Is it harder to decide to be a SAHM if you have a high income?

[NovemberBride]

Date: 4/10/2010 5:45:23 PM
Author: Black Jade
I went to an Ivy League school way back in the day--not part of the very class that allowed women to attend but attended soon after that when it was a still a new thing to have women being educated there. We were all told constantly how fortunate we were and how we were pioneers and how we had to not let all women down by ''copping out'' and staying at home once we had kids (if we even did have kids. It was strongly implied that being a mom at all was not a good choice to make, since it was much more important to prove that we could everything else just the same as men). Anyway, I ate all this up--until I had my first child. There was no way that I was going to leave that child for someone else to take care of, so I became a SAHM. And a sort of a pariah for many years. I remember meeting one of my former professors in the street once while pushing a baby carriage with my (two by then) kids--and the way he shook his head and said out loud that who would have imagined that I would turn out so badly.

I was young when I had my first two kids--I was 28 when I got pregnant the first time. Fast forward to 10 years later when my female classmates had established their careers and decided they wished to have kids too. Suddenly everything became very different. At reunions women openly talked about how differently they felt about things once they had become mothers, and the ones that were forced to continue working while their children were under five, for financial reasons, were very unhappy about it.

Generally speaking (there are some exceptions) I think that women who want to have a child also want to be with the child. Because, what''s the point, otherwise? There is this sort of ideal in women''s heads, when a baby is an abstract thing, where they remain just the same and are very career oriented, but once the actual baby is there, there are few who enjoy being separated for long, long hours from their child. Once the child is school age is a different story, but few mothers of infants like this separation. Being away from a baby under a year old, especially, seems to be something that most women ONLY do for financial reasons.

So my answer is that it''s easier to decide to be a SAHM if you have a high income, because then you are what is now considered the ''lucky few'' who can afford to afford to do so.

Children don''t really take that long to grow up, and when they are grown up, you can move ahead with your life in other ways. I teach in college and started doing that again part time once my kids were older. Of course, I am an adjunct, rather than even trying to be a professor (much less one with tenure), but that''s just fine. When I look at my grown children, doing well, it seems to me to have been well worth it. One of my kids turned out to be bipolar, also and has other health problems as well--I can''t even imagine what would have happened to him, if I hadn''t had lots and lots of time for him (and his drs. and his IEPs and accomodations at school, and the tutoring he needed, etc. etc.) Also, I know that being at home is a reason that I was able to stay married to the same husband for 27 years (and we are still in love). Marriages, like children, do better when you can put some time into them, which is sort of hard when both spouses are running around like gerbils on a treadmill, only waving at each other in passing.

JMHO. But I have read these posts with interest and the wisest ones seem to me to be the ones where women are not spending the second income, but saving it for in case they want to be a SAHM someday, and sort of not getting used to spending two incomes, because one day they might only have one.

Black Jade,
I am sorry you had the experience you did. You will be glad to know that things have changed for the better. I attended an elite college and an elite law school and never was I given the impression that I''d be wasting my education if I had a family. To the contrary, I attended/participated in several working groups, panels, etc. regarding work/life balance. Not to say things are perfect, there is a lot of room for improvement, especially in my field of law.

The rest of your post reads as pretty insulting to working moms. I think it''s rude to say that most moms who have kids want to be with them, so they stay home if they can. Of course I want to be with my daughter, working doesn''t mean I don''t want to be with her (just like it doesn''t mean someone else is raising her. I assure you that my husband and I are the only people raising our daughter - by the way, our marriage is also doing great even though we are both working). I must be one of the exceptions you noted, because I could afford to stay home at least for a while, my husband makes a good income and we have a lot in savings, yet I did not chose to do so. I love my daughter very much, but I also love my career and I am providing a great example to her of an independent woman who worked hard for many years to achieve her goals and to be able to help support her family. Most of my fellow female law school graduates are also still working, even though they could afford to live on their husbands'' salaries alone. They are also all fantastic mothers who cherish the time they spend with their kids. BTW - I have the utmost respect for stay at home moms. It is a job in itself, and a very tough one at that. Many days I think I have it easier going to work than stay at home moms.

 

[janinegirly]

I ditto November.

Agree that 2nd half of bjade's post borders on the insulting, particularly the last lines. Please do not make assumptions about people and decisions they have made (and insinuate they should have saved $ better??).

Women choose to continue working for a myriad of reasons but it is not ALWAYS financial or selfish. Some women are much happier and fulfilled at home, but others are not--and that is not always something that is determined before the baby arrives. The movement in the late '60's (or early '70's from what I gather from your post) to promote women's ABILITY to continue work after having children was not just so others could belittle those who rebuffed the "efforts" so to speak, but to allow women the option so they would not have to become stifled shadows of themselves (the Sylvia Path generation). As times changed, yes the sexes became more equal and part of that equation means women and men share the burden more equally. I have friends who are SAHD's for example. However not all women work for financial reasons--I have several friends who are SAHM's who were secretly unhappy and bored, and are reemerging slowly back into their careers. Like I said earlier, happy mom ='s happy family (I use that quote way too much!).

Make the choice for you and your family and think long term. Each family has their own priorities. But I hope people are not reading these forums and feeling guilty, pressured or pursuaded that somehow it's either home or unhealthy child; career OR babies. This is 2010, right?

 

[Sabine]

For me it was a LOT more about not enjoying my job and not knowing what career choice I would enjoy.

I was a teacher before being a SAHM, so I didn''t make a ton, so I don''t know if it''d be harder if it was high income, but I honestly hated my job, so I really think that no matter how much I made, I would have preferred to stay at home. And I think that if I had a job I really LOVED, even if I didn''t make a lot, I''d feel a much stronger pull to go back to it.

 

[HVVS]

Personally, I don't know any women who opted to be SAHM. Most of my peers married in their late 20s, had one or two children in probably their mid-30s, and went back to work within 4 to 6 months. Several used day care services. A few hired live-in nannies. I never heard any of them express a desire to stay home all the time with kids.

In my own family, there has not been a full time SAHM since the 1920s. If you have an interesting career, you don't want to give it up completely for family life. My sister took the most time off when her kids were younger, but she has a $100K+ spouse, and is a nurse, and that profession was much more lenient about holding jobs than some other businesses are. Nobody's kids are neglected or ignored. They are just raised to be independent, clean up their own messes, and know that Mom is DEFINITELY NOT the household slave. And, the men are expected to spend as much time on family chores and household scutwork as the women. Too many women fall back into that traditional servant and subordinate role, let the dad play too much, then wonder why they get no respect from either the kids or the husband.

I don't have children, and one reason is that I just never saw the allure of being Mom. To me, the paid work is less drudgery and "work" to me than the family life is. If I had found a suitable spouse when I was in my 20s, I might have had one child. But that would have been my limit.

 

[steph72276]

Hvvs, I think it is highly insulting to liken SAHMs to servants. The good thing about it being 2010 is that women have a choice. For some, a career is the right choice, for some staying at home is the right choice. Being a SAHM doesn''t mean you can''t raise independent, respectful children that do not view the mom as a slave, and I think all the highly intelligent SAHMs on this forum would agree.

 

[E B]

Date: 4/11/2010 10:42:41 AM
Author: HVVS

Too many women fall back into that traditional servant and subordinate role, let the dad play too much, then wonder why they get no respect from either the kids or the husband.

I...don't even....

...wow.

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 4/11/2010 3:13:38 PM
Author: FL Steph
Hvvs, I think it is highly insulting to liken SAHMs to servants. The good thing about it being 2010 is that women have a choice. For some, a career is the right choice, for some staying at home is the right choice. Being a SAHM doesn''t mean you can''t raise independent, respectful children that do not view the mom as a slave, and I think all the highly intelligent SAHMs on this forum would agree.

and highly formally educated....

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I think this is a really personally decision that many women don''t know the answer to until they are *holding* their baby. I know several women who went back to work and claimed they could NEVER be a SAHM (while preggo) who quit their jobs shortly after going back to work. Your life changes when you become a mother. Some women enjoy their careers and the independence that brings which is wonderful. Some women enjoy taking care of their children and staying at home which is ALSO wonderful. If I was making loads of money it would have been harder to quit. I think it also depends if you are in a fast moving field where taking 2-4 years off really kills it. I am going back to school which basically will be a full time job. I thought I would wait until my child(ren) were in school before I would go back but have decided not to wait. I hope my daughter will see me doing something for me and respect that. I would never trade the past few years I got to see every single milestone but am looking forward to doing something for myself. I am babbling now. Point is money isn''t everything. Only YOU know what is right for YOUR family when the time comes.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Would I find it harder to give up a lot of money than to give up a little money? Yes.

The thing that I find sad is that it has to be an and/ or choice. Work 40 + hours a week or spend all your time at home? Neither, thank you. Maybe families need to lobby for better choices, for more family-friendly workplaces and policies. For men as well as women.

ETA I don't really know any SAHMs in real life either. Certainly none in my family for several generations. Most of the women I know with children have careers, but then I live in an area where maternity leave is months rather than weeks and flexible working arrangements are common. It takes the all or nothing feel away from the decision. I can cope with working and being a mother too, when my working week is 35 hours (or I can job-share for a few years without losing all benefits and career prospects) and I have flexi time, generous annual leave and public holiday days and 2 weeks of 'emergency' (albeit unpaid) family leave available as a fall back to cover sickness etc.

But yes, I would find it hard to give up a very well paid job than a poorly paid job, regardless of the reason!

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Date: 4/11/2010 6:07:56 PM
Author: Mrs Mitchell
Would I find it harder to give up a lot of money than to give up a little money? Yes.


The thing that I find sad is that it has to be an and/ or choice. Work 40 + hours a week or spend all your time at home? Neither, thank you. Maybe we need to lobby for better choices, for more family-friendly workplaces and policies. For men as well as women.

amen sister!

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Date: 4/10/2010 5:45:23 PM
Author: Black Jade
I went to an Ivy League school way back in the day--not part of the very class that allowed women to attend but attended soon after that when it was a still a new thing to have women being educated there. We were all told constantly how fortunate we were and how we were pioneers and how we had to not let all women down by ''copping out'' and staying at home once we had kids (if we even did have kids. It was strongly implied that being a mom at all was not a good choice to make, since it was much more important to prove that we could everything else just the same as men). Anyway, I ate all this up--until I had my first child. There was no way that I was going to leave that child for someone else to take care of, so I became a SAHM. And a sort of a pariah for many years. I remember meeting one of my former professors in the street once while pushing a baby carriage with my (two by then) kids--and the way he shook his head and said out loud that who would have imagined that I would turn out so badly.
I was young when I had my first two kids--I was 28 when I got pregnant the first time. Fast forward to 10 years later when my female classmates had established their careers and decided they wished to have kids too. Suddenly everything became very different. At reunions women openly talked about how differently they felt about things once they had become mothers, and the ones that were forced to continue working while their children were under five, for financial reasons, were very unhappy about it.
Generally speaking (there are some exceptions) I think that women who want to have a child also want to be with the child. Because, what''s the point, otherwise? There is this sort of ideal in women''s heads, when a baby is an abstract thing, where they remain just the same and are very career oriented, but once the actual baby is there, there are few who enjoy being separated for long, long hours from their child. Once the child is school age is a different story, but few mothers of infants like this separation. Being away from a baby under a year old, especially, seems to be something that most women ONLY do for financial reasons.
So my answer is that it''s easier to decide to be a SAHM if you have a high income, because then you are what is now considered the ''lucky few'' who can afford to afford to do so.
Children don''t really take that long to grow up, and when they are grown up, you can move ahead with your life in other ways. I teach in college and started doing that again part time once my kids were older. Of course, I am an adjunct, rather than even trying to be a professor (much less one with tenure), but that''s just fine. When I look at my grown children, doing well, it seems to me to have been well worth it. One of my kids turned out to be bipolar, also and has other health problems as well--I can''t even imagine what would have happened to him, if I hadn''t had lots and lots of time for him (and his drs. and his IEPs and accomodations at school, and the tutoring he needed, etc. etc.) Also, I know that being at home is a reason that I was able to stay married to the same husband for 27 years (and we are still in love). Marriages, like children, do better when you can put some time into them, which is sort of hard when both spouses are running around like gerbils on a treadmill, only waving at each other in passing.
JMHO. But I have read these posts with interest and the wisest ones seem to me to be the ones where women are not spending the second income, but saving it for in case they want to be a SAHM someday, and sort of not getting used to spending two incomes, because one day they might only have one.

Ok, I can''t see this the same way that you do, maybe it''s because we''re from different backgrounds and generations, but leaving that aside, where in all that you recommend does the child''s father take 50% of the responsibility? For the child, for the relationship, for the family? My daughter''s father and I both want to spend time with her, both want to bring her up, both want to take care of her because yes, that was the point of having a child. I don''t have a monopoly or a right to that any more than he does. When I wrote about family friendly working arrangements, I didn''t mean just mother-friendly. We need to earn a living but we also need to have equal roles and shares in our family life.

 

[steph72276]

MrsM, I totally agree. I would love to do something part time, but the cost of childcare, especially for an infant is so incredibly high, it doesn''t make sense for our family. So like Tacori, I am waiting until my youngest is 2, then going back for my master''s degree.

Oh, btw I just had my husband make a delicious meal AND clean up the kitchen afterwards...guess this servant got the night off

 

[jewelz617]

Date: 4/11/2010 3:37:40 PM
Author: E B

Date: 4/11/2010 10:42:41 AM

Author: HVVS


Too many women fall back into that traditional servant and subordinate role, let the dad play too much, then wonder why they get no respect from either the kids or the husband.

I...don''t even....


...wow.

HVVS has had many threads in which she attacks SAHMs. It''s very bizarre.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Okay, I'm just going to delete all this.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

gone

 

[E B]

Date: 4/11/2010 6:45:52 PM
Author: PinkAsscher678

HVVS has had many threads in which she attacks SAHMs. It's very bizarre.

I did a quick search and found a few. Seems like a possible bag of issues best left untouched.

 

[jewelz617]

Date: 4/11/2010 7:21:28 PM
Author: E B

Date: 4/11/2010 6:45:52 PM

Author: PinkAsscher678


HVVS has had many threads in which she attacks SAHMs. It''s very bizarre.

I did a quick search and found a few. Seems like a possible bag of issues best left untouched.

I agree

 

[MichelleCarmen]

gone

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 4/11/2010 7:25:07 PM
Author: PinkAsscher678

Date: 4/11/2010 7:21:28 PM
Author: E B

Date: 4/11/2010 6:45:52 PM

Author: PinkAsscher678


HVVS has had many threads in which she attacks SAHMs. It's very bizarre.

I did a quick search and found a few. Seems like a possible bag of issues best left untouched.

I agree

I don't think a person is fully qualified to state their views on SAHMs and how the family functions unless they have first-hand experience at being a mom.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 4/11/2010 10:42:41 AM
Author: HVVS
Personally, I don''t know any women who opted to be SAHM. Most of my peers married in their late 20s, had one or two children in probably their mid-30s, and went back to work within 4 to 6 months. Several used day care services. A few hired live-in nannies. I never heard any of them express a desire to stay home all the time with kids.

In my own family, there has not been a full time SAHM since the 1920s. If you have an interesting career, you don''t want to give it up completely for family life. My sister took the most time off when her kids were younger, but she has a $100K+ spouse, and is a nurse, and that profession was much more lenient about holding jobs than some other businesses are. Nobody''s kids are neglected or ignored. They are just raised to be independent, clean up their own messes, and know that Mom is DEFINITELY NOT the household slave. And, the men are expected to spend as much time on family chores and household scutwork as the women. Too many women fall back into that traditional servant and subordinate role, let the dad play too much, then wonder why they get no respect from either the kids or the husband.

I don''t have children, and one reason is that I just never saw the allure of being Mom. To me, the paid work is less drudgery and ''work'' to me than the family life is. If I had found a suitable spouse when I was in my 20s, I might have had one child. But that would have been my limit.

Your sister is from the 1920s?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/11/2010 6:45:52 PM
Author: PinkAsscher678


HVVS has had many threads in which she attacks SAHMs. It''s very bizarre.

how does she feel about SAHD??

 

[Jas12]

HVVS--wow, intense. Well, i guess if i had to be a slave to anyone, it would be to my son who makes me laugh more than any other human being i've been around, fills my day with a love i've never experienced before, and really, makes me wonder what i did without him.
I only hope you feel that sense of happiness one day. I am not a SAHM, but i know no job would ever make me feel that way so i wish i were so lucky to have the choice.


And to address the question. I do think if i made oodles of money i would be a bit more tempted to go back to work. Esp if that pay cheque was necessary to maintain a standard of living i was use to.

in an ideal world i'd work part-time at a great job, but as everyone knows, it's hard to find that combo.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 4/11/2010 9:54:57 PM
Author: Jas12
HVVS--wow, intense. Well, i guess if i had to be a slave to anyone, it would be to my son who makes me laugh more than any other human being i''ve been around, fills my day with a love i''ve never experienced before, and really, makes me wonder what i did without him.
I only hope you feel that sense of happiness one day. I am not a SAHM, but i know no job would ever make me feel that way so i wish i were so lucky to have the choice.


And to address the question. I do think if i made oodles of money i would be a bit more tempted to go back to work. Esp if that pay cheque was necessary to maintain a standard of living i was use to.

in an ideal world i''d work part-time at a great job, but as everyone knows, it''s hard to find that combo.

+1 Jas.
HVVS....... wow. You really made me speechless. That doesn''t happen very often on here.

Ok stopping before I lose it!!!!

But boy I could say a lot.

 

[jewelz617]

Date: 4/11/2010 7:28:26 PM
Author: MC

Date: 4/11/2010 7:25:07 PM

Author: PinkAsscher678

Date: 4/11/2010 7:21:28 PM

Author: E B

Date: 4/11/2010 6:45:52 PM


Author: PinkAsscher678



HVVS has had many threads in which she attacks SAHMs. It's very bizarre.

I did a quick search and found a few. Seems like a possible bag of issues best left untouched.

I agree

I don't think a person is fully qualified to state their views on SAHMs and how the family functions unless they have first-hand experience at being a mom.

My favorite example

Anyhoo... I seriously envy the women who can have the really nice lifestyle and stay home with the kids, without sacrificing any luxuries. I sometimes think "what if" I had established more of a career prior to having my daughter, but ultimately if anything in my life had been different, she would not be here now. And honestly, I can not imagine life without her! I'm young (26) and I have time to further my education and establish role in the work force, but for now I am perfectly content with apartment life and spaghetti night with my family. I feel I have a very rich life, which doesn't include a lot of material things. Someday we'll get there, but for now it's just a matter of priority that I'm home as much as I can be. 2 years at home has been wonderful. There isn't one milestone I've missed. Things I would have never gotten back I can proudly say I witnessed. Staying home is not for everyone, but for me there was no other option. ...and the hits continue...

 

[packrat]

I''m not a career oriented girl and I never have been. I''ve always just wanted to be a wife and mom. So, it wouldn''t matter to me if I made millions of dollars a year, I''d rather be home. ''Course, if I made THAT kinda money, I''d''ve been saving and investing like a crazy person until we had kids and then lived off that..

I like being at home with the kids and cooking and cleaning. I can spend a half hour snuggling w/Trapper when I tuck him in, whispering and giggling, without feeling like I have to speed things up b/c I need to get to bed for work in the morning. I like that I can (try) and stay up to see JD when he comes home from work and after taking London to school I can doze w/Trapper while he watches a movie.

I work Wednesdays and my mom comes in to watch the kids for a few hours in the afternoon when JD leaves for work, until I get home. I love what I do at my job, but even if I made 5 times as much, I''d still want to just do the 1 day. We''re struggling, granted, but to us it''s worth it to struggle until Trapper goes to preschool next fall (not this coming fall), and then I''ll work those couple hours he''s gone every day, and then the following year he''ll start Kindergarten so I''ll pick up more hours. Until then, I''ll eat ramen a few nights a week and fawn over my kidlets.

I think sometimes of finding something different, jobwise..going to massage school, doing day care, working at a daycare/preschool/grade school..something..but I just don''t know what exactly I want to do..but, I''ve got time to think about it!

I only feel like a slave or a servant the days when I pick up and 5 seconds later it looks like I''ve not done a thing..but that''s part of having kids (and a husband). And you know what, then I''ll throw my hands in the air and say screw it let''s watch some Bugs Bunny and we''ll all 3 pile into the recliner and snuggle. Or we''ll leave the mess and go for a walk.

I like that b/c I''m home most of the week, I see my husband as well, more than if I were working full time b/c he works 2nd shift. When we were first married, we saw each other at lunch time and that''s it during the week. Now we have time to do things together, work on the yard and the house etc.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Date: 4/11/2010 6:41:06 PM
Author: FL Steph
MrsM, I totally agree. I would love to do something part time, but the cost of childcare, especially for an infant is so incredibly high, it doesn't make sense for our family. So like Tacori, I am waiting until my youngest is 2, then going back for my master's degree.

Oh, btw I just had my husband make a delicious meal AND clean up the kitchen afterwards...guess this servant got the night off

Steph, hope you enjoyed your dinner. Are you going to do a Masters in education? I have a friend who is doing that right now and she is loving every minute of it. I hope you do too.

DD's daycare is at DH's office and that made my decision to go back to school so much easier (I had a time limit and this was the last year I could do the postgraduate diploma I needed without doing part of my degree again).

I would love to see more workplace childcare, because it makes it so much easier for families. No crazy stuff in the mornings, parent on hand if there is a problem / sick kid etc and DH can have lunch with her to break up the day a bit.

His team is all male, and as part of the construction industry, a fairly macho environment can prevail at times, but they all have kids under 5. They cover for each other, they work around family commitments, and extended paternity leave. Their work life balance is important to all of them and respected by all of them and they are all very much hands-on parents, because their kids basically go to work with them. We're very, very lucky and I know this is unusually flexible but when he worked on a project in Helsinki a few years ago, that was the norm for a workplace in Finland, which makes me think that we in the UK are lagging behind other parts of Europe.

I keep going on about this, but I really do believe that the choice between working and being a parent is a cruel and difficult one for many women. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Women don't have children, men and women have them. Why is it women who have to make the 100% choice? Work needs to change. It is changing in some parts of the world, so maybe that's where the feminist money should be now - pushing for faster and more fundamental change to workplace attitudes to families rather than pushing men into provider but not equal parent role and women into career vs SAHM choices.

Ok, I'm done ranting. Sorry!

 

[MakingTheGrade]

I have to admit though, if we''re being perfectly honest.. If I was married to a literal billionaire and my potential income as a future physician would be trivially contributing to our family income, I would probably be a SAHM and just volunteer at free health clinics as an MD or do various other charity work with flexible hours.

 

[waterlilly]

If you don't need the income to survive and provide a safe and healthy home I can't see any reason for both parents to continue working. When I have a baby, my career will never be as important as my child's wellbeing.
You may be "losing out" on some money, but isn't that better than your child "losing out" on being raised by their mother or father?

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 4/13/2010 8:12:52 AM
Author: waterlilly
If you don''t need the income to survive and provide a safe and healthy home I can''t see any reason for both parents to continue working. When I have a baby, my career will never be as important as my child''s wellbeing.
You may be ''losing out'' on some money, but isn''t that better than your child ''losing out'' on being raised by their mother or father?

This comment is as hurtful as HVVS''s comment on SAHMs.

You ladies with no children can certainly have your opinion and share it as you see fit, but I would chose my words wisely.

I work and so does FI but my daughter is not "losing out" on her mother and father. The love we have for her is not less in comparison to that of a SAHM or a SAHD. It is a very ignorant comment to make.

 

[jewelz617]

Date: 4/13/2010 8:42:24 AM
Author: fiery

Date: 4/13/2010 8:12:52 AM

Author: waterlilly

If you don''t need the income to survive and provide a safe and healthy home I can''t see any reason for both parents to continue working. When I have a baby, my career will never be as important as my child''s wellbeing.

You may be ''losing out'' on some money, but isn''t that better than your child ''losing out'' on being raised by their mother or father?

This comment is as hurtful as HVVS''s comment on SAHMs.


You ladies with no children can certainly have your opinion and share it as you see fit, but I would chose my words wisely.


I work and so does FI but my daughter is not ''losing out'' on her mother and father. The love we have for her is not less in comparison to that of a SAHM or a SAHD. It is a very ignorant comment to make.

Everyone without kids is always the perfect parent.