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: 05-28-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 1:41pm
LOL! No, your kids are probably just "good!" My dd is the weird one -- one who won't nap *anywhere* but in our house!

Edited to add "and in the car."


Edited 10/23/2003 1:42:43 PM ET by iaudrey00
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 1:44pm
Ah well, dd's favorite place to nap was outside in the middle of winter in her stroller (bundled up in a snowsuit and lambfur sleeping bag)...she'd sleep for a good 2-3 hours in there.


Laura

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 3:01pm
Well then i have to disagree beecause i don't think that it matters whether mom sah or woh....work status makes no difference, therefore however parents structure their lives in terms of work is irrelevant (unless we're talking about parents with insane hours/travel for their job).

Can you tell me what differences one would see between a child who had your version of "the best" (with a sahp) and those with a wohp (obviously not "the best" according to you)? what would be different between your child and my 3? what should i be looking for in my 12, 9 and 7 year olds?

eileen

Avatar for laurenmom2boys
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 3:21pm
Exactly! I know several people like this. They either take over the project little by little by "offering" to do something, or they become very critical of the way others are doing their tasks.

I work with one woman whose last name starts with a "P." She always says "P for perfection!" In the meantime, she places an ungodly amount of stress on herself because of her perfecctionism, and drives the rest of us up a wall.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 4:19pm
Two untruths here

1)Doing what is best for a child will make the child happy. Not true in either short term or long term scenarios.

Example having a child move to a new school.

2)What is in the best interests of a family, but which makes a child unhappy, will necessarily make a parent more unhappy than the child. Not true either.

Example. Having a family move to a new city. Trust me, if we both loose our jobs, are out of work for 6 months, and then one of us finds a good one in another city - we're going. Kids will be tortured. You know what, after any time at all with no jobs, and after any time all living with the parental burden of dealing with the finacial difficulties of no income - I'm gonna be just as happy as can be about moving. And you BET we are gonna move. Even though, in the minds of the kids, who don't have the burden of financial responsibility and the adult perception of reality - the kids just might claim they would be much happier if we just moved into subsidized housing and worked min wage jobs at McDs to get by. Even if they were absolutely right about that - we aren't doing it. If my kids want to live on a shoestring and enjoy the finacial fun of trying to feed, clothe and shelter a family on not-enough-money, they'll have plenty of time to enjoy it in their own lives, later. My husband and I have lives going on here too. We aren't going to shoulder that kind of stress for a decade and a half - because the kids don't wanna move. The kids are moving and trust me, their unhappiness over that will pale in comparison to their parents unhappiness over the alternative.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 4:53pm
I think it simply comes down to time. We simply want more family time than a WOH arrangement would allow.

We've been able to give our kids opportunities that just wouldn't have been possible if I'd been working. We just wouldn't have had the time.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 5:20pm
Thank you.
Avatar for mygriffin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 5:43pm
Right. It's not just 20 hours vs. 20 hours. Working the extra 20 hours would mean putting the kids in DC full time, which wouldn't be worth it because what I'd be taking home would be less than I'm taking home now working PT and having my parents watch the kids for free.

There's no POINT in my working full time right now...regardless of the money, benefits and retirement savings.

Why didn't you guys just ASK me? ;) LOL.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 6:03pm
"If the only other choice was my children being unhappy, I would gladly be unhappy instead."

You made no distinction between momentary or actaul happiness.

You do realize that there is a middle ground between making sure that your kids are always happy and deliberatly making their lives misrable don't you? Why are you only talking about the extremes?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-23-2003 - 6:22pm
We have lived the perfect example of what you are talking about. When my DH retired from the Air Force for the first time DH and I could live where ever we wanted to. We were moving the summer after DD1 completed her freshman year of school. She did not want to move, besides the issue of leaving friends she was also a cheerleader that year and the chances of her being a cheerleader at her future school was pretty slim. We could have stayed there but it was not the best choice for the entire family. I know some families who have made the choice to stay at their last assignment so their kids do not have to change schools again but we decided that a better option was to make one final move to a location that was of our choosing, rather then letting one child make the decision.

Pages