Aibu to think being a sahm should mean you are an equal?

[Babygiraffejungle]

So many times I hear people in rl and on here talking about marriages. The consensus often seems to be that if one partner (usually the man), is the sole earner, or the higher earner, that he should have a bigger entitlement to any assets. It's his money, he worked hard for it, the house is more his.

Surely the sahp is facilitating the other parents career? By providing childcare mainly and usually doing housework and cooking too.

I work part time and dh works full time. I earn 1/4 of what he earns. My basic salary is actually not much less but dh works a load more basic hours plus overtime.

I'm responsible for all of the school runs, if one of the dc are ill I have to take the day off, I also have to work my leisure time around dhs job. I sort all school stuff like sports day, parents evenings, assembly, and do all of the running around to clubs. I feel that I'm a capable person and that I could better myself but I'm restricted on what hours I can work.

Dh is out of the house 7.30-6.00 and often longer. He has to work weekends sometimes, he has to work on call, he has to work away. He couldn't do any of that if I wasn't doing the childcare, or he'd have to hire a live in nanny.

Taking all of that into account I don't understand why it isn't valued and seen as proper work.

In fairness old why would you pay all of those people full time to replace the work of one person?

To be fair I see that very rarely on MN.

However I'm a SAHM in RL and I do occasionally feel like shit, ie I make new friends via nursery etc, the talk inevitably talks to 'what do I do', then I watch them glaze over as I say I'm a SAHM. I can pretty much see the internal sneer.

I'm sure I sound ridiculously paranoid but I'm genuinely amazed how many fellow women - in my sphere, at least - seem to think I'm a lesser being for the decision I've made. It's a shame.

I think it is valued on MN (albeit not always in real life). I think that people just don't over-value it. For example, in your situation it is clear that effectively you work at least as hard as your DH. I can't see anybody denying that your contribution is equal and that it is your support that enables your DH's career. The issues that I've heard people raise with SAHMs are only really in relation to women who choose never to return to work. Families are perfectly entitled to adopt that arrangement, but there is then not much sympathy when the women who have made that choice suddenly find themselves without any financial independence or security following a divorce.

I know some SAHMs who work much harder than their respective partners, and who have much less leisure time than their DHs do. I actually get angry that they allow that situation to arise, and wonder if perhaps they don't value themselves enough. I know others who, frankly, don't do very much at all now their children are at school and rely on the fact that their husbands are wealthy. They are still facilitating their husbands' careers, but at least from a financial perspective they are doing so to a lesser extent.

I think that's a really good point about some men believing they have granted their partners wish to become a mum.

Yes to that, if you hired a nanny, cook, cleaner it would cost an arm and a leg.

Even when both of my dc are at school I still couldn't do any job I wanted. Dh will never be available even for breakfast/after school club drop offs. Given that he has to do 24/7 on call on a rota and also work away he'd need a live in nanny.

I don't think the posts about full time cooks cleaners etc help. Childcare of course. Cleaners to some extent. But working parents cook, clean and chauffeur their children about. It's part of being an adult or a parent.

Even when both of my dc are at school I still couldn't do any job I wanted. Dh will never be available even for breakfast/after school club drop offs. Given that he has to do 24/7 on call on a rota and also work away he'd need a live in nanny.

So from your personal perspective this no doubt makes sense. The problem from a societal perspective (as was discussed on another fairly recent thread) is that it is based on the assumption that the husband can do any job he wants, including working away and on a rota, while the wife has to make the sacrifices and take time off work because child rearing is primarily her role. Not a criticism of your arrangement because it no doubt works for you, but just an example of where something might feel like a personal criticism of a SAHM but is in fact based on questioning the assumptions and expectations in our society.

I agree the posts comparing SAHM to full-time professional cooks, cleaners, chauffeurs, etc. are not helpful and not realistic. The financial estimates extolling the monetary benefit of SAHM also tend to overlook the costs of an SAHM in terms of being responsible for providing her shelter, transportation, food, sundries/clothing/leisure, telecom and gadgets, etc. and the opportunity cost of her not contributing to family savings, etc. - it's not a one-way street.

*I am equal to my partner.
It's our money, whoever earns it.
Anyone who thinks differently is an idiot. *

I've handled too many divorces to agree with you - you'd be shocked at how petty couples can get when they are separating and it comes to money and contribution to finances and assets. It gets more complicated when it's a stay at home parent who isn't working and isn't contributing financially because then it becomes a case of assessing the value of that in financial terms.

It's also why I always advise couple to not completely share finances if they are working and instead to each have their own account plus a joint account into which they both contribute a set amount each month - that way there is no dispute over money.

If my husband hired staff to look after our home and children, the chances are they wouldn't have the same qualifications or work experience as me, so it's a kind of non point.
Without my career, if I let myself ponder it too much, I feel utterly invisible. And I can't go back to it as there's no way it would fit around school commitments, so we would have to hire a nanny/staff and for the hours I was expected to work, I would hardly see the kids at all, so my career and a large part of my identity has evaporated.

DH and I both wanted kids equally. I've stayed at home, he's gone to work. We are a team. Neither could do what they do without the other.

if dh took days off like that he'd lose his job it's the nature of the industry he's in.

Sorry. You're wrong. Any employee has the right to take compassionate leave at any time and cannot be penalised for it. Compassionate leave covers things like a dependant being ill or a family emergency - but it also covers things like the breakdown of normal care - such an unexpected school closure or a childminder not turning up. It also covers unexpected incidents at school which facilitate the need for a parent - such as a child falling ill, getting injured, suspended or getting into a fight.

Your partner is well within his rights to take reasonable time off to deal with these things and his employer, but law, must let him. If he has told you otherwise then he's telling you porkies.

Usually most people react negatively to mothers that aren't sahms? At least that's my experience...

1horatio I disagree. If you have a wee job, for "pin money" that doesn't interfere with the school run, that's fine.

I haven't seen that opinion much on here.. Maybe in real life. I'm currently a sahm and got a comment from a neighbour in his garden when I walked past with DS earlier about being a lady of leisure while DH is out earning the money. However, the fact is that DH is the one working and earning all of the means to keep us, and if he wasn't able to, or didn't earn enough, I wouldn't be able to stay at home with our baby, in fact we would have struggled to have a baby in the first place. So I never think in terms of him being able to 'do as he pleases' or 'swan in at 8'.. He's been at work, just as I have. But at least I've seen our son that day, he won't have.

It's hard, raising a small child- practically and financially. I don't find it helpful to compare who it's harder for, DH or me. It is different to each of us.

Legally he might have the right to time off but with small business it's often an unsaid thing that you just don't. Besides anything else our work is totally different. Dh couldn't leave work half way through a job as it would cost his company money and he'd be too far away.

He could change jobs if he had to though, just like you had to.

got a comment from a neighbour in his garden when I walked past with DS earlier about being a lady of leisure

I got that one day when I was sitting in the garden with the kids - on a saturday I might add- and they were playing while I was sitting with a stack of briefs prepping for court on the following monday while keeping an eye on the littlies. Lady of leisure my ass. :(

The whole of society undervalues and disrespects SAHMs

I don't think this is true, I don't think I have ever been undervalued or disrespected as a SAHM. To be honest people assume that I work far harder than I actually do and that I am some kind of selfless saint for giving up a career when to be honest I don't really like the whole 9-5 routine and children gave me a way out.

Imagine if you paid a full time housekeeper, nanny, gardener, butler and a cook. They ran the household completely. Did it all*

I would expect paid staff to work far harder than me. I would be rather pissed off if staff kept going out for lunch, watching day time TV and eating all the biscuits.

Of course as a SAHM I have parenting "work" to do but it is not of the same level of demand as a paid employee.

got a comment from a neighbour in his garden when I walked past with DS earlier about being a lady of leisure

If anybody says this - it happens rarely - I say yes I am a lady of leisure and consider myself to be very very lucky

Plus if you were employing them all full time then they'd all overlap at least some of the time.

The problem with threads like this is that SAHP or SAHMs are not all alike. We also mix in different circles.

Nobody has ever disrespected me but clearly others have felt that way. I don't find it particularly hard work but with different children or in a different set up I might do. I would struggle to be a SAHP if money was tight because the ability to travel, socialise etc is important to me.

Clarrp

I don't know which part you are disagreeing with.

I am equal to my partner.
It is our money whoever earns it.
And I do think anyone thinking differently about our mutual status within our relationship is, indeed, an idiot.

I know what our likely division of assists would be in the event we split and actually I'd get a bit more than him.

I think being a SAHP is just as important as a working parent.

In my marriage me and dh are equal, I am a SAHM but I do have an income from my own business and rental properties. My money and dh wages all go in to joint accounts and we can spend as we wish.
DH also does his fair share of looking after ds on his days off.

If my father hadn't had my DMum to look after the kids, the house, and him, there's no way he'd have got as far as he did with his work.

He wouldn't have been able to be at work from 7 til 7 every day and hole himself up in the study at the weekends. He wouldn't have been able to commit to overseas meetings and urgent deadlines. He would have very likely missed out on his big promotions as he just couldn't commit to them. He would have had to do ALL the housework AND the shopping AND all the laundry (including making sure he had clean shirts etc - v important for big meetings etc of course) AND look after the kids AND get them to school AND take time off when we were ill / on holidays. He couldn't have done that in addition to working the hours he did / does (which are all hours god sends - he's now his own boss, but he has no other interests at all). Something would have had to give.

Or alternatively he could have paid for a full-time nanny (plus cover for when they were on holiday), a cleaner to come in a few times a week, someone to do his laundry to make sure he's always in clean shirts and suits etc, a gardener, maybe someone to do the shopping and cooking and dogwalking (would a nanny do that?).

So if my mum was out of the picture, he'd either have had to sacrifice his career or pay an awful lot for help. We'd have had a lot less money whichever way he played it. My mum's name might not be on the paycheck, but she's earned it just as much as he did. If my mum hadn't been enabling him every step of the way, he would never have got as far.