What's wrong with being a SAHM?

who has implied this Nolove context is everything.

You see, my dc came first by me not working and having to take vital time away to go to work.
Now, I stated this as a response to somebody who asked why?
At no time did I imply that another woman who was woh wasn't putting their children first.
I would suggest that putting food on the table was putting their needs first, wouldn't you?
Tbh I find it ridiculous that you presume to know what people are implying. Are you a medium?

The poster has been told that she's pandering to the patriarchy, that she's setting a poor example to her children, that she's valuing herself lowly, that she's squandering her education and that she's selling out other women.

I've only seen one of those comments from one poster.

In the nicest possible way, I don't care if you think either or both has been great or awful.

Well, that's clearly pretty unpleasant, but ah well.

They've done brilliantly thanks. Always spent lots of time with me, been very close, taken my brothers and I on holidays, trips out, nurtured our interests, come to all important school events. There is no way they haven't put us first and the implication they've not done so (well it's the implication my mother hasn't quite clearly) is ridiculous.

On this thread it's been suggested mothers who work (not fathers who work of course) aren't putting their children first, care more about money, are secretly envious of those who don't work, aren't giving their children the benefit of their education and are selfishly giving it to their employer and so on.

Not how I saw it. The thread was entitled "What's wrong with being a SAHM?". The poster has been told that she's pandering to the patriarchy, that she's setting a poor example to her children, that she's valuing herself lowly, that she's squandering her education and that she's selling out other women.

As for you and your parents? In the nicest possible way, I don't care if you think either or both has been great or awful. Absolutely none of my business. I only care about what my own children think.

NoLove

If your needs are being met, the way your parents want to provide for you, then they are doing just fine whether they work or not.

On this thread it's been suggested mothers who work (not fathers who work of course) aren't putting their children first, care more about money, are secretly envious of those who don't work, aren't giving their children the benefit of their education and are selfishly giving it to their employer and so on. Only one poster has actually been critical in the opposite direction, suggesting it's a waste of education to stay at home after having children. I don't agree with any of these viewpoints but the attitude towards mothers who work (again, interestingly not fathers who work instead of staying at home) from some is quite unpleasant.

As both my parents work full time, are neither of them putting my needs first or only one of them and, if the latter, which one? Just so I know which one to harangue for being so selfish.

The issue is not other women and their views
Kind of is when it is women criticising my parenting skills for working or suggesting I'm envious of sahm. Don't recall a man doing so.

Justnow

I meant putting their needs first, something I couldn't have done if working.
I was following on from the posts at the time about why do some parents prioritise children
HTH

Well said TheLuminaries

We all make our choices against a society that is patriarchal. You know men will never be having this discussion with each other.

We have a long way to go until parenthood is equal and perceived as equal in the workplace, but until then we need to be fighting the same fight, not ripping each other to shreds.

Please do not let this descend into the same old SAHM v WOHM debate Mumsnet rehashes every now and again. Female solidarity respects each others choices while recognising how heavily loaded the dice are against women and even those that think they have equality pre children soon learn how the situation changes when children come along and suddenly all those heavy socialised expectations and judgements of mothers mean women can't win.

The issue is not other women and their views, it is the patriarchal structures that mean we beat each other up about our so-called choices while men get to be fathers without the massive social expectations dumped on mothers. When of course many of those so called choices are not really choices in the true sense of the word but rather uneasy compromises in order to get by day to day.

I'm not suggesting all parents should put their children first, but it's the decision we made.

Peculiar phrasing there. Almost as if you're implying work out of home mothers are not putting their children first. Stay at home mothers are. Working parents are not.

How silly of me to think that. I'm sure I've got you wrong above ^^.

From the numerous sah v woh threads that I have seen on mn over the years, woh mothers have said that they feel guilty for going out to work or felt judged. Not everyone, obviously, but enough. And plenty of sahm felt judged for not woh.
Tbh I think sah and woh mums both feel like they have to justify their choices. It's why this topic gets so vicious on here. The 'system' is this society where no matter what a woman does, someone at sometime will tell her that she ought to have done something different.

At the same time that system loads them with guilt and criticism for woh

What is this "system" of which you speak? The only people who have criticised my choice to work full time after 2 months maternity leave or attempted to make me feel guilty were Sahms.

Most people who turn their noses up at being a SAHM secretly envy those who are able to stay at home

Yeah right.

I do look back and think that if I had my time again, I might choose differently. Not because I haven't loved my life but because it is true that sah makes women financially vulnerable. I have taken steps to protect myself as much as I can but if I'd had MN back when I was making choices, I may well have continued to work. I didn't realise that it was such a huge risk.

Total fail on the bold there- apologies

I think her point was that if you are not at work (the point of which is primarily to make money) then you are wasting your education and throwing yourself under the bus. To me, those comments imply that sah has no value because you are not using your education etc for work.
No recognition that not everybody gains self fulfilment from their paid work.

Ok, fair enough. I interpreted 'wasting education' as being rather more concerned with squandering of intellect than loss of money-making opportunities. I disagree with the sentiment either way.

I do totally agree that it is a choice that has risks and needs careful consideration, which I think I did say upthread too.
Am not posting from a pov that sah is right and woh is wrong. I've done both and was the child of a mum who did both at varying times. Tbh I think if you are a good parent then outcomes for kids will be just as good either way.
I just think that sah shouldn't be financially risky or make women vulnerable and that society as a whole should not penalise women who sah if they end up getting divorced. For many it isn't even a real choice but a financial necessity.
Equally women shouldn't be criticised for woh and child care provision should be much better to enable women to make free choices.

I completely agree Avoiding. SAH is undervalued and should be valued by society. But unfortunately, as I think someone said upthread- that's the world as we'd like it to be, rather than as it is at the moment. And in the world as it is, the financial risk is very real.

I work 4 days. Mainly because I would be a rubbish SAHM (and I am fortunate to have a job that I enjoy). But part of the reason I have never sought to work less is because we had a very tough period when DS1 was 1, where DH nearly walked out (he was very close to a breakdown at the time and genuinely thought we'd be better off without him). And I was suddenly faced with the prospect of having to go it alone with DS1 and I realised how vulnerable I would have been had I not had an income.

The people who understand the situation of SAHMs and should advocate on their behalf are people who are or have been SAHMs. I don't want to be 'lead' by somebody who has never had those experiences.

It is also important that women who have been SAHMs are in key professions like medicine, politics, media and policing. It reduces prejudice and discrimination by those groups if former SAHMs are a part of their profession.

I think her point was that if you are not at work (the point of which is primarily to make money) then you are wasting your education and throwing yourself under the bus. To me, those comments imply that sah has no value because you are not using your education etc for work.
No recognition that not everybody gains self fulfilment from their paid work.

I do totally agree that it is a choice that has risks and needs careful consideration, which I think I did say upthread too.
Am not posting from a pov that sah is right and woh is wrong. I've done both and was the child of a mum who did both at varying times. Tbh I think if you are a good parent then outcomes for kids will be just as good either way.
I just think that sah shouldn't be financially risky or make women vulnerable and that society as a whole should not penalise women who sah if they end up getting divorced. For many it isn't even a real choice but a financial necessity.
Equally women shouldn't be criticised for woh and child care provision should be much better to enable women to make free choices.

Did you miss Butterful upthread?

No I didn't. And while I agree Butterful's tone was unpleasant the point made was about wasting education/self-fulfilment, not making money (I should probably point out that I disagree with Butterful about that).

I had a very good career before I had my children and with my first I had every intention of going back to work, even telling myself I would go back within 3 months of giving birth!!! However, when I had my baby I didn't want to leave him so decided that I would be a SAHM and have been for nearly 10 years now. If I decided to go back to work I wouldn't want to pick up where I left off now anyway so I have no worries there. Most people who turn their noses up at being a SAHM secretly envy those who are able to stay at home.

Did you miss Butterful upthread?

furrygiraffe makes a good point.

I fear that a a lot of women have bought into this notion that the only value people have is if they directly generate money.

I haven't seen any posts on this thread urging the OP to stay in work because it's important to generate money, or implying that human beings only have value if they do so.

I've seen plenty of posts cautioning the OP to think very carefully before giving up work because that results in a lack of financial independence that would render her vulnerable in the event of relationship breakdown/other catastrophic circumstances. That isn't about valuing generating money over looking after children: it's about not being trapped in poverty if things go wrong in the future.