To ask if you think SAHMs are lazy?

Gosh OP, this is awful! You have nothing because you gave up your career to raise the children and run the home, facilitating his career in the process. Can't you see that your work is just as valuable as his?

Divorce the twat, and make sure you take him for everything you can. I'm raging for you!

There are pros and cons with both, i don't know why others care so much if another person chooses a different path to themselves and then feels they can pass judgement. If somebody wants to risk being more financially vulnerable with a possible divorce that may or may not ever happen then that is their prerogative. Likewise if somebody wants to work and not spend as much time with their dc for a financial safety net that is up to them even if through choice. There are prices to pay for all we do... live and let live.

GoatCheeseTart. Everybody agrees some people have to work for financial reasons. If incomes are pooled and include one high earner,, decisions regarding family life are not driven by financial need. That is a luxury not many people have and those who can are very lucky.

There are also those who cut their cloth accordingly and forego a second holiday abroad, a bigger car and such ‘extras’ because they favour time and presence over material objects and believe it is the better choice for their family. Their reasons are equally valid.

@Alongcameacat does your partner not work?

When we look back at our lives, we will not remember our salaries.

Im sure I will remember the experiences & choices our salaries gave us. By our I'm including my DH

How much extra does he add to the food bill?

I bet he doesn't buy much.

I certainly remember my salaries. The tiny ones that meant I was constantly skint and could not even afford basic necessities. And the ones that mean my children get everything they need.

Exactly this

A lot of ‘ifs’ about divorce. using it as a reason to be at work. One could just as easily and pointlessly say ‘if’ something happened to you or your child, it would be a little‘easier’ to cope knowing you had all the time you had with them.

When we look back at our lives, we will not remember our salaries.

I also think divorcing & "doing well" is very dependent on age & when/where you bought your house.

My friend divorced last yr & even 60% of the equity & maintenance would not have been enough for a suitable place in the same area. Luckily she earns well so could get a mortgage & didn't need to move schools/area.

If you're in your 30s unless you're divorcing someone who has assets/earnings well into 7 figures not having an income will make it tougher.

What difference does it make?

Quite a massive one. If I get divorced tomorrow, this does not affect my job and income. If my SAHM friend gets divorced, she might get 50% of the assets, but then what? Spousal maintenance is not common and certainly not in an amount that would allow her to comfortably live without working. She will certainly have her challenges finding a well paid job after a long career break, competing with new energetic youngsters without family obligations.

innerspinner

As they say, life happens while you’re busy doing other things

You have summed it up perfectly. Excellent post.

There is no hard and fast rule about 50/50 on assets. It depends on the length of marriage, the status of the assets involved etc.

Having been in a similar situation myself a while back, I would never want to be a SAHM full time again because I want my own financial independence.

Apologies if this isn't correct for the OP but the post asked for opinions and that is mine.

“Being a kept woman is all well and good until you get divorced!”

In the OP’s case, she would be far better off divorced - psychologically and financially.

For women who are married to men who earn a lot more then them (regardless of whether these women are working or not), it’s not that hard to envisage where you would stand in the event of divorce because it will be mainly dependent on shared assets. A woman might have a job, but it doesn’t mean she’ll fare better in a divorce if there are no savings or assets to split for another mortgage and she is unable to fund anything on a single income. Or you might have the appearance of two working parents, but actually up to your neck in debt as a family.

Being a kept woman is all well and good until you get divorced

What difference does it make?

The starting point is 50/50 regardless of who brought in the most or least.

Friend has got 60% and hasn’t ever worked.
The extra 10% was because she was disabled but even if she hadn’t done anything and wasn’t disabled she would have got 50%

@Sugarbeanie - totally agree children don’t remember their early years. My two had a lovely nanny until they were about 3/4 years old. I showed them old pictures of her with them and they had no idea who she was. But they got to be well cared for while I was at work making the money, so I’m thinking that did them good.

Yes I know, I made it clear in my first post that it was just my opinion and that everyone makes the decisions that work well for themselves, blimey.

Being a kept woman is all well and good until you get divorced!

@Tadpolesandfroglets I don't think SAHPs are lazy & already said so. I just don't agree that the alternative is never seeing your dc.

I absolutely agree that financial constraints very much impact on the ability of both parents to work & this burden disproportionately falls on the mother. However my points were related to circumstances where there is one high earner, which is what I though the context of this thread was. Obviously they have less financial constraints.

Looking back on all the years I’ve been “at home,” I would say the most significant parts of this have actually been the most mundane - eg, being stuck in traffic jams on the way home from school and that’s when you have some of the most insightful conversations with your kids. Just the routine, humdrum really. It’s not about reeling off a list of what you “do” as such. You shouldn’t have to justify anything. Being a SAHM can’t be conceived of as a list of tasks. As they say, life happens while you’re busy doing other things.

I think this is something my DH has had to learn really, since he’s been around at home much more over the last year or so. He is always a very hyper person and needs to be seen to be “doing” a discernible “thing” - like “ok, weekend, do this trip / activity with the kids, job done, tick that box.” Not exactly performance parenting as such, but the real “work” of being at home is that a lot of what you do is not obvious to anyone else. Not even to yourself or the kids really, as that’s their norm and they take it for granted that you’re always around for them. Why wouldn’t they?

So people who say, “Well I do the hoovering and everything in the evenings” are spectacularly missing the point because nobody stays home because of housework! It’s absolutely not about that.

I do know, with my 4 kids, I would have felt unreasonable asking anyone else to do all the stuff I’ve done over the years. It comes instinctively to mums, but you can’t expect anyone else to care about all the details in the same way, or to just feel instinctively if there’s something amiss with your child, even if they can’t put it into words. That’s who I stayed at home with the 4 of them.

@pollypork That's great .You seem happy with that choice so it sounds perfect for your family and works for you, that would not have worked for me. In an ideal world, everyone should have the choices and options to do what is right for their families but sadly this isn't true, many decisions are financially driven. I was just trying to make the point that it would be great if SAHP were more valued and not this perpetual insinuation that they are lazy or not contributing to society as I happen to think the opposite (this of course is a generalisation, some SAHP are crap at their job). It's ridiculous question to ask anyway because obviously some working parents are lazy f*ckers and can have it easy, entirely dependant and their chosen careers and circumstances. It's not a fait accompli that you are not lazy just because you are in F/T employment

@Alongcameacat no, but to me I was okay with someone else providing that for them during work hours in order to ensure I was about more as they grew up.

That is your choice and the choice of many and the necessity of many. But....there are people, men and women, who weigh up the pros and cons and decide the financial and personal benefits of working outside the home is not the best option for them Many people really do not want to put their children into childcare from 7.30am until 6.30pm five days a week regardless of how much they earn.

So many factors influence people’s personal choices - including the flexibility of the work they do, their own upbringing and the household income.

Unfortunately the loss of one income takes away this choice from many. In other countries eg Estonia where paid parental leave is 85 weeks at full pay or Sweden which has 480 days parental leave means these choices aren’t financially driven,

Op if he earns a minimum of 100k that's around £1135, based on him having the kids one night a week.

Plus the value of half the house.

Plus pension and his savings. If you got divorced it would all need to be declared.

You will be better off on your own. Unless he works for himself where they can and do fiddle their books.

I'd get some legal advice.

Also not all SAHMs particularly of high earners are around their dc all the time. My mum didn't work but we had au pairs, cleaners etc.

@Alongcameacat no, but to me I was okay with someone else providing that for them during work hours in order to ensure I was about more as they grew up. And when home I did all of that too, just personal opinion and preference.