Going back to work

I am really putting myself out there with this post.  It is a highly contentious issue, the whole SAHM vs working mother thing.  Please play nicely.  If you don’t agree with me, lets debate it. No name-calling or finger pointing. Ok? Let’s respect each other’s choices.

I am going back to work on the 01st May and I am so not looking forward to it.  I wish I didn’t have to work, but I do.  We cannot live as we are on Marko’s salary alone.

The whole going back to work vs SAHM thing is obviously top of mind for me at the moment.  I have been wanting to do a post on this topic for ages, in fact I actually wrote up a post on it a few months ago, but I needed to do some research first.

See, the thing is, I couldn’t understand how come so many of you can afford to be SAHM’s.  It is the exception rather than the norm here. 

Ok, first, a step back.  I am going to talk about ‘working mothers’ vs SAHM’s (stay at home mothers, for those of you who don’t know the acronym).  And yes, yes, mothers who stay at home also ‘work’, their job is to raise the children etc etc.  But for this post I will talk about mothers to go back to the workplace as ‘working mothers’ and mothers who stay home as ‘SAHM’s’.  OK?  No one going to get their knickers in a knot about the terminology please.  I am too tired to be all PC and say Mothers who Work Outside the Home and Mothers who Work Inside the Home Raising their Children. 

And I will admit, I am hugely fucking irritated at all the literature that just assumes the mother will stay home and look after the kids.  Every single book makes this assumption.  It irritates the shit out of me.  No, sorry, not all of us can afford to stay at home, some of us have to go out there and earn a living and put food on the table. 

Ok, so back to my previous point.  I couldn’t understand why so many of you could be SAHM’s. 

So I asked two of my ex-SA friends, who have been living in America for a while now, to help me understand how it could be that so many of you get to stay at home.  They gave me some insightful replies, some of which I will repeat here, but the opening line of one of the emails encapsulates perfectly the situation here:

“SAHM in SA is almost unheard of, if I'm correct?”

And it’s true.  Unless you are fabulously wealthy, both partners have to work.  Here is not a case of simply ‘going without’, or cutting back.  The consequences of cutting your income here are vastly different to cutting your income there. 

In addition, two quotes from my friends:

first of all I think cost of living in the US is lower:  food is inexpensive, lower interest rates, low car payments, etc.

and

So I think in general life is less expensive here in the States than in SA - you pay premium prices for everything in SA

So it would appear that it costs you less to live there than here.

Two additional important points that I have realized impact things greatly.  Firstly, day care there is apparently v expensive?  So much so that it is often cheaper for the mother to stay home and look after the kids vs putting them in day care?  Or so I have heard.  Day care here is not expensive.  Schooling however, is very expensive. 

Secondly, the reality of the situation here in SA is that there is huge disparity in income between our nannies / helpers / cleaners etc and people in management positions like myself.  So stopping work and not having a nanny wont save me money.  Not even close.  Not even with paying Rose 3x the going rate, not even with getting a second nanny.  Such is the reality of disparity in income in this country.  And such is the down side of earning a high income, your income doesn’t just support the main breadwinner’s income, it becomes what you live on.

Giving up one salary wont mean a slight or even mediocre adjustment in our living standards.  It will mean, for us, having to move to a less safe suburb, it means giving up one car, and without a car there is no way for me to get around.  There is no safe public transport system in SA.  There is no welfare system.

So I have to work, if I want to live as I am living now.  Which is not extravagant by any means.  Yes, I suppose I am relatively wealthy.  Relative to the rest of the population that is.  But if I want to live in a relatively safe suburb, if I want my kids to have access to a decent education, I have to work.

I wont even pretend to you that I want to work because of the stimulation or my career or whatever. I have to work, full stop.  For the money.  Career?  Who cares.  It’s all about earning money to live.  If I had a choice I would run my own little business, do something I really like and earn much less than I am earning now.

I am tired of working to be honest.  And for stimulation - I would do volunteer work at the local hospitals and study some extra courses for brain stimulation.  But how lovely to have the choice to spend the day in my sweat pants if I want.  Not to have to get up at 5am in winter and drive to work in the cold and wet.  To work all day and smile falsely and suck up to customers.  To come home, cook, clean etc, E v e r y d a y.  Yes, I would love not to work. 

And yes, staying at home all day with kids is work, I am not denying that.  But if you could choose, if you could afford it, wouldn’t you rather ‘work’ at home than ‘work’ at work?  I would.

I must say that I find that there is a slight, um, how can I put it, ‘holier than thou’ attitude that comes from *some* (not all!) SAHM’s, a martyred air of having sacrificed all for their kids.  Implicit implication that by not staying at home you are less of a mother, that you clearly love your kids less.  I think that’s unfair.  I would if I could, I can’t.  I don’t think SAHM’s are better moms.  I really don’t, I just think they are luckier moms.  Just this morning I read a letter in a magazine from a SAHM who was complaining about feeling marginalized by working mothers.  She said something along the lines of “SAHM’s are to be commended for their selflessness in sacrificing their ambition, career etc for the sake of their family”.  WTF??? That’s the bit that irritates me, the insinuation that by working you are selfish.  What a load of crap.  I hate working, I would far rather stay home.  I am not doing it for the ‘career’ or my ‘ambition’.  What?  You think it’s nice to have to go to work every single day and deal with stress of targets and budgets, of customers and proposals etc?  I work, I have to.  I.Don’t.Have.A.Choice.

And yet.  There are mothers who will say that I do have a choice.  That I have the choice to downgrade my lifestyle, be poor and be at home with my children.  But is that really best for them?  I know all a child needs is love but believe me, working mothers don’t love their children less.

Does it mean I love my children less because I want to have a nice home for them to live in, in a lovely quiet suburb that is safe and child friendly, where my children can ride outside on the bicycles without fear of being shot in crossfire, or influenced by gangs, because I want to be able to send them to good schools, to good universities etc.  I honestly don’t think so.  Yes money doesn’t buy you love, but I don’t think being poorer means you love them more.  Money doesn’t buy you happiness but being poor certainly doesn’t give it to you either.  And here being poor means a whole different thing to there, or so I think. 

I think we each do what is best for our children, and in my case it is working.  They will be loved completely and looked after very well, but I need to work.  Just because I wont be a SAHM doesn’t mean I love them any less. 

Children don’t want martyrs, they want parents who love them and do the best for them and for their family.

(note: I am not knocking either choice, I am just saying that not every one has a choice.  Some of my best friends in the computer are SAHM’s.)

So what say you, dear friends in the computer? 

Comments

[nicole]

I think in your situation and culture, your choice makes sense. The holier than thou thing in the states from sahms is because many people don't want to give up yuppie lifestyles and they really could stay home w/o risking living in a dangerous environment, etc. It is very often out of family selfishness (not just the mom's). At least here in Cali.

[Shylah]

I agree wholeheartedly with you. In a way, I'm in the same boat you are, but in an opposite sort of way. I WANT to work. I want to get out of this house and work every day and have enough money to buy the things I want and need. As it is, though, my health prohibits me. I don't have a choice in the matter, either, but I don't talk much about it because I'm afraid someone will think I don't love my daughter just because I want to live comfortably.

[Mijk]

Working at home (Wahm ;-) ) while I'm typing this with baby sleeping sound in her bed. Have been back at work for two weeks and loving it. But (big but) I'm only working 14 hours a week and only 8 away from the house.. I do like to have some intelligent conversation every once in a while and I have my husband home for one day looking after the baby which is I think a huge benefit for both of them to bond without mom being around..

best reason to work though is to keep my 3 year old in daycare. he spends a day and 2 mornings there and loves it. He learns to be safe in a group wich both me ans his dad have never been. He just loves going ther. Learns a lot had friends. My baby will go when she is 6 months old and I hope she will love it the same way..

I only can afford daycare by working because due to tax benefits and money from husbandsemployer I pay only about 10 % of the actual costs. So daycare without work I can't afford....

Do ou have to work all week? I mean I do'nt know many sahms here but part-time is the thing you do here.. If you're really lucky both parents..

Mijk

[patty]

Yikes. I remember that feeling, with my first. I dreaded going back to work so much. Driving to drop him off at day care in the morning I would look enviously at women with babies in strollers crossing the street to sit and have a coffee at the bakery. I desparately wanted to stay home then.

I was able to do other things besides full time work with my two youngest. Actually, the financial pressure of infant child care practically guaranteed that I would not be able to go back to work...in my field of child care (preschool teacher!)

With my second I was a nanny to my twin (!) cousins. Counting my children I was watching 3 four year olds and an infant. Then when my youngest was born I went back to school. He went to daycare 3 mornings a week while I was in class. Perfect. I had Tuesdays and Thursdays to recoup...and pump.

Now my kids are 14, 9, and 7. I would keep working even if we won the lottery, I think. I am at the place where I love my job teaching second grade. I might try to find a way to change the hours however...

Did you ask for assvice? Go back to work on a Wednesday or Thursday. Makes that first week back that much more manageable. Don't let sadness spoil your last days at home, like I did. I cried every day the last week. It really is bearable after the first day or so. For me it was like a "magic time machine" - part of my brain was able to pretend that the only time that really existed for my baby was when we were together. Ahh, sweet denial.

[Mijk]

mm looking at my typing, maybe I'm not completely fit to return to work. I'll take another coffee

[Debby]

HUGE generalizations about the percentage of SAHM's in the US and the relative cost of living. This is a large country with a very large disparity in economics [housing, mainly] depending on where you live.

I'm in southern California, where the affordability index is such that the average person couldn't afford the average house. I forget the exact numbers, but I think I've read that St. Louis, Missouri has the best index. I don't know a lot of mothers that stay at home here.

I found numbers from 2003. At that time, in the US as a whole, 59% of households could afford the median priced home. In California, that number was 27%. In the county I live in, it's 21%.

[chasmyn]

I am a SAHM. And I totally agree with you too, Tertia. I feel privilaged to be able to stay home with my child. I know I am lucky, I have so many friends who HAVE to work. Not want to, but HAVE to to support themselves and their children. And I have friends who choose to work and I think they are great parents as well. I myself have never felt as though I sacrificed anything to stay home. I feel LUCKY to stay home. If I wanted a carreer or whatever, I'd have one. But what makes me happiest is being with my children - that fulfills me - and I am so fortunate that I married a man who can earn enough to support us all and let me be at home. I love it. I don;t blame you for not wanting to work. And I certainly don;t blame you or anyone else for having or wanting to work either. We all have our own unique situations, none of us are better because we make different choices. We're different is all. And that's a good thing. It makes for a colourful world.

[Boulder]

Oh, you are opening up a maelstrom here! You think BF vs Bottle, Circ vs no circ was heated? Just wait!

Interesting the thing about the economics, I think you'll find that in some parts of the US, the situation is much more like what you have, and in other parts, not so much. I know that has been the case with what I've seen in my moves around over the years. And more of my friends are working than ever, up to a certain income level, and then the reverse is true.

I know of a very interesting situation though, my own personal social anthropolgy study: 2 friends, sisters, 13 months between them. Both in same industry pre-kids. Each has 2 children, with one sister having 2 boys, and one with 2 girls. The cousins are born within months of each other both times. Both sisters lived in the same town. Both sister's husbands worked at the same company. Both sisters took time away from work for the first child then returned to work before the second was born. After the second child, though, one sister (girls) decided to be SAHM. The other sister (boys) returned to work. Neither sister can figure the other out. I've heard one say, "I just can't imagine not staying home, and don't know why my sister won't do the same." The other sister, says "hey, I know myself well enough to know that my kids NEED me to be at work, to have adult goals and conversations to be the best mom I'm able to be."

And I don't know which of them is doing the best for her kids. I think the one with the girls plays the martyr card every so often, and I think, hmmm, maybe she'd be better off like her sister - getting that mental gymnastics going. And there are times when I see the one with the boys freaking out racing around trying to keep all the plates spinning and spending a fortune on day care, and after school activities until she can get away from work, and I think, hmm, maybe she'd be better off like her sister - being able to spend that quality time with her boys.

What's the answer? Who knows. My friends each think they are doing what is best for their family, though, and ultimately, isn't that what is most important & best for the kids? Seeing mom do the right thing, maybe not the easiest thing?

[wessel]

Tertia, the important thing is that you do what is best for you, since only you know the factors involved. For example, I was all set to encourage you to "cut back" and live more simply, having no idea of what that would mean for you, living in SA where it is not that easy to find a safe neighborhood that is also economical. So much for my assvice, see? In America, there are certain regions of the country where the same is true--if you want to stay alive, then you just have to pay a certain amount of money for rent, and often two incomes are required to afford it. I have known people who were so dead set on having the mother be able to stay at home that they moved--moved as in out of the city altogether, to another part of the country where poorer neighborhoods are still safe and pleasant. But that is an extreme choice and not one that most people feel is open to them. Obviously this couple in question felt that moving away was less radical than the mother having to go back to work--again, their individual choice and I support them in doing what they felt was best in order to achieve their goals.

I also resent the implication that all women have a choice. Many don't. And yes, sometimes you really CAN make life changes that cut your budget down to a manageable size so you can live on one income, but sometimes you can't. More often, you can't. I admit I have a bit more of a problem with women who don't have to work for financial reasons, and choose to leave a baby with a care provider because they prefer to work fulltime rather than be with their baby. Maybe I'm just not smart enough, accomplished enough, ambitious enough, whatever, to understand how important it is for some women to remain fulltime active in their profession--it is certainly not something that has ever tugged at me. I can't imagine even the best childcare provider would be an improvement over me, so if I didn't have to work, I wouldn't.

The other thing that you pointed out is that in SA the childcare is cheaper than in the US. In the US it is pittance from the point of view of the childcare provider (and it really is--who would want to live on minimum wage?) but to the parents who have to pay for it, the monthly sum can be outrageous and may represent half of their total income. I knew many women who worked fulltime and their income only paid for 2 things: childcare and health insurance. Obviously, then, they were only working for the health insurance, but that was essential and so they were stuck. But that just gives you an idea of how much childcare costs in the US. It sounds like financially, going back to work really does make sense for you, whereas in the US, it doesn't always make sense just because the cost of childcare is so great.

Maybe in the future, you will find a way to work at home? That would probably make you happiest. Good luck with whatever you decide!

[Mollie]

I won the "cosmic lottery" and I stay home. Plus, the 4-yr-old is in full-time daycare! So it's me, my husband, and the baby at home most days, and no one has a job. Heaven!

It wasn't always this way, and it won't always be this way, but it sure is great for now. I savour every day of this arrangement, and feel lucky as hell.

I hope there are aspects of being at work that you will enjoy, dear T. I know that your work mates adore you and there will be plenty of laughs in between the drudgerier parts, knowing you.

And if you can't get a laugh with your jokes, show your co-workers your ass! I'm sure they will laugh long and hearty.

xo

[Shelly]

I am a SAHM. We live were it is very expensive and could use a second income. BUT since we have Sean, I need to be home. His health alone is cause to be home. He is so different from the norm. We would have to hire nurse to care just for him. Our insurance doesn't pay for nursing care for him. Not terminal yet. Besides with all his Drs appts, I would be fired for not being at work 90% of the time. Parents must bring the child in unless we sign Sean over to the State. Not happening here.
So we make due as best as we can. We don't have cell phones and I walk around turning off every light around.

I worked with my oldest one. It was hard, but the extra income was nice. It was cheaper here too.

Each to their own. Many moms have to work and if dad is in the home, he needs to help with the load of cleaning and caring for the children. oh and dinner too.

Best wishes!

[Mollie]

Oh, and also wanted to add this, about what I remember, at least, about being a SAHM in the U.S. when Nico was a baby:

In my world, which was quite affluent, being a SAHM was not enough. Everyone kept asking me, "But what do you DO?" Like, oh, good God, you must have some sort of professional identity or status other than just mother! But I really didn't. I mean, I do puppet shows and libraries and birthday parties, but I'm not a corporate employee anymore, and haven't been for years.

Here in Canada, nobody asks me what I DO. Hooray! And lots of the moms around here SAH, or work part-time, or just do what they need to do without fretting over what it means to other mothers. They just live. I like that.

[Jody]

[Inarticulate gurgling noises]

It's hard to imagine how to even begin to talk about these issues, given the radical differences between our two countries. Even in the most expensive parts of the US, where both parents have to work to pay for median housing, no one has access to the sorts of household workers at the prices you can pay. So the best regions for comparison are still operating under radically different situations.

I'm sorry that you wish you could stay home and you can't. If it helps, there are some powerfully pursuasive arguments in favor of both parents working, if only to preserve equality and therefore harmony/good feeling in marriage (oh God, I'm going to start a firestorm). Many of them are summarized in "Love, Honor, & Negotiate," which you could buy off Amazon or Powells. But that author imagines a world in which men negotiate for fewer hours at their jobs, and where everyone negotiates together to get what they need for their families. It's still a utopian vision, in other words.

If I hadn't had triplets, I would have been working again by now. And on the one hand, I feel extraordinarily lucky to have spent this time with them. (And I'm not dumb, we were VERY lucky--conceived early so no ART debt, SUPER-fantastic insurance so no hospital debt, husband's top-notch top-paying job, family support, etc.) But on the other hand, I think I'll be a better, less short-tempered mother when I'm working again. The trick will be taking care of the household--yard, cleaning, tax-paying, bill-paying--without my "free" time AND without cheap household labor to assume those duties.

In the ideal world, I think both parents (when there were both parents) would work overlapping 30-hour weeks and use top-notch childcare for the rest. But I haven't been given the powers to impose my utopia, yet, so it really doesn't matter, even as a starting point for discussion.

Again, for what it's worth, lots and lots of studies in the USA have found that WOHMs and SAHMs spend about equal amounts of interactive time with their kids. WOHMs get a lot less sleep, though. Then again, all of us in the USA are sleep-deprived, so it's relative.

I'm sure this is just the beginning of the conversation, so I'll stop now.

[Melany]

I agree with your post. Most of us in South Africa don't have a choice work be SAHM. I think I have the best of both worlds. Working where my kids are with me every afternoon. Where I get to stay with them when they are sick. Go to sport activities without questions asked.

[usako]

Right on, T! People make choices when they can. I'm likely going to be one of those people who don't have a choice not to work 'when' i have children. I've always been, like you, fiercely for the realization that 'having no choice' does not mean selfish or stupid or wrong.

Thanks for the inspiring post.

[andrea]

Well I went back to work part time when both my babies where 4 months old. Did I need to - probably not, did I want to - yes I did. I love being a mother but I also love the sense of independence I get from working. My children don't miss out, they have great fun at childcare / kinder and two parents who love then dearly and spend their weekends and out of work time devoted to them.

[Jenn]

I'm a study out of the home Mum (to a 12 month old) who will soon (God willing) be a "working mother".

I spent 10 months with my daughter at home and am glad that I get to work outside of the home. It makes me a better happier person and so a better happier Mum. I've been crucified for this before - for WANTING to work away from home.

I think that it's sad that around the world conversations like this so often degenerate into mud slinging cat fights.

I could be a SAHM if my husband and I decided that was best for our family. For us it isn't. Luckily I had the choice either way.

I'm sorry that you don't have that choice and the only option available to you is not the one that you want. Here in Aus we get 1 year maternity leave and I assumed that it was the same in SA, but I guess not. I hope that it's not too hard for you T and that it doesn't get you down. You are doing the best for your family. They will appreciate you for it.

[cc]

i don't have babies so i have to go by my experience being the eldest in a family of four with a fulltime working mum (doctor). she was a very busy lady and we all spent a load of time in daycare which was no problem at all. but i did notice she had to bend the rules, like employing people for cash illegally (cleaners, after school carers etc) so she was constantly working the black market. the system didn't really seem to support people like her.

plus i had to assume a lot of responsibility for my youngest sister when she was born - she's 13 years younger than me so i had to collect her from daycare after school etc while mum worked. this was great when it comes to knowing what babies actually entail!

so we all turned out fine - but i don't know if i would do it the way mum did, assuming i had any choice. i could never not work at all, because i think it's better to have some economic clout within the family, but i don't know if i want to be working 60 hours every week like her generation of working women did. i would rather find a happy medium and have more involvement from my husband, like the above described utopia of both partners working 30 hr weeks.

it did give me a lot of respect for my mum, and an attitude that anything is possible if you are prepared to hustle a bit! and i know my mum's 'childcare should be tax deductible!' rant by heart.

[Vannessa]

I will be leaving for my maternity leave as you come back to work, hopefully I will still be here when you start. Ditto, ditto and ditto again! If I had the choice I definitely would not work. As in, I would not work for someone else, but would love to be able to work from home, start my own business or something like that. I believe that you do need to interact with other people about something other than babies/children or else you would go mad. But if we could only do it on our own terms and in our own time!

If I could afford to SAH I would still put my baby into a daycare part-time, maybe mornings only or once or twice a week from about 6 - 8 months of age as they benefit enormously from interaction with other children. Moms also need a certain amount of me-time.

Unfortunately, we would probably survive on only my husband's salary, but then there would be no more private schooling (becoming a necessity in SA these days), no more KFC and Macdonalds (ok, we could live without them but try telling that to my son!), no char (SA thing), small house in crappy neighbourhood, reduced extra-mural activities at school and generally we would be constantly counting the cents. And that is not how I would like to live. I have too many family members living that way (not out of choice) and have seen what it is like. We also have to assist a number of said family members financially so my dreams of being a SAHM will stay just that, lovely dreams.

[Anon]

I live in Israel where there really is not option aside from going back to work - one income couldn't support us...

We are trying for a baby now, and with neither of our families living in Israel, the thought of working post-baby is one of the scariest aspects of this!

[Jennifer]

To me, the saddest part of your entire post is that you don't have a CHOICE. It's not up to you to decide if you 'want' to work or not assuming you feel a safe place to live is a need. And anytime a person feels backed into a corner with no choice in such a huge decision that will affect their lives and the lives of their children, it has to feel incredibly frustrating.

I've come a long way since the beginning days of TTC with my opinion on the SAHM/WOHM debate. I was one of the 'you can make it work if you really want to' folks. Then slowly I came to realize that sometimes it's just not that simple. And more importantly, it was very, very easy for me to sit back and say 'you can make it work' when *I* don't really have to make huge sacrifices to be at home with my children.

We are blessed in that DH's income provides us all of our needs, most of our wants, and many of our desires without me contributing financially. We have a safe place to live, the kids are in a great preschool, we drive newer safe vehicles, blah blah blah.

I realized that since I have no idea what it is actually like to make huge lifestyle sacrifices in order to be home with our children, it really wasn't fair for me to think others should be able/willing to do whatever it took to be home with their kids. If being home with my kids meant we lived in a less-than-safe neighborhood, had only one car, couldn't afford a decent lifestyle, etc....well, our choices might very well have been different.

In the end, I've come to realize just how lucky we are to live like we do. And comparing other families, even within the same country, usually isn't a good idea. And I certainly don't see it being very practical since we're talking about two very different countries, kwim?

[Jen P]

I think that until you leave the American mindset behind, those books and magazines are completely worthless to any of us outside the parameters.

For me, living in NZ, the cost of living is extremely different than when I lived in the States. Food is more expensive, cars are waaaay more expensive, houses and interest rates are surreal. I too hate the implication that working mothers don't love their babies as much, because I know my friends who work and my family here who works are incredibly dedicated mothers, wives and workers.

I do have the luxury of staying home, something my husband and I have worked very, very hard for and I intend to revel in it. I was a daycare baby (and daycare wasn't all that great back then) from 6 weeks of age until I started school full-time. My mother was an American Yuppie who prefferred her working existence to her children and she made that very clear (verbally) every day. So for me, it was huge to spend a good portion of my life getting us settled so we could afford me being home. But again, it's a unique situation for us in a culture different to the books, the magazines and others around us. We did downgrade the lifestyle, moved to a small rural town and no, we don't own a lot of super nice things. We are lucky in that sense that we could do those things...in SA...I can't imagine. We have SA neighbours and their stories scare me.

You do what you have to and you do the best you can. And for that your children will love you.

[Beverly]

I still lived in the States when my first child was born and I had to go back to work when she was eight weeks old. Though she wasn't in daycare (her father stayed home full time with her), it was still very difficult and I vowed then that I would never have another baby if I couldn't stay home full time for an indefinite number of years.

I do try (albeit sometimes more successfully than others) not to judge too harshly the choices of other mothers, but I simply cannot support sending six-week old infants to full-time daycare or leaving small children to daycare providers for ten or more hours a day. Neither of these scenarios is uncommon in the States, and though I know it's inflammatory to say so, I fail to see how it's not a case of "paying someone else to raise your child."

I am a SAHM now to my 8½-year-old daughter, my 2½-year-old son, and we're expecting #3 in July. I have no plans to work outside the home any time in the foreseeable future, and I don't consider myself "lucky" to be in that position. My staying home indefinitely was a deliberate decision that my husband (not the bio-dad of my oldest child) and I made when planning our family, and our economy has suffered at times for it. By the same token, I don't consider myself a "martyr," either -- that would be patently ridiculous, in my opinion.

We live in Sweden now, a society that is not at all geared toward, nor particularly understanding of, the decision not to go to work. Daycare is ridiculously cheap here, and despite generous maternity leave policies, it is expected that mothers will return to work when their babies are 12-18 months old. It is almost unheard of not to do so, and in fact, the only other SAHMs I know here are other immigrants like me. It's just not the done thing for Swedes. Unlike in the States, you won't ever hear a Swedish mother say that she'd love to stay home if only she could afford to -- such a possibility really doesn't occur to them.

Anyway, this has gotten extraordinarily long, and I'm not sure where I'm gonig with it, really, so it's probably best just to wrap it up for now!

[lurker delurking]

I don't have kids yet. My parents made it a priority for my Mum to stay home and look after us. It helped massively that my Dad had a pretty well paid job and that this was Canada and the 1980s. Eventually when the youngest was in school my Mum went to work part time (by this time we were in the UK). I'm the only one in my family who remembers Mum being home all day every day and honestly it made little difference to my happiness. Maybe it did more when I was a baby or something, but I honestly think that working outside the home, if that is what someone wants or needs to do, is not gonna harm the kids or even make a lot of difference either way. There are pros and cons to both situations. I never did daycare, except during school holidays, as my grandparents did a lot of filling in when I wasn't at school. But most of my friends went and loved it. I was actually jealous of those kids! The only working parents I find sad to see (and I say this having seen their kids when I worked at a daycare and at summer camps and it sometimes ain't pretty) are the ones who are clearly so guilt ridden over leaving their kids that they never discipline their kids at home, buy them everything in sight and the child becomes a spoilt manipulating pain. Fortunately these kids are very few and far between. If I ever have kids I would like to think I could find a compromise and work part time. I truly hope I wouldn't have to work 8am-8pm like a few working mothers I know do. But if I had to? I'm sure I would and the kids would be fine. You are doing what you need to to provide for your kids, keep them safe and allow them to have a good education and I don't see how anyone could criticise that.

[Ana]

Here in Portugal SAHM's are almost unheard of as well. Everyone I know needs the two incomes to maitain an acceptable lifestyle.
But that is not the only reason I work. I actually like my work, it fulfills me. And I would not stay home with my kids if I could. I would probably work less hours and have a more flexible schedule but I would still work.
I think the important thing for your kids is that you are happy with your choice and not constantly questioning yourself. My daughter spent the first 2 years of her life at home with a nanny she loved and she is now in a wonderful daycare. She is a happy child, she is loved and she loves us. The time I spend with her might not be big in quantity but it is in quality and she is happy. And so am I.