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?

olgaga, The default position is that money earned by an individual belongs to that individual. I earn money, it is MY money not my dh's. He cannot just access my bank accounts and take that money.
That is the automatic position.

Being married does not mean that I can take or sell anything belonging to my dh without his express permission. If I take any money of his without his permission, it is theft. Pure and simple.

I agree that outside agencies can make a decision to distribute a married couple's assets. But, nevertheless, at the point at which a person is paid monies, it is their money and nobody else's.

If you were right, it would not be considered theft if married couple's were to access their spouse's accounts as they please. It obviously is considered theft if they haven't the consent of the other spouse.

Wamster, some couples have separate finances, so in that case it is his or her money, rather than theirs. But if you pay everything you earn into a joint account, then it is 'theirs', because neither person has to seek the permission of the other, in order to access it. The very act of putting it into a joint account, is saying that they share this with their partner.

I think a woman would be foolish to give up work and be a sahp, if married to someone who kept their finances separate. If it all went tits up, the sahp would literally be at the mercy of the spouse with the bank account.

Well that would be a very peculiar attitude for a married person to take. Marriage is a legally binding contract, which includes the requirement to financially support each other, and responsibilities towards children of the marriage. There are also property rights, and rights in relation to divorce and the death of a spouse.

You agree between you what your joint outgoings are, and who will pay what. If you split up, all your assets are joint assets. All your property, pensions, savings etc.

You don't go back and examine 15 years of payslips and bank statements working out who gets what! You work out who gets what based on what there is!

So while you are right to say that when someone receives their salary, it is theirs. And obviously, consent to expenditure or disposal of assets is important. That goes with the territory of their contractual obligation to consider their responsibilities.

Callerms

"Oh I quite agree missic. I love spending time with my kids, always have done- I think you'll find Most parents feel that way. "

I take your word for it.
However having spoken to a lot of mums I have known, who returned to work full time, I was surprised how much many of them chose this as they actually found it often unenjoyable being around small children- Many of them, like spending a small amount of time with their kids and hence working full time is actually the best thing for them- I think you can love your kids and actually find being around them less enjoyable than working but I think people do not like to admit this to themselves or others, hence the mass defensiveness you get in these discussions.I realise some people have no choice and have to work but I actually think that number is smaller than the sheer number that work because their sanity depends upon it or they want the goods that extra money buys and would rather have that than spending all day with their child.
Go ahead, work but please save us sahm's the pantomine of justifying how brilliant it is for your child to be in day care for most of their young lives.....

I personally get tired of people I have known harking on about how good nursery is for their child and enquiring why you are not giving your child that wonderful experience, in the face of the research out there that makes a case for one to one care for under threes.

missic my ds will be going into child care 4 days a week from April even though my DH is at home and perfectly willing and able to care for him precisely because i believe it is good for him

It would be a peculiar attitude to take, however, the fact remains that the default position is that what a person earns is their's and their's alone. A third party -such as a court -can force somebody to hand over money to their ex-spouse, but that is not the issue here.

olgaga, a person cannot just take their dh's money without his permission, if they do, it is theft.

Marriage does not give anybody the automatic right to their spouse's money while in that marriage. When that marriage has ended, the courts can make all sorts of orders.

No offence, olgaga, but you don't seem to grasp this.

I can't just walk into a bank, produce my marriage certificate and demand access to my husband' back account (yes, I know joint accounts are different). olgaga, you seem to think that you can.

We also put our dd into nursery for a few sessions each week from the age of two and a half, because we felt she would benefit. It was inconvenient and expensive, but we knew that it was the right thing for her at the time so we just had to suck it up.

Initially, her nanny did the drop-off and pick-up, and I paid the nanny throughout the hours that dd was in nursery, so we always had 1:1 care as an option. Later, my DH was a SAHD for a while after we moved, but we felt that it was important for dd to have the structure and social contact that nursery provided, so again, we decided to send her.

That's not to say that nursery would be right for every child, merely that it isn't always a last resort. Personally, I wouldn't have chosen it for my dd when she was a baby, but I know others who did, and I wouldn't presume to judge those decisions.

missic my ds will be going into child care 4 days a week from April even though my DH is at home and perfectly willing and able to care for him precisely because i believe it is good for him
I had close to 2.5 years at home with my son and he was in nursery 2.5 days a week for a 1.5 years of that - because I thought it was good for him and because he really wanted to go.

The sheer number of women (and men, let's not forget the husbands who generally have no choice) in this country who have to work really outnumber by a staggering amount of women who choose to and your comment 'I take your word for it' was really quite unpleasant. Actually, the whole of your last comment had a really nasty undercurrent to it. Was that intentional that it came across that way?

DS will be 4.5 months and it will cost a fortune but I think it is better for him so I am doing it.

Am not sure how that is a pantomime.....it's what I think is best for my child but I don't claim to know what is best for other peoples children

As for my wonderful nanny, I employed her because I needed the childcare, and I thought she was the next best option to staying at home and looking after dd myself. She looked after dd for five half days each week from when dd was eight months old.

I didn't go out and look for a nanny because I thought dd would benefit, but if I had my time again, and could afford to stay at home, I would still want the nanny because she was bloody fantastic. I think DH and I do a pretty good job of looking after our daughter, but the nanny had skills and qualities that neither of us could bring, and she complemented our parenting perfectly. My dd got so much from her relationship with this amazing woman - who has become one of my closest friends in the world - and I will always be grateful for what she has given her. We moved away three years ago, and now live 200+ miles apart, but the bond between dd and her nanny is one that will last for life, and I'm glad that dd will always have that access to another caring adult.

Yes, I know we were particularly lucky, and yes, you can call it a pantomime if you like, but my dd most definitely did benefit from being in childcare, just as she benefits from time with her parents, time with grandparents, and now she is older, time with her teachers in school. I do believe that it takes a village to raise a child, and that having lots of positive influences in a child's life is the ideal - whether the mum works or stays at home is incidental.

Our friends nanny was just the same-wonderful with dd when she looked after her for a while. Still very much in touch despite being in different countries now. But haycorns -remember and give yourself credit for being part of a successful childcare relationship. Whatever successful arrangement you have, the relationship between the care and parent is critical to its success. Takes two and all

Oh and given that I am a sahm for the moment I would like it clear that I am not one of the "us sahms" that mosaic would like to lump together.

But I do like watching pantomimes.

Thanks molehill - I think you're right, the relationship between me and the nanny was crucial, and luckily we hit it off from the start. One of the unexpected benefits for me was the opportunity to discuss any issues or concerns that I had about my daughter with another mum who knew her intimately and spent loads of time with her. I think motherhood can be quite challenging and isolating at times, and having the nanny working in partnership with DH and I was like having a third parent! I had expected that the nanny would help care for dd, but I didn't anticipate the extent to which she would become such a source of support for me. :)

Oh, and I thought I hated pantomimes until I went with dd's school last year, and I discovered that they were quite good fun.

Rather a panto than the park any day!

Missc- you are the person who is massively trying to attack other people who do things differently to you. Defensive or what?!

You want to stay home . You judge it to be the best decision for you. Fine.

Other women want to work. They research and select the childcare they deem best for their child. With all due respect, they know THEIR child better than you do. Why do you seem to think that as a SAHP you have a monopoly on all the research about childcare? All the WOHP I know have given massive thought to the decision. Many opt for 1:1 care for very young children, either by a cm or nanny. That's what I did for my babies. I chose a nursery for later but that was at the age when even when if I was a SAHM I would have wanted to send them to nursery school or playgroup (though if I'd been a SAHP I wouldn't have been able to afford such a fabulous nursery!)

WOHP give massive thought to their decision. They choose to work not because they find their children any less pleasurable or interesting than you find yours, but because they have Learned that they derive simulation and satisfaction from working AS WELL as spending time with their children. It's not a case of missing out, it's a case of combing work with parenting. And often a couple will do this partly because they want to balance their roles more equally, and both enjoy the pleasures of caring and career.

Your post comes across as massively patronising, you expect WOHP to respect your choice, but you disrespect their choice by implying that YOU know what's best for THEIR children

Of course, there are some

missic I don't know if you've noticed but the vast majority of people (men or women) in the world never mind the UK have to work.

This is not for fripperies and luxuries.
This is for things like a home, a pension (there will be no state pension by the time we retire and most families will have no decent lifestyle on one), cash to help their DC through university...

For many families even those things are a distant hope. They work for food, heating and rent. Both parents.

If you have so little empathy for families around you then I suggest you spend some time at your local food bank...

Posted too soon

There are some people in the unfortunate position where they have to work, and cannot afford to choose the childcare they feel is best, and end up leaving their child with MIL along the road who's 70, worn out, looks after 3 other grandkids and tends to feed them sweets (I've seen various threads bemoaning this ). In which case, if your post is directed at them, then you need to take a long hard look at why you want to make people who DONT have choices feel even more shit about it....

As for the rest of us who CHOOSE to work and CHOOSE our childcare carefully, and constantly monitor our children to ensure they are happy and emotionally in tune- no need to pity us or our children because we are totally happy with our choice.

And when you have older teenagers or adult children and you know that they have turned out just as clever and happy as their friends who may have had SAHM... Then you know that working has not had any ill effects. I strongly get the feeling from your posts that you rather wish it did, which speaks volumes....

Missic is also making the fundamental mistake of ASSUMING that a parent who returns to work must, by definition, not enjoy spending time with their children as much as a SAHP does.
That's a really weird logic. It's entirely probable that they enjoy their children just as much, but enjoy working AS WELL. Is it really so hard to get your head around that concept?

One of my good friends had her eldest same time as me. I returned to work and she stayed home. Does that mean I enjoyed my time at home less? Nonsense! It wouldn't even occur to my friend to think that. We both enjoyed spending time with our children enormously. The difference was, I enjoyed my work too, whereas she didn't find her job fulfilling enough to want to combine it with parenting.

It seems pretty simple logic to me that various factors such as how interesting your work is, what you get out of it etc are likely to be factors taken into account when deciding to work. To put it bluntly- if I had been in a dead boring job id have been far more likely to stop working, but it wouldn't have meant my time spent with my children would magically become more enjoyable!

She's making one heck of a mistake thinking that the imaginary "sisterhood" of sahm is collectively right behind her too. There are so many reasons why people decide to be sahm and just because I am one now, it doesn't mean I always have been, always will be or think its the only good choice. I hope there are other people who feel comfortable enough in their own skin and with their own choices to know that they've made the best decision for their family at any given time with the resources available to them, financial, emotional and psychological that they can get on with life and see other people's choice of lifestyle as irrelevant to them. My mil says the same thing whenever I am In danger of judging myself or my decisions against those others have made (and feeling because of it) "don't look sideways". Btw I hate parks too...just about bearable with a coffee shop.

Hear hear molehill.

No no Camel apologies, my intention was not to be nasty in my post at all, but simply to be honest and I am not one to pussyfoot and pretend that I take a position that I do not. If there is one place you should have freedom to be honest about your opinions it must surely be this part of mumsnet, where we are all aware we are opining, to a greater or lesser degree, backed up by whatever 'evidence' or experience we have.

I just find that it is rather one sided and people are very quick to point the finger at sahm s, scare monger about how damaged their job prospects will be after a period out of work, will have a lousy pension, how they cannot be good role models for their children and it seems that whilst it is okay for people to do that, sahm's argue their case back and they are being insensitive to the poor working mothers who have no other choice than to go back to work.
Many people report on these very boards how their salary is cancelled out by childcare costs, especially once two children are involved so I am not convinced that everyone working needs to work for financial reasons as one poster suggested- clearly some do and I have empathy for people for whom have no choice in how they make motherhood work for them.

There is nothing nasty Camel in taking a different position to you- I have a different position and we often take a different position because we think that position affords advantages that we do not see in the contrary position.
I am not talking about a 2 and a half year old going to nursery a few sessions a week, when I say that I think it is a less beneficial environment, but a baby being placed in nursery for long days from early on, without the same level of one to one care, it would receive from one carer, whoever that may be- I agree a good nanny or childminder can indeed offer the highest level of care.
I just do not think nurseries are the optimum environment for 5 day a week care for babies and under threes.

And of course there are all sorts of optimums when it comes to raising children and it is impossible for most of us to be achieving them all,and we disagree on what those optimum conditions are. However I do perceive a certain unapologetic (sometimes subtle and sometimes unsubtle as I realise I am being in my own post)critique of sahm's by working mums on these threads. So of course I will stand up for my own position and others like me because this is a forum where this is what is being asked for- although I realise I digress from the original post.

Missic, good nurseries assign a key worker to a baby who will look after no more than two babies due to the ratios.

Other staff will help, but the key worker is a primary care giver. The other staff would be the equivalent of aunties at home.

I think a lot of people do not understand how a good nursery actually works and would not know what to look for in one, which might reinforce the somewhat uninformed negativity on threads like this towards them.

I was much happier leaving my six month old at nursery which I chose and knew backwards than my five year old at primary school.

I am not saying all nurseries are good. Te.

The thing is missic, no one actually needs to take sides at all. Or defend positions. Just get on with it all. Or if you have the opportunity to change and you're not happy, then change. But every time you post you make it clear that you do judge and that it isn't, for you, a decision you've reached for your family but a strongly held belief about what's best for all families. It comes through really clearly. If that is not what you intend then you need to change how you word your posts.