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?

I don't know, karma, how genuine they are. As you say, they might be having a little moan, safe in the knowledge that the status quo is never going to change. On the other hand, they might be like sone of the other guys in the office who are quite happy to share childcare and housework with their working partners.

We don't tend to work silly hours in my organisation anyway. And both male and female employees take the odd day off to look after sick children. It's inconvenient at times, but they take the time as annual leave or make it up another time. It doesn't impact negatively on their career progression at all. But yes, they would have to do a bigger share of the housework.

Oh, and I meant to add, what if the wife only decides that she wants to SAH after the baby is born? There was another thread on here yesterday that suggests this happens quite often. You say that the WOHP is still responsible because he agreed to support the SAHP, but I wonder if he always has a choice - he would be hard pressed to force his wife to go out to work, no?

Yes, that's tricky, because no one can accurately say how they will feel, when they actually have children. Before then, it's all theoretical.

I remember when I was pregnant with ds1. I couldn't, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want more than one child. I figured that they'd experienced pregnancy and parenthood, so job done! Now, here I am, with 4 dc, all very much wanted. People do change as they get older and have different experiences. All we can do is hope our partners change with us and our views remain in synch.

Bit of a bugger if they don't.

I am not against women working. Do I have a judgement about the use of nurseries for long hours for babies and under threes?
Yes I do.
I do not think they are the optimum environment for under threes.
I am convinced by the research done....just google nurseries for under threes, for a sample of what is out there.
If one mother returning to work reads this and it makes them consider a different form of care, then for me that is positive.

I have worked in a nursery. Believe me many nurseries are far from the 'village' of the saying someone cited. Will your child come to harm in a nursery as a result of the care. No I think not.....I hope not.you would be unlucky.
Is it the optimum environment?
I believe not and I am not sure how you ignore the research that is out there suggesting as much.
Ignore me.......I am just a judgemental poster with no empathy for working mothers. But read what is out there from people who study the effects of long hours in nurseries for small children. I choose not to ignore such findings myself.

I googled it

Couldn't find any evidence at all to support what you are saying

A few opinions yes, but no evidence

Missic: So why do you assume working parents, who after all are the ones with a vested Interest in childcare, ignore the findings of research??

Your posts come across as supremely arrogant, as though you have a monopoly on research and indeed on caring about ones children.

Personally I did not want a nursery environment for my children when they were very little, so I used a childminder, and then nursery when they were older.

However, if I saw another mother was using a nursery for her very young child , I would assume that she had done her research, considered her own circumstances and concluded that for whatever reason this was right for HER and HER child. Everyones circumstances are different. If the mother would be extremely isolated and unhappy at home, then continuing in work might be the optimum situation and that nursery might be better than her local childminders

It is the supreme arrogance, and indeed ignorance, in taking a certain stance of research and assuming you can apply it to everyone else's children which grates in your posts

As I said before, the people I feel empathy for are those who actually don't want to work but need to. These are the people who often rely on relatives for childcare because they can't afford proper regulated care, and end up having to leave baby with granny who might be 70, worn out and with a tendency to dish out sweets too readily. Those people dont have the luxury of choice- they have to use free childcare. But note: I empathise with them. I wouldn't set out to make them feel more shit about their lack of choice than they already feel.

missslc I share your feeling that FT nursery care might not be the best form of care for very young babies, hence my decision to employ a nanny when dd was younger. Had I been unable to afford a nanny, I would have chosen a childminder.

However, other parents I know have done their own research into the alternatives, and they have concluded that nursery care is a better environment for their dc. Nurseries are not generally cheaper than childminders, so it is reasonable to assume that they have made their decisions on what they consider to be in the child's best interests.

I am not sure that my feelings on the subject are any more or less valid than theirs, and I am not convinced that the research has proven anything conclusive either, although the studies may well have served to improve the quality of nursery care through the introduction of key workers, limits on maximum numbers etc.

But in any case, which of us relies on research alone to guide us through our parenting choices? If studies were published tomorrow demonstrating conclusively that WOHPs were better for kids than SAHPs, would you be rushing out to find a job? I thought not. There are research studies to support all positions, and at the end of the day, most of us will accept the findings of those studies which support our core beliefs and gut instincts while ignoring those which feel instinctively wrong. And that's as it should be - we are the parents, and not the scientists in their ivory towers who like to tell ius how to raise our children.

' These guys have been persuaded to accept their wives' decisions, but it isnt necessarily what they would choose.'

There are plenty of women doing what they wouldn't choose.I know a couple of guys whose wives have to work because the husband is unwilling to cut back on boys toys etc. and not because they need both salaries.

I think it goes without saying that in a crap relationship, one partner may take the piss out of the other.

A good relationship is a partnership, where the adults recognise that neither one has an automatic right to either not work, or to spend recklessly on non essentials

Agreed, jellybeans. Couples have to make compromises, after all. But if one partner doesn't buy into the idea that it's better for the children to have one parent at home and the couple can't agree on a different division of labour, surely the default position is that both partners must share responsibility for all aspects of family life, including housework, childcare and earning the family income?

Presumably these wives aren't actually funding the boys' toys? They are just making an equal contribution to the cost of running a household, and I would hope that their DHs are making equal contributions to the housework and the childcare. The DHs are presumably making financial contributions too, and are choosing to spend the surplus on their gadgets.

As the main breadwinner in my family, I would be more than happy to support DH to SAH if both he and I made the decision that it was preferable for the wellbeing of our daughter - and indeed, I did just that for a while because we felt that she needed the continuity after a big move. We no longer feel that there is any benefit in him as a SAHD, and he had therefore gone back to work, albeit part time. Under these circumstances, I would not be willing to give up my own little luxuries if he just happened to decide that he didn't want to work. Why should I?!

Surely the default position is that, as adults, you both pay your way and share the domestic stuff, unless one of you is disabled or otherwise incapacitated or you are able to mutually agree an alternative division of labour.

In him remaining as a SAHD.

I agree that it shouldn't be a one way decision. Especially if it would mean a cut back in being comfortable. Nothing wrong with enjoying lifes little luxuries. But spending wildly is selfish too. One of the wives I was speaking about said the increased income from her earnings has simply led to an increase in her other half's spending! And much was wasted down the bookies etc.

I am not sure I agree that the default position is that both pay your way and share the domestic stuff because it just wouldn't work for people like me. I cannot work around my husband's job. I used to in his old job, he worked 9-5 Mon-Fri and i did 2 x 12 hour shifts at the weekend while he cared for DC. It worked fine but he landed his dream job. When the DC are older, it may change again. So I think me doing the childcare and him earning is also equal in importance. Splitting the work doesn't mean they have to be shared in half.

Yeah, obviously wouldn't be happy about spending recklessly or gambling etc. But then, I'd be unhappy about DH wasting money whether I was earning or not!

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the "default" position. I agree that there are lots of different ways of splitting the work & responsibilities, and of course it doesn't have to be half and half. But surely when it isn't just half and half, there needs to be a mutual agreement of what would constitute a fair division of labour, and if one partner feels that they are carrying a disproportionate share of the responsibility - whether this relates to paid or unpaid work - that is likely to lead to problems.

In your case, this presumably doesn't apply because your DH wanted to take his dream job and you mutually agreed that it would make more sense for you to stay at home. Had you not been able to reach such an agreement - either because you didn't want to SAH or he didn't want to be the sole earner - then I retain the view that the default position would have been to split all of the responsibilities down the middle. Happily for you and your DH, this wasn't necessary.:)

Yes honey, that makes perfect sense.
I also think that it's quite a logical follow on from the changes in education and society over the last 70 years or so that we see more couples who want a more equal split. In the not too distant past, women were denied entry to certain professions, or had to relinquish their career on marriage, or were not 'allowed' to go to university by their parents because 'the purpose of being a woman is to be a wife and mother'. Since that time things have changed enormously. Girls now outperform boys in many academic subjects, and I believe in entry into professions like law and medicine , women now outnumber men . And the opposite is true too- whereas 70 years ago a boy would be raised to aspire to a 'job for life' where he would provide for his wife and family, boys are now bein raised to want to be hands on Parents.

It therefore follows on logically that more couples are likely to want to split the earning and caring more equally. Eg I have the same qualifications as my dh, when we graduated we entered into careers at the same level. When we later decided to have kids, he was as competent as me at the practical tasks of nappies etc, and as fully engaged in interacting with the children as I was. It therefore seemed quite natural for us to share providing and caring responsibilities.

For some couples it works to split things differently, particularly if one partner has a much higher earning capacity than the other, but generally it seems entirely natural that as the opportunities available to both genders have evened out, then women and men are perhaps more likely to want an equal balance in their life.

My dh would have hated feeling the pressure to work ridiculous hours or travel loads for work, because it would have prevented him from spending as much time with the children. Just as I wouldn't have wanted to give up the career I'd worked hard for. If we'd had really strong feelings that we couldn't combine working with parenting then we'd have had to rethink and perhaps one of us would have had to stop working completely and the other work longer hours .