Would you leave a £250,000pa job to be a SAHM?

[misosoup]

Ok, I've changed my name for this, not quite sure why....

I really enjoy my job and it is pretty well paid but since I returned to work after having DD2 I have been thinking a lot about this.

I can afford not to work, dh's income is nothing like mine but still above average although it will clearly be a huge drop in our standard of living.

And I miss the kids do much during the day... I spend 2 hours per day with them plus weekends. There is no way I can cut my hours any more and part-time is out of the question.

But I have worked so hard to get here, against all odds. I don't want to throw it all away.

Xenia, for an obviously intelligent woman, you do talk a considerable amount of total shite...
"as someone said below it's not as if they have a single conscious memory below 5 so it's for the mother's benefit, not the child's (as long as the care parents arrange is adequate)."

er, what? yes, of course children remember things before they are five, and of course the type of care that under fives receive is crucial for their emotional, mental and psychological development, as approx. seventeen gazillion studies have shown.
have you heard of attachment, for a start?

I didn't say the type of care didn't matter. That's yet another example of me being misquoted deliberately. I said good care. Yes you need to form attachment but that can be to mother, father, grand mother and nanny. It's children stuck in orphanages that Bowlby found were damaged and possibly day nurseries where your carers change a lot.

Give me a child to the age of 7 and I will show the man or whatever the Jesuits said and I think that's so true hence most of us working and stay at home mothers put a lot of effort into our children.

May be the main oint is stay at home, yes, if you love it and really accept you're doing it for yourself, it's a selfish thing in a way because your children if you organise things right will not be one iota worse off if you do work (unless that makes you such an unhappy person you harm them). Work if you want but don't think that necessarily benefits the children either, although if otherwise you'd be very poor remember the connection between poverty and whole load of other things (and if you're working but hate it and that makes you very unhappy that could be bad for the children too). But don't be the martry and say I hate this but I'm doing it because it's necessary for my children. You'll only resent it.

teehee, quite a stir I have caused!!
how funny, as this was never my intention, I intended to give my opinion which I did and, as always on a thread like this, bits have been plucked out of context and hugely miss-interpreted and offended some people etc.

Is it so impossible to detect a little sarcasm in any of my posts? no? I am entitled come back at a poster with a hint of sarcasm with the intention of 'getting a dig in' if I feel I am being taken the piss out of (for having an opinion btw)

chill out, don't have a baby about it -you bunch of overworked stress-heads..

My salary is no where near that! However, I have also worked really hard to get to where I am and at the moment, can/will only work Saturday and Sunday because I want to stop at home with my baby.
Its a bit tricky, money wise I have to work, identity wise I am a bit confused! - I love being a mommy, but miss desperately being a confident worker.
I have decided to see motherhood as the opportunity that it obviously is and consider what other careers I would like to do in the future. Afterall, he is not going to be a baby for long and eventually, I will have more time to work or even to study, if that's what I decide to do.
As for the money, I would seriously miss that amount if that was what I was used to, however, the children are only used to what you give them, so as long as the bills are covered, you should take the pressure off yourself.

someone - was it poppet? - posted earlier that why bother having kids if you are going to work - I don't think my DH who sees the children maybe 2 weeknights before they go to bed and at weekends considers that he doesn't see enough of them. Now sometimes I might suggest just that but I think that's more to do with my having seen perhaps a little too much of them!

Isn't the bottom line that many of us have go at both, and make the best decision we can at the time, for our kids, our family life and ourselves (probably in that order).

I now work, after 10 years as a SAHM. I miss the kids massively, but really truly honestly have NO CHOICE. Actually I enjoy my time with them more, as we do stuff together.

10 years ago there was less choice. Maternity leave was 14 weeks max for me, as I had just changed job. Staying at home for a bit, turned into 4 kids.

I imagine misosoup started the post to find out how other people have made this lifechanging decision, not to be told what to do.

Lets not fight sisters. We should all at least try on each others' Asda slippers/Prada kitten heels.

As long as a family is stable, supportive and loving, it does not matter whether both or one of the parents work.
Without disrespecting the little mites, children are quite fickle and have quite short memories, unless you NEVER see them, I am sure they will not hold working against you when they are older.
It is the quality of time you spend with them, not the quantity. It doesn't hurt for them to learn a bit of responsibility from their role model parents.
Likewise, if you can afford to stay at home, fantastic! I am sure children benefit immensely from a lot of positive interaction, but again, when they are older, they won't remember every single minute of it...so why fret so much?
Do what suits your own personal circumstances. As for child care - I have visited loads of nurseries in my area and I wouldn't trust them with a dog, let a lone the most precious thing I have in my life. That's the massive deciding factor - can anyone do an equal or better job than you?

As long as a family is stable, supportive and loving, it does not matter whether both or one of the parents work.
Without disrespecting the little mites, children are quite fickle and have quite short memories, unless you NEVER see them, I am sure they will not hold working against you when they are older.
It is the quality of time you spend with them, not the quantity. It doesn't hurt for them to learn a bit of responsibility from their role model parents.
Likewise, if you can afford to stay at home, fantastic! I am sure children benefit immensely from a lot of positive interaction, but again, when they are older, they won't remember every single minute of it...so why fret so much?
Do what suits your own personal circumstances. As for child care - I have visited loads of nurseries in my area and I wouldn't trust them with a dog, let a lone the most precious thing I have in my life. That's the massive deciding factor - can anyone do an equal or better job than you?

Poppet, you knoew full well the stir you would cause and you did it intentionally. Otherwise you would not have written "(duck)", at the the end of your post which kicked all of this off.

You are rude and self-righteous. Your choices are not better than mine, and you are so very obviously not a happier person.

Xena, I like your post and I agree that it is often the mother's need that drives her to stay home. That isn't to say children don't have any needs, but just that the mother's own needs do often play a big part in her decision to be a SAHM. I think it's a fair point.

imo it is each to their own. i know plenty of people who can happily spend 24/7 with their kids and thoroughly enjoy it, but i also know plenty have much better time with their children just spending time with them at the weekends and evenings etc. some people if they had to spend all day with their kids would just be bored, the kids would pick up on this and it wouldn't be very good for them. if this is you then don't quit your job. yes everyone misses their kids, but everyone needs a time out once in a while. we all need our sanctuary whether its by going to work, or being able to leave the kids with their GPs once in a while. it really is a very personal thing. it is far more harmful to a child to stay at home with them because you think you should and not because you enjoy it. sorry its a bit long.

imo it is each to their own. i know plenty of people who can happily spend 24/7 with their kids and thoroughly enjoy it, but i also know plenty have much better time with their children just spending time with them at the weekends and evenings etc. some people if they had to spend all day with their kids would just be bored, the kids would pick up on this and it wouldn't be very good for them. if this is you then don't quit your job. yes everyone misses their kids, but everyone needs a time out once in a while. we all need our sanctuary whether its by going to work, or being able to leave the kids with their GPs once in a while. it really is a very personal thing. it is far more harmful to a child to stay at home with them because you think you should and not because you enjoy it. sorry its a bit long.

Haven't read all of this thread and know I am very old-fashioned. Will probably start a riot by saying - what about how your children feel ? Never mind whether staying at home is boring. Yes indeed, when children are little it is very tough and can be very boring. However, as parents we bring them into the world and are responsible for them. I think they have a right to as much of our time as we can manage.

I was bored and ill some of the time. I found it very tough. My solution was to be a volunteer, which led to a part-time intellectually fulfilling (and badly paid !) job. But I wouldn't swap the closeness I have to my dd or the time I have been able to give her. I know someone whose teenage children have grownn right away from her because she was never there when they were little. I think she might regret it now. No-one can ever replace those years.

I am a lot happier now - looking after a young child was the toughest and most demanding job I have ever done. Ask yourself how you might feel when you and they are older when those precious years have gone and it's too late. Now she's a secondary school I feel I've given her a firm emotional foundation and the value of being there to a child cannot ever be quantified.

Well I would certainly agree that it wan't an altruistic urge that lead to me staying at home after number 2. I worked full time from when ds was 14 mo and it was a right faff. The thought of getting two children organised and dropped off, plus the fact that the nursery fees would about equal my income, plus the hassle of organising care for one pre-school child and one school-age child once ds started school, plus having to do all the boring housework stuff at the weekends, plus really fancying studying again - all really rather selfish reasons. And I'm perfectly happy to say that.

also i know plenty of people where one parent has worked or both parents have worked and their children have turned out completely happy and "normal" i also know people where neither parent has worked and to be completely honest they ended up as little sh*ts. don't know if there is a connection just merely an observation. i also think it does depend on the child on how it all turns out, not necesarily your choice to work or not work.

Again, I go back to the point that it is not the amount of time you spend with your children, but the quality.
I visit my parents twice a week (they live over an hour away) because I am from a big family, where we live, there is noone. My baby has more fun with all the attention there than he does at home, with me on our own - mainly because routine goes out of the window.
When he is older, I will reconsider putting him into care at certain times of the week, to socialise with other children and learn things that he is not picking up from me.
I will admit as well, that whilst I miss him unbelievably when I am behind my desk, I love the adult converstion etc - when I return home, I am more excited to see my baby and believe I give him a more positive response than what I normally would on a usual day. Who cares if you are being selfish? We are not robots, we have to look after our own emotions as well.
We all love our children, but 24/7, they can't possibly fulfil every area of your personality needs...that doesn't make me a bad mother, just a normal person.

i think as well sahms shouldn't make wohms feel bad. what about single mums? if they didn't go out to work and lived off benefits everyone would have a go at them for living off benefits, but because they are single they don't have the choice to be able to stay at home and live with the aid of their partner's salary. imo single mums should have this choice too. i'd love to be able to stay at home with my child until he went to school but it is not financially possible as i get no help from his dad. i think even if i could afford to though once he was at school all day i would have to get a job cos if the child is not there you are not staying at home for your child surely?!

The debate rages on and the insults continue to fly. It's quite entertaining really, I've used up an inordinate amount of time reading through it, whilst as a full time SAHM, I suppose I should have been doing constructive activities with DC. As I said earlier, you have to be resiliant and self-reliant to be a SAHM so I'd suggest to all who feel insulted, just don't let it get to you. I haven't got time to go back through the thread, but someone suggested that SAH amounts to little more than being a glorified maid and bottom-wiper. When I challenged that, the other poster came back with a swipe along the lines that I was dissing people who actually work as maids and bottom-wipers, suggesting, could this be? that they meant no insult by summing up SAH parenting in this way. How twisted can that be? There are people on this thread who are prepared to stoop to any depths to win their argument. I find it spookily fascinating to watch ... but am busy busy busy and really must get on. No doubt someone will need their bottom wiping in the next few minutes, for all I know it could even be me ...

i agree ks
t oo much agonising ont hs htread

The debate rages on and the insults continue to fly. It's quite entertaining really, I've used up an inordinate amount of time reading through it, whilst as a full time SAHM, I suppose I should have been doing constructive activities with DC. As I said earlier, you have to be resiliant and self-reliant to be a SAHM so I'd suggest to all who feel insulted, just don't let it get to you. I haven't got time to go back through the thread, but someone suggested that SAH amounts to little more than being a glorified maid and bottom-wiper. When I challenged that, the other poster came back with a swipe along the lines that I was dissing people who actually work as maids and bottom-wipers, suggesting, could this be? that they meant no insult by summing up SAH parenting in this way. How twisted can that be? There are people on this thread who are prepared to stoop to any depths to win their argument. I find it spookily fascinating to watch ... but am busy busy busy and really must get on. No doubt someone will need their bottom wiping in the next few minutes, for all I know it could even be me ...

another point is that surely it is better to not be a sahm if you are going to end up resenting your child because of it? also i think children get a lot more stimulation from nurseries/child minders because they are doing activities all day. when you are a sahm that simply is not possible you have to fit in other things too and a lot of people if they were a sahm wouldn't do that many activities with their child. if that is the case it is probably better for that child to be stimulated elsewhere. this does not mean those people are bad mums, everyone is different and does what is appropiate for their situation.