Giving up £60k job that I love to be SAHM

[Moomo]

After a lot A LOT of thinking I have pretty much decided not to go back to work and to be a SAHM - at least for a couple of years. But am giving up a £60k job that I really enjoyed to do so. DH earns £30k so it will be a massive drop in our income but I just can't face going back to work and leaving DS in childcare.

I was just wondering if anyone else has done the same thing and whether friends/family etc have been supportive as most people I tell think I am totally crazy and try and convince me not to do it. I'm not so worried about my career but a bit worried about the loss of income - we can still pay mortgage, bills etc but will be alot less luxuries/no saving/pension etc.

Would be really interested to know if anyone else has done the same/similar thing and how it worked out. I'm pretty confident of my decision but when everyone around me tells me I'm crazy I have moments of self doubt!

If we are taking it down to nature, babies need their mothers for the first few months of their lives, until they are able to move around and find their own food. Then they require the protection of another human being, preferably one of adult age.

As for maternal emtional bond - mine didn't kick in with either of mine until they were well past one, and, if I'm entirely honest, the bond I felt for them was strengthened by the fact that I didn't have to spend every waking moment with them.

Surely DP we all know that you can't make sweeping generalisations about what ALL women think and feel...

No....I said earlier that women should do what ever they like...

..and if you want sweeping generalisations, don't look to me, look at all the advertising re; baby products...always the mother with the baby

"but one thing will never change women, and that's the emotional attachment women have for their baby.....men just don't have it the same."
That's the generalisation I was specifically referring to. I am not the only mother I know not to have felt this attachment for my children when they were babies. My husband's attachment, however, was instant and powerful.

Ok, fair enough, I understand some mothers don't bond immidiately (I didn't with ds1 due to awful birth experience)...

I'm trying to focus more on women having the choice to stay at home if they want to, and not being forced back to work when they find that so emotionally hard....

I can take it or leave it with babies. Hormones can cloud that and impair judgment at the point of return to work. I am glad I went pt instead. DP, you don't speak for all women.

I would be doing my dd a disservice to encourage her to put herself in a vulnerable position financially for feelings she may or may not have.

Given I was the person who used the word, I never called you a bitch IHJL. I said the following posts were bitchy:

Child A is with nanny from 7am-7pm Monday - Friday, 47 weeks of the year. Who is his/her primary carer? Surely nobody could say it was the parents.

(Ditto nursery 8-6, five days a week, 47 weeks per year). God, what a thought.

I stand by what I said.

Um, LadyB, I think you're on the wrong thread.

That aside:

I don't think either comment was bitchy, though. If I'd said anything to suggest that parents who put their children in nursery for that length of time were inadequate/cruel/anything else, that could readily be interpreted as bitchy. "God, what a thought" expresses precisely that: my own feelings on the matter. Others would not agree.

As for the primary carer thing: I think we've all agreed that it's semantics and that I was not - repeat not - making a judgy-pants point. A pedantic one, perhaps, but not a judgy one.

Given all the vitriol that I took on that thread (some of which MNHQ agreed was revolting enough to be deleted), I think you really have quite some nerve saying that I was 'bitchy' and 'standing by what you said'.

I've been away, not on the wrong thread.

Yes, the thread has moved on but you said you'd been called a bitch (and I was the only person who used that word so I assume you were referring to me). I don't want anyone going around saying that I called them a bitch.

The statements that had to be deleted had nothing to do with me so I'm slightly bemused you brought them up. On an thread where working women are having a discussion about the complexities of juggling careers we love with our love for our children, I think those contributions were unhelpful at best.

And let's leave it there shall we?

i'd sah, no amount of money can make up for lost time.

nothing else in the world i'd rather do.

good luck with whatever you decide

Sorry, mea culpa: I am the one who's thinking of another thread.

I brought up those comments because there was a huge amount of bitchiness on that thread, most of it personal and directed at me. 'God, what a thought' wasn't even on the scale comapred to some of that stuff. Yet I was the one who was bitchy, according to you.

I'd also say that that thread wasn't essentially about working women. The OP, remember, was wondering whether to become a SAHM, and was soliciting views from other women who had done the same and had lived to tell the tale. She wasn't asking WOHMs how they combined work and motherhood (though, that said, there were a lot of good comments about p/t working, flexible working, different career directions and so on - which could well be useful to someone who's not sure about SAHM-ing).

But this is getting on to being yet another 'angels on the head of a pin' discussion so, as you say, it's best left.

I think there has been some interesting discussion on this thread (along with some truly bizarre stuff!) and I have actually found myself agreeing with some of the things daftpunk says!!

However, I am uneasy about the post where she says she hopes if her daughter one day has children she will stay home with them at least for the first 3 years. I have two daughters (and a son) and I very much hope that if they have children they will make the decisions which suit them and indeed their partner. That may be staying home, but equally it may be staying home for a year, 6 months or whatever. My children are individuals; it is not my right to try, or even to want to try, to impose my own particular wants onto them. It's just a step away from aspiring for your children to enter a particular career, or whatever.

The really important thing, I feel, is educating our children to be able to cope with the reality of living. If my daughters grow up feeling they are lesser mothers if they don't stay home for 5 years or whatever, then I will feel I have failed.

Oh whatever. I think women should do whatever they want to do after they have children, you don't. I don't think we are ever going to agree on that point.

I'm just hoping that when I become an SAHM next year that the rest of them aren't like you.

Is your post aimed at me, LadyB? If so, yes, we will agree to differ.

But whoever your second comment is aimed at, it's not very nice.

dp sounds like my mother (minus all the racist, homophobic crap she usually comes out with) and whilst it is really helpful to encourage your children to think about how they would combine their career with family, hobbies and all the other things that make life enjoyable it's not helpful to assume that your children will feel the same way as you do. It is your opinion and possibly your experience that being able to be a SAHM for at least three years is a good thing, but it is not true that all mothers find going back to work emotionally hard. And not just where they haven't bonded very well, some of us just aren't that interested in staying home with babies, whilst there are plenty of men who would love to do so (I always think this is a missing bit of all that research asking "would you rather stay at home" I would have thought that many people would say yes to this, regardless of whether they are mothers or not). So watch out that you aren't pressurizing your dd, just supporting her.

Hear hear nooka, excellent post.

I fact I really wish people would separate the whole bonding issue from the equation, as it rarely has anything to do with it. I had no trouble bonding with my first dd, but returned to p/t work quickly. It's got nothing to do how much you love your child or enjoy their company - you can feel those things 100% but also want to work. And as you rightly point out, dads usually seem to be left out of the debate!

The bottom line is that we should focus on good parenting, as opposed to poor parenting, which have nothing to do with working - it's possible to be a brilliant parent as well as working full time, and it's possible to be a very poor parent while not working. I have been a teacher for many years and I honestly think if there were a clear divide in outcomes between children of working parents and children of SAHP, then it would be really easy to spot! And it isn't. I have known clever, engaging, positive children from homes where the parents work and where there is a parent at home, and children who are not very clever, or have behaviour issues,from both types of home as well. In fact, the most extreme behaviour I ever came across was from a child where the mother had never worked at all since about age 18, she was at home 24/7, but it didn't produce great outcomes for her children! The whole issue is far more complex. If the parents have a good relationship, and are good role models for their children then the children are likely to do well.

I have no issue with a parent staying home if they can afford it, and if as a family it suits to have a parent at home. But let's be honest about what it is: it's a decision that one parent wants to do that. It's a massive leap to then suggest that it somehow makes things 'better' for the child. In fact, the OP is very honest that she can't face the idea of going back to work. She's not saying it would be bad for her child, and in fact they aren't even deciding for her to continue working on 60k while her DH gives up his 30k job - she is saying she wants to stop working. Which is absolutely fine if as a family they agree, and realise that it's a decision which suits her but which won't mean that the child will grow a different personality, or walk 3 months earlier, or achieve 10 more GCSEs at school!!

If my daughters want to go back to work within a month of giving birth fine!...that would be their decision and I'd help them out as much as I could, (offering to look after the baby for example)....I advise my children, I dont preach to them, they know about my political beliefs, but that hasn't stopped dd1 joining the Labour party.

All I've said to my dd's re; having children is to make sure they are in a posistion where if they "want" to stay at home for a few yrs they can....y'know, take control of their lives.

I think it's very sad when a woman has to return to work when she really doesn't want to. Very few women have brilliant careers with live in nannies etc, the reality for most woman is a life of rushing around trying to do it all.....
I want my daughters to have a happy easy life.

PS;

I know most people would love to give up work, but someone has to earn the money..I'm sure my dh could cope really well being at home all day watching sky sports news, but y'know...he can't.

And I don't think I'm pressuring my dd's by telling them that taking time out to raise their kids is a good option.....bringing up a child successfully is bloody hard work, and we should be giving sahm alot more recognition.

violethill while it's not better to have a SAHM for every child, can I make the point that it is better for some? My older son is so much happier now that I'm not working - his personality needs quiet time for his imaginative play and he can find group play stressful after a while (he does fine in nursery school for 2.5 hours a day though - it was just the long day). Can we not say that it's only dependent on what the mother wants but also depends on each individual kid?

(p.s. I accept that a good nanny would work for us except that I don't make enough to afford for the first £34K of my salary to go to Nanny costs!!!!)

I think it's dependent on what is best for the family as a whole. No one individual child 'trumps' another. Some children may not cope well with group activities; others do. It's probably sensible to provide a balance anyway, because life is a series of different experiences, and the better equipped a child is to deal with that, then the happier and more stable they are likely to be. One of my children was always better at playing alone than the other two, but I am glad they have all had experience of both things - quiet, self contained play, and group activities. After all, it's highly likely that at some point children are going to want/need to cope with group situations.

I am also slightly intrigued by dp's comment that 'most people would love to give up work'. That's a very negative belief, and seems to imply that working is intrinsically dull, repetitive and not stimulating. If that's the case for an individual, far better to improve their work situation through training, getting better qualfications etc than sit in a job which they loathe. There are many jobs which are interesting and fulfilling, and personally I would rather work than sit and watch sky sports all day, which was the alternative dp suggested her husband might like!

Absolutely..

I always find statements like "my 6 month old really loves nursery" a bit odd, how do you know your baby loves nursery? are you there?...is your 6 month old talking to you?

& what very young child would rather be apart from his mother (or father) all day?

I think most parents are instinctively tuned in to their child's emotional well being and needs dp. That's how. I could always tell whether my children were contented/settled/secure/miserable/fractious etc etc from pretty much when they popped out of the womb. So was my husband.
I think it's very odd as a parent not to be. As the parents, you know your own children best

Back on planet earth VH, most people have quite dull jobs

Really dp?
not sure what jobs you've ever worked in, but I wouldn't stay long in a job that was really dull. I am also encouraging my children to aspire to things which interest them. It's their choice what they do, but I think it's very important as a human being to aspire to live as interesting a life as possible. I'd hate to be raising my children to think most jobs are dull.

In an ideal world we'd all have fantastically interesting well paid jobs (if we wanted one)...but the reality for most people is that they'll work in a bank/shop/office/factory etc...dreaming of winning the lottery