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

When I was a SAHM (for three years) I rarely said "I don't work". Typically I said, gleefully to my working parent friends "I've got a few years off work to spend with my elderly mum and my kids, and I'm broke but I'm loving it!". It was definitely, definitely a much easier life than being a working mum, even with a needy baby/toddler and a dying mother to care for.

That's got to be the biggest pile of crap Ive ever read!!!

I've worked FT and I've been a SAHM. Working full time was a peach of piss frankly compared to being a SAHM. I practically skipped out of the door each morning - bit like most men do!

It should say that the SAHM isn't in paid employment.
The husband is the sole earner as he is in paid employment and the other isn't.
What has it got to do with other people anyway? You do your thing and other people do their thing! Simples!!

Of course it can be, your post is ridiculously naive.

I have a number of friends who were counting the days down for their maternity leave to end as they found being at home with their child so relentless and difficult. They openly admit they find work easier and enjoy it more. They would prefer to contend with nursery drop offs and the odd dentist/doctors appointment alongside their partner than be fully responsible for looking after their child(ren) 24/7. A friend of mine who was a SAHP returned to work a few years in because she simply couldn't cope being a SAHM. She has openly admitted she was worn down by SAHM life and the constant demands she felt were made on her time by her child. She is much happier at work where she feels she has more control and can do more things for herself.

I'm conclusion, everyone is different and finds different things easy or hard. Some people have easy kids and the right temperament for staying at home and for these people being a SAHM is a walk in the park. Others need more adult interaction and thrive on a different form of stimulation so find childcare and domestic chores boring and hard going.

I have SAHM friends who have no children during the day (they're at school) so are out socialising, getting manicures! So no, they're not working.

I'm only in paid employment part time, so the other half of the week, I'm doing house work and also getting beauty treatments/meeting with friends.

I don't work outside the home, or I'm not in paid employment might be more accurate but "I don't work" is short hand and we know what they mean. I can say I don't work (or could until I got my current job) my kids are adults so I don't work was accurate - everyone does housework and cooking, so I don't get any dispensation for that

I don’t think I have ever called myself a sahm as I detest it, I always just say I don’t work or did when kids were younger. If people asked what do you do for work or for a living I’d say I don’t work..no shame whatsoever I didn’t care

But no jobs or vocations have any intrinsic value. Value is something we assign as a society and is aligned with social and economic status. To pretend that people shouldn't care or be concerned about social or economic status is ridiculous and goes against the human condition.

I think it is justified to feel anger and aggrieved if you feel a job or vocation has been assigned an inappropriate level of value by society. This is true at both ends of the spectrum where stock brokers, members of the Royal Family etc are valued highly and SAHPs and carers have little value.

If you think 'value' is connected to the good we do for wider society then this clearly isn't the case. Many people working in industries and jobs that actively damage our environment, health and wellbeing are often seen as very valuable members of society with high social and economic status. It is almost impossible to quantify the 'good' any role or job does. Paying tax doesn't always mean you are adding value as the vast majority of people are not bet contributors and it can actually cost the taxpayer to support someone to work in paid employment and pay for childcare as opposed to them being a stay at home mum.

Why is it a pile of crap rather than just a different opinion? So you found SAHP harder, not everyone does. Neither are wrong.

It's very hard but I do think when people want to have babies they need to be honest about what they can afford and what they can give time wise!
Those that can choose I mean.
I totally understand it's hard to know how you will cope mentally,it's gruelling but I'm not sure over all we are as a society we are putting babies, small children first?

absolutely agree with you, OP! Raising small children is a tough, disgracefully undervalued job - and I too loathe the dynamic where the partner in paid employment is seen to be doing a 'harder' form of work (and therefore let off night feeds, domestic chores etc.)... so untrue often and at least they're being bloody paid for their efforts! I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle with my ideology in our society though - most people don't question patriarchal, capitalist structures and are at least a bit misogynistic. It's depressing.

Parenting and housework is not ‘work’ as in ‘employment’. SAHM is not a job.

It doesn’t mean it’s not ‘hard work’, and I wouldn’t say they spend the day relaxing.

Mothers in paid employment are also ‘full time mums’ though. It’s insulting to suggest otherwise.

What else would a mother who has decided to stay at home mean when they say. “I don’t work”.
Unless they’re single parents, if they don’t click off, then surely their partners don’t either when they get home.

But no jobs or vocations have any intrinsic value. Value is something we assign as a society and is aligned with social and economic status.

It’s more about value in broadest sense. There’s a very clear social benefit and value to somebody being a doctor, or a nurse, or a farmer, or an oil rigger, or caring for disabled people, or researching cancer treatments, or working in the shop which sells our food, or doing the admin to ensure benefits get paid, or building houses, or driving lorries, or investing the money which will eventually pay our pensions. As we’re currently finding out, a shortage of people to carry out all these (and more) roles in society results in a bit of a crisis.

Somebody staying at home with their child is neither positive nor negative, it just is. There’s nothing wrong with it. But it doesn’t benefit anybody except the individuals themselves and therefore the family in question can’t be expect others to see see it as valuable – unless we’re going to start that old hotly contested bunfight over whether children who were placed in childcare are less likely to turn out to be rounded human beings than those who had a SAHP.

Oh go on then @Summerwhereareyou what's the correct way to parent? You clearly have thoughts on this you want to share.

?

Nothing groundbreaking.
Just that a non verbal baby / small child is better off with their parents for as much time as possible?
Rather than a nursery worker dealing with a room of other DC.
There are a myriad of variables, to that but if anyone thinks in general a baby is better off with a nursery worker than its own parent then we have truly gone down a dark road.

if anyone thinks in general a baby is better off with a nursery worker than its own parent then we have truly gone down a dark road.

Who said they were?

There are a myriad of variables, to that but if anyone thinks in general a baby is better off with a nursery worker than its own parent then we have truly gone down a dark road.
I don't think anyone would say that.
But a baby might be better off in nursery with a stable roof over its head and decent food on its table than with its own parent all day in a damp bed sit living of whatever you can get red stickered at 5 pm.
A baby might be better off in nursery with a mentally healthy parent than with its own parent all day with a parent who's suffering poor mental health as they feel worthless isolated.
A baby might be better off in nursery with a parent who can work towards moving them out into a house which isn't abusive that with its own parent all day who is financially abused as well la's physically and cannot get out.

I agree with you but you’ll get a load of backlash saying this in mn, I did!

What a shock that people might have different life experiences! There are so many variables in this argument it is impossible to say some is right or wrong but so many people are quick to state that their opinion must be the only one and everyone else is talking crap.

Some people might have always dreamed of being a SAHM and love every minute of it. Some may think they will love it and end up hating it, some may hate every moment but have no other choice.

Some people might love getting back to work after maternity leave, others might have highly pressured jobs or jobs they hate and so staying home with a baby/toddler seems easy compared to going to work. Some may want to stay home but need the money, others might rather stick pins in their eyes than be a SAHM (that's the case with me).

@Summerwhereareyou and @ForestFae

If you believe that young children are best off spending as much time with their parents as possible, does that mean you disagree with/ wouldn't use 15 hrs free for a 3 year old?

?

? To which part?

Nobody can say either way, because there’s no measurable criteria. You might personally feel that it was better for your peace of mind and for your children that you stayed at home. You can’t state objectively that it’s better for other parents and other children, because on what basis are you quantifying “better off”? What indicators are you using to measure which group of babies had the more beneficial infanthood?

I didn’t with DC2 and 3, and I regret doing so with DC1. Although I don’t think 15 hours per week is harmful as such, but I prefer having my own dc with me. Personally, the most nursery I’d consider for my own would be one day per week and that’s the maximum - I’d more likely pick an afternoon, if I was going to use nursery.

Why did you regret it?