To think this colleague could be a SAHM if she wanted to be

[doingthesplitz]

I work part time and a woman I work with is always sighing and saying 'Oh you're sooo lucky you get to stay at home with your children.' Oh, I'd love to be a stay at home mum', 'oh sigh' 'oh woe' etc.

I have every sympathy with mothers who would love to stay at home but can't afford to, and equally no problem with mothers who would go demented at home and prefer to go out to work.

But this woman, constantly moaning about 'having to go to work' is taking the whole family to Florida this Summer, drives an expensive car, arrives in every monring with a takeaway latte in hand, buys her lunch every day at a costly deli down the road, and thinks nothing of spending a hundred quid on a hand bag or a pair of shoes. It's her money, she can do what she likes with it, but I'm fed up of her doing a martyr act and making out I'm much luckier than her. No, I'm not. We will be sharing a house in the country with my sister and her family for our Summer holidays; we drive an old car; I make my own sandwiches for work and have never owned a really expensive bag or pair of shoes. That's why I can afford to work part time.

AIBU to think this woman enjoys coming to work but just wants to make out it's a huge sacrifice to get sympathy and attention?

The judgement is in this sentence,

But this woman, constantly moaning about 'having to go to work' is taking the whole family to Florida this Summer, drives an expensive car, arrives in every monring with a takeaway latte in hand, buys her lunch every day at a costly deli down the road, and thinks nothing of spending a hundred quid on a hand bag or a pair of shoes.

Why do you think the OP is being less judgemental than the woman she is talking about?

Is it because she says she is not being judgemental? Or is it because the OPs life choices are deemed more socially acceptable? She works less, earns less so that she could spend more time with her children, ergo she must be the better person?

Is it because she says she is not being judgemental? Or is it because the OPs life choices are deemed more socially acceptable? She works less, earns less so that she could spend more time with her children, ergo she must be the better person?

I dont think anybody has said being with your children all the time is being a better person I dont think the OP even suggested that this woman seems to be constantly moaning and having little digs about working part time, THe OP was just pointing out that this woman could be a SAHM mum if she wanted too and the woman had a lot of things

The implication from both the OP and the follow up posts is that working for anything other than the basics is not really necessary for a woman, take this post

I know someone who's always talking about 'having to go out to work' buta lot of her salary goes on childminding and the rest on a cleaner twice a week, expensive convenience foods and smart clothes for work. She doesn't seem to see these things as luxuries but as essentials that she needs.

Most of the things mentioned in this post are work related expenses not actual luxuries, and the implication in the majority of these posts is that a woman's salary is covering the cost of things that a family could well do without, which in turn implies that the funding of the household (i.e. the important bit) is the responsibility of the man in the house.

This is the 4th SAHM / WOHM / PT WOHM thread I've read this morning. They certainly are popular today

The OP said she has no problems with people choosing to work or how they spend their money. She is just fed up of her implying that she is in a less fortunate position than the OP when that is not the case. I agree with her and I also get fed up with people who moan about 'having to go out to work' when they are, in fact, spending a large proportion of their salary on non essentials. It's their choice to work and to have a certain lifestyle, but it's unfair to make out that they're hard done by in front of colleagues who can't afford the same things because they have chosen to work part time.

The OP isn't being judgemental. Her complaint isn't about what the woman is doing with her life - it's about her appearing to want it both ways. If the OP were to insist on telling the woman how "lucky" she was to be going to Florida, it would be the same.

MrsLynam

You seem determined to read things into people's posts that they never actually said. No one is being disapproving of women working. We are simply saying that there is a difference between working because you have to and working because you've made a choice to.
Step down off your soap box.

Folk often don't want a solution to their problems. They just want to moan.

If the OP isn't being judgemental, why give us a list of things the work colleague 'wastes her money on' rather than just say, I wish my colleague would stop moaning to me about having to work.

Who knows maybe the woman involved did a big spreadsheet calculation and worked out that even without all the lattes, holidays, expensive cars and the handbags that she couldn't afford to go part-time for whatever reason.

I've read the OP again and can't see any mention of the colleague 'wasting her money'. All she did was provide examples of where the colleague could cut back if she seriously wanted to consider working part time as the op was 'lucky' to be doing.

You seem to be reading an awful lot into this.

I think the OP list was to illustrate the the womans moaning was all a bit pointless really she could cut back if she wanted too she obviously doesnt want too or she would that is all the OP was saying, and moaning and then having sly wee digs at a part time worker is pretty insulting

Sorry to hijack your thread, but I often get a variation of this - people say "You're so lucky to work from home. It's great to be so flexible". Well, up to a point, yes, but people often forget that I work late into the night to compensate for being at the school gate in the afternoons

I find it very surprising that people think there is a stigma related to mothers working full time. I would say its quite the opposite. SAHMs are constantly berated in the media etc for going through school and university then throwing it all away to stay at home and change nappies. For throwing away all the opportunities that previous generations of women fought hard for. For being too lazy to juggle work and home.

And then mothers who work part-time are accused of being too demanding of their employers, wanting everything on their own terms, being a drain on their companies, and not pulling their weight compared to their full times colleagues. And the government are constantly banging on about getting more mothers out to work, and 'hard working families' where the implication is that the only type of 'hard work' is where both partners are out full time earning money and paying taxes. Its a real revelation to me to see that people feel there is a stigma attached to full time work, I thought it was meant to be the holy grail, and the only acceptable way to be.

Ha - BlackDahlia11 - you are so right!

I sat next to one of these women in my last contract - 'oh you're so lucky that you're PT' - her DH worked in the City and they were loaded compared to us. But then I always agreed with her that we were lucky. I do consider myself lucky.

These 'oh you're so lucky' women are annoying - whether they're WOHM or SAHM. Anyone who says 'oh you're so lucky' is annoying - without the detailed spreadsheet of each others pros and cons how could she possibly know which of you is lucky? Some people genuinely are victims of circumstance - an illness, a divorce, a redundancy - any number of things can mean that it wasn't really your choice to work or to stay at home... But they are the minority. The vast majority are either really working because they prefer it, or staying at home because they prefer it. And both groups have cut their cloth and made sacrifices accordingly.

But people dress it up to excuse what they are doing so that it doesn't sound like they're doing it for selfish reasons but only because they HAVE to endure this terrible fate of working or staying home. 'oh you're so lucky, I couldn't possibly...' The worst is that they successfully sell the lie to themselves that they're a victim of circumstance when they've actually chosen it. Yet they won't admit that they're doing what they WANT to do because that would appear far too selfish. They won't even admit that they're having fun with it because that makes them look either heartless and rich or lazy and unambitious (in their own eyes - since the rest of us don't care!).

It drives me nuts whenever women portray themselves as a victim of cruel fate when they've made a choice and instead of being proud of it, and saying 'hey look what I've achieved with my choice' they excuse themselves for not having made the other choice. Heading off the criticism that they're not filling the other role. We are our own worst enemies sometimes.

I know where you are coming from OP. I am a sahm although just started doing some work for dh office based at home.
If you are not "needy" and are able to live on relatively few earnings it is quite possible to be a sahm if you want to.
We have managed it fine but don't usually have holidays, no SKY, cheap phones, one family car thats very old.
Its an individuals choice as to the lifestyle they want, but agree why moan you'd rather be doing something else and not doing anything about it. Seems pointless.

treaclesoda why are you surprised? A woman cannot make any choice without being told it is the wrong one, there is no magic category of woman that is immune to being judged for her choices.

As this thread illustrates most of the judging is done by other woman.

I do think a lot of people have begun to shift the line between essentials and luxuries - food, clothes, mortgage repayments or rent, heating are all essential. Some money for socialising and in a lot of cases a car are also important.

But foreign holidays, expensive clothes, fancy cars, designer make up, regular takeaways or restaurant meals, state of the art phones and lap tops and i-pad are all luxuries and if you're working to pay for these then you are making a lifestyle choice to work.

You are not in the same position as someone who's working to feed and clothe their family and keep a roof over their heads.

FINALLY, a voice of reason on this thread! !!!!!!

Sounds annoying but maybe she's just making conversation.

I requested part time at work. The HR DIRECTOR said "yes we'd all love to work part time."

"Then why don't you, you could downsize your car, house it's achievable if you want it to be."

It silenced her.

I just meant that I was 'surprised' in the sense that I've always felt there was less of a stigma to be working full time than to be working part time, or to be a SAHM.

But yes, you are right, it doesn't matter what choice a woman makes, there will always be someone who will be happy to point out to her that its the wrong one.

lavenderloves she may have been stunned to silence by how incredibly rude you'd just been to her.

I am one of those like Pootles mentioned. I need £12,000 net to pay for necessities like mortgage, car loan , utilities etc. But my career is such that I have to work full time and as such earn say £50,000 gross. I tried to get jobs in general admin that paid £12,000 net but I got no-where as was seen as over qualified and employers didn't think I would stay if I down sized my job. Hence I earn more than I need to survive so do have luxuries like gym membership and holidays.

It is not as simple as taking my role and working 2.5 days and earning £25,000 gross.

I work in the public sector and job sharing is available for anyone who wants it in my area. There is nothing to stop this woman from working part time if she wants to. I certainly don't have any issue with mothers working full time (despite the spin a certain poster is trying to put on my opening remarks) but I do object to being told I have it easier than her because I work part time. I don't, I just do without certain things to make that possible.

I don't go around saying 'oh, you're so lucky you don't have to make up a lunch in the mornings' or 'oh it's not fair, How come you can afford a holiday in Florida and I have to make do with a fortnight in Dorset'? It is fair, she works to earn the money for these things, so she's entitled to them. And by the same token, I do without certain things to work part time so I'm entitled to work part time without her moaning that 'it's not fair' 'you're so lucky' etc.

Me too lasvegas

DP and I 'need' me to earn say £20k to run the house, pay the mortgage & not have to think too hard about what I put in the trolley in Tesco. Unfortunately if I didn't work, we'd be pretty skint as I am higher earner.

I earn a lot more than that, so we have nice things. That said when I was an assistant manager I didn't earn much more than £20k - can't say I worked significantly fewer hours or had much less stress...

I think she is judgey.

But I think OP is judgey too.

So that's judging each other's choices 1; sisterhood nil then.