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.

Male? Not sure. I find work fun and childcare very boring. I don't think that's male or female. I quite like the things money can buy. Some women and men do and others don't. I am not sure those are male or female things.

Poppett one thing we share is addiction to this thread - group therapy needed perhaps. I can offer the service for a fee - another business/service you don't need any qualifications for in the UK.

School fees - afraid once yo utake 41% tax off £50k you don't have much change for school fees. I think my 5 school/university fees are about £50k out of net taxed income.

I didn't do it all... I certainly avoided a lot of it but we didn't have a cleaner for 10 years and we never had live in help so I had a lot of years of doing a lot at home with my husband. The 5 aren't close in age. They range from 22 to 8. So I've spaced them out a bit. I think I'll end up with 32 years of children at home actually by the end and that's rather different from most women because I love the children - you can be a working mother and love children and cuddles and being there to talk to them and yet not want that all the time. I also love my work and my hobbies too. The money enables so very many things so the work kind of underpins it all.

My two cent on this, op you have probably lost the will to live, never mind deciding about options of work/home. Poppett and xenia do us all a favour and kill this thing by post 1000, I'm all for debate etc but navel gazing to this proportion is vomite inducing.........ps we have managed to have others of that ilk sent to the realms of those that can't be mentioned.

(SP) VOMIT Been up past........way past beddy byes Oh and for the record, am a presently part time sah but also seeing clients but also single mum doing a degree but also claiming some benefits (IN EIRE) but also seeing me through my finance is ex but also used to be a hooker

seeing clients referring presently to now today trainee psychotherapist versus seeing clients then.........John's
Just thought I should clear that up.
Look forward to seeing you all at the meet up!
PPs despite utter shite rants etc, I am actually quite sane

Ah, the "are women who are financially dependent on men in the hooker category".. was that what you were raising? Marriage with a non working mother as prostitution? Not if the man and women equally are candidates to take on the stay at home job and if the rest of the marriage is fair.

I don't think there's anything wrong with long threads. They can be very interesting. I wonder what makes some women content to be home and others find the concept (never mind the financial and other reasons to work) difficult.

quite right xenia.
I wish people so offended by this thread would just go away instead of stating that it should go away.

sorry mhamai I didn't really understand any of your postings, and I kind of lost interest in what you were trying to say when I realised, you too, were bogged off with this thread.

(btw xenia apologies for getting you mixed up with uluwa, I think, re the 5 under 5's)

Xenia, also, I did day that on 100k, (if the op doubled their income by working through school hours) not 50k, that they could afford more choice of schooling. even for five Is this not possible? maybe it wouldn't support all five completly though uni, but it really would go someway to wouldn't it?

(I have broken a promise by posting on here again. satine )

Getting off the "I'm a better mother than you" arguments here, and back to the point about giving childcare rights at work for men, I was in Scandinavia a couple of years ago and discovered that in Denmark the rule is that there is one year's parental leave, to be taken by the mum or dad. I think it's a brilliant idea - usually mum does first six months (she does the feeding as someone said, but I can't find the posting now, so sorry...) and the dad the second six months, but they can just chop and change. I'll probably get shot for this, but I think some dads are basically better with their kids at some stages than the mums, because - in case you haven't worked it out from this thread (and sounding like a seventies soft drinks advert here) we are all different. A system that allows the dad to stay at home, if that works better with what both parents and the kids want, for part of the maternity leave is brilliant.

My mum went back to work part time when I was two (not the done thing then) and my dad looked after me one day a week. He is brilliant with toddlers (you should see him with mine) and I think we have a really great bond because of it, unlike many of my friends who don't seem to be able to talk to their fathers at all.

I'm firmly of the belief that equal rights are more about getting men into the kitchen/nursery/home etc than getting women (who want to) out of it. I'd love to believe that I have some special powers that make me a better parent than dh, but I don't, and the kids need him around just as much as me. That's partly why I've come to the conclusion that I am not permanently damaging my kids by working whilst they're young, because when I'm not looking after them they are being looked after by dh or by a nanny, both of whom love them and make them happy. I'm a mum, not some kind of miracle worker that no one else can replace.

Not saying I don't have complete admiration and respect for SAHMs (I've done it and I don't think it is easy/boring/mind-numbing or any of the things implied on this thread), but that anyone who thinks that somehow my children are missing out on the most important thing in the world because the person with one to one care for my kids part of the time is not their mother should just get over themselves. We aren't gods, just mums.

I think this debate is interesting, even though is has meandered through so very many topics.

I don't think Xenia is a victim of male dominated thinking. I think she's wise. And I have seen no evidence that she has sacrificed her femininity.

It's that interesting feminist point of whether you reject male hirearchical structures and say "Board Room bad awful male thing - I don't want any of that power and awful corrupting money" or you give women the choice to be part of that world if they choose.

It's coming up in the Iraq and veil issues too. Some feminists say veil equals choice, war always bad. others (me) would say you may feel you're exercising a choice to be subjugated to men but you're not - you're reacting to indoctrination and conditioning adn it's not a choice. Like those who bring up the little girls with barbies, denigrating education, and encouraging them to marry young and not realise careers exist. I think that's wrong, sexist and bad.

Others would say those girls in groups, cultures, religions who marry at 16 and lead happy lives as housewives and mothers are exercising a choice.

(I'm not at all short haired fat flat shoes dungaree wearing asexual or lesbian sort of person at all by the way)

Xenia, can I ask what you do for living? (I just did) Are you in London?

This thread,has not really changed my views about the WOHMvsSAHM debate, I still think that it is a better balance for families ,in most cases, to have economically active parents.I know some people don't agree, that of course is their view. Actually I think the level of pay is important, but even if low I still think the issue of the children having role models who positively and actively engage with the world of work is v.important.I think it absolutely vital in the21st centuary that these role models,( for the benefit of girl and boy children ) are women. My 5.5 year old son went to tea with the child of a SAHM yesterday,( actually we don't know many families who have a SAHM ),the conversation got round to ," what do you want to be when you grow up,,,", and then progressed on to what mum/dad's jobs were.When my DS discovered that the other mum was a SAHM, he was genuinely puzzled," Is it like being on holiday all the time....Aren't you lonely...(and perhaps most tellingly ) perhaps you'll get a job when you grow up.." Incidentally this was reported to me by the SAHm, who thought it was funny....

Have merely been an interested onlooker at this thread recently but at the risk of being unpopular, I have to say Xenia's posts have helped me to feel a whole lot better at the prospect of going back to work in jan, leaving my son who will be 6 months old.

Always have worked full time and achieved career progression, thinking i would hate being a sahm. Since the birth, I have found it really hard at times to adjust to life of nappies/baby groups/ daytime tv (how depressing!) but feeling guilty about even thinking these things - couldn't admit these feelings to a friend who visited last week - she gave up a great career in London to get married & live in the states, has a 2 year old, is still a size 8, breastfed for 12 months, does the whole yoga / organic yummy mummy thing and hasn't looked back.

She looked at me with utter pity when I said I had to go back to work soon (financially can't live on 1 income), I also felt like a total failure for stopping breastfeeding a few weeks ago.

Since then have been looking for nursery / childminder full of distraught guilt at having to leave my child with someone else for 10 hrs a day - (she subscribes to the opinion that you wouldn't buy a dog and put it in kennels for 10 hrs a day, so why have a child?)

However, it's so refreshing that people like Xenia (and propbably others - sorry if I've missed your names- would love to have the time to read the whole thread) aren't afraid to put forward their point of view. She seems to have a happy, well balanced family, who no doubt will benefit from having a mother who is happy and will provide for them, rather than a hand wringing guilt ridden one who tries to overcompensate and spoils the kids because she feels they are somehow being deprived of love because she works.

so, thanks Xenia, I'll carry on looking for a suitable nursery and feel happier about it and will even try to look forward to going back to work instead of like a wretched failure of a mother.

You're an example to the nation, not a hopeless failure if you work.... Perhaps it's who we mix with that matters. I don't really know of non working mothers except on here. Al the women have interesting careers of those I know so I never got the stay at home thing, no pressure for that from anyone, even before we married my ex husband and I talked about work and children. If a nanny didn't work out as he earns less he was going to do it all and bring the baby to breastfeed in my lunch break etc although the nanny did work out so we never swapped roles like that.

It's certainly something people should talk to their partner about before marriage. If they would only put half the time into important things like that in marriage preparation classes than fussing over a huge load of wasted money on cakes and dresses marriages would be a lot better... not that I suppose I'm qualified to write about them as mine only lasted 19 years...

Presumably there are just groups in society whree women do or don't work and some of us mix with both groups and others don't. It's probably best to have about you others who share your views or choices because then you feel better. I used to go to City Parents at Work meetings at one point which were helpful because even normal working mothers weren't quite the same as those who worked in the City of London.

"I don't really know of non working mothers except on here." In yet you talk about them as though you are an authority on the topic

xenia, are there any points raised by anyone on here (by the sahm brigade) that you hadn't thought of before this thread? Has anything been written that you don't have an argument for? I'm asking genuinely here, I'm not being rude or sarcastic, have you thought at any point 'oh maybe so-and-so and so has a point'? (on the other side)

I have.

cont. I ask because you seem very quick to write a long post which justifies anything that you have done, in relation to raising your kids, as soon as someone writes from the sahm point of view.

(I know that is the point of this conversation but I am just interested...)

What is so utterly fabulous about being 'economically active' for 40+ years without any breaks at all? I just don't see it myself. Nobody has addressed the fact that parents these days have worked before having children and will work after having children, but they may, at some point, take some time off to do another important job, raise their children themselves.
And better for who? Studies do not show that children of two full time working parents do better than children who have a parent at home. Especially babies. I'm not saying all babies suffer (though I know my own son did, for various reasons) from not having a parent at home when they are small, not at all. But there is no evidence whatsoever that babies in childcare do better. If you mean better for the parents, well, don't you think they are better judges of what suits them than you are?
Some people really, really miss their children. Is that wrong and bad? SHould they force themselves to go to work in a state of misery just so their babies and toddlers have a role model of two 'economically active' parents (like they'd know or care ) even if the family does not need the extra money?
I find the attitude of I do it so you should too, really odd.

agree biblio,
anyway surly the kids will see their role model as the person that did the caring? it will be a long time before the child will have the necessary understanding to quantify the theory that the parents were good role models because they both worked. In the meantime surely they will wonder why mum didn't change their nappy or play with them for most of their waking lives.

Xenia, thanks for rasiing th eissue of the differences between the two shcools of 'feminist' thought.

I've had enormous arguments in my womens co-op (yes I grew up in 'that' kind of environment) about whether wanting to get out into the boardroom is pandering to male traiits etc.

I personally think we've hit a time when traits which are traditionally associated with masculine gender are undervalued. For example assertiveness, confidence, emotional detachment.

I also think that in backlash against the 80's this decade has been trying to put women back in the home and the kitchen. After the anarchic 70's and power dressing 80's society got scared at the thought that maybe there wasn't that much difference betwene men and women. Maybe women could go into the boardroom and men be nurses, and perhaps more importantly; maybe having children wasn't the be all and end all, the holy grail, the most important job in the world or any other cliche.

wow, scary stuff? that put alot of pressure on men and women to somehow combine all the traits, to be a supermum or new dad but still earn the cash. Its much easier if we repackage motherhood as some kind of divine calling with a permenant sick note from games.
Women can now say that they are devoting themselves to their children with full societal approval, they dont' compete in the labour market, and societies centuries old gender balance isn't upset too much.

OK this is a bit OTT some of oyu may think, but I have an unerving habit of refusing to look at things through rose tinted glasses. A society in which one gender still gets hugely preferential treatment when it comes to parenthood is incredibly sexist. And given that so many people belive this is right and assume that women shoudl stay home in order to be caring parent, its obviuos that the marketing message promoing motherhood=sainthood is doing very well indeed!

OK i have a quick poll:
Would you classify yourself as a SAHM or a WOHM in your heart (ie regardless of what you do right now, what is your preference)
What did your parents do?

me:
I'm a WOHM
my mum was a WOHM, my dad was a p/t SAHD
my grandma was a SAHM until her kids got to about 3 then always worked

sahm

WOHM

both my parents worked

I am a working mother myself, I have friends who are currently choosing to stay at home (often with high powered careers in the past, and probably in the future too), friends who used to be SAHM parents when their children were small but now go to work, friends who work full time and friends who work part time in offices or from home.

I can understand the viewpoints of all the different posters on here. What I can't understand is the complete dogmatism on either side, and the blinkered and futile desire to convert everyone to your point of view.

Personally I feel that staying at home while the children are young is a great thing to do. But I can't do it - financially it cannot work for us, and so I am accepting the compromise that working represents. It may not be ideal, but life isn't ideal. You can't always have exactly what you want.

No-one would come on MN and say that living in a smaller house or an urban area is detrimental to your children,and that you should feel guilty about it if it is your lot(would they?).

Why then is it acceptable to accuse women who work of effectively the same thing? We don't all have the choice to live in a 5 bed house in the country, in an area with perfect schools, and we can't all afford to spend all our time in the home creating the perfect environment for our children.

And as for paying mothers to stay at home with their own children - well why don't we pay carers for looking after their relatives, why don't we pay the millions of people who do something for nothing? The answer is economics. Much as we would all like to be rich, we can't. Some of us got the raw end of the deal, and we don't like it, but very few people are rich enough to choose everything they want in their life unfortunately.

Can I just finish by saying that I genuinely hope no-one is offended by this post, and if so it is not meant to upset anyone. It is only the opinion of one person - as are all these posts.

Would you classify yourself as a SAHM or a WOHM in your heart? I'm neither. I don't define myself in either way. It isn't that black and white. Currently I am a SAHM. I fall into the category of people for whom it is not economically viable to go out to work and pay to put 2 children in childcare. I worked P/T for 18 months after DD1 was born. I refuse to go through the stress of trying to juggle a demanding job and a home-life for absolutely no take-home pay.

Somedays I like being with my children all week (thankfully DD1 is in Pre-school 4 mornings!) I like what I get to teach them, I'm very interested in child development and child psychology, so I do dirive some satisfaction from the day-to-day interaction with them.

Other days I feel a lot of frustration. That doesn't mean I take it out on my children, but in my mind I lust after the time in the future when I can do something additional to this. Plus, I don't much like being stuck in the house - I'm an out and about person (I was pre-children) and have found it harder to get out of the house with a pre-schooler and a baby.

If I thought I would never have an interesting, rewarding job ever again, then I would not be a happy person. But I know this is temporary.

Women are still so badly paid for the work they typically do. I do not think that traits generally assigned to men are undervalued. When did typical female traits have their day?

Oops derive