AIBU to think SAHMs are lazy?

You are determined to only see a certain type of SAHM as 'real' or valid. I'm not sure why. Does this make you feel better about yourself or something? Very strange.

All I know is, I wouldn't be on a thread about so-called 'WOHMs' (to use MN lingo) - pontificating about them as if they're all on MW or low pay while refusing to acknowledge the full spectrum and myriad of women working in all sorts of areas and economic situations.

It's too lazy to just retort with 'you live in a bubble.' I am talking about something I know about first hand. Lived experience of almost 20 years and what I see all around me every day. These SAHMs are no less real than the narrow stereotypes you need to believe.

No. A large proportion of SAHMs are not these rich women tiger parenting their kids into day schools. Outside of the London bubble this just isn't normal even among wealthy professionals.

From the IFS "43% of children living with one working parent and one non-working parent were in relative income poverty in 2015–16, after accounting for housing costs – up from 33% in 1994–95". So there you have it. Almost half of children with a SAHM are living in poverty because their mother doesn't want to work. They would prefer to play dollies then provide for their children or they are trapped in poverty and can't afford to work. The ONS stated that when surveyed 50% of women who stay at home with children wanting to work but can't afford the child care to do so. They are not rich or liberated, they are poor and trapped. These statistics don't even include the ones that are just garden variety poor or working class it's just looking at poverty. Include the working class families and it's way over half of single earner families being families who are poor. The very rich are an extremely small percentage of the population and also an extremely small percentage of SAHMs. By the way, if they're not actually looking after their kids and have au pairs they're not actually SAHMs, they're ladies of leisure. Lots of women are quitting work just to do housework, look at all the SAHMs on this thread wanging on about how they love being domestic goddesses with spotless houses and spending all day cooking.

Being a carer for a disabled child is irrelevant to a discussion on choice because they have no choice. Poor women trapped in childcare roles by the patriarchy who don't have the economic power to free themselves is highly relevant and why women should be modeling ambition and independent to their daughters, so they don't get caught in this trap.

I literally do not care about your out of touch opinions and won't be wasting any more time trying to educate you on the fact that not everyone is rich or tiger parenting while wafting around doing nothing useful all day because it's simply a fact, demonstrated by data gathered by governing body and up here in the rest of UK we see this type of family all the time and certainly don't see the types you're claiming are "a huge percentage of SAHMs" floating about. You're living in a bubble. I'm not wasting my day popping it.

The point being, it's ridiculous to generalise about 'SAHMs' - eg, they are all this, that or the other - because their circumstances vary widely.

You are just taking about the 2 SAHMs you know @SerenaCat93 . And you say a third of SAHM families are below the poverty line. Well what about the other two thirds?

Yes there are many women who can't afford to work because the cost of childcare is prohibitive. But there are also women who can't work because they have children with additional needs. And there are also millions of women who don't work because they are in high net worth families and frankly, the money they would make, even on a very good salary, is not worth the opportunity cost of putting your children in childcare.

You see a certain side of life with these 2 SAHMs you say you know. But if you were exposed to a different SAHM demographic you would have a different perspective. I don't know a single SAHM who isn't highly educated. These women know what they're doing.

As I said, I think I only knew one woman through all of my 3 kids / neighbours / friends etc that used a nursery.

Never mind a SAHP, it's very common to have a SAHM plus an au pair or nanny or other part-time help when there are multiple children. I did not do this, but I saw it all around me. I was the exception in that respect in that zi was a SAHM with no 'help.'

These women do not become SAHMs to do housework ffs. As if! They leave work because they know they have more to offer their child than a nursery setting. Put it this way, if money is no object. why would you put your child in a nursery with low paid staff, when you could be showing them the world yourself. You do realise, nurseries are not compulsory!

There is also a lot of what might be called 'tiger parenting' going on because entry to certain day schools in London is highly competitive. You will say that this is just London and a small demographic of people on a nationwide level etc etc and you wouldn't be wrong. I agree this type of family is not typical on a population level. But where you are looking specifically at the demographic of families who can afford to have a SAHM / SAHP, these families will make to a large proportion of them. It's no coincidence that families with SAHMs are concentrated in certain areas of high net worth families. These areas are densely populated.

If I talked on here about 'working women' as if they were all on minimum wage or low / medium earners, yes that would cover many women. But clearly not all working women are in this category. It's the same with SAHMs. Women are SAHMs at all extremes of the economic spectrum - for different lengths of time, different numbers of children, all sorts of factors. So when you refer to SAHMs as 'they' - who are you actually talking about? Which ones and where?

This is of course nonsense, even in London, surely you must have some inkling how rare it is, to sell a business for 30m and even in London, 160k between 2 can mean losing one salary is very difficult to meet ends meet.

the majority of stay at home parents are working class women, where let’s face it their wages will not be high enough to have much left after child care.

What are you on about? The majority of single earning parent families are poorer families making financial sacrifices so the mum can stay at home or the mum is trapped at home because they can't afford childcare. Or just as commonly she had a crap job she's glad to see the back of. A third of families with only one parent earning are below the poverty line. It's not solely the preserve of rich women who apparently have multiple companies and a portfolio to sell like you seem to think. Yes there are some but they are the minority.

The rest of the UK isn't London. All of the professionals I associate with through my work are scientists, doctors, working in research or medicine. None of them own companies or run businesses despite being wealthy because that's not what we do. Most professions aren't about finance, businesses and owning stuff. Also none of us want to give up our careers because we're passionate about what we do. Science/medicine/pharmaceuticals are fascinating, the developments being made every day are exciting. Our brains are wired for this stuff we're not here for money. If my salary became irrelevant I would still want to discover the next cure. Not a single professional I've worked with has given their career up when they've had kids because they don't want to. Discovery isn't something people get bored of. Some go part time, I condensed my hours and so did my husband but like hell am I just quitting to be a housewife. I love my daughter more than life itself but I am more than just a mother.

Thankfully, it's perfectly possible to raise children with critical thinking, and modelling what you think is the ideal life for others (which is debatable anyway)
thankfully is a bit more complex that just having a job for the sake of having one.

There are enough dedicated SAHM with terribly ambitious and successful children, and working mums in average to low employment with very averagely employed kids.

The message to all our kids is to work hard enough to put yourself in a position where you have the CHOICE. Choice of employment, choice of life, choice of everything.

How can that not the ideal? It's so bizarre that women (and men) wanting to stay home with their children is a concept so shocking for you.

The irony is that I can think or more than a few SAHM who got an idea and started a little business who became a very successful business, around children or their hobby or their dream job. At least these would never have reached that level if they had stayed in their old job. Everyone can always make use of a good degree eventually 😂

Don't be silly. This was private schools in London. More than your average demographic of ambitious, financially successful people. Nothing to do with the (yawn) 1950s. These women are the last women you should be 'concerned' for.

what happened to you to make you SO bitter? Do you hate your job that much?

@SerenaCat93 - it's about opportunity cost for most families. Take for example, two parents, one earns say, 100k, the other £60k. They may well decide that it's worth them both working and having kids in childcare because the benefit of the things they can afford with the extra £60k outweighs the emotional and economic cost of the kids in childcare.

However, if the higher earning partner then sells a company or something and receives £30m (for example), then that £60k earned by the other parent is suddenly neither here nor there anymore. The opportunity cost of going to work has changed. You may well now feel you can make more valuable impact being around for them (as opposed to childcare), than earning your £60k which is now negligible in terms of the difference it makes to your children's lives and future opportunities.

This is the position that many SAHMs are in. The money they would otherwise be earning - even if it's a very good salary on a national scale - is negligible in the overall financial context for that family. Why would you leave your kids in childcare all day, when the £60k you could make in a year is less than a minor fluctuation in your family's investment portfolios, for instance? You would have to really love your job to justify doing that (or really dislike being around your kids all day).

If parents are generally doing their best by their children, the kids know this and nothing is a 'poor model' at all. They understand context.

I know quite a few men who essentially were able to retire in their 40s because they sold their companies etc. They invest and do a lot of sports etc. Are they a poor role model too?

Families come in all shapes and sizes and life moves in phases. Your rigid idea that all families have to have two parents working 9-5 is so narrow and restrictive to be ridiculous. As in most areas if life, money buys choice. More specifically, money buys time and flexibility. This is why some families are privileged enough to be able to have a SAHP. Money becomes less important than time essentially. Not only time per se, but the quality of that time.

Well, if you move in unambitious, anti-feminist circles, I suppose levels of female participation in the workforce might be at 1950s levels.

Funnily enough, my main concern is raising my own daughters. Which you clearly think I’m not doing a very good job of based on your comments about our family life!

it’s suits us as a family.

are you telling me I shouldn’t be a SAHM because it will negatively impact my daughters and every other female child I come into contact with?
that is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have heard! I am not responsible for how other children are brought up.

I could easily say I think not having a mother around much because she’s too busy trying to prove “women can have it all” could have a negative impact on their daughter. But I don’t, because I believe in a woman’s right to choose - choose how she wants to live her life, raise her children, etc.

not because some arrogant person on Mumsnet has decided I’m a shit mum because I choose not to work outside of the home

the view must be fabulous from your obscenely high horse!

I'm fine thanks. It suits you yes. What suits your personal preference isn't the same as it being the optimal thing for children and their future relationships. I just wish women understood what they were modelling to their daughters and the impacts it has on them, and they don't because they think it makes no difference if they go to work or not. The outcome is scientifically measurable, it does make a difference.

I care about all young girls and the world they grow up in, not just my own. We should all care about the messages sent to young girls about their place in the world and the limits it can put on their ambitions. Just because your choices don't impact my family it doesn't mean I don't care about the impact they have on other girls. Do you not care about how anything affects anyone outside your family?

When I was a SAHM from 2003 to about 2020, it really was nothing to be remarked in at all. Genuinely, nobody ever commented in all those years. It's so funny (to me) to come on MN and women are literally spitting chips about SAHPs.

When I used to drop off / pick up at the primary schools, I'd say it was 90% parents there. Mostly mums with a few dads and a few nannies. Nobody could care less what anyone else did in the hours between 8.30 and 3.30 - well, not unless someone made a point of telling you.

I genuinely didn't know anyone who put a baby in a nursery full-time before the age of 2.5. I think maybe one woman I knew via my first child might have tried it for a week when her child was a bit younger than that. But her DD hated it, so she took her out.

Every family makes decisions in different contexts. That's all there is to it really.

Are you ok?
nowhere did I say modelling doesn’t have an effect, what I said is that it can have the opposite effect.

i believe I am showing my children a positive image of a mother just like DH is showing them a positive image of a father, and together we are showing them that we can work together as a team to provide the best family life we can for them.

you seem to have a real issue with that and cannot understand that it’s acceptable that our family life and choices are just as valid as yours.

I haven’t said a single disparaging or negative thing about working mothers because it differs to how I parent. I am able to understand that every family is different and their choices impact their family and not mine

As with everything, it comes down to the personality of the person. If someone is lazy they will be idle and do the bare minimum, someone who puts everything into it isn't.

I think the debate you're implying is more about being a sahm when DC are at school?

I would say life would be easier for a sahp in many ways; no morning rush to nursery then to pick up after work, but on the other hand it can be a very tough gig with LOs 24/7.

I found PT was best of both worlds, getting to be with DC and doi g activities with them on days off, makes you value your time with them more.

You take out insurance. With each of our dc we took out insurance for 18y. Dh had a combination of life insurance and critical illness insurance privately and through his employer, I had critical illness insurance.

More problematic is if the SAHP finds that she hates it, or that all domestic tasks devolve to her.

There is way too much scaremongering about these types of scenarios.

If I were seriously ill- DH would do the school run & pay for ASC.

If I died- we stayed in our first home and planned carefully for this (we both lost a parent as children ourselves, so we never take our lives for granted). My DH would instantly drop to 3 days and again, utilise wraparound care. We ensured he could afford to do this by not taking on a bigger home/over extending ourselves generally.

If he died- I would return to 5 day school hour work at my children’s school (I actually have an open, serious job offer there from their HT). My mum was SAHM for 17 years and found work easily when she needed to return.

I actually think we are in a way better position financially than couples we know who both work but have taken on bigger mortgages, car loans and credit card debt. We own our car outright, have paid off our house and have zero debt.

How many dual income couples could genuinely stay living in their current home with their current lifestyle exactly as it is if one of them left?

In our family, my DH would be more than capable of looking after all the household tasks and children if I was rendered incapable. And in fact, he does if I go away with friends. I am not one of those wives who comes home to a home like a war zone, laundry not done, unclean children, etc.

our financial position is that if DH couldn’t work, we would be ok for a substantial amount of time. And while I could find a job, it wouldn’t cover our outgoings, but we wouldn’t need it to

Of course I've considered that 🙄 it is, demonstrably, the minority though.

Copying what was modelled to them as children, in adulthood, is what happens most of the time. Its well documented in research so stop trying to act like parental modelling of equality and relationships doesn't matter and everyone just has free choice. If it were true it wouldn't matter what you do as a parent because your children would just choose the outcome they want for their lives regardless of what you did making any effort pointless in the first place. No one just doesn't bother trying to model the best way to do things to their kids because they'll just choose what they want regardless do they? Stop pretending it has no impact, it's dishonest.

Funny, have you ever considered that modelling behaviour can make children want the opposite from what they see?

I saw my DM be a single (completely solo) parent until she remarried when I was 18, she had 2 marriages and 2 subsequent divorces. That showed me what I didn’t want in a relationship around my child/ren.

I wanted and have children to be brought up in a loving home with 2 parents who are equal in their input to their children’s lives, regardless of what you seem to think

I also think that at being a SAHP might work for some families but what are the back up plans for when it suddenly doesn't work. What happens if the sahp becomes seriously ill with a long term illness, or has an accident that results in serious injury or god forbid dies. Who runs the household then or takes care of the children? And vice versa too, what if the earning parent is suddenly thrust into a position where they can't work. What happens then?

Also, possibly because English not being my first language, I do come up with weird or slightly wrong expressions. I haven't really mastered the language just yet. It's possible I never will 😂

I get their point. Marriage protects you in terms of a divorce but there's no actual protection via marriage for people reliant on their partner's income before a divorce.

Its hard if you havent any flexibility. Endless school days off, in service days, ortho apts. My daughter had a 7 wk block of speech therapy. So that wouldnt work at all doing full time and time off. I guess if family are helping with childcare its prob alot easier.

I'm not quite sure I get your point. I completely agree with your point that if you want kids you can't carry on as before. But does this only apply to women then? Why are all the husbands of stay at home mums then just carrying on as before completely unable to make any sacrifices for their kids.

And most kids are not off sick constantly like its been described on here as if its some catastrophic impact on your career. Even in nursery years, me and my husband have managed this with little impact on our careers. And as they get older, the time they are off is fewer and fewer. I have single parents who are teachers who have managed. My mum did.