Stay at home mums

RoxieW

For the record, it has nothing to do with paid employment. I have worked for free on many occassion and studied/volunteered etc. I don't think that ambition has to wrapped up in what you earn.

poet123

RoxieW wrote: »

Far from envious! I am a SAHM and could be in that position for as long as I like but I couldn't think of anything worse. I have no problem with SAHM, SAHW or whatever, if you are doing things for yourself, not wasting your potential etc. I do find it quite shocking though that graduates, city traders etc are prepared to Jack all that in to become 'enablers' of their husbands. Are their careers not of equal importance?
Look, if you volunteer great, if you want to stay home and make jam/sew cushions etc then great but do what fulfils you! Not what will fulfil your husband. That is all I'm trying to say.

Only if they want them to be, many women are happy to stay at home and be (for want of a phrase with less derogatory connotations) a lady of leisure. I have a friend who was well educated but who chose not toreturn to work when her kids were older so that she could travel with her husband, spend time with her sister who lives abroad, design their several homes etc etc. She is one of the happiest people I know.

onlyroz wrote: »

I disagree. If you're of average or above average intelligence then I maintain that you should be able to succeed in education and career regardless of your background. That was one of the aims of the Blair government wasn't it? That anybody could go to university regardless of their family's income level? Love him or hate him, I think that he *did* achieve that goal. Yes, you might have to take out a loan to go to uni, but if you work hard then you *should* end up with a good enough job to be able to pay back those loans and pursue a rewarding career.

The myth is that those who have education should always use it in paid employment. Surely education is an end in itself? not necessarily the vehicle used to further a career? Why should a wife and mother not be educated? surely her education is useful to her children and for her own enlightenment and satisfaction.

We have choices, we choose differently, that does not make our own choice the best one for everyone.

I work in FE and it is far too simplistic to say a university education is there for the taking for all. It is a good soundbite, but not reality. There are a myriad of obstacles which prevent and preclude bright youngsters from achieving. However, that is a different and separate discussion to the one we are having here.:D

sunshinetours

RoxieW wrote: »

Far from envious! I am a SAHM and could be in that position for as long as I like but I couldn't think of anything worse. I have no problem with SAHM, SAHW or whatever, if you are doing things for yourself, not wasting your potential etc. I do find it quite shocking though that graduates, city traders etc are prepared to Jack all that in to become 'enablers' of their husbands. Are their careers not of equal importance?
Look, if you volunteer great, if you want to stay home and make jam/sew cushions etc then great but do what fulfils you! Not what will fulfil your husband. That is all I'm trying to say.

With respect it sounds as though you indeed would be better choosing to return to work if you "can't think of anything worse"

As someone who has no problem apparently with SAHM you certainly like to utilise descriptions that you believe do belittle them.

These decisions that are required are all taken as part of a family decision and IMO require a strong and equal partnership to exist. Maybe that is at the root of those who struggle to understand how such decisions can work well for families?
In that respect I do agree that noone should be forced to give up something or do something they don't want to do in any partnership.

andrealm

RoxieW wrote: »

Far from envious! I am a SAHM and could be in that position for as long as I like but I couldn't think of anything worse. I have no problem with SAHM, SAHW or whatever, if you are doing things for yourself, not wasting your potential etc. I do find it quite shocking though that graduates, city traders etc are prepared to Jack all that in to become 'enablers' of their husbands. Are their careers not of equal importance?
Look, if you volunteer great, if you want to stay home and make jam/sew cushions etc then great but do what fulfils you! Not what will fulfil your husband. That is all I'm trying to say.

What makes you think they're doing it to fulfil their husbands and not themselves? If they are happy with their choice, why do you find it shocking?

I can't think of anything worse than being in a very stressful job such as a city trader, but I realise that for some people, it would be their dream and they would thrive on it.

andrealm

onlyroz wrote: »

I disagree. If you're of average or above average intelligence then I maintain that you should be able to succeed in education and career regardless of your background. That was one of the aims of the Blair government wasn't it? That anybody could go to university regardless of their family's income level? Love him or hate him, I think that he *did* achieve that goal. Yes, you might have to take out a loan to go to uni, but if you work hard then you *should* end up with a good enough job to be able to pay back those loans and pursue a rewarding career.

What of those who are of below average intelligence?

The problem is, that you have 40-50% of people goin to uni, degrees are seriously devalued. It isn't enough to have a degree any more, you need to have a 2.1 or a First, or a post grad, or have done something else
that makes you stand out from the crowd.

There are only so many "good" jobs out there, these days there are not enough for the numbers of graduates we have now.

RoxieW

I couldn't think of anything worse then to stay a SAHM forever. I had a period of 4 weeks before I had my third son when the boys were at school and I was going stir crazy!
Anyway, bowing out of this thread now because people just seem to be reading the worst into what I'm saying. The OP asked for honest opinions and I've given mine. Not once have I jumped on anyone elses opinion and picked it apart. Can think of better things to do then go around in circles in this thread.

sunshinetours

onlyroz wrote: »

Agreed.

Having both parents working often means that you can take your kids on better holidays, or live in a bigger house. Doesn't this make your kids' lives better? And I believe that I spend enough time with my kids - any time lost during the week is made up for at the weekend, in any case. It's often about quality time rather than a quantity time - and if you're an educated woman in an interesting job then you can have much more interesting discussions with your kids than if you're at home all day.

To those "stay-at-home-mums" who say they run their own businesses or are following educational courses, then great. If only there were more people like you...

No it doesn't and I think that is the problem I have with those who base their decisions on this. Young kids esepcially have no concept of monetary value of things - they just want to feel safe and secure, which you can do in a 2 bed semi or a 5 bed detached at the end if the day

wifefaefife

I have just recently become a SAHM as I resigned from my part time job as it was no longer fitting in with my famliy life. I hope that we won't miss the money too much and I will enjoy being a full time SAHM. I was lucky enough to have a mum who was willing to look after my DD while I was working, if she hadn't agreed to this it wouldn't have been worth my while. I don't know how full time mums manage it at all (maybe their not on the MSE forum all the time and do housework unlike myself!) Although I do know some full time mums who don't manage it all but earn enough to pay someone to do the cleaning and ironing (I dream of someone else doing my ironing). Although I do feel my DD benefits from me being at home but I'll be keeping my eye out for a part time job that is a bit more suitable for me.

onlyroz

andrealm wrote: »

The problem is, that you have 40-50% of people goin to uni, degrees are seriously devalued.

More people are going to Uni because they are studying for subjects that did not used to be degree level - previously you might have done an apprenticeship, or something. The idea with making subjects like this degree level is to make sure that the training is more uniform and better regulated. This does not devalue degree courses.

Gingham_Ribbon

onlyroz wrote: »

I disagree. If you're of average or above average intelligence then I maintain that you should be able to succeed in education and career regardless of your background. That was one of the aims of the Blair government wasn't it? That anybody could go to university regardless of their family's income level? Love him or hate him, I think that he *did* achieve that goal. Yes, you might have to take out a loan to go to uni, but if you work hard then you *should* end up with a good enough job to be able to pay back those loans and pursue a rewarding career.

That's a lovely ideal and absolutely false at the moment, unfortunately.