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?