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.

My daughter is at school and goes to a childminder 7am -6pm two days a week and my son goes to nursery 7.45-5.15pm. (Childminder is near our house as daughter goes to a local school, and I commute which makes up the time difference). My husband has a big powered job in financial services and often work away mon-Fri. we have no family nearby. It took a bit of thinking to organise out childcare but it was worth it to allow us both to work on those 2 days. I always do drop offs for my son because his nursery is near my work, but husband helps with daughter's pick ups and drop offs when he's not working away. I love working part time and am lucky not to be full time because he earns well.

I think it depends on the salary of the working partner in regards to the financial equability of the SAHP.

If the working partner is earning millions then I don't necessarily agree that the SAHM partner is entitled to an equal split of assets.

Be provided for (and children provided for) in line with the working partners earnings absolutely, but not an equal split no.

These are rare celebrity circumstances though so don't come up very often!

Why on earth don't you think they should be entitled to half of he millions??

Isn't the whole point of marriage that you are a partnership and therefor share everything? This is the presumption the courts start with in a divorce (50/50)...

Yes. If you build a life together it is the life you jointly make possible imo.
why does that argument not apply to lower amounts? So someone earning £40k should have to give a lower proportion of their assets to their spouse compared to someone earning £20k?
Does the other partner get to decide that they don't deserve someone whom puts their all into their half of the bargain - Child rearing and household support?

Because we're talking about celebrity or other high profile extremely high earners. And in these cases you can go into a marriage with no assets and come out after a very few years with half of an enormous fortune or get a spousal monthly support which is far beyond what most people earn in a year.

I don't think that's right, particularly when no children are involved.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that it is often possible to organise childcare, in a complicated arrangement like we have, to enable the mother to work. Some people don't appear to try and look at the options and just give up work. Fair enough it doesnt bother me, I would much rather work 2 long days a week than stay at home all week. My salary minus childcare pays for a fortnightly cleaner, I have time to batch cook around DS, can do some school runs, have a professional identity. So it suits us.

I agree a very short marriage might be different. But in general I think if you commit to someone and build your lives together you both put in your best and you both get half at the end.

Also, isn't the work/ child rearing division a joint decision that both parties to a marriage are responsible for?

I have never heard anyone on MN say men are more entitled to assets etc

Courts make allowances for differing circumstances but the starting presumption of a 50/50 split has to be right. So I think it's clear that society presumes the contribution of both parties to a marriage is equal unless proved otherwise.

I also run a small business (not network marketing!) Alongside my part time job in the evenings, and will increase the hours i put into that when both childrwn are at school. Good flexibility and enjoyable, there are quite a few work from home opportunities around that parents can do e.g. call centre, ironing, etc if they are uncomfortable with not earning, to contribute financially. If both parties are happy with one being a SAHP then fair enough but what happens when the children start school? Imo it's good to have a plan.

I agree stealth.

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.

NOOOOOOOOOOO! YANBU!

Stealth - I agree with marriages where the less earning or SAHM Mother has enabled the high earner to build a career and facilitated that etc. I think we probably think the same in those situations.

I'm thinking more in terms of for example Heather Mills married Paul McCartney in 2002, legally separated four years later and divorce finalised in 2008. One child whom obviously should be provided for but I imagine McCartney would see his child as his and provide for her anyway. Heather Mills got almost £25 million in her divorce settlement after a four year marriage when McCartney fortune was made way before she came along.

And he can absolutely afford it but I don't think it's fair she received that amount (an amount which is unimaginable for most people and will still fund far in excess of a luxurious lifestyle) .

And yes, a court thought it was fair but I'm allowed not to

Have calmed now. I was a SAHM for 7 years. It was our choice. Our DC benefitted imo and so did DH. He always said that he never worried about the DC because he knew I was there with them and for them. He could focus on wrk. It was a partnership and never did we think he was working harder or that I was working harder. Now I work part time and he is the highest earner but I do the majority of housework as I am home half the day. It's fair.We have been happily married for 20 years.

Some parents are happy being SAHPs, some prefer to work in some capacity. No judgement here I just don't like it when people claim its not possible for one parent to work, when actually it could quite feasibly be possible.

Families are complicated. People should do what works for their circumstances, what is necessary and, beyond that, what the fuck they want.

No disrespect to OP but i do all of that as a lone parent and work, granted its only 30-35hours pw with no childcare options (paid or family). I have found that we as a group also get looked down upon, it isnt looked upon as valued work or proper work.

In my opinion it is like an arch.
Each side would collapse without the other. Both sides are equal with the keystone in the middle.

How much to hire a nanny, cleaner, manager, cook, handyman, chauffeur
baby bearer.

I think it's an amazing job. I'm not a SAHM but on mat. leave. There is no way on this earth I could afford not to go to work, but I really wish I could just leave my job. Yes, it's hard work at home, but the kids really value it, the house looks tidier and I feel like I'm being a 'proper' parent rather than a mum who had no time for anyone/anything. Don't feel like it's not valued. In this crazy expensive world, feel lucky! I'm envious

No disrespect to OP but i do all of that as a lone parent and work, granted its only 30-35hours pw with no childcare options (paid or family)

That is exactly why I personally would not describe being a SAHP as "hard work" , even to be honest with two pre schoolers at home. Lots of parents do what we do and work and single parents do it without the support of a partner.

I chose this lifestyle precisely because it was not hard work, I think working hard ( if you are not doing so to pay the basic bills) is overrated .

I think that when people say they work outside the home and still do everything a SAHP does and more, they tend to overlook the 24/7 childcare part. Yes, it is possible to do all the same housework, cooking etc in the hours you are at home, but if you aren't the person looking after your DCs during the day then you aren't doing everything a SAHP does. That isn't a value judgment; it is a fundamental difference between being a SAHP and being a WOHP! I am with my DS constantly. Every whinge, every toy dropped off the highchair, every cry. It has undeniable perks but it is tough never having time away, recognition, workmates etc.

I have a DS who is just over two and I went back to work when he was 10 months. I'm lucky that I can do full time hours over three days which means I still get four full days at home with my DS.

When I returned to work full time I had some colleagues making sneery comments about how many hours I was doing seeing as I had a baby at home and it used to drive me mad. I was only away from him three days a week but apparently that's just too many.

Also, do some people think we can just decide not to return to work full time when there are mortgages and bills to pay?

One colleague was asking me if me and DH were considering having another child and she said, "Well there's no way you'd come back full time if you had two children at home would you?" And I was like, "Why not?" She looked horrified that I would even consider it.

And why is nobody making sneering comments about all fathers who remain in full time employment? Why are they absolved of all sneery accusations or insinuations that working FT is somehow neglecting the children? I really can't stand the double standards over this issue sometimes.

DS is in childcare two days a week (that's all we need due to my shifts) and my husband does all the drop offs and pick ups because my hours don't allow it.

To be honest I probably could reduce my hours without causing any huge financial hardship but it would then mean we couldn't put money in savings, have holiday funds, contribute monthly to DS's bank account etc so I'm happy with my three days a week.

Naturally though it leads to a bit of a stalemate in the house regarding housework as seeing I'm at home 4 days a week my DH likes to think I should be doing most of it even though I work full time just like him

To writerwannabe, oh please - laugh long and loud in the face of your judgey colleagues! Your body, your baby, yours and your husband's business