I just finished reading the thread about obnoxious mormon dental students with their "loser stay-at-home mom wives." I can see why people would be disgusted with those who choose to stay at home and continue to add children if they can't pay for the ones they have without taxpayer subsidy, but is it always such as bad thing for one parent to stay home with the kids as long as the family is footing their own bill?

I waited to have kids longer than I wanted to, and I had half the number I wanted. I finished college before having any of them. I waited so long, in fact, that I had a hard time getting kids once we decided to try because I was apparently past my fertility peak. My husband and I, when it was just us, worked hard and lived in a crap neighborhood to save money before we had kids. We fixed up a dive that we bought there, saved as much money as possible while living there and fixing it up, and just before starting our family sold our fixed up house for a decent profit and used that and the savings we had built to put a very nice down payment on a very modest house in a much nicer part of town. Though I wanted at least one more, we stopped at two kids because that's how many my husband thought we could afford.

I chose my college major very poorly and ended up *hating* that kind of work. I know I was a bear to live with because I was so miserable in that field of work. I finally started my own business in a loosely related field, both to give my schedule flexibility because by then we had kids, and also to make me more sane. This job has never personally fulfilled me at all, but modifying the kind of work I was doing at least made my work tolerable to me. I wasn't making as much money, but we continued to live simply and rather frugally (and on our own dime, not taxpayers').

Fast forward a bit and we started noticing that our kids were being shoved to the back burner more than we were comfortable with because both our jobs became more and more demanding of time for less and less return. We felt like our kids were taking second to our jobs. So my husband told me he was okay with trying to make it on his income alone and that I could now focus on the kids. I cut back gradually on work and now am only doing enough to keep my feet wet and not close the door entirely. We've already noticed a positive difference in our kids, in our relationship, and in my mood. I am very personally fulfilled being a mom (I waited a very long time to get started on that project and thoroughly enjoy it). I feel like my kids are benefiting from me having more time for them. I don't want to sound too "mormony" on this, but I feel some of society's problems have roots in parents not raising their kids after giving birth, but just turning them loose to raise themselves, and I am not sure why SAHMs are so looked down upon. They don't get paid, but they are actually doing a valuable job. As long as they are not doing that on someone else's dime (other than an agreement between a couple about who will contribute what), why is it a decision that elicits scorn from society in general with the feeling that every SAHM is a spoiled trophy wife or a parasitic loser? I am neither. The price I paid by waiting to have kids, by limiting the number of kids, by living simply without a lot of extravagances, I feel, was worth it to be able to raise my own kids after that long wait.

Am I missing something?? Should I be feeling more guilty about this? Can't it ever be the right decision?? (Obviously, I am still struggling with plenty of guilt. I felt guilty before because work was pushing itself ahead of my kids in the priority line too often and now I have these moments of guilt that I shouldn't be this content kissing my husband good-bye to go to a job he doesn't love either so I can enjoy concentrating on the kids. And BTW, hubby would go *crazy* to be stuck at home with the kids....he loves them, but the Mr. Mom thing would drive him nuts!)

I don't think there is anything wrong with choosing to be a SAHM or SAHD for that matter. In fact I applaud it. I don't think being SAH to be the path for everyone, but I think there is a lot to be said for waiting to be in a place in life where you are ready, willing and able to commit to them the appropriate time and resources.

What you see on here is the backlash at the Mormon church brainwashing all girls the whole purpose of their life is to be a SAHM. They should get married young, have kids immediately and not even consider a career because gods purpose for you us to breed young and breed often.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2013 12:37PM by bc.

Here's my (nonmo) 2 cents.

SAHM moms mormon or otherwise should NOT be a SAHM if all they are living on is student loans.

In short, if all you are doing for a standard of living is livin on loans, you shouldn't have kids.

In the case of the mormon dental students, the husbands should go to school (with student loans if necessary) and the wives should work to help support them...The husbnads then graduate, get jobs, start paying back the loans...THEN think about having a family.



I know, I know....not the mormon way..

I do have an issue with a culture that teaches that the only choice for women is to be SAHMs.

When it's a choice- good.
When it's religious dogma spouted by wealthy old men- bad.

Right there is the answer. My wife chooses to stay home. Great. If she wanted to go to work. Great. Her life, her call.

It should be a decision made by the parents and no one else. I stayed home with my son when he was a preschooler, as did my mom, sis and sil. Big deal. Whe it becomes compulsory, judgemental and not good for the kids and mom bwcause of financial, reasons, or whatever, do I really need to explain this??

I guess I just never personally felt judged for being a working mom, even as a mormon. (Not to say that doesn't happen...I am sure it does....I just never felt looked down on for working.) I always felt it was expected that I go to college and find a job. Maybe it was just my own expectations for myself drowning out competing expectations from the church organization. I *do* feel judged for being a SAHM (still working a token amount to keep my foot in the door, but basically I'm a SAHM).

I know sometimes financially it's not feasible to be able to do this, but I wish more people would realize that there are two ways to afford things....simplify your lifestyle so it costs less or keep the luxuries and work more so you earn more. (Assuming it isn't a matter of being a single-parent household or a couple having so many kids or having so much debt that you could never in a million years even squeak by without two full time paychecks.) It bugs me that I sometimes get looked down on as "spoiled" when I have made choices to live very simply that others' haven't been willing to make. One of my "friends," upon hearing of the change in my work status, said with resentment and envy dripping from her words, "I can't believe you get to do that. That's just unheard of. No one gets to do that anymore!" I think she resents what I'm doing (not that I'm willing to base my decisions on what she thinks). But she lives fancier than I do. I know the mormon church wouldn't suggest this to women, but one way to cut costs dramatically so you can afford to stay home and raise your own kids and pay for them without relying on welfare is to limit the number of kids you choose to have. I reluctantly limited my family size and now I don't think it's unreasonable that I get to take care of those kids and enjoy them for the short time that they'll be kids.

There are many, many quotes from prophets and apostles just within the last 50 years that clearly state that a woman's place is in the home as a stay at home mom.

For me personally, the issue is when people claim that it is the only way to raise healthy, sane children. Or that a child with a working mom is doomed. Or that all moms have to stay home.

This is what many mormon women heard in ETB's talk in the 1980s. That even if they found a career fulfilling, even if their family benefitted from two incomes, they should really quit their job. AND, should stay/work at home even when the kids are in high school. I knew quite a few mormon moms (some of my aunts) who did just this. I don't know if their families suffered, I think they did, but I don't know.

The world is a different place. It is very difficult and expensive to raise kids. Wages from one earner are not usually enough to support a family any longer. And it's not because the family is spoiled, or eats out all the time (as some critics charge).

I love the show Mad Men, and the picture of SAHmotherhood that Betty Draper implies..that's what I see. Moms who are shamed if they work outside the home, women who are damaged and not really good moms in the first place. Women are second to men, help-meets, and most importantly, can't survive without a man. For the character on Mad Men, she really couldn't survive a divorce from Don. She had to remarry, and depend on her second husband to support her.

So - there's nothing wrong with stay at home parenthood to my mind. I think there are some financial risks that need to be understood between both parents (social security). Licensing is another thing to consider. Some people need to work to maintain their licensing. Parents should discuss the arrangements and revisit them.

Finally, I completely disagree that society's ills are because there aren't more stay at home parents. In some parts of society, kids are too coddled and not able to learn independence (helicopter parents and special snowflake syndome). Other parents are not able to support their families financially, and aren't able to be parents because they don't have time to be with their kids at home.

Most of the kids/adults I know are successful because their parents were interested in them and invested in them. That interest or investment may not have been a full time stay at home parent. And it also may mean that someone with a stay at home parent (like my Mom) can't have problems, can't be someone who really shouldn't have been a stay at home parent. It means that parental involvement is unrelated to whether or not a parent stays at home. There was a study that compared the amount of time that parents spent in the 1960s and the time they spend today - parents today actually spend more time with their kids than in the 1960s.

I have friends who are stay at home parents, and it works for them. I have friends whose children were in day care after 6 weeks and it works for them as well. There are a lot of factors involved, there isn't one right way for every family (contrary to ETB's proclamation).

"Most of the kids/adults I know are successful because their parents were interested in them and invested in them. That interest or investment may not have been a full time stay at home parent. And it also may mean that someone with a stay at home parent (like my Mom) can't have problems, can't be someone who really shouldn't have been a stay at home parent. It means that parental involvement is unrelated to whether or not a parent stays at home. There was a study that compared the amount of time that parents spent in the 1960s and the time they spend today - parents today actually spend more time with their kids than in the 1960s."
----------

I should rephrase my comments. What I should say is that I noticed that *I* was being a less than effective parent because my job was consistently pushing its way ahead of my kids in terms of who/what was demanding my resources, especially time. There have been cost-cutting measures at my husband's workplace and employees are expected to work tons of hours because, although they are short-staffed, they don't want to have to hire anyone else and pay wages and insurance for new employees. He and I were both physically and especially mentally exhausted when it came time to focus on the kids after work, and our kids kept ending up getting less than we wanted them to have from us. I think there are others out there like me who are not as skilled at knowing how to say "no" to excessive time demands at a job without losing that job; even with self-employment this is an issue, though it doesn't seem like it should be. I still think for those who are less able to keep work from invading all hours of the day, it could have a negative effect on their kids because the kids end up getting leftovers all the time. I don't know how many people are in this category, but I do know that *for me,* that made me less than the parent I feel my kids deserve.

For others, I agree with you. Some people are definitely more effective parents if they are able to go out and be fulfilled by either their work or just even fulfilled by the extra money their work generates and a fulfilled person is more likely to be a good parent. I just don't personally fit into that category, but I should have differentiated that in my original comments so it didn't sound so "one size fits all" when it comes to parenting. I can also freely acknowledge that some people just flat out don't have any choice and still manage to be good parents whatever the circumstance. Kudos to them; I personally wasn't feeling like *I* was juggling very successfully.

I just wish people wouldn't assume someone who chooses the SAH thing is by definition lazy, entitled, worthless, a pathologically overinvolved parent, etc. And I do sometimes feel that vibe from people.

It's not SAHM bashing.

It's "SAHM living while expecting those taxpaying-gentiles to subsidize your fairy tale" bashing.

Want to be a SAHM? Fine, just don't expect me to pay for it.

I'm a stay at home mom. I have been for 13 years now.

Go to and live your life the way you see fit. Recognize your mistakes as you define them and correct them as you feel the need to correct them. Don't let anyone on this board tell you that their way is better, just listen to them and understand that it is their way not yours.

My opinion is that SAHMs who choose to do so at the expense of their family's well being better have a better reason than some old dude from my church told me to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2013 01:38PM by jacob.

Agreed - I think the judgment comes when SAHM are making others pay for the decision to stay home. I don't think anyone should ever judge another's choice to stay home, absent the financial issue, or the decision to work. Every parent should decide what makes the most sense for them, given all the competing interests at stake. My DH and I both work less than full-time, and one of us is always with the kids. I like our arrangement because the entire burden of finances is not placed on only one party, and both of us get to enjoy a fulfilling, very involved role in the kids lives.

I have had a wife who stayed home with small children, and now a wife that works full time with a small child at home so I have seen both sides. My first wife would spend 7 hours day ignoring the kids, laying on the couch or sitting on the internet and then gete up about 30 minutes before I got home to clean up a little so I wouldn't suspect she did nothing all day. She was not in any way fit to be a stay at home mom. She couldn't motivate herself to do anything, even with the kids. My second wife does a pretty good job with both job and child. Working helps her stay sane, and daycare allows my very energetic 4y/o to get out of the house, play with friends etc. Wy wife is a teacher, so she gets lots of time off so we have a good balance of home time and daycare. There are kids at my daughters daycare that are there 10-11 hours a day 50 weeks a year. That to me wouldn't be something I could support. The flip side is that if the woman (or man) is not a self starter and motivated to make the most of her time I wouldn't support them being a SAHM either.

Rasing kids is work, but in this day and age homemaking is not nearly as strenuous as it used to be. 200 tv channels, Ipads, dishwashers, high capacity washers and dryers, microwaves, robotic vacume cleaners... It's pretty easy to spend next to no time cleaning or engaged with your children and still get everythind done these days.

I think society values women the same way they value men. Whats your career? How much do you earn? How many hours a week are you working? That is how we get judged (in America anyway).

The thing is, women more often than men sacrifice for their kids, they are more likely to miss work when the kid is sick, take time off to go to a school play, etc. This should be valued but in a consumer driven "free market" its all about what you do for corporate. Raising kids just doesn't create a healthy bottom line in the short term, and no one in corp America cares if 18 years from now there is no one capable of doing the work, they are going to offshore to China or India anyway.

Call me "old school" but I'm a strong believer in giving children at least one full time parent the first years of their life, especially before going to school. It could be the mom or the dad, which ever works out best (could be a lot of reasons for that decision.)

I was fortunately to be able to be home and mother my children full time for their early years. Then I only worked part time while they were in school. Plus I didn't ever have any confidence in any child care that would understand and love my children like I did. Didn't trust them at all!

I have no regrets. Not one. I'm very proud of how our children have matured and how they conduct their lives now.

They were raised as members of the LDS Church however, in the teenage years, some left and never went back. Most have resigned their membership.

I was probably a more liberal LDS mother, in some ways as I was a convert.

At one point, it became extremely clear to me that I could not force my children to have any belief system. It was totally up to them to choose what worked for them.

My view is that there is no one true way to be a parent, work, stay at home, work from home, whatever works. If changes need to be made, do it. Also, mind your own business! :-) We only walk in our shoes, nobody else's!

I had twins at age 28 after working for 8-1/2 years as a secretary (which I loved). I stayed home for 10 months and about lost my mind. I got a job at the place my husband worked--but I worked 2 evenings a week and every other weekend. It gave me a little money that I felt was really mine and the kids and their dad finally really bonded. Our daughter wanted nothing to do with him (she didn't like anyone but myself and my niece). They all became close.

It changed my whole world. AND the job I got allowed me to work at home while I raised my kids from age 10 on up as a single mother so I was always here. I drove them to school and picked them up every day. If they needed something during the day, I was available. I worked in an area that they could come in the room and watch TV while I was working.

I didn't want my kids in day care. My mother put us in day care for one short month when I was very small (another one of those memories Cheryl asked about). I HATED being in day care. There are ways to work around it.

I felt this was the best of all worlds most of the time. I did feel that I had the extra burden of doing ALL the house related things that typically have fallen to women, because I was at home. And also my husband and I are children of the 50's and he liked being married to a Molly Mo who did it all. Don't fall into that trap, you are working at home being a good mother to your children, not spending your time being a housecleaner and maid. My daughter has a rewarding, well paying career but feels conflicted about not being home with the children when she does decide to have them. She enjoyed me being home with her and her siblings and she isn't sure she can be a SAHM. Mostly emotionally and that's ok, I tell her. Do what is best for YOU! I admire your decision. Know that others will feel jealous and envious, because many mothers and fathers would love to be home with their children, but they cannot for whatever reason. Our society does not value women in general. And oftentimes women do not support other women like they should. You are doing what your heart and mind tell you to do and that is terrific. Enjoy your children because they do grow up way too fast. You will never get this time back. I validate what you are saying. I've experienced it. Just know that these reactions come your way for a variety of reasons, most have nothing to do with you.

Every family has to figure out what's going to work best for them.

First of all, a family has to be able to support themselves. If they can live on one income, then they have more choices.

Some women desperately need to pursue their career for personal fulfillment. If that is the case, they should work.

I also believe that both marriage partners should be ABLE to support themselves. At any time a spouse could be required to work because of divorce, disability, unemployment, or death of a spouse.


I do think it's advantageous to have a parent who is always there when kids are little. But when that isn't possible, quality day care won't damage kids.

To play devil's advocate here, I don't think being a SAHM should be a woman's choice. If she is married, it should be a mutual decision reached by both partners. No, no husband should require his wife to work or require her to stay home, but he should be included in the conversation.

I say this not because I'm not a feminist, but because I'm not an anti-masculist (counting the negatives... I think I said that right...). I have seen SO many friends face major issues with their marriage because the woman decided, "It's my choice whether or not I want to work, and I don't want to," and the man just went along with it. Guess what, ladies? Your husband probably doesn't WANT to work, either. We'd all like to spend our time at home with our kids rather than filling out spreadsheets and going to boring meetings. But just because you're a woman, you aren't entitled to make that choice independently of your husband.

I think many men are afraid to speak up and tell their wives that they would prefer for them to find a way to contribute to the household income, because they don't want to be seen as anti-feminist or controlling her options. But if you are entering into a partnership, it should be a partnership decision, which means the man's opinion matters, too. If he doesn't want to be forced to work extra long hours or juggle work and school, she should be willing to meet him halfway.

In summation, I'm not opposed to stay-at-home-parents. I think it's an option that works well for some families. But I disagree with the sentiment that "whether or not a woman works is the woman's choice" - it should be a decision that both partners get equal say in. Equal rights goes both ways.

I think that being a SAHP is fine and even a nice thing when the children are young.

Having said that, I think that most women are better off if they spend a large amount of their adulthood in the workforce. They gain self esteem, they contribute to the family income, and they can build a career and retirement savings.

Most adults who work their entire lives put 40-45 years into their careers. So if a SAHM puts in 20-30 years, with the rest spent at home, she can have the best of both worlds.

I don't think that anyone should have kids (if they can help it,) while they are still in school. Complete your education first, get a good job, THEN have a family.

My wife and I did the math. She's a stay-at-home mom and we calculated that the value of the work she does is worth somewhere on the order of $140,000 / year, which is well more than I make or that she could make. If she went to work we may have more money, but we would have far less value.

That and she loves being a stay-at-home mom.

All my SIL's are stay at home moms, I am not. It wouldn't bother me at all if they were self sufficient but they choose to stay at home even though they can't afford it. If a stay at home mom's family is on state aid then they cannot afford it. All of my nephews and nieces have health care through state aid, each pregnancy was paid for through state aid, they are all on free or reduced lunch at school. That is not affording it.

It pisses me off to no end to see these young couples who start popping out kids and having the state pay for them. I have some in-laws like this. They get free food, welfare, and insurance, and cheap housing. All the while other people are paying for it. How about you wait a few years and start your fairytell life when you are paying for it yourself instead of tax payers. This spills into people who have kids and do not pay for them and they are leeches to the welfare system because they can't get there crap together. One thing is lending a helping had, quite another pay for you to multiply and become a greater liablilty on the system. IMO it should go like this: here's you welfare, but here is a manditory drug test and birth control.

I'm a SAHM, and it is exhausting.

And yes, I'm using your tax money. I get healthy foods from WIC and my baby's immunizations are paid for by Medicaid. I didn't apply for food stamps, though, even though I would qualify for it.

And I don't feel bad about it. I worked hard to save enough money so that I could quit my job and stay home with my kids. I'm working hard now taking care of them on my own. The benefits I get from your taxes now will help my kids be healthy so that they can get good jobs and pay the taxes that will fund your Medicare and Social Security benefits when you retire.

It was my choice to serve in the military, and it's my choice now to stay home with my kids. Both choices were right for me at the time.

"I worked hard to save enough money so that I could quit my job and stay home with my kids. I'm working hard now taking care of them on my own."

With all due respect, how exactly is this "on your own" if by your own admission, you are using tax payer dollars?

Further, how do you, or any of us, know that your kids will become taxpayers that contribute into the tax system? It's entirely possible that they will live off welfare as adults, or they may not even survive childhood as tragedies happen every day. Who knows?

Mommy wars!!! No one can win. To me it's just part of picking women apart.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2013 04:24PM by crom.

I've been a SAHM for 18 years and there's no place I'd rather be. I love being with my kids. I made the choice primarily because my own mom wasn't a SAHM and it felt like she was always a stress case and never there when I really needed her. I did finish my degree first and taught for a little while before becoming a SAHM.

It really is a personal choice, it's not for everyone and it's not without downsides for sure. I'm getting to a stage in my life when my kids are getting older and I've been contemplating going back to work. But, an almost two decade gap in work experience isn't going to look good on a resume.

I'm trying to be a stay at home son.

There can be problems and benefits from working outside the home or from staying home. It all depends on the individual situations and preferences.

For whatever it is worth, and it can't be much, I think staying at home is a fine choice. It is a bit of a luxury, and not all families can afford it, but I don't think it is anything to apologize for or feel guilty about.

But I also think that goes for stay-at-home dads, and kids are not the only family obligation that can keep or entice people to give up the workforce. I was out of the world of work for a long time first because of health issues and then to care for dying parents.