any housewives out there?

Tabbytabitha

happyandcontented wrote: »

I actually earned a similar amount to my husband when we had our first child. I wanted to be a SAHM, he wouldn't have been averse to staying at home either, but I won! I imagine many men would like the opportunity to stay at home for a few years.

I don't think that you can change biology and that is what drives many women to want to be at home with babies. I had a choice and I made it. I made the time at home work for me by studying and gaining qualifications so that when I returned to the workforce I was able to choose roles which fitted around the family.

I think many women make similar choices and the only way to level the playing field would be to remove that choice and force all people between 16 and 67 to work. I doubt that would find favour with anyone.

I earned exactly the same as my husband so if we'd been able to have our own children we could have had a genuine discussion as to who would do what and would probably have ended up with us both working part time and using some childcare.

I'm afraid I think that propaganda and convention play just a big a role in women's domestic choices as biology and we're fooling ourselves by denying it.

happyandcontented

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

I earned exactly the same as my husband so if we'd been able to have our own children we could have had a genuine discussion as to who would do what and would probably have ended up with us both working part time and using some childcare.

I'm afraid I think that propaganda and convention play just a big a role in women's domestic choices as biology and we're fooling ourselves by denying it.

Perhaps that is true for some, but we did consider it and I didn't want to work part time....I wanted to give up work and enjoy being at home. What helped and bolstered the attraction was that many of my friends had babies at the same time, my parents were retired and I had options to explore. Many women are not so lucky, and they have to work.

I think given no financial constraints more women would take the time out of the workplace not less.

Red-Squirrel_2

jackieblack wrote: »

TBH, I would say that if someone else is caring for your child for significantly greater proportion of their waking hours, for a significant percentage of their childhood, then they're really the one who are raising them.

And it doesn't really matter what the reason for the absence is. If you're not physically with your child, you're absent from them. That's fact, not opinion or judgement. If someone's offended by that? Well, sorry but the truth can be painful... :cool:

Perhaps it depends on your definition of 'raising'...?
(I suspect maybe our definitions are different)

So hardly any dads are raising their children.

Interesting.

Poor_Single_lady

If you want to be paid for your "work" then ask your husband.

lush_walrus

Reading some of the posts reminds me of conversations with my retired parents about how busy they are. It often goes along the lines of we have been out all week this week hardly had time for myself, Ive been to the bank twice, the dentist to the doctor and picked up a prescription, then I have had some one round to look at the drains blah blah.

In their minds having both taken early retirement 20 years ago they are busy. Reality is working people would organise that into their day with minimal affect, dentist at lunchtime or whatever.

Both my husband and I run separate businesses with management staff so can organise life around our children. I find we are somewhere between stay at home parents and working parents in terms of volume of time with our girls as we can choose how engaged we are with our children.

One observation I have made is stay at home parents in my experience are seem desperate to bond with other parents and arrange weekly play dates Ive seen the pattern repeat across all three of our childrens childhood.

It feels to me as if the moment a stay at home parent comes across an opportunity say at mother and baby groups to get to know another parent they do. We confuse these parents as we are seemingly around at lots of groups, at all school events so they get to know us and then try to get a committed pattern week in week out of going forward k this park, this cafe, this group together.

That!!!8217;s not for me as when I am with my children I want to be focused on them, not on chatting to another mother about another mother has done this or that while my children run ferrell being socialised with other kids they have no interest in but Mummy is friends with their Mummy so tough.

It feels to me as if stay at home parents I have met want to avoid being with their kids relentlessly all day and to help to socialise them.

An alternative to that is to allow them to choose to spend time with the children they choose and to learn social skills at a nursery and then spend time with us focused on them when we are together, and if you choose to th parent can then spend time working in that period where apart..

So to the original question should stay at home parents be paid, no because other than go on a few more play date with people they choose and an ability to string chores out over a day, I can not see any other added value.

Happier_Me

I know of a couple whose husband is the only earner, wife hasn't worked for 5 years. He hates his job, is stressed at times to the point where we have been concerned for his safety, he does slot to help too (gets up at 5am to look after the kids, cooks every night (wife can't cook) etc. Wife claims to be depressed and stressed too but with 30 hours to herself a week she quite honestly doesn't get much sympathy from anyone, rightly or wrongly. This is not a healthy set up at all.

I know of another couple who have a similar set up, but husband enjoys his job and has hobbies that involve his children outside the home too. They have a solid relationship that seems to work.

I made different choices. Despite me being the higher earner I went part time. Part time working in a professional environment doesn't always work so I've spent the last 14 years juggling part time and full time work in stressful roles. I've also taken on full responsibility for the childcare and most of the household duties. We had a rule that the kids only go to paid childcare a max of 3 days a week so I juggled my longer hours around this. For me I wanted the best of worlds for my kids, lots of time with mum combined with a structured educational environment to give them as good a start in life as possible. Has it worked: for my kids yes, but for me, this equality business has probably knocked 10 years off my life: my husband is great in many ways but he will not adapt his working life to help with the kids. So there is an expectation that I do the childcare and the bulk of the housework... but I also contribute as much as he does financially working part time in a job I despise! My kids are turning out to be well adjusted, intelligent and caring young adults but mum is knackered. My choices have not necessarily worked for us as a family either if you consider the impact it's had on my mental health!

So from my experience it's important to do whats right for your family and each individual in it. That's all that matters, not what everyone else is doing.

Red-Squirrel_2

Happier_Me wrote: »

Wife claims to be depressed and stressed too but with 30 hours to herself a week she quite honestly doesn't get much sympathy from anyone, rightly or wrongly. This is not a healthy set up at all.

Depression is nothing to do with how much time you have to yourself. Some of the most severely depressed individuals have essentially all their time to themselves. It can actually be a contributing factor for some sufferers.

FBaby

In your situation I'd want to make my life as pleasant and easy as possible and be happy that I earned enough to give employment to others.

We did consider it, but if feels wasted money and frankly, I don't like the idea of someone doing a job that I could do but won't because it makes me life easier.

There is also a sense of being house proud when you do things yourself and ironically, compared to the stress of work, when you set your mind to it, there is a sense of relaxation in doing these tasks. No deadline, no one telling you that you are not doing a good job, when what they mean is no doing it the way they would do it, and you get to enjoy the outcome rather than your boss than passing it on as his doing.

In terms of 'hard work', I do agree that SAHM who have their young children FT at home do have it hard, however, I don't think it compares with a FT worker the moment the kids start to attend 30 hours of nursery, and even less when they are at school FT and they have then so much time to do all the things FT working parents have to do just the same.

All the women I know who are SAHM are so either because they had little education/work experience, and their prospect of earning a decent income is limited, or they are those who just didn't want to work any longer and couldn't wait to have kids to be a SAHM. I don't know any woman who was on their way to a good and satisfying career who became a SAHM just because she thought putting kids in childcare would damage them, or as a totally dedicated wife to her husband prepared to give up her ambition to make her husband life easier.

I think these lines are often used to cover the real reasons behind the choices of being a SAHM.

onomatopoeia99

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

And so it goes - round and round. It's so depressing.:(

So the woman needs to think about why she is the lower earner in that case. Before the first child is born, both will have had the same educational opportunities, same amount of time in the workplace and so on. If she gives up work as the lower earner, why is she in that position in the first place?

Tabbytabitha

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

So the woman needs to think about why she is the lower earner in that case. Before the first child is born, both will have had the same educational opportunities, same amount of time in the workplace and so on. If she gives up work as the lower earner, why is she in that position in the first place?

I'm afraid that's a very naive point of view and comes pretty close to victim blaming. Women generally aren't paid less than men because they haven't worked hard and made the best of their educational opportunities when younger.