Could we have a talk about perceptions of SAHP?

[ISaySteadyOn]

I am a SAHM and I am growing a little tired of what I perceive to be a large amount of negativity towards SAHP in general. Now, I learned from this board that SAHMing and feminism are not mutually exclusive which is why I am posting here. Ironically, given this board's reputation, I feel less likely to be flamed if I post here.

It seems, and please tell me I am wrong, that SAHP especially SAHM are often perceived to be braindead dependent freeloaders. The oft repeated quote' Oh, I could never be a SAHP, I have to use my brain' really hurts my feelings. This is because it suggests that the things a SAHM does don't require brain power and maybe for some it doesn't.

I am someone who is struggling with learning basic housekeeping as my parents thought that sort of thing was beneath them and juggling 3 small children as well. Maybe this sort of learning uses my brain differently than my failed attempts at academia did (and that really hurt as that is what counted in my family growing up), but does that mean it has inherently less value?

I suppose I'm wondering whether SAHPing has a negative reputation because women do it or is it primarily women who do it because it has a negative reputation?

Anyway, those are my thoughts, would love to hear some others.

duck, agreed re the commute. It's horrible! Thing is, DH and I work in opposite directions IYSWIM? Nearer his work there isn't the concentration of jobs for me, and vice versa. We've gone over every variant and keep ending up no further forward. I'd go self-employed but the red tape surrounding that is horrendous.

That's tricky then!

Have seen this happen a fair bit where we live and it's almost always women quitting or downgrading their work.

Indeed. I've already downgraded, even though I earn more FTE than DH, because academic jobs in his field are in such short supply that he has to keep the one he's got.

The other thing that massively pisses me off is seeing professional women, who got increased flexibility when their kids were young, denying it to others subsequently. I've just changed jobs; my previous (female) boss worked reduced/flexible/remote hours, but when I asked for one day a week WFH or a 4pm finish, she refused. No real business reason why. Current boss (also female) cheerfully admitted that when her kids were primary age, she finished at 3pm. I asked if I could do 5 days instead of 4, 9-3.30 instead of 9-5.15 (which wouldn't be hugely different hours total) - nope. Oh well.

Depending on your field, though, there's no reason why a downgrade is the natural progression. When we married, DP had a great job and earned far more than me. That continued until DC were born, when he was made redundant and went freelance. It was a huge shock to his ego, and having been employed for twenty years he simply didn't really 'get' the degree to which you need to network.

I already had years of experience of freelancing and a much more proactive attitude to it. Now I earn more than him, even though I work part time, as being there for DC is my top priority. I love being a WAHM; as soon as DC are home from school I stop work, unless there's a big contract to tight deadline.

Being so keen to be around for DC made me very picky. I kept raising my fees and people kept paying them. (I also diversified to include a similar field that paid well and had a steady stream of clients by word of mouth.) I refused to earn less because it meant fewer hours with DC. The result is that I have grown in confidence massively in my career, and never think twice about requesting more money or as much as men get. The strong SAHM desire I had actually helped shape my freelance career.

SlipperyJack

What would happen if you pointed out the unfairness of this to your boss.
Surely, they can't refuse flexibility if they had it themselves.

There's no way I'd stand being treated like that, having my hours determined by somebody else. I guess that's why I don't work.

newlife, they'd tell me to fuck off and that there were plenty of others who would take my place. Sadly, that's probably true. At least my current job is temporary, so I'm not stuck there indefinitely!

mrsmole, sounds like you got it well nailed! That's pretty inspiring actually.

That's great mrs molesworth.

Slippery, could you challenge the flexible work "no's" with your managers' manager or HR? Especially if it was agreed for others at the same level in the relatively recent past.

Interesting that men being the higher earner is often cited as a reason we decide to work PT or SAH yet even where women earn more before DC and/or have better financial prospects, often either the woman works less or both partners work FT. men won't risk the career hit?

Slippery

As you probably realise I know diddly squit about the workplace as even pre dc I ran my own business.
But, as Duck suggests could you not take it up with HR. I am so that in this day and age it is other women who are holding some women down. It's unforgivable really.

Duck

I think it depends on personal situations tbh. My dh didn't cut down any hours when ours were little, in fact he worked longer hours as we needed more money to pay the bills.
As the dc grew older he was able to concentrate his career in the area he wanted to work rather than just financial gain.

The legal issue is that there is only a right to request flexible working. There is no legal right to be given it and in many jobs it isn't an option.

I like MrsM think a solution for career women is to increase your rates. I have just done an hour for a client (Sat morning - teenagers only just getting up) and that was £360 from home by email. There is no need to sell yourself short as far too many women do. In fact I often tell potential clients where else to go if they cannot afford my rates.

When our children were smaller we both worked full time and their father who also taught music did weekend working as did I and we both juggled that. I would not have wanted one of us to work part time as that is financially risky in case one of us later lost our job. IT is best to spread risk. However for 20 years we both rushedh ome from work as soon as we could because like most parents we like to see our children, read them stories, tuck them into bed, supervise a bit of homework and music practice with children etc.

Then when children reach the age iof my teenagers it is all dead easy of course and if you've preserved a career you adore in the mean time you can put it as much time as you choose to it then .

For many men and women your years of highest spend are when housing you and your children and funding them. My youngest will be at university in 2 years' time. Once they have left expenses will go right down and after 30 years I just paid off the mortgage. It has been worth it. They never regret I changed 3 nappies a day not 13 but they are glad I can ensure they graduate debt free and help with purchase of a first property..... never under estimate how much children appreciate your money as much as your cuddles.

Gracia

No truer words spoken
We found that our eldest didn't want the money though and preferred to do it all himself, not accepting a penny post 16 education.
I'm not sure about ds2 yet he's still at home, but already well on the way for first deposit for his own dooer upper at 20.
No idea about dd yet as she is only 11, but she is carving out her career already and knows what she wants.
I agree that paying off the mortgages was a huge help and for us it's great as we are now deciding whether to invest in more properties with funds left when we downsize.
I think for us though we had no risk as dh wasn't employed, so could come and go as he pleased. Even music teaching in schools he was self employed and as a specialist was not easily replaced.
I still believe it's what works best for you though and there is no best or right way, but what works for you.
I didn't want to use childcare and dh didn't want to have to do work he didn't want to do. What we saved in childcare and cleaners over the years, has meant dh hasn't needed to earn so much as the dc grew older.

This is brilliant - I can't have a conversation of this scope IRL as many people just don't get it . They either tell me to suck it up and stop whining, or they tell me my children are suffering for my career. Like I said, very binary.

The thing with my female bosses is that they got their flexible working years ago, in different jobs. They now have grown up children and so are working normal hours.

I am all for choice. Money and security are not the aim of everyone. I don't want to breed clones for children but in general if you can spread your risks and for women in particular don't be financially depending on a man as (see divorce threads) they do tend to bugger off with their secretary to Thailand with all the money - or some do.

On university that's a bit of a side issue. I just wanted the children to graduate debt free as I did as my parents chose to give me the equivalent of the full grant at university. I don't like the ide aof children starting out adult life with debts. However ther eis a perfectly good opposite view that children only appreciate an education and choose a sensible degree if they know they are going to have to pay it. My daughters bought in their 20s and I provided a bit of help and am doing so for my son next year and hopefully the younger ones if I'm not dead by then. They all know there is no guarantee of that however and that my only commitment was to pay for their education - the one thing the state cannot later steal from you.

Right back to job number 3 of the day now. At least it's peaceful on Saturdays working at home.

Grazia

I totally agree about being financially dependant on a man, i wouldn't want to have taken that risk, although I am dh secretary
I don't think it's necessarily being a sahp that puts you in this position as if you are married you have far more protection.
One of our properties is in my name the other is jointly owned.
The business is in both names and we are both 50% shareholders.
Any savings are in my name too, because I have always managed the finances, it seemed obvious.

I'm with Grazia. Up your rates. Refuse to work for less. You attract better clients, who can afford you and don't quibble. You feel ultra motivated to produce good results when you are properly rewarded. you don't feel like a drudge. Obviously, not all of us can command Grazia's rates, but there's no reason we should ever command less than the going rate for men in the same profession. And if we are very good at what we do, we should charge the top going rate that men command. If we're starting out or not the best, we can get better and put our rates up as soon as we improve.

Nor should we ever work extra hours for free. I have clients who love to email me fifty times to discuss a project. I invoice for those hours at the keyboard too. They don't get an obliging nice downtrodden woman to give up her time for free. They get a business professional who charges for every 15 mins she is taken away from her kids.

this has derailed the SAHM status of the original thread, but I feel so strongly that SAHMs should be prized but aren't, not least by their own partners. the best solution is to be a PT WAHM on the top rates you can charge for what you do best. Unless you have hoards of kids, if you get organised there are hours in the day for this. It's not that SAHMs don't use their brains, but that they lose their status, and they are so economically dependent and vulnerable to the foibles of their partner. This is what I find distasteful about SAH motherhood. Making mud pies and junk modelling and helping with homework and never missing an assembly or prize day etc is the best stuff in the world.

Yes, sorry for derailing

I guess that we've all swallowed the capitalist kool-aid and therefore can't attribute value unless there is also money in the equation. Which is wrong on all accounts.

I would never say that I wanted to use my brain when defending my decision to work - that's just offensive. How do SAHPs use their brain any less than non-SAHPs? It's simply used for different things - but they are things that capitalist society deems less valuable.

I am very very pro capitalist. It's the only system that works. Capitalists have chidlren, love them, spend time with them and work. What's not to like about that kind of balance. Just about every capitalist I have even known even people on over £1m a year put at the centre of their lives and prioritise their loving relationships and children. In fact the more women earn the more they can structure their lives with choice and freedom to spend their lives as they choose.

Grazia

How can a woman who works structure their lives with choice and freedom when they are working? I don't really understand what you mean really.
I find that time is the most important commodity, and this is what enables me to structure my life to enable me to do what I want exactly when I want to do it. This surely isn't a possibility when you have to work for a certain number of hours during a day and you can't tell a client or your boss that you just fancy not working for the next month or so.
To me freedom is not being tied to a job and career.

Slippery jack, it's not capitalist per se to ensure you are financially secure without relying on your partner's income. Nor is it inherently capitalist to achieve high rates of pay to ensure you can work shorter hours. It is just good financial sense that capitalists and non capitalists alike can employ.

NewLife, couldn't you equally easily ask, how can a woman who is financially dependent on her partner structure her life with freedom and choice? I read on here so often that women have babies, leave the city, move to a village. DP commutes long hours. Woman is home alone as a SAHM with very few opportunities to earn due to rural location. To me that is self-imprisonment of a dangerous kind.

DP was all for moving to the country. I agreed to village life only if it was within easy commuting distance of London. And in a village lively enough for me to be able to generate my own income. Even when DC were tiny and we were checking out locations I researched if anyone else in my profession was in the area and whether it was the right demographic for there to be a market for what I do. For the first few years, this was immaterial. Until DC were both at school I didn't work, but as soon as they started, so did I and just as well, as DH was made redundant.

MrsMolesworth

I think each situation is unique tbh.
We moved to the stix and were semi self sufficient for about 12 years before locating back here again, to a large town.
It worked for us because it was what we wanted and certainly wouldn't have stopped my career had I wished to continue as I had the business when we initially moved there prior to dc.
I don't think I'd have picked up a normal job very easily tbh, and can see for others it would be foolhardy and indeed imprisonment of the worst kind. Our situation is that we both could have lived anywhere as our clientele is national/ international so the base really didn't matter.
My reason to stop working was purely selfish and dh to continue was purely selfish in that at times he wasn't around so much in the early days.

I was asked about why we have few senior women in our workplace. I said I thought it was all about men's opportunities and not women's. The need to dispel the fact that men work ft and need to be flexible to fly off at the drop of a hat or work long hours. Imo everyone should be seen as having the same considerations at work as to whether hours/location are possible. It shouldn't be assumed that its fine for men to do it but they need to check if a woman can (as she is assumed to have the ultimate caring responsibility for kids). Everyone should be treated the same.
Now I may be controversial but women staying at home and facilitating men to be the ultimately flexible one unfortunately add to the perpetuation of this.
I had a discussion with a (male) director about this and he agreed with me, that although it was a reverse way of looking at things it did make sense.
I am 'lucky' to have maintained a senior career (although less so than had I not had dc) and am now earning more than dh. I suggested to him that we both move to 4 days a week (him from 5, me from 3) but he says his boss won't 'let' him. Again, a lack of flex work opportunities for a man means I am the one who has to be more flexible. It's self perpetuating . Oh, and I told dh he had crap negotiating skills

mrsmole, I never said it wasn't. [Smile]

Why is "woman's work" seen as low value, though? For example, caring for children or the elderly, where paid, is paid badly. Why?

Why indeed? It is a way of making women believe the work they do is easy and unimportant. Or not really work. It's very interesting that women in wartime had to take over men's jobs and discovered that far from being the stressful, difficult day that deserved pipe and slippers and pre-bathed, silent children at the end of it, it was in fact better paced, far easier and more relaxing than being at home doing housework, cooking and childcare.