To think if you SAH and your DP works and earns X, you do not therefore earn X yourself

[catgirl1976]

I do not want to start a SAH / WAH bunfight and this is inspired by another thread but......

A thread recently was asking people if they earnt over £40k and I was surprised to see a number of posters saying they were SAHM / SAHD but their partner earnt XX, so therefore they did too.

Now, I am not commenting on the value of the work a stay at home partner does - the value is huge and it is a tough, worthwhile thing to do.

But you do not earn. (Even if you should etc etc).

I work. My DH stays at home. If I heard DH saying "oh catgirl earns xxx so I earn xxx too" I would be really peed off and think - "no, no dude - you don't."

We don't have separate money - what's mine is his and vice versa, and I am happy with our arrangement. It is hos money as much as mine, but I earn it. He didn't spend 20 hours negotiating a deal or whatever - that was me.

It has never even occured to me before, but I was just surprised that people felt if DP earned an amount, they earned it too and would actually say, well yes I earn over £40k as DH is a GP or whatever.

It almost felt like some people were saying they were somehow personally doing better than others because they had "married better" which seemed really

AIBU?

To some extent, I guess it depends on the earning capacity and working pattern of both partners - if neither of you earns a great deal, and neither of you could get a job with the traditional 9-5 shift, then I suppose the SAHP is enabling the WOHP to earn. In that situation, it's probably a necessity to stay at home.

For families who earn a bit more, there are more flexible childcare options available, so the SAHP makes much less difference to the other partner's earning capacity - though the family's outgoings will obviously be lower and the SAH parent is obviously adding value in other ways.

I also don't like this idea that sahp are happy to sing 'the wheels on the bus' 10 times in a row and lack intellectual stimulation or are the kind of people who lack the need for it.

I am a sahm, because I didn't want to use paid child care, because it makes our whole family life easier and because I don't want to work ft then come home and have planning/marking to do and washing/cooking/cleaning. I didn't become one because work was too stimulating and I needed a mental break.

Now obviously I do play with my dc and I do enjoy their enjoyment, but wohp do all those things too, when they are not at work. It's just a question of getting intellectual stimulation from a source other than paid employment.

Quattro, maybe I personally, couldn't do your job. I'd imagine that most people are suited to the careers they actually chose to have, but it's condescending to say that you don't think SAHMs could do your job, as if we are not bright enough or the stimulation would be too much for us. You cannot possibly know that. People don't become sahp because they can't think of anything else to do - they become one either because they think it best for their families or because working would cost too much money, so it isn't viable to woh.

On the whole this has been a useful thread without the usual descent into a bunfight- apart from the few inane comments like 'nobody can raise my children like I do'. It should be fairly obvious that ALL parents raise their own children, it's just that most of them combine it with working outside the home. Raising children is something that isn't definable by set hours; it's as much about the values you instil in them.

One point: when you hear these women saying 'well my dh couldn't possibly do the job he does without me at home, because his hours are so long/erratic/he has to be away frequently/ it's so challenging or draining that he needs to come home and just switch off ... It does make me wonder about the disadvantages of that set up. If a husbands job is like that, it clearly impacts seriously on his time and energy to do hands on parenting. I would feel very uneasy if my children had one parent home all day at the expense of the other parent.

Children ideally want and need both parents. They won't thank you if they reach adulthood having had one parent so worn out from working ridiculous hours (well, they won't thank you anyway, whether you've stayed home, worked or whatever- kids don't!) But I do think an emphasis on having a parent at home at all costs misses the point that children in a 2 parent family need to build a strong relationship with both parents to become emotionally well balanced. I feel it's hugely important that my children dont compartmentalise mum and dad into 'stays at home' and 'provides'. Apart from anything else, realistically we are raising a generation who will probably need to work until about 70 yrs old. They may take short maternity or paternity breaks (hopefully by the time they have kids, the country might be enlightened enough to have interchangeable parental leave) but realistically for the most part they will be working outside their homes (as well as the work we all do inside .)

callmemrs, I couldn't agree more. As the main breadwinner in our family, it's tiring sometimes to come home from a demanding job to a second shift of family stuff, but I wouldn't change that for the world. I'd hate to leave all of the childcare/domestic stuff to my DP and have only minimal involvement in my dd's life. I don't think that would be good for any of us!

Yes honey. when both parents work, particularly when at a similar level, you naturally fall into splitting home stuff equally. My children have known from a very young age that it might be mum picking up from the childminder or it might be dad. Equally, whichever of us is home first, unloads the washing machine and starts on dinner. Those are things which I rarely saw my father do, as my parents had very polarised roles.

I wouldnt put it like that but actually i dont think its important who goes to work to "earn" the money. My dp is disabled and when i go back to work i think he would be very upset/annoyed if i told everyone that he didnt earn anything and i think he'd Be right to be annoyed too

But if he doesn't work eg paid remuneration.then he doesn't earn
And no amount tippy toeing about changing words alters that
It's not a judgement it's factual. If you don't work,you haven't generated that wage

We've had times where I've worked, he's worked or we've both worked and, in all cases, we have always considered any earnings to belong to both of us because they are not just earned for the purposes of the working person but for the good of the entire family, It's everyone's money.

I realise that's not how it works in every home but it does in our home because that's how we view our money. I think taht anyone who works and considers the money to be theirs but that they share with the family doesn't really understand what they're working for in the first place.

That's not really what the op was about though Sydney. I work and my income is for the benefit of the family. Dh and I have a joint account, and the bulk of our earnings goes towards family things, bills etc

But it would be very odd if I started saying that I earn the £xxx which is his salary, and equally odd if he claimed to earn mine. And if I gave up work tomorrow, that wouldn't change. Dh would still be earning the salary he does now, it wouldn't magically become me whos earning it

But sydney, that wasn't the OP's point. Nobody is arguing about whether the money belongs to the whole family, the OP was merely noting that SAHPs don't actually earn a salary, contrary to what some have said.

But callmemrs, it isn't usually a question of one parent does all the child care and the other does none. You can have a partner who works long/erratic hours, who is still involved with their dc. My dh doesn't load the washing machine, but he does help with homework and takes the dc to the park and plays cricket/football with them. It's just that the nature of his work means he cannot commit to always being home on X day or at a specific time.

I am the only female senior manager where I work - the other three are men, with SAH wives (I say wives and not mothers, because one of the couples doesn't have children). I admit to being quite envious that they go home to dinner on the table and a nice clean and tidy house, and probably don't know how the washing machine works, whereas I start again when I get in. (DH works full time too.)

Being an expat, I also see a lot of women who have clearly targeted the "high flying exec expat" as good husband material, because marrying them means that they won't have to work outside the home ever again. They are very much the wife at home, making life nice for their husband - they don't do housework, they are very much the "coffee morning" brigade. DD1's teacher described one of the mums in DD's class as "one of those who has nothing better to do than get her nails painted", which I think sums it up quite nicely.

These expats are SO dependent on their husbands though - I have seen quite a few shafted financially when he runs off with his secretary or the nanny (men never seem to look very far from home when it comes to extra curricular activities). And apart from the financial shafting, they often end up back in UK with the kids, in much reduced circumstances, living back near their parents, in an area they haven't lived for years and have no friends - essentially starting from scratch again. Yes, the women sometimes have affairs too - there was the thrilling unravelling of a lesbian affair between two of the Mums at one of the DDs' schools (all the more thrilling for those watching, as the two had deluded themselves that no-one knew). They were in unhappy marriages and wanted to go off together - but because neither had a job or any means of financial support (and five kids between them), they ended up staying in their miserable marriages.

And SAHP do not earn a salary, no!

Wow-mrs schadenfreude-your dd1's teacher ought to know better. How unprofessional.

Agreed. Her job is to help educate the children, not pass judgement on the lifestyle choices of the parents.

There is actually nothing wrong with not having to do anything other than what you want to do, even if it's something like getting your nails done. Most people would like free choice on how to spend their days. We would probably all choose different things, but it would be nice to have the option, no?

Realistically though, people generally cant do whatever they like all day. Real life is almost always about having to do certain things, following certain routines and structures. And actually that's not a bad thing. Most people respond best to having an element of structure in their lives- in fact I have never come across a parent who wants to raise their child without some structures, and the necessary self discipline to respond to those structures. And as has already been said, given that realistically our children will all need to earn their own living, probably for many more years than our generation, I think an important message is helping them see that the best option is to aim for an interesting and stimulating work life, so that working is more than just paying the bills

As for the comment about the woman having nothing better to do than paint her nails , well yes, very unprofessional Of the teacher to say so. But I understand exactly what she means. Ive come across a few women like that, who really are struggling to fill their day. Having a husband earning enough to keep you doesn't necessarily mean you are doing interesting and worthwhile things. Ive come across a few women who lead pretty vacuous lives, where going to the gym and lunching seem to be the focal point of their day.

callmemrs I have never said that people who work don't raise their kids - of course they do. My kids father is still their father despite working.
Just that I wanted to stay at home with the children full time - and my husband (and child who is old enough to ask) prefer that too.
The 'doing a better job' comment was to pre-empt people saying that cm's have quaifications so therefore deserve a status that mums don't. I was just trying to point out that the majority of mums try to do their role to the best of their ability and don't sit on their arses all day waiting for their manicure appointment . And cm's (like mums) vary in quality. I would not leave my kids with any of the local cm's I have met through baby groups etc but I'm sure there are many lovely ones out there.
Why does it bother some people what I choose to do? We're not claiming any benefits if that's what concerns you .
l couldn't care less if people choose to work or stay at home - people make the best choices they can depending on their circumstances. I don't want to work and have my kids cared for by someone else in those hours - partly because it would leave us in a worse financial situation than they are now. Other people would rather work/need to work. Why does one have to be better than the other rather than them both being equally valid, different, choices?

And scottishmummy I think your employer is missing a trick as they could just stop paying you tomorrow. I assume you'd be happy to continue to turn is as you wouldn't be working would you if there was no 'paid remuneration'

What are you struggling to say?
I work for intellectual stimulation,vocation,and of course money

Are you happy with what the teacher said? . I would have been mortified and would wonder what else she might be telling them.

I have a confession: reading all the posts about singing 'the wheels' made me nostalgic. I loved it! I was playing it on the keyboard and on the piano too, does this make difference on the intelligence/stimulation front?

I think you'll always get people who choose to spend their free time doing things that other people would consider vacuous. Most people though, if they had complete freedom to choose, would have some routines and structure to their day - it would just be theirs rather than set by their job.

callmemrs Are you suggesting that people who work all do worthwhile things outside of their job? You will find people have different characters everywhere.

I can't say I've ever had trouble filling my day with a 4 and 2 yo to look after and 2 charities I volunteer for. I don't 'lunch' and don't go to the gym but having those things as a focal point of your day doesn't sound too bad to me!
Maybe some people would think the things you do are unworthy? Some people enjoy the gym etc and if their partners are happy to fund that lifestyle what the hell has it got to do with anyone else?

Secretmincerinser- I'm not sure why you're addressing me as I wasnt referring to your post. It was popbiscuit who said 'no one can raise my kids as well as I can'. It just seemed like a bit of a pointless comment, since ALL parents raise their children. Obviously some of the time the children will be with other People: relatives, school teachers, childminder, playgroup, whatever- but it is the parents who are the primary carers and shape their childrens lives by far the most

Its just tiresome when some people trot off that line about 'I want to raise my children' because it's usually meant as a not very transparent dig at working parents.

Karma- that was my point about aiming for an interesting job. Seeing as most people, realistically, will spend a large portion of their life working, I'd rather have a career which is worthwhile and interesting. Structures don't have to be boring!!

DD's teacher is a friend - sorry, I should have said this. I think it was as a friend that she was saying this to me, not in her role as DD's teacher. However, I did know exactly whom she was referring to when she said this!