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.

I have only three weeks left to work in my job. After having my baby I was able to return to work part time
(3 days a week) I found it incredibly streesful and difficult. I just felt like I was being crap at two things and making a mess of them both. So I handed in my notice and finish at the end of November. I am very worried about the financial consequences for us and am now feeling guilty about giving up work even though it was actually making me ill. I really hope I am doing the right thing

I have a good job and a promising career I am also worried that in two years time the only job I'll be able to get will be ......something awful that just doesnt use my skills and education(which I worked very hard to gain)

Why is the world hell bent on making mums feel guilty no matter what they do!??

If I had a higher paid job pre-children, I am not sure what I would have chosen or what decision I might have had to make when my second child came along. I know I would never personally have chosen to have children and work fulltime but realise for a lot of women they have to, either for money reasons or to stay up in their career.

In my ideal world, men and women would both work less and both care for the children more.

nickichicki - I was in a similar position when I worked part time. I never felt like I was fulfilling either role satisfactorily. But I have friends who seem to manage it fine because of the nature of their work.

Ah, GoingQuietlyMad has more common sense in a few sentences than the rest of this posting (not excluding myself) put together!

Let's face it, oppression is feeling that you have to stay at home or you have to work because that is what society expects of you. Doing the right thing for you and your family is the only context that matters and anyone who thinks that "studies show" them how to raise their children needs to ignore all this rubbish (nastier word possible) and look at themselves and their own family.

If my kids cried at the thought of me going to work or grew withdrawn or unhappy, I would stay at home. And if SAHMs found themselves unhappy (or poor) enough at home that they would prefer to return to work, they would. We'll all feel guilty whatever route we take, but as long as we're doing our best, our kids (and the rest of society) cannot expect any more.

I don't see myself as a SAHM or a WOHM any more than Aderyn does. I'm a mum first, wife second (sorry, but dh is really important to me) and a professional third (probably daughter, sister and firend fight it out for fourth place). I love all these aspects of being who I am and I don't define my motherhood in terms of what I do when my sons aren't around.

On riab?s interesting post, yes so-called masculine traits are being undervalued in some quarters although not in most companies. They are in the press and there is a huge amount of anti-men criticism in advertising and the like which I hate. I said I didn?t know any SAHM. What I meant is I don?t have close friends that are those but when I?ve been to mothers? dinners at school I am appalled at the man bashing. Don?t they respect their men? Why this constant need to criticise them. I?m rather with Fay Weldon on this.

It used to be said men and women were identical and girls were different because of their conditioning which we could correct. I am sure that is now proven not to be so. One reason women are paid less in the City is they don?t ask for more pay. In a survey of MBA graduates all the women were paid less than the men in their first jobs. Every man had asked for more pay than he?d been offered and no woman had. I?m reasonably good at asking for more and thinking I?m worth a lot but not all women are. You don?t get enough of the - I?m brilliant, you?re lucky to have me view amongst women. I think some of that can be conditioned out and women can work on it if they want equal pay. Some are content with unequal pay. Lots of like to do themselves down. My lack of guilt at work and emotional detachment is perhaps ?male?. A study in Scandinavia found however that when choosing a creche mothers on maternity leave were more emotionally bothered about leaving the baby than their husbands who worked. As soon as they studied men who?d spent 12 months as sole carer of the baby the emotional worry of leaving the child was just as high in the men. In other words we get those feelings from the contact with the person whether it?s leaving an ageing relative, spouse, friend or child or even dog. It?s the contact that breeds the attachment perhaps.
People, humans, differ perhaps as much from each other as between sexes. Some women are very assertive and some shy and the same goes for men.
We still have problems in business that a woman displaying some characteristics is criticised whilst a man displaying the same kind is praised. Still a way to go on that one. 12 of the 110 new Goldman Sachs partners were female which is absolutely pathetic.
The Martha Stuart, women at home, SAHM as career, propaganda stuff is nauseating. The fact this thread might have said a working mother benefits a child is taken as heresy by SAHM who think they have the moral high ground because they?re told that every day. It?s a rare article which says you can damage your child by staying at home. We don?t have equity in articles about that issue. Good line ?divine calling with a permanent sick note from games.? It?s just sexism in another form, giving women a cop out from economic activity and success and power and the fun bits of the real world, something some men connive in because it?s easier for them to have her in the home than not. But I?m optimistic. I spend huge amounts of time with 18 ? 22 year olds because of my own children that age and there is much less sexism than there was years ago. I also find men in their 20s and 30s don?t have the assumptions about gender roles some older men have so it?s a constantly improving situation.

In answers to your questions: WOHM in practice and heart. My parents ? my father was a very involved father who shared child care but my mother who had worked for nearly 15 years as a teacher did stop work when I was born. She hugely resented it ultimately, which was sad. She was very good with little ones as an infant teacher but could not cope with the loss of her role as we got older. Her mother was widowed when my mother was 6 months old so always worked and her mother?s mother had 17 children but always worked and was the village unofficial midwife, kept pigs, etc amongst other things. We had a slight 1950s blip when some richer mothers could afford not to work but throughout human history and around most of the globe women have always worked. It?s their natural state.

Someone asked if I were swayed by other arguments. Sometimes. Nothing on a thread like this would sway me and obviously I know my views are influenced by having ended up divorced and without male support of any kind (although I don?t think that?s really changed me). I was writing about the things on this thread when I was 15 in 1977. I also like men and one of the nice things about the kind of work I do is that all the time you?re interacting with men. I don?t think I?d get that if I were a housewife. All my close friends have always been men. [ducking here to avoid being hit? I don?t really like most women as close confidants actually?.]

I'm a fairly new to mumsnet and have spent all afternoon and evening reading this very interesting thread . I actually feel quite sad and like a bit of a failure .

My situation is I have 3 children aged 3 and under I work 30 hours a week from home. I've done this since my eldest was 6mths and it just keeps getting harder. Whilst I'm on similar pay I took a sideways step to be able to work in this manner and unfortunately now spend 90% of my time doing the small part of my original job that I didn't like.

Feel like my children don't get my full attention and my work doesn't either. Both are suffering but I can't see a way out.

I'm not entirely sure I appreciate that there are options or choices for women about working. I feel pressurised to work to prove my worth, make use of my education and contribute to society. Equally I feel pressurised to be the best mother I can and stay at home with my children.

In many ways, when women and men had traditional roles it was much easier and both just got on with it. No agonising of these things....that was life and it was dealt with. So what do you do when you want it all? On the face of it I have a great well paid job and am a SAHM for the children but it is not working for me. I don't know which way to go......neither is a great prospect and I kind of wish the decision was made for me like in the 'olden days'

pp, my advice to mothers is usually part time is the worst of all worlds. The husband thinks you are happy to do all the dreadful toilet cleaning washing home jobs and work gives you almost full time hours anyway. Go back to full time work immediately and then the roles are very clear.

Xenia, you've obviously married the wrong bloke! I work part time and my dh to give him credit does his fair share of housework and childminding. I can't complain on that score.

You have a very blinkered view of marriage and men.

14 posts to go - FGS someone say something mindblowingly illuminating, so that it goes out with a bang

have you ever tried Misosoup? not keen myself.

No one seems to have mentioned free time

I never tried part time work so we always shared jobs are home equally but I've heard from women over the years that the husband assumes because one is part time she's there to collect the dry cleaning and do most things domestic - htat he might "help" but he won't see it as his task, as much fo rhim to advertise for the child care and to remember to do it as for her.

Not far from 1000 posts now, not that there's particular virtue in length I suppose.

no

You say it is not the natural state of women to be with their children Xenia and I vehemently disagree. Of course it is. Not on their own within four walls, no, not on their own, no, and not 24/7, no, but it is completely unnatural (if we are talking about nature) for mothers to leave their very young babies for 12 hours a day. Nature decrees mothers (in general) should stay close to their infants for quite a long time, feeding them breastmilk and caring for them.
As for the idea that 'contact breeds attachment'.. well, yes, duh. Of course it does! It is well documented that this is the case. Which is why nature expects mothers to stay close to their infants to breed that very all-important attachment.
And while you may find it refreshing to read that it may harm children to stay close to them, there is not a scrap of evidence to back this up. By carefully choosing your childcare and being very involved with your children when you are not working of course you can minimise any problems and raise happy, healthy, well attached children. Millions of working mothers do. But don't pretend that by working you sacrifice yourself on the altar of your child's emotional well being. I just don't buy it.

And I say again, I write this as someone who is a working parent.

Oh come off it ! 'Natural state'......We in the western world live in a way that doesn't much resemble our natural state ! If we were to follow that diktat then contraception, babymilk, pushchairs , nappies would all be considered highly detrimental to our children/society...There is absolutely no evidence that the children,( yes, including infants ), of WOHMs, even those who work long hours away from home have insecure attachments. Attachment behaviour in the human infant is about much more than the number of hours clocked up in physical proximity.I myself have worked on mother and baby psychiatric units where babies are kept in very close physical contact with mum, and insecure/disorganised arttachment still develops because mum is emotionally and psychologically un available to her child.I think that can very easily happen ,( in a less severe way admittedly ), to children of unfulfilled SAHMs, or just SAHMs who are bored and in a way ' there but not there '.
I frequently work 12 hour days away from my young infants/children but hold them in mind and encourage them to do this in relation to me....by expressing breastmilk, speaking to them by phone/webcam and involving them in my world of work.I am not either a worker or a mother I am both all the time, and the two worlds collide and bump against each other all the time. i think it is wrong to look at attachment in such a simplistic way, it is much more complex than that.

I said in other cultures and in history women have not done 24/7 care and you seem to agree with me. It is probably not a good argument on either side as life has changed so much from the days when native americans strapped the baby to a board all day or in 1600s England richer mothers sent the child off for 5 years to be wet nursed. All I was saying is there is not this natural argument that a child needs to be with a mother 24.7. In fact in most countries children of 5 upwards have always had to work, pick stones, mind the baby, make carpets or whatever. So I suppose those analogies if either of us use them don't help but it's SAHMs who use them most.

I do think there's a big distinction between the trauma of complete separation such as that suffered by children sent for 5 years to Canada or the Lake District during WWII at age 3 to 5 or even to boarding school at 6 or 7 or when put into care and the separation a child might experience when both parents leave for the office in the morning. Some SAHMs use the research relating to those long separations and apply it to going out to work each day. In fact even a small baby easily manages a number of people in its life. I think it's safer anyway. Some SAHM think they are these wise all knowing protectors (and of course some are brilliant but others aren't just as some working mothers are and others aren't) when in fact giving the child some variety of care can be better for it and arguably is less risky in some ways as long as it's not a different carer 365 days a year because having people around and about brings chckes and balances and if the SAHM shouts too much or is too indulgent or whatever you get another person who isn't, so more balance.

Must get breakfast for the 4 who are home this weekend.....

I would hope the only point on this thread I would like working and SAHMs to accept is that neither route damages children and neither is better or worse and that sometimes things like happy parents and more money can benefit a family and provide a good example to the children, just as sometimes having a mother there when the alternative is a hopeless drunken grandmother as carer and parents who work may be worse than the mother at home.

5 more to go...

I suppose I could write all 5 if I have to.......
Probably most things have already been said.
The balance parents have to get right between family income (which can benefit the children) and parental time is one interesting issue for all families. Many fathers these days want to spend more time with their children than their fathers do. Sometimes it's an age issue too. I think at 22 I didn't want to spend as much time with them as I have doing it a second time around (even though same marriage, same husband) with the twins 13 years later. It's like what many parents who marry again in later life say - usually the rich over 50s who don't have to work... that they are doing it differently this time and spending the time.

So perhaps it's a life stage thing - some people have 15 - 20 years of career, wealth creation and travelling and then devote themselves 100% to chidlren for the next 15 and don't work. Others have their children as part of their continuous full life (what I did ) and the children fit into it. The controversy over over parenting comes into this too - the mother or father who doesn't work and puts their all into little Johnny (who hopefully has a sibling otherwise he becomes like a Chinese Little Emperor in whom the family puts all these hopes and nothing less than an Oxbridge first and a career at UBS will suffice).

I never looked at a piece of GCSE course work. I almost think my 3 older ones should have got some extra points for that given how much effort stay at home mothers can put into it. I mentioned below someone who was learning the piano so she could help her child and who is also reading the other's GCSE text books so they can discuss them. Is that good or bad? Hard to say and some working parents equally put in that effort so I suppose you can't generalise.

Some women who were successful and ambitious at work then apply the same things to their children, the perfect diet, the perfect child, in the perfect clothes at the perfect school with 1000 hobbies a week. They miss the benign neglect of busier parents. They lose out because they think they're at the centre of the universe. They can be demanding and spoilt. Not all of course and some children are so underparented they run wild and don't know what a normal family event it.

(I should have split this between the 5 posts left)

peainthepod - 3 under 3 and 30hrs work at home - presumably you have childcare?

If not what on earth do you do that you can fit in like this >

mozhe and Xenia have already saiud it but pleeease can we not dig out the old 'its natural' argument?

natural at what stage, when did you stop the clock on human evolution at a time when human mothers suckled their young and stayed with them until hey were able to be independant?

It didn't happen! and even if it did that doesn't mean its good. Its like saying in african cultures they still BF for x years and folllow attachment parenting styles. Well correct me if I'm wrong but I wonder how many people would really like their child to have an african childs chances in life in health, education and wealth?

My own view is that on the whole it is better for a family if ALL members have somehting that defines them which isn't reliant on other people. If you are DAD, HUSBAND, SON etc etc when are you just JOHN? if you are WIFE, MOTHER, FRIEND, SISTER when are you just Jane?

For alot of men and women, being economically active is a way to define themselves, its a way to utilise skills and knowledge that they have chosen to pursue and it gives a level of independance.

Maybe I value my own personal independance and freedom very highly. Maybe I have very 'male' traits, maybe I'm just an evil woman who shouldn't have been allowed to have kids . But I like who I am and i think doign something other than caring for DS adds immensly to my life and to his.

We can stop... phew. 1000 posts and about 112,000 words...

If some people feeling guilty about going back to work have seen here that sometimes that is better for the child and the family never mind the family so much the better. If others have found their decision to stay home vindicated - great that they feel better. For those at home who hate it may be the thread might make them realise a category of mother exists who isn't guilty and thinks her working is best for the children for all kinds of reasons we've written about here, so go back to work with the blessing of those of that view. But never be self sacrificial - I laid down those 10 years for you, children, when I didn't really want to because I thought it was best for you because that will always be wrong. Stay home because you love it and know it's right for you and your family but not when you hate it because someone has told or indoctrinated you that it is the right thing to do.