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?

Scarlett yes, now sorted, thankfully.

It was difficult to negotiate at the time though. My DC had started school, had a Statutory assessment, received Statement, with funding, you'd think it would be sorted. However there was 'flexible' schooling ie. part time for the first year and all the 'required' 'volunteering'. I put up with it for a time because after sorting out all the appointments, statutory assessment, Statement etc I could not face tackling this as well for a while. I ended up tackling one thing at a time as my DC progressed. This was also made easier by the fact I did volunteer and I could observe how he coped, which was well. I always took groups, was not 1 to 1 with my DC or a passive observer, which meant I had ammunition, so to speak ( he had funding for 1 to 1)

Regarding not seeing what the WOHPs do in terms of volunteering and them not seeing what the SAHPs do, I think this can be true. I refused a lot of the PTA events, which did not go down well with some, but I really felt like I did enough.

There is sa private/state school difference though. State schools have more parents coming in to help. Women who work are more likely to be able to afford to pay school fees and those schools have enough teachers and support without needing parents coming in. I almost pay in part to ensure the school can get on with it.

In your circles Jane.

I am surrounded by working mothers,not one can afford private education and all use state(even the more wealthy ones).Interestingly the friends I have who do use private have a sahp. They either have wealth aside from work or are mortgage/rent free due to life pre-dc.

The private schools near us have many parents unable to keep fees going bailing into state.When you consider that fees for one are well over the cost of a year's mortgage payments it's hardly surprising.

It's clear several,posters on MN not only have a very limited view of what many mothers actually want they actually have no idea of reality for the majority as regards childcare,work and schooling.

Jane, the Private schools in our area were not preferable in terms of what they could offer. When you are faced with SEN, Statements, 1 to 1 support etc, things get more complicated.

Agree with Retro. I earn a pretty decent wage, as does my husband, but it is not nearly enough to put two kids to private school and have money to do other things.

Working parents come with many different income levels!

I do see the point about the paying of fees meaning that there is far less parent involvement though. I'd have been really hacked off if the nursery/after school club (which I paid for) asked me to give my time to help them out - whereas I am more inclined to help out at school because I am not paying for the service (iyswim).

Re. the SEN issue - five (5!) DC from our circle have at various points over the years been entirely without school places, usually during the statementing process, normally for a term or two, but one young chap we know lost almost five terms (!) of education while statementing happened than slow grind through tribunal. Even more frequent are the PT attendance patterns or slow phased integrations - i've just tried to count the families I know who have experienced this and given up, yet i'd never heard of it until my DC had an autism diagnosis. It's a different universe (with rare and expensive childcare).

I somethimes forget now that all this ^ was what forced me into freelancing, because DC have progressed and I'm really happy work-wise, but there literally was no other choice. And we're really not a rarity.

Yet I really get the feeling that the WOHMing militants don't believe in the existence of families like mine.

I don't think phrases like WOHM militants help anyone. I think everyone on this thread has acknowledged the challenges of SN children - haven't they? I hope so.

All children have 2 parents, SN or not. So why is it always the mum who has to give up work/go freelance/change her life to fit? Usually the answer is because the dad earns more. Why is this, do we think?

ithaka I think the answer to your question is that certain sectors, often male dominated, earn more and that flexible, family friendly, working practices, as an employee, in these well remunerated sectors, are rare.

Both DH and myself moved away from extended family also, so this was also a factor, for us. Many working parents can fall back on family help.

Tbh I never had the drive to work for a company as demanding as one if the companies DH worked for, for a while. Just looking at the medical questionnaires they had to fill out for their yearly medical, had me reeling (everything from diet to posture was scrutinised). He's been called up whilst we've been on holiday (the time in the 90s skiing was interesting when he was asked about contactivity).

I was glad to have the 'lesser' career path.

I was trying to differntiate the (handful of) hardliners from the mere evangelists ithaka and was in any case being tongue in cheek.

And in my case it was because 'dad' had cracked under the pressure and taken himself off on a casino tour to gamble away his half off the divorce, since you ask. Not an uncommon story either (dads of SN child not coping and/or divorce, that is, not necesarrily gambling ).

You cannot generalise or legislate for the breadth of human experience particularly as good luck often breeds good luck and vice versa.

necessarily^

And the thing about 'we have all acknowledged the challenges of SN children' is that it pigeon holes SAHPs of children with SNs as 'exceptions' to the rules. I have had enough of this with my DC. If society was more inclusive generally, made reasonable adjustments for differing needs, which everybody has, we need not be treated as exceptions.

My DC really is not that unusual. There were some 'developmental delays', but not uncommon ones, and some areas where he was far ahead if his peers. It balanced out. The spikiness has evened out, there has been a huge progression.

If early education was different, maybe less early, we might not have had the same difficulties.

I don't think as a SAHP, who is content with being so, I am that unusual either.

YY @ capsium

You're not a Ukipper are you ithaka?

What an odd question Fideline, why would you ask that?

Oh missed this.

Because you seem to think DC/people with SEN/disabilities (and their families) are somehow 'other' and separate and that the mainstream debate doesn't/shouldn't spply to us.

We are just people/parents/children like anyone else. Working patterns and practices should be inclusive.

You obviously skimmed over my point about all children, SN or not, having 2 parents - plainly that did not fit your agenda, as for some odd reason of your own you want to paint me as oblivious and uncaring about people with SN.

You know nothing about me, so back off with your ignorant and offensive assumptions.

Yes, this is utterly at the heart of it as asked above - whey is it just because you don't have a penis you sacrifice your all on the altar of caring for his children, his parents, his house? What is so special about men that women serve them and women get to be the one lumbered at home?

Ah sorry I knew you had drawn a strange conclusion ithaka but it was the one about volunteering wasn't it? Apologies - i've confused two posters.

ihaka I made the initial point re. wanting more inclusion. It wad just in reference to you saying,

I think everyone on this thread has acknowledged the challenges of SN children - haven't they? I hope so.

I wasn't really trying to nit pick. It was more a general comment on the way people frequently saying being a SAHP to a child with SNs is an exception to the norm, can be regarded differently to parents who SAHP for other reasons. I don't really want to have to be regarded as an exception. The way educational and work practices are, currently, can make parenting a child with SNs doubly difficult. When people criticise SAHPs for not contributing to society, or doing anything worthwhile, you have to try very hard not to be offended.

JaneParker my DC is mine, as well as my husband's. Our house is also jointly owned, we have a joint mortgage.

I am not lumbered either. I enjoy spending time with my DC.

As far as the educational and SN stuff goes, I also had a head start understanding the ins and outs of it all, having studied Child Development, Learning Theory, Language Acquisition and Educational Theory as part of my degree course at university. I wanted to be a SAHP and my husband's profession is more lucrative.

The issues I think that SNs bring up that cross over into feminist ones are, when the mother is the SAHP:

An educational system that requires huge parental input to be adequate.

Inflexible working practices, which do not allow a parent to support a child's education.

Members of the teaching profession who seem to think teaching children with SEN should not be part of their role and rely on parents to fill the gaps.

Thank you for the apology Fideline. Reading people's posts before you make unpleasant comments about them would save much upset and offence.

YY capsium

There is a dictatorial theme from some posters here and elsewhere which says;

"You must energetically pursue a conventional career, exhibit maximum ambition, doggedly pursue promotions and payrises, compete with your male peers for status, butt your head against any glass obstacles - because all these things have intrinsic value; You must maintain total financial independence; You must make no compromise for parenthood; It is wrong to be a SAHM; It is wrong to value intangibles; You should reject anything tainted as being traditionally female; It is wrong to go PT; We will only give you a free pass on these diktats if you have an acceptable alibi such as child with a disability"

Consciously rejecting ALL aspects of life that were traditionally female domains in order to pursue (and succeed in) traditionally male ones, is STILL allowing one's life to be ruled by the (historic) gender divide. It is Uncle Tom - like. Far more radical to reject the (male-written) rules of the game and make decisions that are truly our own.

Far more radical to reject the (male-written) rules of the game and make decisions that are truly our own.

Tbh, I find it very difficult to make any other type of decision, sleepless nights, if I attempt to, not worth it.

I do think when there are overly rigid rules, of what is acceptable, requiring long lists of exceptions, it is indicative of not being very inclusive.

Feminism should be about supporting women, not diminishing them and their contribution to society.

So why does the husband earn more? Is he brighter? Are boys pushed into better earning careers? Do women marry up to a man who they regard as better than they are? Do their sexist families say - girl low earning job, boy go into high earning one? Why do so many couples end up with woman giving up work as her husband earns so much more and how can we change that to make life better for women?

Jane, the differential doesn't have to be "so much" - if both are in jobs where the cost of childcare is comparable to the after tax take home making childcare uneconomic, at least in the short term... Then even a small difference is likely to be important.

Far more radical to reject the (male-written) rules of the game and make decisions that are truly our own.

Yup, the truly radical thing would be for men to give up their economic independence to raise their kids.

I've always said, if being SAHM was so great, men would do it.

Anyhow, this thread started asking about women who stay at home when their children are old enough not to need them. There was some dissension about when is 'old enough', but I think we can all agree that when your children have grown up left home, they no longer need a SAHM.