"Oh I'm lucky that I don't need to work, financially"

[TerraNovice]

I'm going back to work next month and while chatting with other mums about it I've come across the above phrase a few times. Perhaps IBU but it sounds insufferably smug to be - so they married guys with money, so what? There's nothing wrong with saying you're a SAHM so why add the caveat that you've got a rich husband?

kitchen

That's it in a nutshell

Weirdly enough, in my experience, I get a lot more respect from other people as a sahm than I did when I worked part time in a low status job.

Yy I had this too. I worked in a call centre for a few years and as soon as people found out they would start 'explaining' stuff or just not want to know.
My professional job is higher status and being a SAHM also conferred status as I must have a wealthy husband

Which is a bit sad really Ubik1 (and ignorant, why disrespect someone for working and plenty of students who will possibly be high earners of the future have worked in call centres).

It is an odd thing to say though. If someone (of either gender) went around saying that they were lucky enough not to work because they had inherited money, or had made a killing on the stock market or from selling a house, you would think they were a bit of an idiot. But because you attach yourself to a man and spend time at home doing traditionally female tasks, its considered a positive thing and one which you must wax lyrical about being lucky to do?

duplo, it sounds hard.
1,. Why is it your husband though not you working? It sounds like you would be a lot happier if it were the other way round.

1. Did the relatives really want you back in Ireland miserable and near them? My mother always always said she did not want to be a burden - she hammered into us from an early age "£put me in a home". She'd seen too many people's lives ruined looking after elderly parents. In the end she died before my father and she died in their home so it was never an issue and of course we would have had her to live with us had she wanted but I don't think all parents do want their children to make their lives worse by taking on caring always. Sometimes it's best not to be a martyr.

Jilly, there's a recruitment embargo in public appointment in my sector, so the private market is flooded. I am freelancing, but it will take time to build up and it's very sporadic. I've actually done okay given my limited availability, I've had work from before ds3 was five months. Dh would love to be at home, believe me. He hates work. Financially it's not currently a goer.

It wasn't about being a martyr, but about what seemed most important and valuable. Believe me I thought long and hard about it, over at least five years, and there was much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth.. but ultimately, the relationships we had had with our grandparents were ones we wanted our children to have some experience of before it was too late.. so we made a move towards those values, and that was our decision. There were also other factors that don't always sustain me in the day to day but are relevant and will bear fruit in the longer term - relationships with cousins, the opportunity to live somewhere it's safe for children to play out in the street, the opportunity to live mortgage free in five or six years if we want to (well, seemed manageable before the move, not feeling it now, but that might just be the mood this week). We had a deep desire to live rurally by the sea but within some sort of commuting distance of Dublin and though this is hardly cheap here, it's beyond unaffordable in the UK. There were many reasons, and they were all value-driven. Just doesn't mean I always find the zen in the laundry. Half-term has been challenging! However, normally I feel it is meeting our needs and does give us all a vital and fulfilling life. Today however I just want to run away!

But because you attach yourself to a man and spend time at home doing traditionally female tasks, its considered a positive thing and one which you must wax lyrical about being lucky to do?
Whilst I personally think it is a positive thing to do to sah with my kids I don't think it's "considered" to be so- I think it's largely considered negatively, just look at some of the responses on this thread. When some women say "I'm lucky" to SAH perhaps they're not being smug. I've said it mainly because I don't want to come across as smug if I don't know the circumstances of the person I'm talking to.

NickyEds but you sound like a rational, well balanced individual. Not everyone thinks that. Attitudes still exist amongst many people that a woman is lucky if she doesn't work, if she has a husband to "provide" for her.

And I don't like because I'm not convinced it isn't the same reasoning used as an excuse not to pay women the same as men. Obviously, by law, employers are no longer able to do that, but there is still a sizable pay gap and there are plenty of male-dominated sectors where men are ridiculously well remunerated for what they do, despite low qualifications and skills, because they are basically overcharging for what they provide. e.g. the oil industry, certain engineering roles, especially those not requiring degrees, public sector building contracts, most trades.

Obviously on paper there is nothing to stop women working in those fields, but in practice (relatively) few(er) do. But that's ok, because a man has a family to provide for? A man has to go out to work? etc..

I would be fine with the argument that people are just making choices if some more men made the choice to stop paid work or reduce hours when they have DC.

TheChandler I once heard an American researcher talk of her study which was looking into getting more women into certain types of work. She'd advertised several jobs with various hours/conditions etc all over the country and studied the applicants. She found that the single best way to increase female applicant for a job was to reduce the salary. Same job, same hours etc but with a lower salary increased the number of female applicants. How depressing is that?
In the uk there was a survey about law graduates with 1st class degrees which found that the men were earning more after only 5 years. It was put down to two reasons, men negotiating more aggressively and women prioritising location over salary (ie wanting to stay near family/where they graduated/where their boyfriends were). This was before they had children.
I think more men are stopping work among my friends three have chosen to be SAHDs, mainly because their wives earn more and they don't want to use childcare. I think this was unheard of when I was small (80's).

Nicky there is still huge prejudice though.
My dh earns less than me so may well work part time or sahp.
The main critics of this are friends who work part time or are SAHM.
Words like "unnatural" and "why did you even have kids..?" been said about me. Weird intimations he's gay.
This is in a large modern city!!

We like the idea of a parent being there but having financial security. His dad was very hands on in his rearing so it's no issue yo him. But apparently for some it must be mum.

God squitz who are these people?? Stop seeing them immediately. "Unnatural"???.

I think in a lot of cases it's the mum who either wants to do it or ends up doing the childcare. I don't see how it's different for a woman to say "I want to go back to work because i don't want to be at home and I love my job" than a man. A few of my friends have admitted to a bit of fake hand wringing over going back to work , saying how terrible it will be to be parted from their babies, then later saying they couldn't wait. I don't know why they would do that. Their partners don't.

If it's any consolation I've had more or less "the lot" when it comes to SAHM bingo; brain rotting, kids are better of in nursery, you'll be boring, you're holding back the sisterhood. All very unpleasant.

Nicky - i agree with your last point about times changing. It will be very interesting to see the take up of transferable parental leave which is available shortly. It would be great to see a really huge proportion of couples take up their entitlement to share parental leave.

I know there's a backdrop of a patriarchal society, BUT I don't think we can underestimate the power of the decisions which couples make, the way they choose to shape their lives. At the end of the day, couples of childbearing age now, in 2015, have got a better than ever before chance of shaping their lives regarding children, work and domestic tasks. Life isn't perfect, but in this regard things are better than they've been at Any point in history.

A woman of childbearing age now will have had equal entitlement to education as her partner (in fact females currently outstrip males in educational attainment at virtually every level.) They have access to the same professions. A woman who is pregnant now can share parental leave and between them, the couple can take a year out of the workplace with their salary and status guaranteed on return. All of those things are massive strides forward, and so very different to how things were when those of us with grown up children had our babies and returned to work.

To return to the OP- I wouldn't get upset by such comments; maybe these people are just filling space in the conversation and not meaning anything remotely negative.

And remember: other people's perceptions are exactly that: perceptions. No one is living your life but you. I've no doubt some of my friends felt sorry for me when I returned to work after the standard 12 week maternity leave in the early 1990s. And no doubt some of them felt sorry for me a few years later getting 3 little children out of the door and off to nursery before doing a days work. But of course what they didnt experience was the satisfaction i got from continuing in my career. And they didn't see first hand the great experience my children had at their nursery.
Why would they? We're all busy leading our own lives, and tbh we can't actually know what it feels like to be anyone else.

Colleagues ... you're allowed to work, just not enjoy it or be main earner it seems!

Nicky, yes I saw that study too. I think it was jobs in Wales. As soon as they reduced the pay from £50k to £25k women flocked to apply for the roles. Gosh we need to sort these women out. 70% of graduates are female. We out do men now in just about all exams whether 11+, 16+. A levels, degrees and yet we still sell ourselves short. I have always thought I was one of the best at what |I do in the UK but very few other women say that - more fool them them. Why do some of us have that confidence and others not? How is it fostered?

I earned 10x my children's father and he moved his career and sold his house to follow my career to London. There is no reason in many other couples where that cannot be done too which is why I picked on the Dublin one above in asking why her husband was earning etc. So no public sector jobs there but jobs for the husband - is that because he made a wiser career choice to avoid the public sector when younger? I just wondered why it ended up being the woman at home? Probably a lot of the time it's because even women with degrees adn good careers marry older men who earn more - marry up so the higher earner male prevails. When women marry down as I did in that sense then women have happier and better lives perhaps with more equality and shared housework and childcare. The poisoned chalice of the male goose who lays golden eggs and keeps you at home might not be such a fun deal after all as perhaps it can end up a gilded cage.

Jilly it was made very clear to me from an early age that I had a responsibility and an obligation to remain close to home. At 18 my parents point blank refused to allow me to go to university in England (whereas my brother had been encouraged to) as they considered it pretty much indecent for a female to be living alone and without the influence of her family. I'm not even 40 yet, so we're not talking 50 years ago. Some of my friends were encouraged to he independent but many were not. It is very hard to go against that - I was reliant on my parents for financial support for my education, they were only willing to give it on the condition that I went to university near home.

So Jilly, your argument is that women should avoid marrying up and instead try to marry someone who earns less than they do? So in other words just do to the men what you apparently abhor for women. Makes perfect sense. It's good that you want equality.

That is aweful and wrong in so many levels teaclesoda. I want to believe that times are changing.

Good point meechimoo!

Jilly, don't be silly. Most of us didn't marry our husbands looking to marry up or down. My husband earned less than me when we married. Now he earns three times more. That's down to his hard work in securing a partnership, not because we moved to where it was convenient for him, we both wanted to live in London anyway. It's up to me to increase my earning power to match or exceed him, and as london is where most of the private work is, I'm in the right place. What I need to decide is whether I want more money and hours of work, or more leisure time. If I choose fewer working hours, it doesn't make me any less of a feminist.

Well, I'd be lying if I said I don't feel some resentment about it Nolim but on the other hand, my parents aren't awful people - they thought they were doing their parental duty in protecting me from the big bad world and that ultimately I'd be happier as a result. When I asked them recently why they had forbidden it they said they thought it was just a phase, a teenage rebellion, and they thought that I would regret it, because why would anyone want to leave their home?

Oh sorry trea. I didnt mean to imply that your parents are aweful, they did what they considered to be the best for their kids (as we all do). But we are all children of our time and their views at that time would probably be considered outdated now adays.

That is why i said that times are changing or at least i hope so.

OP - talk about judging others. Maybe they aren't rubbing your nose in it? Maybe that is just your own feelings coming to the surface. The post smacks of sour grapes to me :(

I supported my OH through 2 years of being unable to find a job after being made redundant (one of the joys of approching 50). He is now working and I will be a SAHM - I'm in no way sponging off him, which is what your post seems to intimate...

it is only the sexism I don't like - the implications girls don't need to leave home or go to good universities because they will only marry; that girls need protecting and they will in a sense be passed by father/protector to husband protector for life so do not really need careers; that girls care and men keep women. This is very prevalent and women and men would be happier if it stopped.

I think Jilly represents an extreme view. I doubt most women would think in terms of marrying 'up' or 'down'... It's a very outdated concept. I think the reality is probably that more couples than ever want balance; they don't want to feel either partner has to make a major sacrifice, be it sacrificing a career, or conversely going all out to be such a high earner that family time is sacrificed.

I can only go back to what I said previously: although it takes a lot of hard work and team effort to achieve a good balance, I honestly believe there has never been a better opportunity to do it. I feel that dh and I managed to achieve a lifestyle that left neither of us short changed, in terms of either work or family time. And we managed this 25 years ago when there was no paternity leave (dh literally took off the day of the birth) 12 weeks maternity leave, fewer childcare options and certainly no subsidised childcare. We had no family help either. I'm not saying this to boast; among many of my WOHM friends this was totally normal. I just think that if it was possible back then, it's more than possible now, with all the improvements to parental rights, to achieve a work life balance which works for everyone in the family. And that of course includes those who may want one parent as sole earner and the other at home if that's what works for those families

It's not one size fits all is it? Why is it not possible for us to consider ourselves lucky that we can afford for DH to stay at home, and other families equally to consider themselves lucky that they both have good jobs, and other families to feel they have earned time as a SAHP through hard work and scrimping, and other families to feel they've worked hard and scrimped and wish they could have a SAHP but still not be able to afford it? All of those are perfectly possible situations to be in, and none of them are an insult to the others!

Yes it would be good for equality if more families chose for the dad to stay at home. I love that maternity/paternity leave can now be split, I do think that may make a difference - once one parent's career is already compromised by taking a year out, it is understandable that they are the one that decides to stay at home longer term rather than switch.

You wouldn't take a year off with split parental leave though... The year is the total amount. If it had existed when we had children we'd have done 6 months each. Wonderful for the child, and both parents retain their employment.