Mothering Forum banner

SAHMing as default huring society's work/life balance?

7K views 184 replies 48 participants last post by  mammal_mama 
#1 ·
One of my friends was recently asserting the following --

That SAHM-ing is still the default expectation for the wives of professionals (doctor, lawyer, etc.) and the "executive" worker.

That SAHM-ing is contributing to and reinforcing the total work/life in-balance of many of those workers (as the hours requirements for those jobs are extremely high and just getting higher) -- since the expectation is that those workers have someone at home managing all other aspects of their lives (grocery shopping, bill paying, appointment making, childcare, etc., etc.) so that they can focus 100% on their career.

She feels that if the general social understanding was that the wives were continuing to work, and that the husbands would as a result HAVE to meet at least some proportion of primary responsibility for child-care and running the household, that the situation would not be as bad as it currently is. She further thinks that more women would be able to stay in those sorts of jobs full-time if the work/life balance was more reasonable.

I thought this was an interesting idea, though perhaps overstated. Thoughts?
 
See less See more
#127 ·
Interesting thread... good to see viewpoints from so many different perspectives!
We are struggling with this a little bit right now ourselves.( not for the same reasons as other in many ways) I am a stay at home mom myself. My partner works in the trades. He is paid well for what he does at this point, a bit higher with the company he is at in comparison to other companies at his level. We are still below the poverty line. I homeschool the boys and take care of the household as best as I can without burning out! ( we do the grocery shopping together as we dont have a grocery store in our town, it is a 30 min bus ride and a walk to the store as I do not drive... we also car share once a week to go in an get groceries on a weekend day) My partner is a good worker and is willing to put in 40 hours of very physical labor weekly and is very reliable. With the trades shortage though it is more like 50 hours + a week and could be filled to 15 hour days every day of the week . My partner feels the pressure to be there working overtime ( two of the other guys are bachelors and the boss has a family but chooses to work extra to get the business going right now)and weekend days because everyone else is doing so.... and it is the expectation in the field.( my partner is very willing to work overtime and an extra day a week when it is obvious that it is nessesary... not just things are consitantly overbooked) It doesnt really help us as we are in a different tax bracket and make little more than if he only worked 40 hours a week, and I am stressed because I dont get a break and dont have family around to help. The weekends are usually filled with chores as well as there is still a lot to do around the home.( oh and I didnt mention that he is supposed to be studying for his apprentice level tests on his free time!) In fantasy land he could work 30 hours a week and the rest of the work could be translated into work that directly benefits us! I could do more work that would directly benefit us as well! PLus we could have time for the things that truly feed our soul... alone time, creative time etc. OK... besides seeming like a complainer! I am thatnkful and don't take for granted the job he does have, believe me! But the bigger picture here is what it takes to have healthy families and healthy communities ( where in the world do we have time for proper community involvement here?!)
I guess I just wanted to mention that it is not just doctors and lawyers and other "successful" jobs that are experiencing the stresses and inbalance of work and personal time. Many of the jobs around here only hire people for part time so that they don't have to pay out benefits or overtime... leaving many low income families to have to juggle multiple jobs between the parents.( imagine the stress of that schedule!)
I think this problem has to do with much more than moms choosing to stay at home. There is somthing to the capitalism and greed comment. Again, it appears that the system needs an overhaul!
I would be willing to ( and do as a mom! tee hee) work 80 hour " work weeks" , and so would my partner, if it really translated to things that actually help our family.
 
#129 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by meganeilis View Post
Excuse me for being the obnoxious poster who comments without reading much beyond the OP.

IMO it can only benefit society's work/life balance for us to return to one income households as the norm. The push for both men and women to live for their jobs rather than their families, and for the focus to be on the success of the workplace rather than the home is the problem, along with astounding debt loads and commercialism/greed. Getting back to a time where people lived within their means and were working to live rather than living to work would be good for everyone.
I agree that overwork - crazy long weeks - is a problem.

But what if both parents love their work and feel it's important?

That's the case in our house. For some years we both worked for the same non-profit and were very proud of what we helped do in our community - now we've each moved in different directions, but we still both like our jobs. Not all jobs are evil, and some jobs actually can bring 'passion/living' and 'work' together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by transformed View Post
If "mom and dad have a carreer" is the default-then who is raising our children?
This very typical phrase is just a salvo in the mommy wars and not fair or respectful. Parents who work still raise their children. They may well enlist more help doing it (some of paid/expert) but it makes them no less "raising" their kids than having 5 kids is somehow less "raising" your kids than having an only child would be.
 
#130 ·
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by transformed
If "mom and dad have a carreer" is the default-then who is raising our children?

This very typical phrase is just a salvo in the mommy wars and not fair or respectful. Parents who work still raise their children. They may well enlist more help doing it (some of paid/expert) but it makes them no less "raising" their kids than having 5 kids is somehow less "raising" your kids than having an only child would be.
no it is a very fair statemnt

SOMEONE is spedning their days with the kids -- and the kids their time with this adult ...

if they are in a day care center .. then are the people there also putting THEIR kids in care so that can go care for someone else's child?

if it is a nanny -- where is her child all day?

or are child care people expected NOT to have their own kids -- then -- how is that expcetation any better, or more realistic, than ecxpecting that peopel (man or woman) doing certain jobs have an at home mate home with the kids?

it is all a cycle -- the more pople -- mom and dad -- work work while having young kids, well the kids have to be taken care of somehere by someone, so it becoames a growing web ...

not that it is right or wrong -- but it is a fact.

Aimee
 
#131 ·
I mean no disrespect, I mean that what percentage are you actually raising your kids if you are at work? I am not saying you arent a good parent, and I am sure its going to come across badly....but its not what I mean.

I take raising the kids to be more than evenings and weekends. (Unfortunatly for me, its 24-7! LOL) So I guess the answer is to hire an expert?

Quote:
This very typical phrase is just a salvo in the mommy wars and not fair or respectful. Parents who work still raise their children. They may well enlist more help doing it (some of paid/expert) but it makes them no less "raising" their kids than having 5 kids is somehow less "raising" your kids than having an only child would be.
When you are working FT, you are not parenting FT, you are working. KWIM? Thats where the question comes in. The percentage of time you actually spend raising your child, and parenting, is signifigantly less than someone who stays home. (And you are probably way more sane than me too.
)

I kind of wish I worked outside the home. SAHM is neverending. But I commited to it and so I am sticking with it through the good and the bad.

It is NOT better. In fact, it is often maddening. I do not judge those who work, but they do spend less time parenting. Its a fact.
 
#132 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Momma Aimee View Post
no it is a very fair statemnt

SOMEONE is spedning their days with the kids -- and the kids their time with this adult ...

if they are in a day care center .. then are the people there also putting THEIR kids in care so that can go care for someone else's child?

if it is a nanny -- where is her child all day?

or are child care people expected NOT to have their own kids -- then -- how is that expcetation any better, or more realistic, than ecxpecting that peopel (man or woman) doing certain jobs have an at home mate home with the kids?

it is all a cycle -- the more pople -- mom and dad -- work work while having young kids, well the kids have to be taken care of somehere by someone, so it becoames a growing web ...

not that it is right or wrong -- but it is a fact.

Aimee
No, it's not "a fact" that parents who work are not raising their kids.

Even just on an hourly basis. My son spends, depending on the day, 5-6 hrs in daycare, even though we both work 40+ hr weeks - because we used flex time to juggle our hours. 2 of those are naptime, so he's sleeping.

That means he spends 3-4 waking hours in daycare - not significantly different hours than going to a morning preschool. If you factor in that currently he's an only child, so he's not spending time waiting while I put a baby down for a nap or whatever, and that we don't watch television, it is possible that we are raising him more than other people, if raising means being plugged into him.

And that's just dealing with the hours, never mind the question of whether "raising" a child means trying to be the sole significant adults in a child's life. Or whether it works for the child.

I am all for choice, and I am all for the idea that all choices have positive aspects and negative aspects. But do not tell me that my DH and I are not raising our child. That is extremely rude.
 
#133 ·
Quote:
No, it's not "a fact" that parents who work are not raising their kids.
it IS a fact that someone is careing for the child the hours the parents work
 
#134 ·
But why, oh why, are WOH dads never categorized as "not raising their children"? Why is this thrown only at Moms who WOH? I never hear the SAHM talk about how their DHs aren't "raising their kids" -- only that WOHM aren't. For instance, Aimee, would you say that your DH isn't raising your kids?

I think the whole thing is wrong and offensive, but I could deal with it better if it weren't so hypocritical . . .
 
#135 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by GuildJenn View Post
No, it's not "a fact" that parents who work are not raising their kids.

Even just on an hourly basis. My son spends, depending on the day, 5-6 hrs in daycare, even though we both work 40+ hr weeks - because we used flex time to juggle our hours. 2 of those are naptime, so he's sleeping.

.
Yeah, and forgive me for being a frazzled SAHM cause I didnt even think of that-It occured tome that when both parents work, the kids go to daycare at 6 AM and get picked up at 6 PM.

Sorry for assuming, I really didnt think about that at all.

(And in the case of daycares I have seen-that IS the case often-6AM to 6PM)

 
#136 ·
I so shouldnt get involved with feminist threads, LOL, I am so far removed from the whole "equality" thing. I think we all have our roles to play.

IMO-and I KNOW that not very many people are going to agree, but I'll state it anyways, Men have a "provider" thing in their DNA. I certainly do not have the whole "hunter gatherer" thing in mine.

Of course I kind of suck at SAHM mom too....so.....I dunno what I am supposed to be doing? LOL

And I dont really belive in evolution so I cant really go that route. That we have "evolved"
 
#137 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by transformed View Post
I mean no disrespect, I mean that what percentage are you actually raising your kids if you are at work? I am not saying you arent a good parent, and I am sure its going to come across badly....but its not what I mean.

I take raising the kids to be more than evenings and weekends. (Unfortunatly for me, its 24-7! LOL) So I guess the answer is to hire an expert?

When you are working FT, you are not parenting FT, you are working. KWIM? Thats where the question comes in. The percentage of time you actually spend raising your child, and parenting, is signifigantly less than someone who stays home. (And you are probably way more sane than me too.
)

I kind of wish I worked outside the home. SAHM is neverending. But I commited to it and so I am sticking with it through the good and the bad.

It is NOT better. In fact, it is often maddening. I do not judge those who work, but they do spend less time parenting. Its a fact.

Well I answered the question about timing below. I spend 3-4 hrs less a day raising my kids than you do - of course, I only have one child, and you're about to have three so... does that work out to only 1 hr less a day, if we assume your time is split?

What about if my child sleeps 9 hrs a night and yours sleeps 12 (due to their different needs)? Does that mean I spend more time parenting my child than you do?

Also, suppose my child is an extrovert (he is) and yours is an introvert. Let's say they're both 10 and mine spends more hours a day outside my house playing at his friends' house and yours stays home. Does that mean you spend more time parenting?

Or am I still my child's parent when he's at a friend's house?

You see what I mean here I hope... I am not in the camp that says "oh 20 min a day is fine." That's why my husband and I swung our hours.

But it is NOT about who is raising the kids. I am my son's mother 24/7 just like you are whether you're spaced out from sleep deprivation or bored out of your mind or busy making cookies. Yes, we are making different choices in how our children are raised, but we're both doing the job.

That's my problem with these blanket statements. Well one of them anyway.

For a more philosophical look at it -

I know for me I am a more present parent when I am engaged in the work that I love to do. I realize that for my son, it's debatable whether he notices or whether he just wants mummy there to kiss his boo-boo when he falls.

But in my choices around "raising" - which for me doesn't just mean being physically there, but mentally present, and modelling the "change I want to be" in the world, those issues DO count. "Raising" is a bigger word than "providing care on the spot."
 
#139 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Momma Aimee View Post
it IS a fact that someone is careing for the child the hours the parents work
Well as I said there are a lot of ways to do that - swinging shifts, for example. It's not so black and white.

But I also stand by the idea that while yes, hours count, "raising" is much broader than "caring for." No one says that if a child is in a hospital his parents aren't "raising" him.

And in fact, people rarely say this about dads. It's a criticism that's mostly levelled at mothers. Because "raising" is a fuzzy word.
 
#141 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by transformed View Post
Yeah, and forgive me for being a frazzled SAHM cause I didnt even think of that-It occured tome that when both parents work, the kids go to daycare at 6 AM and get picked up at 6 PM.

Sorry for assuming, I really didnt think about that at all.

(And in the case of daycares I have seen-that IS the case often-6AM to 6PM)


My children had contact with many trained professionals with whom they bonded in childcare situations. I consider them very lucky to have this variety of carers, rather than just one full time frazzled carer.
 
#143 ·
Personally I find the idea that a "balanced" life is having a WOHP working 60 hours a week in a stressful job and a SAHM who does everything else at home bizarre and alien. That seems so out of balance to me. We tried it, and we both hated it because it felt so wrong and so alienating from each other. We're used to sharing our lives and we were so separated when we did that. We argued, we were stressed, our home life suffered, and most importantly our son suffered. Now, with two WOHPs in family-friendly jobs, our lives are happy and full now in ways that they weren't when we were trying the societally-approved official SAHM/WOHD model.

My husband lived that growing up (absent earner) and is deliberately rejecting that model in favor of the two-WOH/family friendly model of my parents. For us, it's much better.

Obviously, people find balance in many different ways. I certainly accept that there are people who find very balanced lives with the traditional SAHM/WOHD model. It just isn't for us, that's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by transformed View Post
If "mom and dad have a carreer" is the default-then who is raising our children?
Transformed, I was in daycare starting at six weeks, and since you insult my wonderful, amazing parents by implying they didn't raise me, you should know that I am closer and have a better relationship and more respect for my parents than most of my peers, many of whom had SAHMs. I think you need to open your mind to the idea that families can work very well in different ways.

You know, I was in daycare throughout childhood, and I loved it. I felt sorry for the kids who didn't get to go. We did fun things and then my parents showed up and I showed them everything we did. They knew all my friends, they knew all my teachers, and they were more involved in my life than many of my friends' parents.

I really take exception to the idea that my parents didn't raise me, not because I think it's true (the idea is absurd) but because there is an implied insult to my parents there. I love my parents, and I don't like insults to them.
 
#144 ·
I would really hate to see such a fascinating thread break down into Mommy War bashing, SAHMs vs. WOHMs.

It doesn't really surprise me, though, because I think it's very hard to have this discussion without it turning into an argument about whether individual women are making "the wrong choices." I think our culture encourages mothers to feel pitted against each other (or sometimes against working women without children), rather than encouraging us to ask larger questions about why our social and economic system is arranged the way that it is.

Many people have spoken about the demanding requirements of their job, or their husband's job, and how that affects family choices about SAHM/WOHM. But very, very few jobs in and of themselves require long hours, etc. - it's a matter of how the industry or the employer has chosen to structure the work. If someone "has" to work 50-60 hours a week or "has" to be on call 24/7, that's almost always because their employer has chosen not to hire enough people to allow for a more reasonable schedule.

Whether or not individual families choose to have one or two working parents, the fact remains that it no longer makes sense - if it ever did - for the workplace to be structured on the premise that workers have no family commitments or outside priorities. Across the board - across all industries and professions - there needs to be a recognition that workers of both genders are likely to have pressing commitments outside the workplace. There needs to be greater space for each individual to create the work-life balance that works best for them, whether that might involve flex time, job sharing, part-time work, telecommuting, etc. There needs to be a way to secure health care for your family without being tied to a full-time job.

The answer is not to say that WOHMs should quit their jobs and stay home, and it's not to say that SAHMs are hurting other women if they don't go back to work. The answer is to restructure the American workplace.
 
#145 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivka5 View Post
Whether or not individual families choose to have one or two working parents, the fact remains that it no longer makes sense - if it ever did - for the workplace to be structured on the premise that workers have no family commitments or outside priorities. Across the board - across all industries and professions - there needs to be a recognition that workers of both genders are likely to have pressing commitments outside the workplace. There needs to be greater space for each individual to create the work-life balance that works best for them, whether that might involve flex time, job sharing, part-time work, telecommuting, etc. There needs to be a way to secure health care for your family without being tied to a full-time job.

The answer is not to say that WOHMs should quit their jobs and stay home, and it's not to say that SAHMs are hurting other women if they don't go back to work. The answer is to restructure the American workplace.
Amen!
 
#146 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by leewd View Post
You guys realize we're a little off topic, right?

Let's not fuel the mommy wars.
But the entire topic of the thread stirs the common mommy wars, as its called.

How about WAHMing/WOHMing as default hurting society's work/life balance?

Or how about WAHMing/WOHMing as default hurting society's family life balance?

I still think the whole thesis is kinda a waste of time. Really. I think we need to love our families and neighbors as best we can and with all our heart, mind and strength. That, to me, would be a good start to benefit society. And there are women who work and women who do not work. They know, whether they are working or not, if they are caring for their family. I think we need to respect that of each other and if we truly believe someone else is not loving their family well? Be a loving example and encourage your neighbor...but that takes friendship, dialogue and time.

SAHM's/WAHM's/MEN/Minorities/Married couples/Homosexuals/Free Thinkers/The Religous/WOMEN/the uneducated/the educated/immigrants/residents.... no one group can bare the ails of society and no good solution can come about from that line of thinking.

But that's just MY frazzled opinion.
 
#147 ·
I'll just say what I said on another thread, when people started debating about what "raising" meant.

Well, I can't remember my exact words from back then, so I'll paraphrase. Raising a child is providing for that child's physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and material needs.

In my family's case, at times we've relied on taxpayer-supported benefits to meet some of our material needs. We currently still rely on Medicaid for our girls, and a taxpayer-supported hospital discount for dh.

I still don't feel the taxpayers are raising my family -- but I acknowledge that these taxpayer-supported programs are helping dh and I to do a better job. In the same way, working parents can get help from others in providing some of their children's direct care, without forfeiting the right to say they're raising them. That should be obvious to everyone.
 
#148 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
I'll just say what I said on another thread, when people started debating about what "raising" meant.

Well, I can't remember my exact words from back then, so I'll paraphrase. Raising a child is providing for that child's physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and material needs.

In my family's case, at times we've relied on taxpayer-supported benefits to meet some of our material needs. We currently still rely on Medicaid for our girls, and a taxpayer-supported hospital discount for dh.

I still don't feel the taxpayers are raising my family -- but I acknowledge that these taxpayer-supported programs are helping dh and I to do a better job. In the same way, working parents can get help from others in providing some of their children's direct care, without forfeiting the right to say they're raising them. That should be obvious to everyone.
Thank you.
 
#149 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post

In my family's case, at times we've relied on taxpayer-supported benefits to meet some of our material needs. We currently still rely on Medicaid for our girls, and a taxpayer-supported hospital discount for dh.

I still don't feel the taxpayers are raising my family -- but I acknowledge that these taxpayer-supported programs are helping dh and I to do a better job. In the same way, working parents can get help from others in providing some of their children's direct care, without forfeiting the right to say they're raising them. That should be obvious to everyone.
I belive in gov't sponsered healthcare. I'll use medicaid whenever I possibly can because I belive that everyone deserves healthcare!

 
#150 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by transformed View Post
I belive in gov't sponsered healthcare. I'll use medicaid whenever I possibly can because I belive that everyone deserves healthcare!


Yes, and I'm just saying that getting some help in meeting our children's needs, doesn't mean we're not raising them.
 
#151 ·
This is such a good topic and I hate to see it go up in flames.


I am a sah parent and I have been for 5 years. DH has been the provider for all that time. When he is at work he is still an employee, partner, boss etc, but he is also a husband and father. If something is going on, he also will want to know- is someone sick, how did dd1's school day go, how am I doing? DD1 is at school from 8:40 until 3:15. We are still her parents.

I hate when we start making statements that can turn into nightmares. There are a lot of both parents working so they can raise their children and provide for them. And no amount of cut cable, eating out twice a month, and go to garage sales can change that. And some of them have demanding jobs etc but they may also have debt from schooling, or something that happend in their life to make them have to do this.

Yes we all know that sahm who is sooo busy at the health club, playing tennis, gets her nails done etc. At least that is what I have heard! She hasnt moved into my neighborhood yet or maybe she is too good to talk to me!
And I know all the sah moms who know that one or two moms who she went to college w/, is your SIL, neighbor etc who says they cant afford to stay home but drives a fancy car, eats out all the time....is buying a 7000 sq ft house, has 2 nannies, and has to travel 20 days a month.
These are extreme stereo types that most of us dont really know and neither does most of anyone you know IRL, but the media wants you to think. So it shouldnt factor into discussions such as this one.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top