any housewives out there?

jackieblack

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Except that, for many couples, that automatically means that the woman gives up her job, so not much of a conversation really.

If they're the lower earner, that would be the sensible decision.

happyandcontented

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Except that, for many couples, that automatically means that the woman gives up her job, so not much of a conversation really.

I would expect it to be the lower earner who would do that regardless of which parent that was. I accept that often that would be the woman, but not always.

In any case, surely the time to have such a conversation would be before you actually have children if views were entrenched on either side.

Tabbytabitha

jackieblack wrote: »

If they're the lower earner, that would be the sensible decision.

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

jackieblack

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

And so it goes - round and round.

Because that's the reality for a lot of couples!
People have to make decisions based on the facts, not how they wish things were.

happyandcontented

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

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

It is only depressing if you see being a SAHM as somehow being an inferior choice than working, full stop. I never saw it that way nor did my husband. If you make an informed choice and are not forced or coerced then it is not depressing at all.

clairec79

And what about when couples both work, yet don't have any external child care? Who was then raising the children?

At one point we both used to work 30 hours a week and switch over at 11.30 - but we both worked outside the home

jackomdj

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)

But surely it also depends on the quality of time they are given when the patent is there. If a parent is there all day, but does nothing but leave the child to their own devices is that necessarily better than a parent who works, has carefully chosen a good childcare provider, then spends hours playing with the child, educating them, taking them to age appropriate groups/clubs etc when they are home.
Is the parent that is there all the time, sat on their bum watching TV better than the one who stays up late cleaning the house or gets up early to unload the washing machine.
Personally I think there are good and bad in each type, you can't outright say this or that is better without putting some context around it.

Guineapigsqueaks

I think everyone should do what's best or necessary for them. I think children do well in whatever setting as long as the quality of the childcare is good and they are loved. But, being a housewife really isn't a "full-time" job, not unless you live in a very big house or have lots of very small children! And there's a certain equality (and choices) to be gained by always earning your own income.

Tabbytabitha

happyandcontented wrote: »

It is only depressing if you see being a SAHM as somehow being an inferior choice than working, full stop. I never saw it that way nor did my husband. If you make an informed choice and are not forced or coerced then it is not depressing at all.

I don't necessarily see it that way - it's depressing because it obviously makes more sense for the lower paid partner to give up work but that, as you agree, is usually the woman. Unfortunately, one of the reasons that women earn less is because they're usually the ones who give up work to bring up the children so, as I said, round and round we go with little real change in the last half century.

I don't really see that as a genuine choice and that's why I find it depressing.

happyandcontented

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

I don't necessarily see it that way - it's depressing because it obviously makes more sense for the lower paid partner to give up work but that, as you agree, is usually the woman. Unfortunately, one of the reasons that women earn less is because they're usually the ones who give up work to bring up the children so, as I said, round and round we go with little real change in the last half century.

I don't really see that as a genuine choice and that's why I find it depressing.

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.