Were you a full-time SAHM? ...or SAHD?

I spent the first few years of my children's lives at home, but that was because, having go pregnant so young, I'd never worked, only had "A" Levels, and none of the others young officer's wives worked. One's role was to be "Wife of.." (W/O on paper work!)

I started my first degree when the youngest was three, but only managed it because of DH's support and the support of a couple of other professional women.

Like you, Greatnan, I got many spiteful comments, but am so glad I persevered.

My mother was quite lost when we moved from her home town the year I left school. After always having a support network of friends and family, and three daughters coming home for lunch every day, she was transported to a town where she knew nobody. I was away at University, my sisters went to school in Edinburgh and she was alone every day. She had never gone out to work but used her hairdressing skills on her friends and relations. No wonder that she experienced severe depression from which it took a long time to recover.

If only Sweden were not so cold...............

Mamie yes, I know what you mean. I was listening to a radio 4 programme about Sweden's economy the other day. They encourage all women to be financially independent by subsidising childcare and having an ethos of treating each citizen as an individual who is indepent of their partner, if they are in a relationship. If you go in a coffee shop as a couple, you will be asked if you want to pay separately, and it is assumed that no one person is fincially responsible for another person's purchases.

Their chancellor (not sure what his role is called) is a pony-tailed man who wears an earring, and is perceived as something of an economics genius by the rest of the world's financiers. It appears the rest of Europe is starting to look at his methods as Sweden is financially stable despite the world recession. Sweden's employment levels are high and women assume they will spend shared time at home with their children. Couples can share approx one and a half years maternity/paternity leave, and they help out with childcare by working voluntarily with the communities' childminders, to enable them to have more time with their children. This is supported by employers.

They seem to have hit on something that strikes a better balance. It certainly promotes the notion that women can be independent of men, whether or not they go out of the home to work.

It certainly would not have satisfied me and I wish my non-working daughter, who is now divorced, had followed her sister's lead and taken some qualifications, but I am just reluctant to criticise any other woman's choices. I must admit that I do wonder what some non-working women do all day once their children are at school, unless they have an all-consuming hobby. My eldest sister never worked but she liked to spend the afternoon in bed with a book and a bottle of Martini (ugh!)
The situation is quite different when you have children below school age, of course. I ran myself ragged trying to fit in study, housework and childcare with very little help from my ex-husband but it was wonderful to be able to take part in adult discussions again. I don't think my daughters suffered by attending a creche and I know it is easier for children who are accompanied by siblings.

Ducks was meant to be a bit ironic!
In principle, yes it is an individual's choice, but the feminist in me feels very uncomfortable with a woman spending the whole of her life supported by a man. I have known quite a few women who made a career out of being a wife and mother (and felt implicitly or explicitly criticised by them for working full-time) only to have the man move on to a younger model in their forties or fifties. I absolutely accept that some people think a mother should be there full-time up to school age (I don't), but even when the children are teenagers or later? Is that really a good idea?

Mamie - I hope nobody needs to duck on gransnet for expressing their honestly held views even though some members might not agree with them.
I think we can guess which newspapers criticise working mothers - the same ones that criticise mothers for not working and living on benefits.
My sole point is that this is a personal choice, nobody knows the needs of another person and nobody has the right to pass judgement on a woman who chooses to work, or one who chooses to stay at home.
I have to say that when I was on various committees (guides, riding club, PTAs) it was the working parents who contributed most - we were often told by the SAHM that they were too busy. For some, it may have been a matter of confidence - perhaps working mothers found it easier to mingle, speak in public or make suggestions.
My sister has not worked outside the home since she was 19 and did no voluntary work. One of my daughters has always worked, child-minding when her own were little, taking an OU degree at 40 and having a very good career. Her six children are all highly motivated - they were simply expected to earn their pocket money from an early age. Perhaps they would have been highly motivated anyway, but one grand-daughter told me recently that she admired her mother tremendously for her hard work and ambition.

On the other hand, I do believe that child rearing can be exhausting and is not sufficiently valued. Perhaps what we need is for employers and government to acknowledge that employees are very likely to be parents and working conditions should accommodate this dual role.

I thought she said it in a speech rather than an article. I have a lot of sympathy with what she actually said rather than what has been reported. I do think it is an unwise lifestyle choice to commit your whole life to your children so that you end up bereft when they leave home and they grow up thinking that someone is available full-time to meet their every need. I think if you look at what is reported in the media there is far more criticism of working mothers than there is of the "yummy-mummy" lifestyle, so I say good for her for redressing the balance!
Ducks....

I had four years at home when my two daughters were little, but I really felt I needed some intellectual stimulation, so I began a teaching degree when they were four and 2 and a half. I got a lot of criticism from some other mothers who had chosen to stay at home, but I did what felt right for me and my family. I would never comment on any other woman's choice so I was a bit put out to be told 'Oh, I couldn't do what you are doing, my standards are too high'. Once I started teaching, of course, there were few problems as I had back-up care in case the children were ill (my wonderful cleaner became a family friend and was always ready to take over.)

I know many mothers have no choice but to go back to work - not to pay for expensive holidays but simply to meet everyday needs. The last thing they need is to be labelled bad mothers. If any other woman chooses not to work and is able to manage financially that is also nobody's business but their own and their partners.
Cherie Blair has been able to employ a virtual army of cleaners and child-minders so it does not behove her to lecture other women. She is the best argument I know for an inherited head of state.

This 'debate' is a bit passe really a bit like Cherie herself. I think that a big failure of the feminist movement was its failure to raise the status and importance of child rearing, homemaking and childcare.

If society put a higher value on SAHParenting and on childcare providers I am sure that some of current negative issues society currently faces might have been avoided.

I have one DD who has been a SAHM since her first child was born 6 1/2 years ago. She chose to forgo holidays/car/new clothes etc because she felt she could not do the job of parenting and do her paid work to the standards she would want to. The other returned to work when her son was 9mths. She was self employed so could be more flexible with when work happened and enjoys her luxuries. Both are great mums, have different styles and both love their children with equal passion! Both are intelligent and able women.

'Forgetting' was a bit of an intelligent cunning move, Grannylin. Remember the cringemaking excuses leading to nauseating press coverage of their stay at Balmoral? She started a trend for producing babies in No 10....Great PR.

Yes, like forgetting to take her contraceptive pill!

For an intelligent woman she's done some pretty daft things in her time [albeit amassing a small fortune in the process]. Wonder how much she got paid for that article. Blunderwoman strikes again.....

Quite merlot. Surely she should see that not everyone wants to be like her - in lots of ways!

It's horses for courses. Cherie Blair is an independent, intelligent and very rich woman. She obviously knows a lot about one side of the argument but probably very little of the other.

Cherie Blair has a point about women who just want to marry rich men and stay at home. I think all women should be capable of independence.

I stayed at home till my youngest children were five, but during that time I studied and did a few hours voluntary work. I also kept the house and garden maintained, made children's clothes, and did practically all the housework because ex-husband was the world's expert on avoiding any household responsibilities.

If Cherie Blair can say hand on heart that she has the skills to decorate a house and landscape her garden, but chooses to go out to work despite that, well done her - I bet she couldn't, though!