to resent SAHP being seen as scroungers

[yummy80]

I am a SAHP parent. My choice mainly because it suits our family and cost of childcare would outweigh any salary I could earn. (DH works long hours.) I appreciate we are lucky that dh has a good income and therefore do not receive any any tax credits etc.
However, it seems that people assume that if you don't work you are being subsidised by taxpayers.

[newcastle10]

Or just say yes I am. My dh. He pays lots of tax. Plus I paid lots when I worked.

[onagar]

The thing to do is to tell anyone who puts you down that you ARE subsidised by tax payers. Say "I've just had a letter from your boss saying they are cutting your salary so I can get a new outfit" :o

[lazylula]

I agree with jellybeans. Dh works very long hours, which he did before children when I did work, so not much change there. He doesn't subsidise me, we are a partnership, he does his part and I do mine, it just so happens that his pays the money while mine is unpaid, but rewarding for all concerned in other ways.

[Laquitar]

YANBU.
However i think sometimes SAHMs are their own enemies. There have been many posts full of moaning and things like 'i'm doing the hardest job, i do all the bills and book all the holidays' . How can someone take you seriousely if you say things like this? The bills are only once a month, mostly by db, and the holidays are once or twice a year and booking it its not a chore, its a pleasure.

If you say i.e. 'i have a crying baby and an active toddler who doesn't nap' then yes hat off.

I've been SAHM by the way. But i wasn't moaning, it was my choice and i loved it.

[LittleJennyRobyn]

i agree with jellybeans

If i didn't stay at home DH wouldn't be able to do the job he does.

i have never been or heard of being called a scrounger. Although i have in the past have people tell me i need to get a job or being asked "so when are you going back to work then?" now the kids are at school

When i tell them i'm not i get a look like this i then go on to say "i dont need to work so why should i???" soon shuts them up. If i did go to work then most of my income would be paid out on before and after school care so no point really.

These comments usually come from people who need to have them both in work

Who cares what other people think?? not me thats for sure

[NerfHerder]

YABU- In rl I don't know any SAHPs that would be seen as scroungers- they all have high or extremely-high earning partners.

There are a couple who moan they are penniless, but they are quick to point out that this is through personal choice not necessity.

[ScroobiousPip]

YABU. I don't know anyone who assumes that SAHPs are being funded by the taxpayer. If, between you, you can afford for one parent to stay at home, great. It shouldn't be a lifestyle choice though if you can't afford it, particularly when your children are school age.

[CurrySpice]

WOTH obv

[jellybeans]

'I am not subsidised by my partner we are equal.' Agree with utah.
I don't see DH contribution as more important. My being home and doing the childcare ENABLES him to do his job. He would be as screwed without me as I would be without him. It's a partnership. Why cares if two people are earning and paying for a thrid party to do the childcare or if one stays home and one earns; that way not needing a third party at all.

[CurrySpice]

I don't think anyone really thinks that OP no more than SAHMs assume that mothers who WOTM are heartless bitches who prefer other people to bring their kids up

[jellybeans]

YANBU. I am a SAHM aswell and have to plans or desire to go back to paid work. In my eyes, it's a fulltime job in itself. i am doing an OU degree aswell which takes up a fair bit of time too. Partly in case i ever have to get a job and partly for my own confidence. I SAH for loads of reasons; tried and didn't like leaving my kids in a nursery, want to be around for kids, doing my degree and also my DH job means I cannot work around him. His shifts chop and change and has a huge impact on all of us.

If people look down on me I just assume they are ignorant or jealous. I don't judge them (the ones who have said things) for working full time, I think CHOICE is what is important. It isn't right or desirable for everyone to SAH. Life is short, i like SAH, my kids like me AH so we all win. The economy can manage without me. Even if i did work, i probably would be part time and not pay tax anyway!!! And I help in school etc so do my bit!!!

This is why i think child benefit should be increased so that there is less resentment of mums SAH. It seems some (a minority) of WMs want ALL mums in work so they don't feel bad. I used to be a f/t WM with DD1 and didn't feel bad so neither should they if they choose to work or need to work. What other people do is their business.

[utah]

I am not subsidised by my partner we are equal, we have even reversed roles where I went to work and he stayed home.

[Allinabinbag]

I don't assume that SAHP are subsidised by the taxpayer, I assume they are subsidised by their partner!

[ssd]

like lots of others i have read this on here but never heard it in real life.......

[SardineQueen]

Ridiculous POV.

Someone has to look after all these children, don't they

[PenguinPatter]

I have encountered it from family - DC grandparents who made similar choices .

Encountered if from sibling who gets free childcare from family and a friend who has flitted between full, part time and being a SAHP and who has a DH who can fit his work pattern round her and a grandparent willing and able to drop everything and provide free childcare and who has other family who will take the children in school holidays - the nasty comments from her are directed at other SAHPs not me but with me she doesn't 'get' the cost of childcare is a huge barrier to me working for the moment.

I've also encountered it from a long term unemployed friend of DH .

I intend to go back to work somehow when youngest starts school or fairly soon after despite DH long work hours. In meantime I intend to enjoy the time with the DCs, continue to tighten our belts and ignore everyone else.

[bubblesincoffee]

The only times I have come across anyone having a problem with SAHM is when they are recieving benefits.

There is a big big difference between someone being a SAHP when their partner is financially supporting them and someone being a SAHP because they choose to live off benefits.

One situation is nothing to do with anyone else and is perfectly fine, one is morally wrong and impacts on every tax payer in the country.

[Kalinda]

I agree with Karma, monetary generation seems to be the only measure of worth, sadly, so all the things SAMPs do in the home that you'd otherwise have to pay someone to do are completely negated. Yet, women who do work get vilified for having children for somebody else to bring up. And women who work part time are dumping their workload on their colleagues and taking the piss.

The message: women cannot win.

I hate being told I am "lucky". Luck doesn't come into it, DH and I have worked bloody hard and the work I do as a SAHP is more mentally and physically taxing than anything I did in my paid career (city lawyer for 14 years).

[lazylula]

I can not think of any comments in real life about being a scrounger ect as a sahm, but have been told I am 'very lucky', which in one way I am but in another, there really wasn't any other option for us as the cost of childcare would have been more than I earned so we would be worse off.
I have seen many negative comments on here about sahm, like children of sahm's will fail, we are scrounging off of our partners/ husbands ect, but tbh we all do what is best for our families and ourselves. Luckily I enjoy being a sahm, but I know people that have to work and hate it and people who are sahm's and wish they could work but can not afford childcare.

[Cocoflower]

Hello Karma! Great post, I think there is a lot of truth.

[fedupofnamechanging]

Most people in RL won't say to your face that they think you should be at work and not SAH, but because you see it so often on MN, quite a few people must be thinking it, but just not saying it out loud.

I said on another thread (hello rocky and coco) that back in the 1970's there was a campaign against latchkey kids and the 'official' view was that you were somehow neglecting your DC if you went out to work. The world has turned and now there is a widely held view in society that worth is determined by financial contribution - we are defined by our jobs, so if you have a 'job' which doesn't pay, then you are not seen as contributing to society. This change is because the govt wants us to work until we drop and has subtly brainwashed society into thinking that is the 'right' way to live. Women meanwhile,can't do right for doing wrong and men who want to SAH or not work 24/7 are also judged harshly. It's why men will never be in a position to take proper parental leave.

I think in the end you have to disregard what other people think and just do what you think is best for your family

[cory]

Whether you can afford it or not depends on whether you would get paid more than you would have to pay the childminder. For people on low wages, it's not exactly a case of being able to be afford to be a SAHM: it's about whether you can afford any alternative. I worked at a loss two days a week, because I wanted to stay in work- but that was the maximum we could afford.

[utah]

I am a sahm mum and I am not a scrounger, we have not been lucky as before having children we worked hard day and night and moved up the property ladder and paid off the morgage before having children. tbh I do not have much negativity except the odd lucky comment and how do we manage to treat the children so well.

[extremepie]

I've not really encountered any negative attitudes towards SAHM's personally but a LOT of negative attitudes towards SAHF! My DH stays at home with our 2 boys (one of whom is autistic), and I know it is not an easy job at all.

I work part-time and go to college, so many times we have had to defend our choice for me to work and DH to stay at home, some people seem to have such a problem with the fact that a MAN is, shock horror, staying at home to raise his children. It seems that if you are a SAHM, that is perfectly acceptable and is not questioned (as much), especially when the kids are still really young and not in school, but if you are a Dad and are not out at work some people seem to think that makes you less of a man, like you're not providing for your family or something?

Is staying at home and looking after your children is not valuable? Why should I give up studying and working if he is happy to stay at home? Doesn't make sense to me! DH staying at home makes a lot more sense for our family, for several reasons, but some just don't seem to get this and I get really fed up of constantly trying to justify ourselves!

[Kalinda]

Everyone has a different story to tell, people are SAHPs for a plethora of reasons, some by choice, some by force of circumstance. Personally, it's never been intimated to me that I'm living off the state, but my personal circumstances would bely that assumption, so perhaps that's why. I can imagine some people have encountered this sort of prejudice. Have you, OP?

I have a greater problem with the assumption that I am kept by my poor, put upon DH, as opposed to our arrangement being by mutual agreement and mutually beneficial - an attitude I have seen a lot of on MN. We both had the same career, I was actually slightly more senior and better paid than he. It was my personal fortune that paid most of the mortgage, and it is that which allows me not to work and for him to devote himself to his much loved career. If we were both working, there's no way he could put in the hours he does and climb the career ladder because I would expect him to take on 50% of the childcare responsibilities. My being at home allows him to have the career he wants just as much as his working allows me to be at home with the DCs.