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.

Yes that's a very fair point. But when women talk about the cost of a full time nanny, cleaner, housekeeper, chauffeur, I think they are over estimating, plus if they do all that then presumably they will earn to offset some of that cost.
After all there are millions of families where both parents work who manage just fine without three or four full time staff

And if your mum had worked presumably your dad would have done half the cooking, cleaning etc. Not all of it.

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.

What happens when your SAHW is ill and is finding it hard to look after the little babies? Like today feeling rotten DH came home early from work because the toddler and the baby can't entertain themselves whilst I'm ill. I don't know if he is going to get to claim holiday or sick or what?? It seems everything is geared up to help working parents if the children are sick but not ill spouses..... I guess the SAHP is made of steel and never gets sick??? dunno

Sorry, I hate being this ill.

I used to be the highest earner, often earning double the amount DH earned until I had our first baby. I went back out to work and got injured. I kept working, but less than before because it hurt like hell (still does) and became a full time SAHM in 2014 because the pain was too much and I was expecting again. I don't have a choice.

No doubt true, Lockheart, but that is assuming he would have chosen to have kids even without a SAHW. And don't forget the cost of supporting a SAHP in the equation; they aren't working "for free" in comparison to hired help, they are working in exchange for being financially supported. And if she had worked for wages, he might not have needed to earn as much money himself. It's not really a black-and-white issue. Costs, benefits and outcomes will vary quite a bit by household. The important thing is making sure both parties are on the same page before any irrevocable decisions are made.

Monkey that's tough :(

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.

I had the impression that what people contribute to a marriage made no difference in a divorce context? That a spouse is presumed to be entitled to half even if they contributed bugger-all?

There's some really good points made here it's made me think.

So true that working parents often still do all the cooking and cleaning on top of their job. Although I guess having someone at home takes the pressure off.

I'm not sure how you can make it completely fair. I suppose you both need to be completely happy and I guess that's why divorce is so messy.

It's been 8 years now and it's getting worse stealth but I plod on. I have to. But what is tough is that it's a hidden injury only seen on MRI, my in-laws are AWOL because they think I'm faking it - that's what's crap!!

I think you should 100% decide to have children TOGETHER, no good can come of 'giving' 1 person the child because that is where the resentment will lie. When the SAHP is looking after the kids, that parent is working, when the other parent is home, both share responsibility for the home and everyone/thing in it. I am a SAHM for my children, I am not a slave to my husband. bloody well feel like it though

Hmmm, interesting. If I am totally, totally honest (and I am sorry if this upsets) I have to admit that I am bit at my sahm friends who's kids are now in full time school and who still don't work.

I work full time (start at 7am so I can do school collect at 3.30), and earn roughly same as dp. I would never have joint finances and we split the work at home.

When we had DS I was terrified of being a sahm, and went back to work asap (after a year) - because I think OP is right. In RL people do judge, and have to admit I find it hard not to...

Disclaimer: obvs if you have pre-school LOs and or complex home sitch then fair enough. Sometimes being working parent just isn't possible.

What happens when your SAHW is ill and is finding it hard to look after the little babies? Like today feeling rotten DH came home early from work because the toddler and the baby can't entertain themselves whilst I'm ill. I don't know if he is going to get to claim holiday or sick or what?? It seems everything is geared up to help working parents if the children are sick but not ill spouses..... I guess the SAHP is made of steel and never gets sick??? dunno

He would be entitled to compassionate leave because you were ill and unable to take care of the children - dependants - and so he was required to do it.

The things with compassionate leave is that companies are not required to pay you for it and it's down to teh individual company as to what their policy is.

Hope you're feeling better.

All these posts about how big earners can only do it because of the SAHP - how about the many, many couples who both work long hours? I think there's almost always some drawing back on the work front from at least one parent, but it's just untrue to say you can only work 12 hour days if you have a non-working partner.

I rarely see that expressed tbh, and it is usually shot down. I was a sahm for 5 years, I was in the majority amongst my friends. I don't know many families with two full time workers. It isn't a job, it certainly isn't the "toughest job in the world" or whatever but it is valuable, it matters and it fills a role that most families need. As a unit you identify needs...one need is money, one is childcare. Whether you outsource the latter or not it is still needed, so both are important!

I do think that as a Sahm I was (rightly so) more responsible for 'keeping house', cooking etc.

I agree Margaret. In my former life I had a career that required travel away from home, late meetings and last minute demands. As a teacher I was at work for 7am most days if the week. My husband has also had to travel etc - we just juggled as do lots of families. We did need some paid help but the cost of that was far outweighed by our salaries.

Life is much easier now that I am at home but it is a luxury not a necessity

Most couples where both work long hours have either live-in childcare, plus cleaner etc or family who live locally and are willing to pitch in. I don't know how you would do it otherwise. There is no childcare local to me before 7.30am or after 6pm.

And this goes for single parents too - most find their choice of job or working hours are restricted by childcare availability.

AaoograhaHoa,

The thing about that though is that I personally don't give a toss what other people think of my being a sahm with school age children. So, however hard it is for you not to judge and however quickly you went back to work in case other people judged you, it doesn't necessarily matter.

If people want to judge other people's choices they will do so. I never explained myself in real life. I only occasionally do so on here. If people asked me what I do at home while the DC are at school I would say 'whatever the fuck I like'

Funnily enough when DH stopped working for a couple of years the primary reaction was 'good for you'

Of course two parents can both work, but like us one usually ends up needing to work restricted hours which means limiting their work possibilities.

Most childcare is available weekdays 7.30am-6.00pm, round here nurseries all start at 8am and after school care is until 5.30pm, so one parent needs to be there between those hours.

It's not impossible to find work within those hours of course.

I couldn't go and work evenings or weekends or do very early starts and have dh do his job/hours as well.

But aren't you assuming that the same parent has to do the 8am (say) drop-off and the 6pm (say) pick-up? Why would that be the case if there are two of them? Anyway, I agree that most couples where, for e.g., both are city lawyers will have private and expensive childcare. However, some people are trying to claim that it would just be impossible for a successful city lawyer (again, for eg.) to have a partner doing 9-5 rather than being at home, and that's just not true.

Anyone who thinks a sahp isn't contributing is a nutcase

Well for us dh isn't available for any drop offs or pick ups. He usually leaves 7.30am and gets in at 6.00pm. Very often he has to leave even earlier it depends where he's working. I am completely 100% responsible for drop offs and pick ups.

What you will often find is that couples do the same type of work - this is how they met. If this job involves travel or shift work, after having a baby one of the couple has to give it up.
They can try and get other work, but their skills & experience are not so relevant in other roles and they are competing against many other people who want a job without unsociable hours. So they find the salary they can earn is much reduced - often they think that it isn't worth the effort of holding down the job,paying the childcare plus doing everything else as well.
The person sacrificing the career tends to be the woman because men on the whole are not willing to do this. Because they have been socialised into doing what is best for themselves rather than prioritizing others. Women tend to be socialised in to putting others first.

It does depend on what the wohp job involves.

Those in the forces wouldn't be much help with childcare.

I agree with Margaret. Up until recently both dh and I had demanding jobs, taking up long hours but we managed without paying for nannies, cleaners etc. We had help from one gp and staggered our drop off and collections.

Ultimately as long as both parties in the marriage are happy with the arrangement what does it matter what anyone else things? Some people don't want to be a
Sahp, some do, some have no choice whether they are or are not. There's a million different ways of a working the family dynamic no way is right or wrong. A family to me is a team, income belongs to the family regardless of who earnt what.

Well, there are single parents who somehow make those hours work.

Look, I'm not in any way trying to dismiss what SAHPs do, nor do I think there's anything wrong with a family making the choice for one partner not to work. And I absolutely, completely believe that two people in a relationship should always regard each other as equal. However, I just think that this idea that it is simply not possible for two parents to have fulfilling, interesting jobs at the same time is something society tells women to justify and maintain the status quo (much like how I know a lot of women who really, honestly believe that it makes life difficult if a husband and wife have different surnames). People do it, and make it work. I don't do it, by the way, to be clear. But I know people that do. I have friends doing it now, and I grew up in a house where both parents worked, even though my dad did the sort of job with the sort of hours that lots of people claim make a SAHM a necessity.

It's a strange one, I've been at home with the children for nearly ten years and I have never felt judged or sneered at or felt less valued, or had this opinion voiced to me, I've also never felt any contempt from mothers who work, we make our choices, and those of that are able to are extremely lucky to be able to.

Even though both my DCs are school age I'm still at home because DD has SN and is currently not at school, even when she goes back in September it still probably wouldn't be feasible for me to work as I'll be needed on hand in case things aren't running smoothly with her.

DH and I both chose to have children, we need each-other in our respective roles to keep things running as smoothly as they do.

As individuals we're both suited to them too, I'm not really a 9-5er, but I contribute a huge amount to the well-being of the whole family. It wouldn't even occur to me that I'm not an equal in the relationship (in fact most major decisions are made by me, and that suits DH, it works for US).

I've never felt diminished by my choices and I've NEVER met anyone in RL who questioned them for a minute. Possibly because I feel confident about them, and myself.

As for the implications of divorce, I was married before, no DC, and I didn't work then (due to moving countries, I was working when I met Ex-H, but we moved shortly after), when we divorced I was awarded exactly 50% of the marital assets. In my current situation I expect I would be awarded slightly more, although I appreciate the long-term repercussions of being so long out of the job-market would be potentially detrimental.

I think the big killer of the career of one of the couple is if the other has a job that requires a lot of travel. If one person is away most of the week, every week there is no way the other person can share pick-ups and drop-offs, so the non-travelling partner has their working hours curtailed. Plus they are knackered from having to do everything all week.
Many well-paid jobs require a lot of travel.