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?

MrsCripps No worries.

mme how is putting oneself in a 'perillous financial situation' 'wrong'? It might be nreve-warcking or even unwise in your view, but calling it "wrong" IS a moral judgement.

Besides, taking a few years out of work and living on a husbands income, within marriage, with (for e.g.) professional quals and experience, modest savings and a mortgage (a fairly average scenario) wouldn't be a 'perillous financial situation' at all (career to return to, joint assets, protection of marriage) so it doesn't necessarily follow.

Jack In depends entirely on your family's situation. For u, it is financially viable for me not to work. It came close not to being, when my DH got made redundant for example.

However he had a pay off, we had savings (from property sales, as we bought when property was cheap and benefited from equity) and then he got another job. Also, as I have pointed out earlier, if your child has SEN, childcare is not straightforward and can be expensive. If he had not found other employment we had options, for example, we could have potentially bought a business, he could have become self employed or we could have downsized.

Jeez, if someone had swanned and blithely announced that they "strongly believed putting small children in group childcare was wrong", we'd still be scraping entrails off the ceiling.

No it's not a moral judgement. You can say this as many times as you like but it still isn't.

You're obviously struggling with the definition of wrong. It's much broader than your narrow view.

wrong (rông, r?ng)
adj.

1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.

2. a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked. b. Unfair; unjust.

1. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
2. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
3. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure
4. Not functioning properly; out of order.
5. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
6. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.

adv.

1. In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously.
2. In a wrong course or direction.
3. Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie.
4. In an unfavorable way.

n. 1. a. An unjust or injurious act. b. Something contrary to ethics or morality. 2. a. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights. b. Law A tort.

1. The condition of being in error or at fault: in the wrong.

tr.v. wronged, wrong·ing, wrongs

1. To treat unjustly or injuriously.
2. To discredit unjustly; malign.
3. To treat dishonorably; violate.

They aren't on my street Jack , but most SAHMing doesn't last decades and is managed on relatively modest incomes. People do allsorts on all budgets in many different ways for many different reasons.

I see and which of those was your intended meaning then Mme?

This thread just goes and goes!

I had a funny thought. My DH is the only earner in our family for the last 10 years. But he sees himself as financially dependent on me. Quite a few years back he took out a £400k life insurance policy on me because he was afraid of all the spiralling costs associated with raising the children, if I were to suddenly die. For him, this was a bare minimum amount. He wanted to go for more! But I told him to get a grip (he is always irrationally keen on insurance- I have to keep him away from the rental car counter ).

The SAHP is productive, just not economically active. If they weren't there, outside help would have to be employed in one form or another.

Sometimes we are individuals, sometimes we are a family unit pulling together. I don't feel demeaned in either circumstance.

Don't want to answer or still deciding Mme?

missing congratulations on choosing yourself such an intelligent husband

wrong (rông, r?ng)
adj.

1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.

2. a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked. b. Unfair; unjust.

1. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
2. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
3. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure
4. Not functioning properly; out of order.
5. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
6. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.

Come on Mme Which of these is it? How would you describe SAHMS' private financial arrangements?

Not in conformity with fact or truth? Contrary to conscience? Immoral or wicked? Unfair? Unjust? Not required? Improper? Not in accord with established usuage? Unacceptable?

Or something to do with tailoring garments?

Not going to get an answer am I?

I'm going to have to do my tax return

No, fuck off and goad someone else.

How is it goading?

I'll admit I've been persitent but only because you strolled onto the thread and goaded SAHMs then refused to either explain or apologise.

Far too much of this smug insulting shite goes on.

Scottishmummy

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

This is because divorce is costly. The men are often worse off after divorce too.

You don't have to earn 6 figures to have property, savings or investments. A relative of mine earns nowhere near that much and has 2 (although mortgaged) houses, (lives in one rents out another) and is in the process of buying a third.

Managing household finances is like a job? Eh? So a wohm managing family finances has two jobs? Everyone, whatever hours they work does household finances!

I understand what posters mean re independence, financial security etc. Dh isnt career minded at all and is taking time out with our children. I am doing everything to not let our children do that and want them to have a decent career. Dh says Im not like that though so kids dont have to be career inclined.My reasoning is dh is lucky that Im fair, share, in it for life etc and so he is able to not worry, whereas I cant choose how my children marry. Dh said yeah I see what you mean We have all gitls and I want them to be the ones in control making money, decent careers etc either them as the higher earner or with both parents working as they will have more options in life imo.

fideline - well it has pretty much been stated that not picking your child up from the school gates is wrong on this thread. What's the difference?

fideline - well it has pretty much been stated that not picking your child up from the school gates is wrong on this thread. What's the difference?

None at all pomme. I can't remember the wording of the post you mean but it was equally out of line and the poster was quite rightly taken to task for it.

(I assume you mean the one that implied parent at school gates = loving children, something like that? am multi-tasking and can't scroll back)

pommedeterre Depends on the household finances. I can see that in certain situations, if you were dealing with investments and additional properties it could be like a job.

This is not a competition between who is the most hard working, WOHP or SAHP. Some people can have additional income without doing much work for it. Some people's employment is not very difficult or involved for them. Such is life.

The problem is pomme once the insults start flying about, everyone get's cross, more sensible posters say things they wouldn't usually and the level of the debate deterioates, so i'm not just objecting on the grounds of good manners. I wish we could all agree and maintain a peace treaty.

( Peace and Love, People )

Despite my very strong views on women's financial independence I think children benefit most from happy parents. For most men and women that means men and women work. For a few parents that may mean not working and as long as they do not cost me the tax payer a single penny through that decision, then as a libertarian I would not legislate to force them to work.

hat children never want to hear if - I have laid down my life for you, I would be doing XYZ were it not for you or I slave my fingers to the bone because of you to keep you. Neither is good and that applies to mothers and fathers. These discussions will become less sexist in a few years as more and more men are staying home and 60% of graduates are female. If you earn £100k and your husband £10k it is never very likely you'll be giving up work.