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 dear, I seem to have touched nerve. Rather than aggressively seeking an answer from me, why not explain your counter argument?

Why it is right to be financially dependent on a man?

You bet?you mean you anecdotally think it may happen
The majority families don't have a 6figure earner.thats an affluent minority
And that affluent minority housewife may have named money/assett again isn't norm though

Im a SAHP my DH also provides us with an income. It made sense for him to pursue his opportunity and the increase in earning potential that came with it - so practical. But there was a time when I earned more than him, . I will not likely ever earn what he does now even if I reach the top of my new career but relatively speaking I still aim to achieve the same career success

My DS knows what is used to do (teacher) he also sees me studying, he also has chores. There is more than one way to set a good example and instil a work ethic other than showing your children how hard you work. I also tell he has to work wait for whatever while i 'do my jobs' ie cooking, laundry etc. He also see DH chipping in at weekends.

I thought being liberated meant we were free to make choices rather than be expected to fulfil a narrow number of roles.

Im not well read when it comes to feminist literature so please excuse me if this sounds silly but I want to ask anyone:

Will women who take time out to have children ever overcome some of disadvantages that it brings for some women:

Pregnancy tends not o be a time to push ahead with promotions, taking on more.
Maternity leave - more time away

I think some women fidn themselves trying to play catch up whent hey return to their job at a time when they have additinal demands of a young child on them.

I also wonder if capitlism is partylt to blame the endless wants, to pursure and succeed, or is this an adaptation of 'survival of the fittest' in modern day socities that we have created.

scottishmummy

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

Some people do this for their employment. If a wife does it, why is it less valid. As for security, it is probably easier / less costly to sack / make someone redundant than it is to divorce a wife who looks after the family money.

Arranging own domestic finances is incomparable to employment involving finances
Employment is subject to t&c and is income generating.it isn't sorting husband direct debit
It is stereotypical that housewife manages domestic finances and probably buys her husband clothes too

Oh dear, I seem to have touched nerve. Rather than aggressively seeking an answer from me, why not explain your counter argument? Why it is right to be financially dependent on a man?

Well I was the first person to take you to task for your use of the word 'wrong' Mme and I'm the higher earner in my house, so I'm not sure what nerve it is you imagine you've touched but you're certainly making yourself sound unpleasant.

And I have no idea why this should need explaining, but to address your question; Neither pooled nor segregated household finances, from one or two or several sources, are 'right' or 'wrong' - they are morally neutral.

I think everyone should do what suits them, but I wish the result was that there were equal numbers of men and women in all sorts of different roles in the workplace. The lack of women in senior positions in my professional life is something I find disappointing. I would like to work with more women as well as men. If I had any daughters I would like them to join a world where women were more visible in public life. I would like my sons to join that world too.

Scotttish Marriage is enshrined in law. This gives you the T&Cs. Income can be generated, from savings, investments and property, without earning it.

Again you are assuming stereotypes when not many people fit into the stereotype. We don't even know for sure what the stereotype is, but I am betting many SAHPs, who do this by choice have a healthy enough family income, property and perhaps some investments.

Comparable, (to employment involving finances) it is. The same it is not.

@ "Marriage is enshrined in law. This gives you the T&Cs."

Marriage confers legal rights,yes.upon divorce many women are financially less well off
If a marriage ends,the female is often then financially less well off.fact
It's minority who earn 6figures.thats fact

It really pisses me off that there is this idea that if women are interested in financial security then they are greedy and selfish or buying their way out of what ?????

However if your DH earns it then its fine !

Who are you responding to MrsCripps?

I never said it was 'morally' wrong - please don't put words in my mouth. You are implying that I think that a woman who is financially dependent is amoral. Not true. She is however in a perilous financial situation. In my view, accepting or placing yourself in that perilous situation is wrong and that is what I will teach my DC.

Women with investments, inheritance or other financial capital at their disposal are not financially dependent.

I think everyone should do what suits them, but I wish the result was that there were equal numbers of men and women in all sorts of different roles in the workplace.

YY Romann. I do also wish everyone on all sides would finally lay off the insults in the meantime.

capsium regarding the buying your way out comment.

I never said it was 'morally' wrong - please don't put words in my mouth.

Well I must have asked you four times what you meant by 'wrong'. You refused to answer and came out with the smug nonsense about having touched my (main breadwinning) nerves.

If you don't mean that it is morally 'wrong to be financially dependent on a man' than what type of 'wrong' do you mean?

I can't fathom it.

MrsCripps That is not the case, with me. I don't think women are greedy and selfish for working. I don't think women are greedy and selfish to have financial security when they are a SAHP in a marriage either. If a SAHP did not have financial security, they are equally criticized, for being a drudge / victim / unwise and doomed to lose everything in the case of divorce.

As it is, as a SAHP, I have some financial security. I am not greedy, as this benefits all my family, I am only interested in benefiting my family, as I love them and they love me.

If the buying your way out phrase refers to my post earlier, I was talking about money not being able to buy your way out of everything, as money would not have bought our way out of the issues surrounding my DC's SEN.

^because JaneParker said,

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

Come on Mme. Your original insult assertion was;

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

For someone who strongly holds a belief, you are awfully cagey about what the belief is.

No I'm not, I stated it clearly in my last post. The only one badgering me about it is you.

Still haven't seen a counter argument as it why it is right?

I answered you in my post at 10.13.21 ; not right or wrong; neutral.

capsium - the first bit of my post wasn't aimed at you( or anyone in particular) - sorry if it came across that way!

Oh ffs. Where are all these people who can afford to stay at home and not work forevermore?

Surely this applies to a very small minority?

Don't most of us HAVE to work to...er...y'know SURVIVE?