scottish, 'precarious' is still not 'wrong'.

If Mme had said "it is precarious to be financially dependent...." I wouldn't have taken issue with that. Can you not see the difference?

Scottish I can't comment on those who only hold joint accounts with their husbands. I don't. We have always had separate finances.

Address your query about the post to the author mme
I'm clear on what I'm saying it's precarious and yes it reinforces patriarchy

but it's not the majority

What is the majority? I bet those women, who the OP was talking about, have property / money / investments in their own name.