Numbers of SAHMs increasing

Avatar for outside_the_box_mom
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Numbers of SAHMs increasing
1094
Sun, 10-12-2003 - 3:41pm
Interesting article in the Globe today about Gen-Xers, SAHMs, and how their numbers are increasing.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 11:36am
Ahhhh! LOL. This conversation is getting to philosophical for me! I can only think of things in the general sense for so long. It's hard for me to say, because right now I can't even think of a situation like that. Like anyone else, I judge the specific situation. But in general, I think it is very very very possible to put my childrens interests above my own without spoiling them. I think this, because it is very rare that my childrens interests and my interests are at odds. I do what I think is best for my kids, regardless of the inconvenience to me. That's all I'm trying to say.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 11:41am
I am kinda of butting in here but I think you have to put whoever needs it at the time interests first. Right now, my husbands interests come before the rest of us. He needs it and he is the priority. When Alex had his bad asthma attack and had to go to the ER from the peds. office, my first question was not about him. It was where is the phone so I can make arrangements for DH. I felt guilty afterwards that my first priority was DH but I knew Alex was stable. He was at the ped. office and not in danger.

In a perfect world, your children's needs and interests would come first but it is not a perfect world. Sometimes their interests and needs do conflict with other family members and you have to prioritize.

Kristi

"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 11:43am
I guess we have to talk specifics. Like naptime. Sacred in our house. You say your interests and your kid's rarely clashes, but you posted some time ago that you wouldn't let a scheduled nap interfere with your desire to spend a day at the beach.

For me, I wouldn't make my child miss a nap so we could go to the beach. But I would use childcare so I could go. Or wait until he's outgrown the need for the nap. To me, that's putting my child's biological need for regular naps ahead of my desire to hang out at the beach.

Long term? I truly don't think I'd do anything long term to put my interests/wants consistently ahead of my children's.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 11:43am
You're right, maybe I just should deliberately make my childrens lives miserable. Is there something so wrong with wanting to do whats best for them? I would have thought I'd been making a clear distinction between momentary unhappiness (I'm not getting the piece of candy I want) and actual unhappiness (My living situation is unbearable type)
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 11:48am
But you are aware that there is a third possibility? Go to the beach *and* make sure your child gets a nap :-). Ok, ok so I probably had weird kids, but as long as I had the stroller along (one of those big European carriages that acts like a bed on wheels), the kids were guaranteed to take their nap more or less at the schedule time and usually for the scheduled amount. Naptime never seemed to determine our schedule because the kids always napped so well "on the go" but then, as I said, I probably had weird kids.


Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 11:51am
Right, of course that's a possibility. But generally unless the kids are very young, they sleep longer and better in the same place every day. And I was just using it as a debate point, so for heaven's sake people, let's not get off onto a sleep tangent over this.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 11:55am
That one is kind of hard for my to look at because we don't have schedules naps. I just wouldn't go to the beach and not bring my son I think. I think I will add here.. because many people are thinking that I give my kid whatever he wants... that "best interests" includes what is best for him, not necessarily what he wants. If it is in his best interests to go to preschool, even if he doesn't want to go that day, he's going.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 12:00pm
Maybe look at it this way. You think it's in your son's best interests to have a SAHP, you accomodate that, and I don't think it matters in overall raising of children.

I think it's in my sons' best interests to have regular scheduled naps and bedtimes (age appropriate), I accomodate that, and you don't think it matters in overall raising of children.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 12:26pm
Right... am I confused.. or did we just agree?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 12:30pm
I think if you agree with how I phrased it in my post, we do agree.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages