Changing the language re SAHMs

[Nocaloriesinchocolate]

This is not TAAT but on another thread Ive just been reading the OP said she and DH had 3 young children and went on to say wtte of “I dont work; DH is the sole earner”. I hate, hate, hate that phrase since imo it completely denigrates and diminishes what a SAHM does. Of course a SAHM works - probably harder than a wage earning partner since she doesn’t clock off. What she means - and this is what I wish people would say instead - is that she is not in paid employment.

OK rant over

I think a really obvious point is it depends on how hard you job/ was is as to whether being at home is harder.

im currently a SAHM to 2 small children, and it’s a husband that works long hours and no family support. Before this I was a doctor. Sorry but being a SAHM currently is infinitely easier experience for me - compared to the shifts/ responsibilities etc I had before.

I agree, "not in paid employment" is a more sensible phrase than "not working". I also agree with the pp who asked SAHMs to ditch the phrase "full time mum". We are all full time mums, obviously.

I don't really understand the suggestion that SAHMs work harder because they "never clock off". What do you think WOHMs do when they finish their paid work? It isn't as if their kids are magically able to look after themselves, is it? I sometimes get the impression that some SAHPs imagine that being a WOHP is just like being an employed person who doesn't have kids. Maybe this is because some WOH partners of SAHPs barely lift a finger at home, but it definitely isn't the reality for most of us!

As to what's easier... surely it depends on so many variables. I always found it quite relaxing to look after dd, but I only had one healthy, happy child, and I was comparing it to an immensely stressful and demanding job. If I had been caring for multiple disabled children as a single parent and comparing it to a relatively straightforward job that didn't demand much in the way of skills or mental/physical effort, then obviously, my perspective would have been quite different. Such comparisons are pretty pointless.

It is quite amusing how anyone can think that staying at home with kids can be harder than working full time AND managing the kids. Do you think working mums don't do hospital appointments, dentists, school drop offs, homework, entertaining toddlers and many many other things around day to day management?

I'm a SAHM and just can't get annoyed about this. I was actually chatting to FIL the other day about why we get 15 free hours recently instead of 30 free hours, and I said it's because I don't 'need' the childcare for 30 hours a week. He said 'but it's not as if you're not working is it?' which took me by surprise to be honest, I don't feel as though I do 'work', I suppose because I view work as not only paid employment, but having to work to someone else's schedule, having deadlines etc. There is no way my life is harder than that of a working parent, a working parent still does all the things I do but fits other responsibilities into the same amount of time.

Agree with a PP that it's impossible to make comparisons anyway. Some working parents might have a full time nanny/cleaner/housekeeper and a SAHM may have no household help. Equally a working parent might be just about making ends meet and spending every spare evening trying to keep the house together, and a SAHM might have a cleaner plus some childcare during the week.

Even between me and a close friend, we are both SAHMs but completely different set ups. She has a DH who is around a lot, always around to do the morning and evening routine, home at weekends etc, shares school runs but cash flow is poor so they aren't able to pay for any preschool before the free hours, a cleaner etc and have to be frugal with the food shop.
My DH works very long hours, often seven days a week, yesterday worked 7am-9pm and that isn't unusual, but we have more cash flow so I'm able to send my children to preschool since they turned two, we have a cleaner and I cut corners with takeaways/pre prepared food etc.

I think really we should just be striving for respect and empathy for all parents in all scenarios, all people in all scenarios even. Everyone has things that are difficult in their lives and things that are easier than someone else's. Bickering over phrases isn't really very helpful.

I understand what you are saying, but by saying 'the at home partner probably works harder because they don't clock off...' you are equally fuelling the issue - some outside earners do do their fair share when home.

It doesn't need to be a competition.

Obviously the OP you are quoting is using it as short form for 'I don't earn money'. As above, I understand when you say you'd prefer a more specific language, but it's also true that a lot of people understand this short form perfectly well, and don't think stay at home parents of pre-schoolers are sitting on their arses.

As a sahm, I'm fine with "sole earner". Dh is exactly that. I don't earn anything atm. At points in our relationship, I've been the sole earner too and that was fine as well although he hated it.

I don't think it's particularly hard being a sahm in my circumstances. Dh regularly works 60 to 80 hour weeks but gets overtime/bonuses/on call pay. We have little practical family help but plenty of friends. My kids are a bit older now (7 and just turned 4) but once I got over the postpartum psychosis I had with my 1st, I found being at home with them mostly enjoyable. I study (got another degree last year) and have done a standalone OU course this year in something that interests me. I also do a lot of voluntary work. My old job (which I loved), working long days trying to support homeless families often with complex needs was far more stressful than anything I've done since I stopped work.

Never used the term "full time mother". Would never put anything related to being a sahm on a cv. My mother uses "lotus eater" and/or "lily of the field". Can't say that bothers me either.

Op I totally agree. We are surging towards a a society where we don't value a parent looking after their own child and we are placing value on cost.

Unfortunately as we can see it's an incredible emotive subject because of the assumption that if one mother chooses to stay at home even if that means financial hardships, they are judging the mum who chooses to work even though they don't need too.

When I was a sahm I found it very hard in the end to say I was because working mum's would rattle off to me all the resosns they had too work.
I really wasn't interested!
It touched big nerves.

It's really sad that we are moving away from valuing a parent who chooses to raise their own children!

It isn't actually a competition as to how hard people are working in any case. You don't get extra brownie points for having a "harder" life. Nobody gets a medal.

My life would have been infinitely easier if I had been a SAHP, but that wasn't my top priority and that wasn't the choice I made. Some people might feel that it would have been easier for them to go back to work, but again, that isn't what they chose.

We all have different experiences and different priorities. If some people choose to prioritise "an easy life" - whether to them that means WOH or SAH - then all power to them, let them relax and enjoy it. If other people choose to prioritise other things, even if those choices make their lives more challenging, then that's also totally valid and reasonable. And of course, I recognise that not everyone is lucky enough to have a choice...some people don't have the opportunity to work in paid employment, and some people can't afford not to.

I don’t really care if people call themselves a “full time mum” or not. But if you are talking about working in this way surely it means paid employment? Lots of people do unpaid work or study. What’s the problem with saying “I’m not working, I’m…a student/carer/etc”

WOHPs choose to raise their own children too, so if we're talking about the use of language, that's another phrase that could be used much more judiciously.

I must admit that I never fully understand what people mean when they say that they want "society" to value SAHPs more. It is surely for individual families to value the arrangements that work best for them, and for some families, that will include having a SAHP. From a society perspective, it makes no difference either way.

We are surging towards a a society where we don't value a parent looking after their own child

How exactly do you want it to be different? Surely the only people who need to value this are you and your partner?

Mumsnet should be called WorkingMumsnet, because there’s a culture on here of a career being this highly sought after prize and a denigration of SAHMs

I've not noticed that. When my ds was small it was definitely a Bad Thing to work (only if you were female, obvs).

It's really sad that we are moving away from valuing a parent who chooses to raise their own children!

“Value” implies some sort of external benefit or appraisal. What value does being a SAHP add to anything or anybody except the parents who feel as though they’ve made the right choice for their family? How does your being a SAHM benefit me? What value do I derive from it? Why should I see it as a more valuable contribution than you being a WOHM? Why should wider society?

That isn’t to say that being a SAHP isn’t a valid choice, it’s just not one with any intrinsic value.

It's really sad that we are moving away from valuing a parent who chooses to raise their own children

in what way does a working mother not raise her own children (I use mother advisedly as the same narrative is NEVER used towards men/fathers).

It's really sad that we are moving away from valuing a parent who chooses to raise their own children!

Or... it's really sad that we are moving towards parents needing constant external validation that they are doing things 'right' rather than just getting on with life.

It would be nice (and I don't have a dog in this particular fight) if the tax system recognised it.

DH and I both work PT and are one SAHP between us (i.e., DD isn't in childcare; one of us is always free to be home with her). We get taxed as individuals, and therefore pay less tax than a family with one FT working parent and one SAHP. Why is that fair?

'I don't work' just means that someone is not in paid employment.

DH and I work at our jobs 37 hours per week then we also cook, clean, bathe children, help with homework etc. We don't say that we work 24/7.

It is just what people say and if someone feels that language is demeaning to them in some way then that's their problem. Same with 'full time mum' it's just a turn of phrase I don't see it as someone saying I'm magically not a Mum while I am at work (there are people who do out and out say that though but they are batshit so I pay no mind).

who chooses to raise their own children

example of someone being batshit crazy right here...

@110APiccadilly

If you allow someone to transfer their tax free allowance to their partner then wouldn't a lone working parent be in a position to complain about unfairness?

When I was a SAHM, my DH was the 'sole earner' because he was the only one in employment. If another SAHM is offended by 'sole earner' then they need to evaluate whether they are comfortable with thier life choices, rather than expecting other people to police thier language.

People are so easily offended now, it's ridiculous.

So working parents don't raise their children? You sound silly

Everyone knows 'I don't work' means 'I'm not in paid employment'. Otherwise every single person on the planet works.

Putting a slice of bread in the toaster = work
Making your own bed = work
Brushing your teeth = work
Mopping your kitchen floor = work

So when a SAHP says they don't work, it's pretty obvious they mean 'outside of the home'.

There's really no need to change the language and if they feel unrecognised/unappreciated, that's more likely due to their partner not appreciating what they do.

Of course a SAHM works - probably harder than a wage earning partner since she doesn’t clock off.

I don't "clock off" either.

I stop my paid work, go home, take care of my child, and then when he is in bed I frequently end up taking work calls and responding to emails.

@pastaa really? That’s interesting. My dm was a lunchtime supervisor for many years, and she always thought of herself as a sahm, but with a little job that filled in a gap during the day but still left her primarily focused on her primary role as a homemaker, mum, carer for ageing relatives, and general charity do-folder. She did like having the income but mainly because she found it a novelty versus all her unpaid activities - St Johns Ambulance, the PTA, Sunday school teaching, Scout Arkela, rattling tins to collect money for charities, helping out reading at the local primary school and so on.

I guess it goes to show that there is no single, easy bucket you can put everyone into and perhaps it’s fine if we all just pick our own labels?

Fair point - maybe lone parents should get a higher allowance as well, to account for the fact that they're supporting more people?

In fact, you could just give an allowance based on the number of people in the household (I have a feeling that some US states may do this).