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.

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.

and

*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.*

Personally I think being a stay at home parent is very rarely a necessity.

I've been in a realtionship with my kids father where I worked longer hours than he did, but he often worked away from home.

I have been a single parent working full time.

Currently my missus and I work similar hours in highly demanding jobs.

There are 7 in our house and somehow I / we have always managed just fine without having to compromise our careers, condense our hours or give up work completely.

Personally I have a huge amount of respect for stay at home parents. It's a hard job. But I also think that when a child starts school full time then staying at home is a luxury rather than a necessity.

But surely people should be allowed that luxury if that's what everyone in the household wants clarrrp?

There's no moral imperative for both parents to work if life is more pleasant for everyone concerned if one doesn't?

Likewise if both parents are career orientated then they will find a way to make that work too.

It's all about choices.

Oh, and I have a different surname from my husband, do people claim that makes life more difficult? Again a strange MN thing I've yet to encounter out there in the real world!

I don't think anyone's saying that they should both work if one of them doesn't want to, and that's a viable option. However, the idea that it is regularly just not possible for both to work seems to me to be an idea based on some pretty dodgy grounds (notably: it is better for a woman to give up work entirely than for a man to be at all inconvenienced).

And yes, people do say that 'it's much easier just to change your name', even though this is demonstrably false. I too find it astonishing, but I promise I'm not making it up!

But surely people should be allowed that luxury if that's what everyone in the household wants clarrrp?

It's entirely that individual families choice if someone doesn't work. I have no issue with that. I just dislike when people say it's 'necessary' to do so.

you are looking after baby so yeah it should be equal

I think for the main part that's true Margaret, and yes it does seem to largely be the woman in a relationship who sacrifices her career rather than the man (obviously there are practical considerations around pregnancy, birth and feeding that really can't be escaped, although they needn't be long-term if the will or necessity is there).

I know plenty of high-achieving couples who have that dynamic, they also have a LOT of support, either familial or employees, which may not be practical for many on average salaries or without family around. However I also accept that many families have no choice but for both partners to work due to financial considerations, so yes, of course it's possible, people make it work every day, I know very few families now who don't have both partners working in some capacity.

I also think that sometimes, too much emphasis is put on work at the expense of family life and that has driven much of the Western world's economy to a model where both partners have to work, merely to afford the expenses of life, it wasn't so long ago that only one person's salary was taken into account when applying for a mortgage (unfortunately that was the man's and that clearly needed to change, but the idea that only one person's earnings should be taken into that calculation, was not, in itself a bad one, house prices really started to surge when two people's salaries could be included in any mortgage offer). I think consequently paid work has taken on a moral dimension (or maybe that's a just a Puritan hangover and has been there all along!).

In our case because of DD's SN and a lack of available family, one of us HAS to be here, as DH's earning potential is vastly higher than mine, and I have no driving career ambitions, it makes sense for me to be the one that takes that role.

So it's not always back and white.

My dh was a SAHD for quite a while. Partly due to circumstances, partly because we thought it would be better for our children and partly because that's what he wanted to do. Before that we used a variety of paid childcare and a weekly cleaner and juggled our hours. Both in fairly decent middle management/professional type roles. Although initially our childcare costs were similar to half our income by the time dh was a SAHD his lost income was significantly more than the cost of afterschool care + cleaner (I don't know where the chauffeur and housekeeper come into it!)

When he was at home he did all the house and child related work, cooking, cleaning etc which was nice for me, but in no way a necessity. I was also able to travel for work without it being an issue. It was a luxury for both of us, but one that after a while I found very stressful as essentially I was working to enable dh to live the life of his choice. I can understand why some WOHDs might become resentful of their wives over time.

Now we both work again and as we have teenagers we only really have to juggle for after school activities and illness. dh still covers me when I travel, and I cover for him if he has to work late or at the weekend.

The plus point of opting for SAHD rather than SAHM is that men seem to get much more of a bye for taking time off. Although some of the mums were a bit funny about it all of the men I worked with were quite envious of dh and gave him kudos for his choice.

i think for some people, the issue is that they may be a single parent and have to do both childcare and work, or a couple that both work and do childcare. they do "both jobs" yet some sahp say how demanding their life is doing half of that or less if kids go to school

I don't think it's true that many women end up being the sahp because men won't entertain it. Yes that's can be the case.

But between people I know (socially and through work) lots of women won't entertain the man in the relationship being the sahp either.

I think (in general) it's an attitude that a lot of men and women have. It needs to change.

I wouldn't always say the sahp is making a sacrifice. Many want to do it. I grew up with girls who didn't want a career. They wanted a job to put them on until they had kids. That was their plan. That was my mums plan. Nothing wrong with it. But if that's what you want it's not a sacrifice.

I don't have a partner but the half of me that does all the housework, the school run, the shopping, cooking, cleaning, gardening, planning, diy, costume making, homework helping, getting up in the night to administer cough medicine, buying of gifts, booking holidays, counselling, etc etc is allowed exactly the same access to household money as the half of me that earns it.

Fact that you split the work of raising a family and running a household between two adults rather than one makes no difference, it gives you the luxury of more options. No sacrifice about it.

Really good description :)

I was a SAHM for 16 years with our 5 DC. I often felt judged and people openly made comments.

I often see the term jobless or 'she had never worked a day in her life' used about SAHM. I think it is worse since the Tories and benefits bashing as (ignorant) people think if you don't work you are a scrounger.

Relatives of mine openly judged me. Always WOHMS who sometimes said they wished they could sah (they could but chose expensive lifestyle, I live frugally).

I know only a couple of mums who work full time. The vast majority work part time. Also more than half have free family childcare or partners who have flexible hours or are teachers (holidays off).

I recently had a period working ft whilst DH had leave. Ft hours themselves weren't hard, it was a doddle with DH at home as I didn't have to.worry re childcare etc. Yet when he was back the stress began. Eg childcare, ill kids, inset day etc.

Many of us have DH that work away or work irregular changing hours. Eg husbands in the forces, emergency services etc. They simply cannot up and leave halfway through an operation etc. So we have to be the main carers etc. People overlook this. Not everyone is equal and has a partner working office hours.

I agree with most of that but I do take issue with your last point, why isn't it equally likely that the woman would work away, be a surgeon, in the forces?

Yes I should have said partner not husband. I am sure some SAHD are in a similar boat.

I've said before on here that I'm not sure that sah parents can ever truly be regarded as equal due to life's pressures and the normal dynamics of personalities and relationships and financial worries.

I don't believe it's even necessarily intentional, mean spirited or arises solely in situations of financial/ emotional control. There are many on mn who will say their relationships are entirely equal and I have no reason to disbelieve this. But in RL I see it all the time among lots of relationships i wouldn't describe as 'controlling'. It's more of an insidious creep of perceptions among the partners involved in the relationship: the sah parent feels, rightly or wrongly, they have less say over spending. The working parent believes that responsibility for budgeting lies with them either by design or default. The sah parent believes they aren't entitled to a bigger say and feels bad for wanting a family holiday. The working parent feels equally bad that they don't believe they can afford it without working longer hours/ getting a different job etc. The sah parent wants to buy new shoes for the kids. The working parent suggests they can make do. These continuous small issues put them both under pressure over time. When there's an argument it becomes: 'well if you want a family holiday perhaps you can get a part time job to help finance it'. This is followed by cries if LTB, he views your contribution as inferior, he's financially controlling etc!

In reality it's the pressures of life taking their toll. Of course these kinds of discussions happen among partners that both earn, and they have to work it out together. But I do think it helps them to work it out of they have a degree of financial independence that allows each partner to have more freedom over spending choices and decisions, necessities and luxuries etc, without guilt or frustration.

If you can make it work then all well and good, but in RL I don't see this happen very often - there is usually an element of resentment borne out of frustration.

I think Lion makes good points. My DP repeatedly tells me that it is our money not his, has worked out how much disposable income we have for clothes etc and is happy for me to just get things, but I automatically tell him every time I'm thinking of spending money. I rarely spend money on anything because we have joint finances. I think if I had a job I would probably nip out on my lunch break and buy the odd "treat" like a cheap necklace or something for DS because would feel I had earned it and could therefore fritter some of it away if I wanted to. DP would be happy for me to do this but I just wouldn't feel right! Yet I should!

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

Like, why though? Why would you have a single fuck to spare for that insignificant, not at all pertinent to you decision?

I'm quite glad that not everybody who could take paid employment chooses to do so. There are few enough job opportunities as it is for those of us who need them. Let people who are able and happy to stay at home jolly well do it, say I. If the earning partner is happy about it too then I fail to see any problem with the arrangement.

Boner: because they are my friends, and so when we do meet up (pretty reglarly) they spend much of their time telling me how busy they are and just how impossible it would be for them to work and how I must be some kind of superwoman to make it work (which I am definitely not). Which is boll. They are all similar age as me with similar aged Los and we live in a part of the country where there are LOADS of options work wise.

I don't have a problem with sahp - I was one for quite a while and felt valued and happy with my choice. There came a point though when ds went to school full time that I realised it wasn't hard work any more and felt like a fraud even thinking of trying to justify my staying at home to my very hard working dp.

But it's a choice so if you make it. Own it and be honest about the work involved and the contribution. When your LOs are at school full time staying at home (assuming there aren't complications like a forces partner) isn't as hard as working full time and is often a luxury and a choice.

I think that's where my judgement of my friendship group comes from. Sahp who don't acknowledge that's it's a choice, but claim they have no plausible alternative and that once the kids are at school that it's just as hard as working full time.

I am just trying to be totally honest in the spirit of a good debate. So again, hope no one is upset by my views.

Its interesting to read everyones views, we have debated this as a friendship group till we are all blue in the face (we are all pretty feisty). And we can't come to a happy conclusion in RL either.

Does everything have to be seen as equal? Some things aren't equal, it would be better to have a discussion about how we make things more equal then just argue over how things are seen.

I work full time, I have a sleep hating, breastfed toddler and am pregnant. I am the main breadwinner and the nursery my DS goes to is opposite where I work so I do all of the nursery runs. I try and take a day a week in holiday to be with my ds (still have lots left over from maternity leave) and I make all of his food from scratch, I also do most of the cleaning and all of the bedtime routines. I pay the largest contribution towards childcare and when my DS has to have his multiple operations this year relating to his disability, I will have to take carers leave to provide the care for DS as DH has an employer who simply will not allow time off for this (he has laughed in his face when this was suggested).

My Dh works long hours in a job that undervalues and underpays him. He is starting to do more of the cooking in the evenings to even things out a little bit, but this often means I don't get to eat until 8:30/9. Hence why I batch cook at the weekend for DS and freeze in portions.

I have sneary comments from some other mothers at a toddler group I attend, telling me that they could NEVER work because they do so much at home (this is often before they sit in a huddle and ignore their children for the next hour). I am fed up of going to toddler groups and feeling completely excluded by the type of mean girls that I last met in school. Or being told how they couldn't contemplate leaving their DS to work full time (My SIL in law regularly says this, MIL looks after DN two days in the week and often Friday night, Saturday day and Saturday night).

I used to try not to, but I find myself judging these people. Judging them for how nasty and horrible they are an how high they place their own pedestals. I know this isn't the case for lots of SAHM, but in my life it's been a reoccurring theme for the last 19 months.

I feel a bit embarassed by being a SAHM because I think people must make some wrong judgments about my situation. I always find myself explaining why I don't WOHM. I wish it was seen as a more acceptable choice for an intelligent woman to make. Part of the reason I find it so hard is that I feel like I've wasted my education, and my days are so repetitive and often lonely. I do sometimes wish it was the norm for women to take several years out of their careers to be SAHMs then go back to work again and not be penalised, because society valued that time. I absolutely see the flaws in that idealistic view, of course.

Why I don't WOH! Not WOHM. Oh the irony.

I don't find your views upsetting aaoo, more bemusing. Probably would if I thought you were my friend and you were judging me, though. As for whether it's harder than a full time job, I can't say for sure as I'm neither a SAHP nor the owner of any school aged children, but it seems to me that would depend entirely on both the full time job in question and the amount and nature of the work the SAHP is providing.

Aren't there SAHMs who were happy to give up their jobs to spend time with their children and whose husbands are happy to work to support them? Where a traditional arrangement works and everyone is happy?