Numbers of SAHMs increasing
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 10-12-2003 - 3:41pm |
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/10/12/stay_at_home_mothers_finding_theyre_not_alone/
Stay-at-home mothers finding they're not alone
By Patricia Wen, Globe Staff, 10/12/2003
FRANKLIN -- It's morning on Greystone Road, and the routine looks like a flashback to a 1950s neighborhood: Fathers jump into their cars for a day's work, while their wives, holding babies and toddlers, wave goodbye. But on this block of $200,000 split-level and ranch homes, the women insist they are not modern-day housewives. All of them, they point out, graduated from college and worked for at least a decade before having their first child in their early 30s.
"We are our own generation," said Rebecca McLean, 32, a former personnel recruiter who stays home with her 6-month-old son, Derek. "We're doing it our way."
These residents of Greystone Road are part of a new shift in family life: More married couples with young children rely on their husband's income. After years of increases in the number of working mothers, census figures show the first significant rise in stay-at-home moms. In 1998, 41.3 percent of mothers with infants stayed home with their children; in 2000, the figure rose to 44.8 percent.
The trend is clear on Greystone Road. Stay-at-home mothers and full-time working fathers occupy four of six homes. Retirees own the other two.
Even though the women earned more than enough money to boost their families' total income and cover day-care costs, the parents on this block chose to cope with the financial pinch. For example, they sacrificed having a bigger house to be at home with their children.
The fathers, too, say they are far from being the Ward Cleavers of 2003 -- quick to change diapers and wash dishes, and equal partners with their wives in trying to offer the best life for their children.
"We all married when we were older," said Mark Collins, 41, He is an occupational safety manager who, with his wife, Christine, 34, have a toddler, Allison. "I lived in the North End for 13 years, eating out whenever I wanted. Now it's homebody time."
The increase in stay-at-home mothers is most pronounced among college graduates as well as white and Hispanic women. There also is a rise of stay-at-home mothers for older children. Last year, 10.6 million children under 15 in two-parent homes were raised by stay-at-home mothers, up 13 percent in slightly less than a decade, census figures show.
Researchers have identified Generation Xers, now loosely defined as those in their 20s and 30s, as leading the way in taking on this more frugal -- and, they hope, less frazzled -- lifestyle. If they cannot afford to rely on one income, or both parents choose to work, many are demanding flexible work schedules or limited hours to help meet their children's needs.
Today's new mothers feel less need to wave the banner of feminism, and "staying at home is more culturally acceptable," said Stacia Ragolia, a vice president at iVillage.com, a popular website for women.
"If they work, it may be that they have something to prove to themselves, but it's not about proving something about women's role in society," said Michelle Poris, a director at Yankelovich, a national marketing research firm, who has tracked differences between Generation X and baby-boomer parents.
In addition, while some Generation X parents may leave the work force because of the nation's poor economy, many others arrive at this decision because "they're nostalgic for something they never had" in their own upbringing, Poris said.
This generation, they say, grew up with peak divorce rates, high maternal employment, and expanding day care, and are well-versed in the crushing body of literature about the pros and cons of each trend.
The Greystone Road parents also are part of a generation that has put in many years of full-time work and had a long time to think about how to raise their children. The average American woman now has her first child at age 25, compared with age 21 in 1970. In Massachusetts, the average age a woman has her first child is 28.
After watching her divorced mother raise eight children by herself, one stay-at-home mother on Greystone Road said she was determined to carve out a different life for her two young daughters. "I wanted to make sure I had a good marriage and found someone who had the same values as I did," said Julie, 39, who asked that her last name not be used.
New approaches toward family life are starting to influence the way companies peddle products. Increasingly, companies are introducing distinct advertising campaigns aimed at Generation X parents, instead of offering what one marketer called "warmed-over boomer campaigns." In launching its new 2004 Nissan Quest minivan, company officials began ads with the slogan, "Moms have changed." In these commercials, women drivers are depicted without children, using the minivan's storage space for their own guitars, surfboards, or horse saddles.
The ads don't differentiate between working or stay-at-home mothers, but are designed to get away from the "soccer mom" stereotype often associated with baby-boomer women.
"We are speaking to the woman behind the mom," said Kim McCullough, Nissan's senior manager for marketing.
Companies throughout the country are waking up to the distinctive attitudes held by Generation X parents, from how they juggle work and family to how they spend vacation money, said James Chung, who operates Reach Advisors in Boston, a youth-oriented market-research business. This past week, Chung, 37 and a father of two, started a national survey of his own generation's attitudes toward family life and children.
He has speculated that the recent shutdown of the women's professional soccer league can be blamed, in part, on marketers' failing to recognize that today's parents need fresh promotional campaigns, not ones in which they are lumped with all the other "soccer moms."
Along Greystone Road in Franklin, residents said they don't see themselves as trying to make any collective statement. They had never met until they each moved, one by one, onto this small residential street.
In fact, when Christine Collins first moved into the neighborhood in 2000, the 31-year-old teacher worried she would be lonely when she would finally stay home after her first child was born. There was no one in the neighborhood in her age group.
But by the spring of 2001, the McLeans and then the Cunninghams -- married couples in their 30s with no children -- had moved in. Within the last three years, each couple had a child, and Christine Cunningham is expecting a second. During this time, another couple, who had two toddler girls, moved in.
In their morning chats in the yard these days, the mothers occasionally talk politics, though mostly they talk about who slept through the night and other family topics. The husbands also have gotten to know each other. Scott McLean, 35, a controller at a Boston advertising company, is getting home renovation tips from contractor Colin Cunningham, his 32-year-old neighbor.
Each couple says they expect they may someday want two incomes to help support the cost of a larger home and more vacations, as well as their children's college educations. The women hope their decision to stop work doesn't set them too far back in their professions.
For now, however, they save money watching for store sales, and sometimes going to secondhand children's clothing stores. They see their division of labor -- mom staying home, dad going to work -- as the right decision.
"For this generation, it's a choice," said Jill Cunningham, 33, a former executive assistant who lives in her two-bedroom ranch with her husband, Colin, and their 22-month-old son, Luke. "My husband and I are both conscious of that. He doesn't come back at the end of the day, stick his feet on the couch, and expect dinner."
Patricia Wen can be reached at wen@globe.com.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

Pages
As to the 'chilling' comment. First off, I've never said that people have to spend 24/7 with their kids and if you'd actually read my posts you'd see that I don't even spend 24/7 with my kids. They have a relatively early bedtime and I have long hours by myself each day. I'd eventually lose it if I had to be with *anyone* 24/7. However, I have never heard anyone say that they simply couldn't handle being in their children's company at their current ages. I have heard lots of people say that they don't want to sah because they enjoy working, or because they need more adult interaction, or because they want the challenge of a career. The arguments I've heard for working have always been because of the positives that working brings not because the person didn't like the thought of being with their children. The reason I said it was chilling was because I thought back to my childhood. My mom sah with us until she and my dad divorced when I was 7. Then she went to nursing school and became a nurse. If she had said (or if I had felt) that she was going to work each day because she didn't want to be in my company I would have felt a coldness. It's chilling because imagining my mom feeling that way towards me is chilling.
I grew up knowing that my mom loved sah with us and that she worked in order to provide for us. My sister and I were very proud of mom for going back to school and becoming a nurse. We were proud of what she did for a living and we knew she enjoyed her work. However, we also knew that given the choice she would have been home with us in a second. We experienced the pros and cons of sah vs woh. My mom was always a very involved and loving parent whether she sah or woh. But, sah simply gave her more hours in the day and more energy. It also gave us a warm and loving environment to be at home in. Being dropped off at a day home (even a very good one) and then waiting there after school is a lot different than walking to school with mom and then coming home to her after school. My feelings about my mom and about motherhood in general would probably be very different (and not as warm) if I had, even for a moment, known that she couldn't handle being around us.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
"And there's a difference between knowing that if there was even the slightest possibility for your mom to be home that she would be and knowing that there was no way your mom would ever stay home because she just couldn't handle your company."
I could easily stay home and choose not to. Not primarily because I can't handle my children, physically or emotionally - that reason isn't in the top 5 reasons I WOH. You're stuck at looking at the work situation through only the children's eyes. It's equally important that I do what I want. It's my only life too. I guess you can't really relate to a person choosing to work rather than choosing to be home with her children.
I don't even think I need to organize my career so I spend as much time at home as possible. DH doesn't do so. If you count my working hours as me time, I guess that might work. But I'm not going to give up me time just because I choose to work.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
While I understand you comment much better now about *largely* and thank you for taking the time to explain it further.
PumpkinAngel
And those ways are not confined to spending time with them in their younger years, taking them to school and being home early.
Otherwise, your own children probably feel their daddy loves work more than them. He must be a very bad example of a WOHP.
Projecting your own faulty logic on a child doesn't make it the child's logic.
Children are a lot smarter than that. Or maybe it's just my kid. She must be a prodigy or something. Oh wait, I know. She's *gifted.*
Nope I understood that you didn't say that.
PumpkinAngel
Pages