To think SAHM with young DC deserve more respect

@MissScarletInTheBallroom How am I naive? I am now 53. I've known my DH since uni. Nobody gave us anything ever. We came from nothing. Together we have built a life together and supported each other as a team. We have put three children through independent schools in SW London. We own several central London properties and others overseas with no mortgages. We are putting kids though uni with no loans and will buy them properties when the time comes. If I was to leave this marriage tomorrow, I would leave with more money than I could have earned in about 20 lifetimes, given what I used to do - and I am educated to Masters level. I would still not need to work if I didn't want to. I am not stupid and would not have been a SAHM if I hadn't 100% wanted to do this or it was a financial risk. Do you think I would expose my children to that? I made my decisions in the context of the man I married and the opportunities presented to us along the way. In another marriage or financial context, I may well not have been a SAHM. It is what it is. How am I naive exactly?

I rather think it's you that's not getting it.

Both sides of the argument are equally guilty of putting down the other! Where's the respect there? Like the accusations that working mums don't rear their own children. Or what was the point of having children if you weren't going to be at home with them? Or other similar crapology.

I am sick of seeing posts here where posters are preening and self-congratulatory because they're so full of their own superiority and better quality parenting having stayed at home. I don't give a flying monkey's because I am happy with the choices I made and would do the same again. My children are adults and I know that I did a fucking amazing job! It's galling though to see that same bollocks posited, but I have come to the conclusion that some people are just limited in their level of understanding.

Look stay at home or don't stay at home. I don't give a hoot. There's no one way of parenting that is better than another. Plenty of kids grow into confident, productive adults no matter what their childcare arrangements were when they were little, and by the same token plenty fall by the wayside. You can't tell any difference. Same as you couldn't ever discern a difference between my breastfed children and my friend's bottle-fed children as adults. It's all about the quality of your parenting and not the methodology!

@MissScarletInTheBallroom

I don't even understand who she wants more respect from.

This is exactly the point I tried to make several pages ago and was accused of whataboutery.

Its never clear who is supposed to be providing this enhanced respect and how it is supposed to manifest.

And when you point out that working mothers are entitled to equal levels of respect someone invariably says society respects them more that SAHMs. There is never evidence for this.

But here we are (again).

I'm afraid I think you're shockingly naive and I hope my children will be a lot less naive when they grow up.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom There is no 'balance of power' when everything is joint in the first place. You are not income-dependent, in other words. He can take his income with him and you still know you would be ok, or more than ok, based on your share of assets alone.

Again, this is only my scenario, but even though DH earned the money while I was a SAHM (though he always paid himself, he never worked for anyone since the age of 30), I invested our money in ways that were profitable or provided passive income (property renovations basically). Over the years, you build lives together and make mutual decisions and everything is intertwined.

I don't even understand who she wants more respect from.

She didn't ask for "the same level of respect". She wants "more respect".

"More respect" than what?

She's not even a SAHM. She's on maternity leave and I think we've all been in the trenches at that point in our lives!

I think it was pretty clear what she meant from her increasingly bad-tempered posts!

I'd be disappointed either way. I think it's important to be financially independent, I suppose especially for women as they are the ones who go through pregnancy, give birth and take maternity leave but I don't think solely depending on anyone financially is ever a good idea.

It's all very well to say that in advance, but you really have no way of knowing how the other person will behave once the balance of power between you has shifted.

But you're talking about the sort of planning which is only really possible if (a) you've worked to become pretty financially stable prior to pregnancy and (b) there is no abuse.

The most common time for abuse to start is during pregnancy or postpartum, by the way.

The person you end up married to might turn out to be a very different person to the one you thought you married.

You can't accrue savings in your own name if you aren't earning your own money.

Savings you accrued in your own name when you were earning your own money can rapidly dwindle if you are no longer earning and your partner doesn't give you full access to family money.

Owning your home in joint names is helpful, but doesn't solve the immediate problem of how you leave a toxic relationship with no ready access to cash.

And so on.

There are a depressing number of threads on here every day by women who have no financial independence and are stuck with men of varying degrees of awfulness. Sometimes the worst of it is just that he treats her like a skivvy and doesn't clean up after himself. Sometimes it's so bad that she fears for her own and her children's personal safety. Invariably, she has little or no access to money. Invariably, posters tell her to just leave with whatever she is standing up in. (And call Women's Aid, the suggested solution to every problem.)

Barring the unthinkable, such as my child becoming addicted to heroin or turning to prostitution or having such terrible physical or mental health problems that they feel their life is not worth living, the worst outcome I can think of for my children is that they end up like those women.

But the likelihood is that they won't. Because even if they do decide (unwisely, in my opinion) to become financially dependent on their partner and end up in a shitty situation with no money of their own, I would always bail them out.

Of course, the only reason I will be in a position to bail them out is because I have money myself.

Money doesn't buy you happiness, but it buys you choices. And I want my children to have choices.

I can't speak for everyone, but personally I wouldn't be a SAHM indefinitely if it was wholly dependent on 'his' income. That's not enough security at all. What happens is - you need to weigh up the whole financial picture - eg. what are your family's savings; other assets; joint investment portfolios; do you own your house or is it mortgaged; any other properties etc. In other words, if you did split, you know exactly where you would stand financially and you know where your children would stand financially. You also factor in how easy it would be for you to return to work if need be - how and when. And my advice - NEVER be a SAHP to anyone who even remotely has a mindset of 'my money is mine, yours is yours.' Well I wouldn't be with that type of individual anyway, SAHM or not. And anyone who is secretive about finances in a marriage - run a mile would be my recommendation and certainly do not have kids with them.

Some answers/solutions to your questions:

• Think very carefully about who you marry in the first place.
• Accrue your own savings in your own name.
• Own your own home in both your names.
• Don’t keep upgrading everything and living beyond your means to ‘keep up with the Jones’ in the first place.
• Stay living near your own extended family if on good terms.
• Maintain prior career contacts/make new ones through volunteering.

As a SAHM who’s own Dad died when I was 4, I thought through very carefully what I would do if my own husband were to die. His Mum also died when he was 9, so it’s one we both are very aware could happen to us. If my DH were to die tomorrow, our life insurance would ensure our home was paid off. I have enough savings in my own name that I saved whilst teaching prior to starting my family to live off whilst job hunting. I could afford to run my home alone teaching 2-3 days per week as we haven’t over-extended ourselves. I have built a very strong relationship as a governor and reading volunteer with my children’s school, and other local baby/toddler group leaders who have actually already offered me work. Failing all that, my Mum lives 10 mins away and has 2 spare bedrooms, so I’d move in with her whilst job hunting and trying to get back on my feet.

Similarly, if I were to die, my husband would instantly request to drop from 5 days teaching to 2-3, which he could comfortably manage due to our past 15 years of careful, joint financial planning. I actually also have legal training, and personally ensured our wills and trusts for our children are watertight. Having a parent die young has made us both planners!

Is any individual within a couple truly financially independent? Several of my closest friends are married to people with both earning a high full time salary, but because they’ve taken on much bigger homes and mortgages, neither could actually survive if their spouse left them. More to the point, surely the point of being part of a couple is to work as a team, share finances and lessen the load?

What you mean is that the spouse or partner who is working pays for everything.

OK.

And if they stop?

If they decide that actually they don't want a joint account and instead will give @SouthLondonMum22's daughter or son an allowance of 50p a week?

How does the SAHP prevent themselves from being financially abused?

How does the SAHP retain the freedom to leave the relationship if they need to?

They are a family - so all money is shared. That's kind of the whole point.

I'm not asking how the family supports itself. I'm asking how the individual supports themselves.

Assume the family can afford it (even if it comes at a serious cost to their lifestyle), because otherwise it wouldn't even be a question.

How does @SouthLondonMum22's son or daughter, who isn't working, pay for the stuff they need?

Well if their family couldn't support a SAHP set-up, then obviously that's that. This would be assuming the family could afford it.

How do you think @SouthLondonMum22's daughters or sons would support themselves financially during this period of time?

Also, if you had a son and he wanted to take a few years out to be a SAHD, would that be acceptable?

How long would she be allowed to stay with her baby before you were 'disappointed?'

I’d be disappointed and worried but ultimately, it’s obviously their decision.

@SouthLondonMum22 - that's great, but what if your daughter just wants to focus on her own children for a few years and, when all is said and done, she feels strongly that that's her priority?

It really depends @MissScarletInTheBallroom.

You know that working for yourself is even less compatible with taking extended time out, right?

For my daughters, I don’t want them to miss out on career opportunities because women are more likely to take long career breaks so they decide to hire a man instead.

I want the expectations for men to be the same as women excluding the obvious time to recover after giving birth and for it to almost always fall onto the woman.

The most successful people I know (financially) got out of banking or the corporate world by their late 20s max and then worked for themselves. They are the risk takers, essentially.