Wise Ruby Wax - working and stay at home parents

[Judy1234]

In today's Telegraph....

"Dear Ruby

I stopped working when I had my third child. It didn't make sense to continue with my job when I had a stressed-out husband requiring my support and children who needed me at home. It was an agonising decision, but my salary only just covered the cost of childcare.

And we didn't need the money - my husband earns six times more than I did. More importantly, I felt really guilty going off to the office every day and leaving my kids behind.

My problem is this: since I stopped working I feel like a non-person. Oddly, it's other women who give me this feeling. Women who have somehow managed to keep their careers afloat through babies, breastfeeding, nappy rash and all the mayhem of motherhood, treat me with barely disguised contempt. It's almost as if, by staying at home, I've lost the right to have an opinion, or say anything interesting. It's deeply upsetting.

Life is hard enough as it is, so why can't women be allies at least? Why can't we respect each other's choices? Amanda M, Edinburgh

Dear Amanda

I have heard that cry from some of my "non-person" friends when they decided to give it all up for breastfeeding duty. The reason I would also probably treat you with disdain if I met you is that I am secretly (well, not so secretly any more) jealous.

You are lucky enough to have a husband who makes six times the amount you made and that really irks me, as I'm sure it would other females.

But in your position, I would have worked anyway, as all my self-esteem is stored up in my job. I could never have applied the word "housewife" to myself. I'd rather have put a sabre through my head.

Although I admire your sacrifice to the little one, on the whole, I find women who don't work to be just a teensy bit boring with their obsession with schools and stools. Not all, just most.

Perhaps other working mothers are reminded how guilty they feel about abandoning the home. Perhaps we take it out on you. Enjoy your home life."

Same with me. I never understand these people who get pregnant and then wiat 2 years and have the toddler as a bridesmaid. It just looks a bit naff. Better to squeeze yourself into a wedding dress. Although there is an ethos that you only marry to have children (in some Scandinavian countries it is so) so unless and until she (or even he) can prove it's possible you don't marry, just live together. In other words the marriage is in a sense conditional on fertility.

I have cousins who have got married pregnant (with baby no 1 or baby no 2) and cousins who have got married once the family is complete. Better the second IMO - I don't think that shotgun weddings are a very sound basis for marriage and they can make children feel responsible for their parents' relationship, which is very hard on them.

It's a very personal thing; each adult has to decide the right thing for themselves. (Might not want to waddle down the aisle in a white dress, several months gone!)

I think there's a Catholic thing where children are mentioned at the wedding (as in 'May they be blessed with...') and the feeling that people who don't intend to have children shouldn't marry. Bit of a shame, imo.

Anyway, Xenia - have you read the article in one of the Telegraph supplements over the weekend that is v. relevant to this discussion? Can't find it atm but the gist is of an American woman who wrote a best-seller in the '70s about how it's a woman's duty to stay at home with the dch & be a dutiful wife. She raised 5 dch. Well, her phb (philandering bastard of a husband) has left her for a politician (female, thankfully ) and whisked her off to Hawaii or somewhere. So not only has phb dumped her, but has dumped her for her nemesis, a high-flying career woman! She is left wondering what to do for money, having had to sell big house & now living in a flat.

Now our heroine is writing another book, along the lines of 'Forget what I said before, keep your career going'. She wants to tell women that if you dip out of the labour market for 5 years to bring up dch, fair enough, but leave for 10 and you've little hope of competing/keeping up with changes in your profession; if DH ever pisses off you will be up the swanney.

An interesting point, and I can see the sense of it.

I didn't spot it. But I expect it happens a lot. This myth that all men like a quiet woman at home who listens and dotes on their every word and looks up to them and is a housewife is not necessarily the case. Some men are very good at hiding money too, their income is really low, I've even had dates with some who happily tell me where money is abroad and think I'll think how clever they are that they're avoiding paying their wife and children although it just makes them look dreadful as potential partners.

Also I had to pay an obscene amount of money to my husband in the divorce is instead 23 years ago I gave up work to mind his babies and we lived on his teacher salary there would have been virtually nothing to divide on a divorce.

Women can protect themselves to some extent by knowing about and being interested in bank accounts, having things in joint names, doing the family tax returns, being interested in pensions but sadly loads of housewives are far too air head even to know where bank statements are kept.

Thanks for finally answering my question, Xenia. I have a detailed response for you in my head, but I can't be arsed to type it at the moment - will save it for another time (there will be another time, knowing you!).

Must quickly pull you up on one thing, though. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that women at home MUST take an active interest and role in the family finances, I don't think you need to start bandying words like 'airhead' about, really. Those tired stereotypes of the ruthless career bitch and the dumb housewife are...well, tired.

Let's get with the 21st century, shall we?

The irony with the woman in the article is that, reading between the lines, pbh was very happy for, in fact expected perhaps, her to be SAHM. Then left her for Superbitch career woman.

In truth, when I was working (BC) in a male-dominated environment I felt that an awful lot of my colleagues could not hold down the jobs that they did without the help of someone behind them, at home. (As in 'Behind every successful man...) Due to commmitment involved, nights away etc. Having to think about shopping/cooking/ironing/childcare too - it wouldn't work. But no doubt you'll tell me that you manage it - perhaps you do, but these men wouldn't!

I do know couples who hold down city jobs. What they need is often a live in nanny, a house near work, a housekeeper and sometimes a live in au pair too. Our better nannies could be more of an organiser, get the chidlren to the dentist, arrnage the name tapes to be sewed on clothes, go to the school uniform shop to get all teh stuff (but call me or their father to get a credit card to pay). In other words you try to delegate stuff and the better city companies will also offer you concierge services and even a pool nanny so you don't have to take a day off just because your own nanny is sick. Money makes all those things possible. But even so it's hard for all parents of either gender who work and manage a family and home.

other things.. our nanny always cooked all 5 chidlren's tea. She also used to do the weekly shopping for the family when we still had a full time nanny. The cleaner did the ironing etc so a lot of those things you mention I suppose couples buy in.

Air head was just because I keep coming across women in divorce who don't even know what bank accounts there are, don't know what life insurance or endowments the family has, have never seen a tax return, husbands with lots of accounts in their own name, money and properties abroad and they never bothered to worry their little heads about that kind of thing. More normal women want all accounts and all properties in joint names, read the statements before they're filed and discuss things in partnership.

I think whether you have a career or not is a bit of a red herring regarding your husband running off with another woman. I think if a man wants to run off with somebody else he will always find an excuse. There are, after all, plenty of divorced working women whos husbands have left them as well as SAHM's in the same boat.

I agree with LoveAngelGabriel too regarding the stereotypes. I am a SAHM but I know exactly where th bank statements are, what goes in and out and what state our finances are in generally. I don't pay the bills (but I know roughly how much they are) or examine everything that comes into the house so my DH could be salting away millions but marriage does require a certain degree of trust so I don't want to duplicate all of DH efforts in running the accounts and checking everything he does. Similarly I don't expect an audit on any reasonable spending I may do. I am even sensible enough to be a signatory on his business accounts so that, if the need arises and he spends a month in a coma in hospital, I can at least get our money out of the business to pay the mortgage!

I also know a lot of working women who are completely rubbish with their money, always overdrawn and not a clue in their busy little heads about what comes in and out of their household.

Sweeping generalisations don't really work.

Completely agree, Niecie. Whether you manage your money or not has nothing to do with working IMO. In fact, my partner's ex (who always worked) has always lived beyond her means and couldn't sort her tax affairs. His view of women and money was very bad when we got together, but he has learnt that, after all, women can be trusted with money, optimise their own tax situation and deal with assets/investments.

Actually, quite a few of my SAHM friends (my sister included) are the finance gurus in their households - their earning husbands don't have enough time to deal with everything.

I still think even Niecie's situation is a bit dangerous. Why don't you pay the bills rather than him? Surely you have more time for it as you're at home?

I don't understand the concept of "he" or "she" paying the bills. We both pay bills - just depends whose making the purchases. And all the utilities etc are on direct debit.

I'm happy with the financial situation in our family. I'm completely across all our finances, and as well as our joint mortgage on the house we live in, joint current account and various joint savings accounts, I also have a personal pension which my husband pays into for me - as he realises that I am benefiting the family by giving a few of the years when I could be working to taking care of our child instead, so why should I lose out? I also have savings of my own and a property of my own. I realise I am not typical, but I am nottotally unusual.

...meant to say, not all SAHMS are dutiful little wifey types who are clueless about 'figures'. It's bizzarre to suggest they are. Although I take on board Xenia's point that it's not wise to bury your head in the sand over financial matters and leave it all up to 'the man'.

Like you, LoveAngel, I have property and investments of my own... I don't think that that is so unusual among women who had good jobs for quite a while before having children.

Yep - me too !
And my two closest friends are both the ones who arrange all finacial matters in their relationships.

It's good but I've seen plenty a divorce thread on here when women don't even know what their husband earns never mind what bank accounts there are and then she's doled out some kind of an allowance. It's just something women need to guard against not just for divorce but also death. A lot of unmarried women in the UK think if their long term partner dies they inherit whereas they do not in general unless things are in joint names or they were being supported and can make a case.

The reason I don't pay the bills is that DH enjoys that sort of thing - he is an accountant, what can I say, he is slightly mad.

I have my own savings and shares which are solely mine and also those that are in my name and really 'joint' (ISA's can't be in joint names). I have access to almost all of our money (apart from DH's pension and his ISA's) I could do him serious financial damage and vice versa but why would I?

I pay my own credit card bill. A lot of the bills are on DD. I don't think me writing a cheque is somehow going to make me 'safer'.

Xenia, I don't know how your marriage ended and it is none of my business, but most people who marry or have that kind of relationship, have an element of trust between them which you seem to be very cynical about or wary of or uncertain of - I am not sure which is the right phrase really. For a lot of us that trust allows us to do things for each other and also to do things for ourselves with the underlying assumption that we will not do anything to deliberately harm the other. I know that makes both of us slightly vulnerable but that is a chance we have to take so that we don't spend our time second guessing and being suspicious of our partners. It leads to a much more harmonious life.

I asked a newly pregnant friend the other day whether she intends to go back to work after the arrival of her baby. Her and her partner are not married - thought they intend (and had intended to prior to the pregnancy) to get married. She said she had certain obligations to her elderly mother and would therefore need to continue working. She said all this whilst her fiance sat next to her not batting an eyelid. Am I horribly oldfashioned or is there something wrong with this scenario?

Swedes - if your friend has to support her mother - I can well understand her need to return to work. What's wrong with that?

Are you suggesting her lover should take on her, her baby and her mother? Surely that's a very old fashioned view - man as provider, woman as financial taker to be kept etc.

Niece, yes, that's fine. It's women who don't know about money that worry me and because I'm divorced I hear a lot about divorece and when things go wrong rather than when they go right. Half marriages on mumsnet and elsewhere will fail and those who have put total trust in their man to deal with money are usually the ones who find he's managed to hide it and then conveniently gives up all work and moves abroad when he runs off with the younger lover etc.

Today's Times page 11 (although cannot find it on line) Working mothers happier than those at home in a survey based on 8 years of data of british Household Panel Survey questioning 5,500 households a year. Interestingly they were happy whether they worked part time, 3- 34 hours a week or 41 - 45 or more.

It also said children in a household bring no increase in life satisfaction for men and only for women once they start going to school. "Given this finidng perhaps it is not surprising fertility is declining in Britain".

The working mothers were found to be happier than stay at hoe ones no matter how many hours they spend at work.

Xenia - does the survey take account of household income?

Being at home if you have plenty of money to do nice things is one thing. Being at home with no money to go anywhere or do anything might make sitting in an office with adult company a much more attractive proposition.

PMSL at 'stay at hoe mothers' Xenia - now that is what I call 'working'!

I've just got round to reading Ruby's Sat column, from which you quoted the ltter about the pregnant woman marrying the musician. There is a much more interested letter, re SAHM & WOHM debate - wonder why you didn't mention it?

It is from someone whose close friend has just had a baby, and has turned from being 'one of the brightest, funniest people I know' to someone who 'constantly makes goo-goo noises and pulls funny faces, embarrassing me when we go out together with her baby girl. Waht is the point of acting in this nonsensical way? The wonderful friend whose company I once adored has vanished, to be replaced by a cooing, clucking idiot.'

Ruby replies that the 'woooogie, poooogie,boooogie' sounds help the baby's brain to grow: 'The theory is that there's not much in the baby's brain at birth, and growing it turns out to be a double act between baby & mommy. How terrifying is that? How our brains grow is all down to how your mother put you down, held you, smiled, didn't smile, ignored you, dropped you, forgot about you, whatever. Talk about being at the mercy of someone.

All that noise-making and raspberry-blowing is...in our hard-wiring. [When there's interaction] a hormone is released in both of them and in the baby it helps to make that brain grow'.

She goes on to advise the letter-writer not to stop her friend, or her kid won't develop properly, & anyway, she'll be doing it herself one day.

OK, so my point is, perhaps a baby is in nursery, as has been said on another thread, from the age of six weeks (baby is now 10 weeks, MNers all ) from 8am to 6pm five days per week. How can you be sure that the baby gets the required amount of one-to-one? If the nursery has several babies, plus toddlers for the staff to care for?

And anyway, do you want that bonding/brain-growing done by someone else, or several other people? Your baby might not grow up an idiot, (as Ruby simplistically seems to suggest) but maybe will have some kind of emotional block? Who knows? Isn't 'very young babies in full-time nursery' a bit of an emotional experiment?

link to Ruby Wax column

Most working parents in the UK don't use nurseries, they use in order - relatives, child minders, nannies. Even in nurseries there is a key worker assigned to that child however. And how many hours a day do you coo to it even if you stay at home? I certainly find most nannies give it more attention than mothers as most mothers have to do housework, admin, gardening etc etc during the day whilst nannies usually have fewer duties than that.