hammer meet nail

you don't do it

I was a SAHM. and merely in the middle class. My husband never made six figures, substantially below that, and we simply made certain economic decisions that allowed me to stay home.

And no, it wasn't in the 1960's or even 1970's, but the 80's and 90's.

People sometimes have more choices than they realize they do.

Once out of the job market, I could not get back in. Although I had a Master's already, I had to go back to school just to get a job. Then I was overqualified, so I had to get another degree JUST TO GET A JOB. And by the time I had all the right degrees and all my ducks in a row -- employers didn't want me because I was too old.

More and more, young women who seriously want to work in professional fields (ones that require long, long hours at least at the beginning) find they have to choose between children or their profession. You can't work 70 hours a week and raise children. Can't do it. Can't be done. And that is what many jobs require nowadays.

It's a man's world.

Women can't win.

I made the choice to have kids, the choice to stay at home with them, and I was thankful I was able to do so because my husband made enough money. Before we had our first child I was employed at a major bank and in a short time had already received a raise. I was told I was being groomed to 'move up' and did many different jobs at that bank. Then I got pregnant, worked until I was 8.5 months pregnant and went on maternity leave, which was 6 months at the time here in Canada. At the end of 6 months, it was apparent returning to work would be detrimental to my child (she was very high needs) so I didn't.

We made financial sacrifices, but my husband also climbed up the 'ladder' quickly. By the time we had 4 children we were doing well. Then, when my oldest was 12, I found out my husband had been cheating and wanted out of the marriage.

I've lost 12 years of income, and being in the workforce. Thankfully here in Canada the divorce laws are pretty good and my ex pays me spousal support on top of child support so long as I go to school. So now, I'm a single mom of 4, in school full-time. I am pissed because things are not only extremely tight for me money-wise, but that I sacrificed my financial security for my children while my ex made no such sacrifices. I truly didn't realize how precarious my situation would be if my husband left me with 4 kids. And no one thinks it will happen to them, but I'm here to say it does happen, and more often than you think.

When I do eventually get a job, it will be nowhere near the 6-figures I'd likely be making right now if I'd have stayed at the bank.

My 4 children are girls. You can bet I've told them to make sure if they choose to stay at home with their kids, that they have enough in savings, or that they take part time courses the entire time the entire time they are staying home so that if their husband left the next day, they would have something to put on their resume other than "had a bank job 12 years ago".

You are so right, women cannot win.

your exact situation, and I don't even expect a reply to this (because life is simply more complicated than can be expressed in a post here on DU), but I wonder if you would have chosen differently had you already known ahead of time what was going to happen.

That's something I think about a lot. I stayed home for nearly 25 years, and then my husband met someone he decided he'd rather be with. I am still a little angry with him about that. But, and this is huge, our sons were grown by the time this happened, so I didn't have to be a single mom, for which I'm extremely grateful. I was myself raised by a single mom, I've witnessed the struggle of many other single moms.

During those years when I was at home, when my husband would occasionally push for me to go to work, I refused, because I saw how totally unfriendly the world of work is to the working parents out there.

The issue really isn't should a woman stay at home, should she sacrifice her career, should she do everything possible to build her career, even if it hurts the kids. No. The issue really is that the world of work is totally antithetical to the world of parenthood. Until we fully understand that our priorities are totally screwed, that being able to have a real life outside of work should be paramount, we will continue to wage these stupid "Mommy Wars", when what's really at stake is having a life outside of the job.

Those who never have children sometimes feel totally cheated and used, because they often are used to cover for the parent who wants to see a kid's soccer game, or needs to take a kid to the orthodontist. So it gets set up as a parent vs. non-parent thing. What's missed is that the job simply should not be the end-all and be-all for anyone. Unfortunately, we seem to live in a world where the job must come first, personal life be damned.

Even though I almost never worked (about three different times I had jobs when my kids were young) as a parent, it always made me furious that the workplace simply did not accommodate working parents -- mostly moms, but I want to include dads also. I always understood that I was quite privileged (even though we did make certain financial sacrifices) to be able to stay at home. I was myself raised by a single mom, so I always understood that situation. I had plenty of mom friends who had no spouse around. I don't care why that occurred. The reality was, there was no other adult on the premises to help out. Part of my determination to stay home stemmed from my clear-eyed observation of what it was like for a working mom.

Even though I am sometimes guilty of being more judgmental than I should be, I have always felt totally supportive of the working moms out there. I know that life leads us all in different directions, that various people make different choices.

And I just want to repeat that the real issue is, in my opinion, that the world of work assumes that the worker either has no children or has a spouse who manages everything. And that's not the world most of us live in.

I also sometimes fought my husband to stay home, for the same reasons you said. Work is not a 'mom-friendly' place to be (god, just read some of the threads here about people bitching about the parents at their workplace), and in addition, I was already doing all of the work in the home (my husband rarely did any of the actual care). I had zero help from my husband so I saw it as trade-off. Now I realize that a real dad would actually want to help and be involved in his kids lives. He seemed to enjoy having me at home to do everything, and I think he felt it helped to keep me isolated so he could go fuck his girlfriend on the side.

Anyhow, yes I have anger too, clearly.

I cannot explain to you the terror of leaving my youngest at her caregiver's place for the first time on that first day of school. My older ones were in school, but I had never been away from my youngest. Luckily I found a great lady (also a single mom who chose to watch other kids so she could stay at home with her twin baby boys) who has become a great friend as well. I guess I do get defensive now because I used to be that holier-than-thou stay-at-home mom that thought if a woman really cared about her kids she would find a way to stay at home. I understood that wasn't always possible for single parents, but I didn't 'get it' for married parents. Now I get 'it'. 'It' clubbed me over the head with a clue-by-4. I don't know how to put this but I feel like my whole future was stolen because I bought into the 'kids must always have a parent at home no matter what' thing. I now realize that part of my issue was my issue with my mom working ('nother story) and I now know that had more to do with my mom's personality than with the fact that she worked. She would've been that type of parent (self-centered, emotionally abusive) no matter what.

So, would I have done anything differently had I known? Yes, but not go to work. I'd have educated myself on my husband's dime. I'd have taken 1 online course per semester. Over 10 years (that those courses were available on the net) that would have added up to 3 years of a degree. I'd have been much further ahead. I'm only just finishing up my 2nd year. I'd have been far more careful with my money. I used to trust everything my ex said about money. Now I know he was a con man and I spent more than we had because he said it was ok and then left me with mounds of debt that I had no idea about (shared debt and all that crap you find out about in a divorce). I'd have put myself in charge of the finances if I did it over again.

But yeah, the real questions are really:
Why don't jobs pay a living wage anymore?
Why is there no pay equity for women?
Why are women such a small percentage of CEO's? Of Congress?
Why are there no labor laws limiting time worked per week? Think of all the extra jobs if no one was allowed to work more than 40-45 hours/week!

I'm taking accounting, business and finance in my schooling. I'm taking many courses MBA's take (when I'm done, I get to fast track an MBA because I've completed half their courses already). I know the answer to all those questions. Greed. Profit. An economy that relies on perpetual growth that is completely unsustainable. Firms that leverage the shit out of their companies to maximize shareholder wealth only to find that it magnifies losses in hard times and fucks up the entire economy. All of those things are exactly the opposite of what is needed for a healthy economy that values its workers. So long as this system exists, so will our present situation of inequality.

They don't give a rat's ass about employees' lives nor their free time. They want us all to be like them, cut throat and demanding with no empathy for our fellow man.

I absolutely adore my kids. They are still such a joy to me even though they are grown. And I loved spending time with them, did when they were small and still do.

But, middle class women who cannot afford nannies and all kinds of "help" cannot compete for good jobs today. Employers expect 60-70 hours a week from professionals. And you cannot adequately care for a child in the time that remains to you when you work like that.

is that so many men are conditioned to turn in the wife for a younger model after she's sacrificed herself to support him and their children.

Maybe the reason women can't win is that men keep changing the rules.

I am not smart enough to come up with a way of saying "you have a hard "choice" that may or may not be possible, but it is going to be hard work either way"

On just hubby's income, we were never able to buy a home, and we drove the same cars for 20+ years. We did, however, save enough money to put both boys through four year universities. They've both started their adult lives, debt free.

But, yeah, when I did return to the work force, the plum positions weren't available to me, obviously.

don't really care about your kids!!!

different classes of welfare queens.

(the line is sung by to a woman seeking an abortion by the doctor who refuses to perform it)

in translation it goes "You're going to be a lovely little mother...you're going to bear a lump of cannon fodder".

They hate minorities on welfare more. Minorities are the ones who for decades have been smeared by racists as being the #1 recipients of welfare, not white women.

My earliest memories are of Mom being beaten by my drunken father until he disappeared. She was on welfare for a short time while raising my little brother and I, just youngsters. Then she got a job doing laundry at a high school, which she did for the next 20+ years, and retired beloved by all. We never had money, but we had food and love. I know they hate minorities on welfare. But this is deeply personal, and I'm pissed. Don't tell me to ignore the reality. I think it's more anti-women even than race, although I recognize that component.

The GOP is racist as hell and you're trying to deny that fact? It sure as hell does make a difference what race a person is to those fuckers.

Uber-rich, two Cadillac-driving corporate welfare queens good.

I would wager your seething hatred permiates every discussion you have.

Let's just take the op without the racism

"if you're a rich woman you're making a choice, if you're poor woman, you're a welfare queen"

I think you might be a little more effective with out the blinders.

But hey, I had a stay at home dad, what the hell do I know.

I think the OP is saying that the GOP has a racist/classist/sexist view of the world. Are you calling the OP racist? Please clarify because I'm confused by your post.

The statement that 'If you're a rich white woman you're making a choice, if you're a poor black woman, you're a welfare queen' is a good summary of the Republican position on stay-at-home moms is both accurate and fair. There is nothing in the slightest racist about pointing this out, nor does it indicate in any way 'seething hatred' on the part of the person who posted it.

And, my ignore list just grew by one.

Every progressive should be repeating it - especially those who have a national audience.

And its all white... LOL Boring the hell out of the few younger people they probably had to pay to sit up on the stage to make the venue look like they have any young people support... Notice how white that stage looks...

It's not necessary to make it racial; other than the "white" part.

But, you have a point, in reality the GOP doesn't care what race the poor mother is.

The Republicans have shaped themselves since 1964 as the 'white man's party', and make no bones about it among themselves. Always better to face reality squarely, especially when dealing with people whose true slogan is 'This used to be a White man's country...'.

but my point is racism is without ideology, as well as, hatred of races has to be taught.

64 Civil rights act Vote
By party
The original House version:[15]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[16]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[15]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[15]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
[edit]By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

is built on racism to the point of resembling a hate group at times. So, if you took the race qualifiers out of the OP, it would be inaccurate.

Anyone who was alive and politically aware in the period understands perfectly the geographic breakdown of the vote, and that the old 'solid south' of Democratic lore was segregationist, even when some of its members might have been quite enlightened on other matters, and also that the Republican Party still contained a good many genuine liberals, heirs to the Progressive movement of the early 1900s, and even harkening back to the old Radical strain of the party's founding years..

The salient fact, however, is that the Republicans ran for President in 1964 Sen. Barry Goldwater, who had vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Act, and he received the majority vote in several southern states. There was no doubt at all in anyone's mind that the reason for this was the racist convictions of white voters in these states. Mr. Nixon certainly understood this, and pitched his campaign in 1968 on appeals to racism both overt and covert, in Reagan picked up the torch in his '76 primary campaign, and brought it to flower in 1980, opening his campaign with a speech endorsing 'states rights' given where several civil rights activists in the early sixties had been lynched by klansmen, including members of local law enforcement. Nobody failed to take the point. No less than Mr. Lee Atwater is on record before his death, in confirming the whole root of Republican campaigns he directed was appealing to white racism, and that is was most successful.

Over the course of time from Goldwater's campaign till the Reagan era, the southern Democrats, of the faction known in '48 as 'Dixiecrats' have migrated wholly to the Republican party, converting it by their numbers and influence into the current receptacle for racist and segregationist views in our country's political life. Similarly, the old liberal elements of the Republican party, what for convenience could be termed 'Rockefeller Republicans', have mostly migrated into the Democratic Party, having lost the struggle with the far right racist elements that flowed into their old party after the nomination of Goldwater.

No one possessed of basic political literacy is unaware of these things, so when someone affects to be unaware of them, and touts a voting list from the Civil Rights Act debate as somehow demonstrating racism is not the root and strength of the modern Republican party, persons looking on must have to wonder why the act is put on, and draw sensible conclusions by their own lights to explain the doings....