Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think only women with rich partners are encouraged and celebrated as SAHM.

321 replies

malificent7 · 04/01/2017 21:24

If you are skint or single then you are seen as lazy for wanting to be a SAHM.

This is following from my 'terribly entitled' thread. I made it very clear that I had to give up my teaching career as it was destroying my mental health. I am now a skint TA but much happier at work and I alos have time for dd.

The amount of people suggesting that I go back into teaching to balance the books even though it nearly ruined me was strange.
I was being encouraged to take up a more family unfriendly job.

Whereas if a woman in better circumstances comes on and says that she is struggling to balance work and family life she is often encouraged to give up work if she can afford it an did celebrated as being a good mother.

AIBU to wonder if SAHM are less stigmatised if well off?

OP posts:
123yourusername · 05/01/2017 17:22

If you claim benefits to be a SAHM then yes YABU!

Philoslothy · 05/01/2017 17:35

I disagree that women with high earning partners get a free ride on this- it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you dont

SAHM = "lazy", "living off your partner", "what will you do if he leaves you?" "bad role model for your daughter" blah blah

IME these insults only exist on MN, in real like nobody has ever said any of this stuff to me . When I worked people were positive and when I gave up work they were equally positive

Out2pasture · 05/01/2017 18:34

Having extra resources (family or money) allows people to have extra choices.

OP you can live as you see fit but you need to come to terms with your income. You want to work as a TA, spend time with your daughter than do it well and rock it like a champ.
Be content with your choice but you need to fund this on your own. A simple life might mean no freezer, it might mean making your own bread and knitting your own hats and sweaters it might mean owning a bicycle not a car.

cherrycrumblecustard · 05/01/2017 18:34

I think there is an element of "polite surprise" when you work, especially full time, and have preschool aged children. That's my personal experience, though.

EthelEgbert · 05/01/2017 20:37

We're entitled to housing benefit, council tax reduction etc but we don't want to claim it because of the stigma.
Shock
I don't know anything about benefits but is your information publicly available if you receive them? How would anyone know that you claimed for these benefits? We don't get any benefits, I don't know how it works.

EthelEgbert · 05/01/2017 20:39

I don't think being a SAHM is a luxury at all. No matter what your income. Everyone should have a choice, it's a shame that many can't afford to work when they want to and that many have to work when they'd prefer to be at home FT.

corythatwas · 05/01/2017 23:27

Out2pasture, the world is long gone in which knitting your own sweaters, even with the cheapest wool available, was cheaper than buying a sweater from Primark, or baking bread was cheaper than buying a pre-sliced loaf from Liddls. Home-made means better quality- for those who can afford it.

Out2pasture · 06/01/2017 02:40

Sewing and knitting isn't cheap, but it will keep you busy when you can't fit TV into your finances.
DH makes bread as necessary (2-3 times per week) the cost savings for us is significant .29 cents a loaf vs $2.
Different people will do different things to stay within budget and not borrow but live the lifestyle they want.

Sixisthemagicnumber · 06/01/2017 06:02

outtopasture I am a sahm who sews a fair bit and the TV is definitely more economical than my sewing hobby. My sewing machine cost more to buy than the TV. Even for somebody who sews by hand rather than machine it will work out more expensive per year than a tv licence if they sew frequently. The cost of even cheaper fabric, thread, buttons, zips, patterns and any other notions really adds up and is out of reach of many on tight budgets.

GreenGinger2 · 06/01/2017 07:08

Yabu

I've been a MNer many years. You've clearly missed the many vitriolic threads aimed at Sahm supported by their partners. When I was a Sahm I read threads accusing those who fund it themselves as sponging off poor put upon dads( even though we enabled said dads to do very stressful jobs and save huge amounts on childcare)depriving the state of taxes we could be paying( when many of us saved for our time off and enabled our partners to put far more in the tax coffers than many mums who work part time and are supported by the state),ladies who lunch,ladies who sit on the sofa all day with nothing to contribute on threads or society as we weren't worthy enough,lazy,unlikely to ever get a job again,likely to be dumped by our partners........

I had 10 years off and I'm now back at work full time. Educationally and mentally it was the best thing for my children. For us financially it was shit. Towards the end I'm not entirely sure it was that great for my MH.

The vitriol on MN doesn't appear in Rl.

Greenleave · 06/01/2017 07:31

My elder daughter used to have reflux and we were trying to conceive with our second child, I was almost the only wife working(or working full time) among my friends or people that I know. I was the one who made to look bad, as if my husband and my child didnt have my full support, I didnt keep our house as nicely as others and all others have been a devoted wife/mothers. At the same time I am exhausted all the time and didnt understand the staying at home mom's stress when everything is so relaxed and rosy for them from my perspective. I think it takes both side. I still dont understand now in England all media always have a massive title saying: a devoted mom who give up work and stay at home to give their family best support (as if the working moms are bad cops). From my point of view, if you have a choice being healthy and able and still be able to stay at home and do not go to work then count yourself lucky. Not everyone could afford to do the same. The benefit system should work in a sense of supporting working parents more to encourage parents to go to work rather than to punish them.

Redlocks28 · 06/01/2017 07:36

I still dont understand now in England all media always have a massive title saying: a devoted mom who give up work and stay at home to give their family best

All media? Always?! Hmm

GreenGinger2 · 06/01/2017 07:51

It was the best thing for our family too,by no means a luxury but a necessity.

I do think that partners who want their partners to take time off should be held to account further down the line should relationships break down and that being a sahp should be made official if a joint decision. An awful lot of men reap the benefits for their children,their career,their family and themselves. I think it can get forgotten further down the line.

GreenGinger2 · 06/01/2017 07:55

The benefit system already helps working parents in spades. We got zilch,only my CB taken away even though 2 x wp on more got to keep it. I have never claimed any benefit other than CB,ditto my dh and we started with nothing at age 18. I get things have changed over the years but don't say working families get nothing they do,a lot.Help with childcare and benefits.

GreenGinger2 · 06/01/2017 08:00

The last I heard families with 1 wp are still working families.

Also children are your own decision,not sure the state should automatically fund children you choose to have.

Sixisthemagicnumber · 06/01/2017 08:14

What is the alternative to the state helping to fund children for low income families green? Do you want to see children in dire poverty? Do you think that children should be taken away from parents who can't afford them )that would cost the state more)? Do you think poor people should be sterilised to make sure they don't have children that they need financial help from the state to provide for?
We need workers at all pay levels in order to make the country work and we shouldn't penalise those at the bottom of the payscale by denying them the option to have children and nor should we subject Those children to poverty by refusing state financial help where required. Not financially helping poorer families with children will only lead to higher costs out of the public purse in the long run. and even dire poverty doesn't prevent people from having children so let's not punish the children.

GreenGinger2 · 06/01/2017 08:39

Not saying that at all. Unlimited amounts given to unlimited amounts of children though simply isn't doable.

OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 06/01/2017 08:43

I don't know anything about benefits but is your information publicly available if you receive them? How would anyone know that you claimed for these benefits?

No but it doesn't need to be, does it. The shame is enough. It's here in spades in some of these posts; "if you're using benefits to fund your lifestyle then YABU" etc. I'd rather be working, but we'd be worse off than we are now - I don't see it as a "lifestyle" so much as a necessity.

Manumission · 06/01/2017 08:46

Ovaries in the nicest possible way, you're being daft. You're more likely to be able to climb back out of the tight patch, if you take the small subsidy that you're legally entitled to now.

This is what the system is for.

mimishimmi · 06/01/2017 09:01

You get judged even if you are well-off, whether working or not.

EthelEgbert · 06/01/2017 10:00

Manumission
I agree!

Why on earth would you not take the benefits that you are entitled to - they are there to give you a chance to get out of just scraping by! Especially if no one has to know unless you tell them. There's no shame in taking what is due to you. We take all the tax loopholes that we can, it's stupid for us not to.

Lateralthinker2016 · 06/01/2017 10:08

I agree- I have to work and would much prefer to be at home. I think it's a disgrace that it's now a privilege for only those who can afford it Angry

EthelEgbert · 06/01/2017 10:12

I had a friend who lived in Switzerland and she said it was almost impossible for her to go back to work the first year of her child's life as there was no childcare and she was effectively given a year's salary or something - is this true? She was there for her job though so had no family, she wanted to go back to work but couldn't.

Manumission · 06/01/2017 10:12

think it's a disgrace that it's now a privilege for only those who can afford it

But that's not true is it?

It can't be when a contingent of people (women mostly) are still being trapped into being SAHPs because they can't afford the cost of childcare.

There's more than one way of being stuck in a situation. You're making an outrageous blanket generalisation based on your own circumstances.

EthelEgbert · 06/01/2017 10:15

As I said it's a disgrace both ways - for those trapped into working when they don't want to and for those who can't afford to work when they do want to.

Families should have choices in a developed country's economy.