Why does MN not like SAHMs?

[Didthatreallyhappen2]

This baffles me (and I haven't posted in AIBU as I know the vitriol that arises there sometimes). I'm proudly an SAHM. Friends are equally proudly working mums. I don't care what they are, as long as they are decent human beings. They don't judge me, and I don't judge them.

But on MN it seems that SAHMs are looked down on. My DH and I have a partnership - he earns the money and I do everything (and I mean everything) at home, all the domestic tasks, school-related etc etc. We both work full time, but I don't get paid, or have an annual review, or bonuses or whatever. It works for us.

Everything in our household is joint - and yet on MN SAHMs are continually lambasted for not having their own money, prospects, wasted their education, not a good role model etc etc. Why? I truly don't understand this.

Success in a capitalist society is measured by those three things: career, income and financial independence. The fact people value those things above all others is just buying into what capitalism has defined as having worth to society.

I have worked for decades in non-profits and government. 'Profit' doesn't come into it. I did manage to finally assist two of the thousands of people I support in housing to get rid of abusive partners so that they are safe this week. My decades of experience are actually important. That's why I work. DD is very proud of me and supports my working. And yes, I choose to.

@5zeds - only one adult in my house and I work full time. I'm not time poor compared to SAHMs as I outsource the cleaning. My kids are school age so that's really the only thing that needs outsourcing. All the SAHMs I know claim to constantly busy, I think they must wash towels too often or similar.

I'm not saying it's easy but all this bollocks about not being able to get a job that pp talk about is ridiculous.
It might not be a 30k job, but maybe not far short.
There are jobs round here that anyone can do, no experience needed, doesn't matter if you haven't worked for years. Cleaning, factories, call centres, paid charity work. In fact most entry level jobs. You can earn a fortune in factories that would put your 30k to shame, especially if you train for flt certificate.

Have you ever tried applying for those jobs? They're normally either antisocial hours, zero-hours (so impossible for most single mothers), or extremely low salary - if they're none of those things then they'll have plenty of applicants with recent experience. It's also much harder than people think to get a job you're very overqualified for - people don't want to give a former head of marketing a job on the supermarket tills, and there are normally plenty of other people who apply for those jobs, including plenty who have actually worked in a shop before.

Genuine question; Why do we always hear about these court cases where the men are absolutely fleeced in divorce and pay out huge sums in spousal maintenance? If the house is in both your names (and nearly paid off) then surely you can sell the house and keep half? Other assets in the wife’s name? Child maintenance?
Doesn’t the wife get to stay in the family home?

I’m not a SAHM but do they all really end up penniless in divorce?

Why do we always hear about these court cases where the men are absolutely fleeced in divorce and pay out huge sums in spousal maintenance?

Because the majority of cases, where the SAHP is told that they can get one of those entry level minimum salary jobs and therefore 'become independent without undue hardship' and no maintenance is due, are not that interesting..

Haven't read the full thread, but mainly because there's always one bleating on about how it's damaging for children to be away from their parents in childcare, or get really defensive when someone sensibly points out that they may be vulnerable if they aren't married and split up- which is true, but obviously something which people are happy with if they stay at home which is more than fair enough.

Why do we always hear about these court cases where the men are absolutely fleeced in divorce and pay out huge sums in spousal maintenance?

Because the British press is misogynistic.

A lot of SAHMs say that their DH relies on them as much as they do him, for childcare etc while he works and he couldn't do his job without it.

Thing is though he can. He can run off with OW, divorce his wife and she will still run his children's household and look after his kids while he plays Disney dad EOW. He knows that unless his wife died, she will always look after the children whether divorced or not. ( And a lot of SAHMs do have life insurance, so even if she died he could afford a nanny, cleaner etc and carry on as before)

there's always one bleating on about how it's damaging for children to be away from their parents in childcare
Nope, or at least if there was I missed it. No one saying that their partners couldn't possibly work without them being home either, or that they can't work because they're too busy washing towels. Or that they could take 10 years off and slip back into a very high paying job straight away either.

MRs Terry Pratchett. Not once in my comment about capitalism did I mention the word profit. In fact capitalism has nothing to do with profit. BUT for some reason you’ve decided to make a completely irrelevant response discussing profit to my capitalism comment.

Why? All I can think is that you must be confused and have never studied economics.

Isn't the goal of all capitalist activities profit?
What else is income, career and financial independence supposed to mean?

He can run off with OW, divorce his wife and she will still run his children's household and look after his kids while he plays Disney dad EOW. He knows that unless his wife died, she will always look after the children whether divorced or not

But equally she can run off with OM/W and he would be left juggling work and caring for their kids, while she plays Disney mum EOW. It a sexist stereotype to say that a mum can only leave her kids if she dies like you are saying. I did notice that British culture especially assumes that kids are always best left with mum if a couple splits. That’s a place where the culture is sexist.

@PlanDeRaccordement but in the case of the SAHM running off - which does happen, but not nearly so often as vice versa, the husband has his unbroken career record and is more likely to have the money for childcare. He is not so vulnerable as the SAHM.

I have also noticed that resident fathers get a lot more help from other people than single mothers do. Friends and relatives fall over themselves to help, whereas the SAHM who has been dumped is left to get on with it.

I have known a lot of people being SAHMs when their children were young due to the cost if child care being more than their earnings would have been.

Likewise I know people who upped to work full time once their DC started school because they couldn't afford not to.

Both decisions taken through necessity rather than choice.

NewinTown.... no profit is the goal of all enterprises not just capitalist ones (privately owned means of production). Even state owned socialist enterprises have to generate value/profit in excess of goods/services produced. Even nonprofits/charities generate profits. They’re just not taxed on them and as a result are required to reinvest profit back into the enterprise instead of paying them out in dividends.

When I was quoting the poster that mentioned income, career and financial independence they and I were talking about personal income, a personal career and personal financial independence. These are all values that workers are socialised to pursue within a capitalist society. Your worth is measured by how much you can produce which is indicated by how big a salary you earn, the status/class of your career and your accumulated wealth (financial independence).

NewinTown.... no profit is the goal of all enterprises not just capitalist ones (privately owned means of production). Even state owned socialist enterprises have to generate value/profit in excess of goods/services produced. Even nonprofits/charities generate profits. They’re just not taxed on them and as a result are required to reinvest profit back into the enterprise instead of paying them out in dividends.

When I was quoting the poster that mentioned income, career and financial independence they and I were talking about personal income, a personal career and personal financial independence. These are all values that workers are socialised to pursue within a capitalist society. Your worth is measured by how much you can produce which is indicated by how big a salary you earn, the status/class of your career and your accumulated wealth (financial independence).

@pointythings
.A working parent will have been paying into a pension, will have an up to date cv, will have routines in place around childcare etc. My marriage exploded in late 2017 - if I hadn't always worked, I wouldn't have been earning £30k and would have had to rely on maintenance from an alcoholic husband who lost his job shortly after moving out. It would have made an already tough situation even worse. Like it or not, working leaves you less vulnerable and more able to provide for yourself and your children. Women really need to consider that before deciding not to work
This is seriously simplistic.

Lots of WOHMs don't work FT and/or specifically chosen careers that are flexible as opposed to high paying. There is absolutely no reason why a mother working PT in a low paid job with a partner in a similar position (although perhaps working FT) would be better off in the event of divorce than a mother who was married to a wealthy man. For the former, pension pots would be pretty small, her capacity to up her hours and therefore earnings may well be severely constrained by the cost of childcare and she could be much much worse off than the latter who could rebuild a career over time facilitated by the assets that she will receive as part of the divorce.

I think the cautionary tale isn't necessarily about SAHMs Vs WOHMs, but about families that just about manage as a unit but would seriously struggle if they had to split their resources.

Misillusion....yes I agree the working parent (usually the man) has an advantage. Yes I also agree that due to sexism single fathers get more help than single mothers from relatives, community members etc. It’s just expected for single mothers to be capable and do it all. The bumbling, useless dad and superwoman single mum stereotypes are harmful.

I find it really interesting that on this thread there are barely any mentions of why it is assumed that the woman will become the SAHP and not the man or that a woman is only protected by marriage if she is the lower earner.

I am not a mum (yet) but as we are ttc we have discussed childcare etc and we've decided that DP would be going down to 4 days a week while I stay full time (nursery 3 days and family another). I wouldn't give up work ever, we need my salary more than we need his. It wouldn't make sense for me to be a SAHM when I earn way more than he does.

@pointythings
.A working parent will have been paying into a pension, will have an up to date cv, will have routines in place around childcare etc. My marriage exploded in late 2017 - if I hadn't always worked, I wouldn't have been earning £30k and would have had to rely on maintenance from an alcoholic husband who lost his job shortly after moving out. It would have made an already tough situation even worse. Like it or not, working leaves you less vulnerable and more able to provide for yourself and your children. Women really need to consider that before deciding not to work
This is seriously simplistic.

Lots of WOHMs don't work FT and/or specifically chosen careers that are flexible as opposed to high paying. There is absolutely no reason why a mother working PT in a low paid job with a partner in a similar position (although perhaps working FT) would be better off in the event of divorce than a mother who was married to a wealthy man. For the former, pension pots would be pretty small, her capacity to up her hours and therefore earnings may well be severely constrained by the cost of childcare and she could be much much worse off than the latter who could rebuild a career over time facilitated by the assets that she will receive as part of the divorce.

I think the cautionary tale isn't necessarily about SAHMs Vs WOHMs, but about families that just about manage as a unit but would seriously struggle if they had to split their resources.

Also don’t like power director wohm

Also don’t like power director wohm

Apologise for double or more! Posts. The website keeps freezing up on me.

showmethegin
Typically it is the woman, but you're right that the same applies in reverse. I'd equally hope any man giving up work has considered house deeds, pensions, future earning potential, etc. Anyone who is contemplating being financially dependent on someone else for an extended period of time owes it to themselves to think about cold hard facts and not drift into situations or be lulled into a situation that may affect them negatively by people saying "don't you worry .. people are just being mean when they tell you to be informed ... They're just jealous"

I'd imagine where situations are like yours and mine with partners/husbands who are open to an equitable discussion where their work is also on the table for flexibility will probably have both parties in the relationship willing to get themselves informed in order to have a productive discussion about what's best all round.

MRs Terry Pratchett. Not once in my comment about capitalism did I mention the word profit.

Someone else did.

And the governmental non-profit I work for doesn't generate profit. It does generate money in some areas which is used to off set the decided to meet the mission. No profit anywhere.