Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 8 9 10 11 12 13

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:

Bobochic · 08/01/2017 13:29

YelloDraw - I think that's a very mean spirited post, and also untrue. The cost of working is usually a lot higher than just the cost of childcare.

Cosmicglitterpug · 08/01/2017 13:31

Weird thing to say yellow

SnatchedPencil · 08/01/2017 13:36

Women who stay at home because they prefer to and can afford to are to be encouraged. Women who stay at home because they prefer to and rely on benefits are just milking the system.

Having a child is not a "job". It should not be seen as a way to earn a few quid as an alternative to actually getting of your arse and getting a job!

It is fair enough that people are discouraged from having children they can't afford, especially if they make no effort to support their children themselves.

Philoslothy · 08/01/2017 13:55

You see so much "I can't go back to work because child care will just be equal to my wage". What is actually meant by that is "I can't be bothered because it will be really hard work in the short term".

No it means that there is little point working and missing your children if there is little financial gain.

I don't work because I can't be bothered and have no problem admitting that.

RebelRogue · 08/01/2017 14:18

Let's get starting point oh wage= childcare. So your wage is gone completely. Add in transport and other work related costs. Now if you're a single parent,depending on earnings and criteria for benefits,you might lose some of the benefits as well. So you actually have less money each month, but the bills are the same,rent is the same,food costs the same. It might be a "short term" struggle but your kid still needs to eat,a roof over their heads,clothes on their back. I don't think a mother worrying where the money will come from can't be bothered. The number just don't add up.

RebelRogue · 08/01/2017 14:19

Oh and in some cases it's not even about financial gain,it's an issue of actual financial loss.

Sixisthemagicnumber · 08/01/2017 15:25

Like a few have said it isn't always about wages being the same as the childcare bill admin some cases childcare costs exceed wages. Some people will still choose to work even though childcare is more than they earn but others simply cannot afford to do so.
In some cases where people work and get childcare tax credits they actually get more state financial help than if they didn't go out to work.
Some of those people might also be in different financial circumstances than they were when they had their children. Best laid plans and all.

OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 08/01/2017 15:53

And the award for "most ridiculous opinion on MN today" goes to...

I'd love to work. We'd be financially worse off if I did.

ShinyMoonFace · 08/01/2017 16:12

It is true about not just being financial gain but loss.

When I went back to work after DC was born, the cost of commuting plus childcare was nearly £400 per month more than I earned. DH and I agreed we would absorb the loss for as long as we could so that I could have a vaguely uninterrupted CV etc.

After a while we could not absorb that any more. It was simply unfeasible.

NameChanger22 · 08/01/2017 16:36

I think there are many employers who don't care at all about having an uninterrupted cv. Most grown-ups understand that people take time out of their working lives for all kinds of reasons. I took 6 long breaks to go travelling, when I returned each time I always got a new job within days.

If an employer isn't reasonable enough to understand that people take time off to have babies and raise children, then they're not the kind of people you want to be working for anyway.

UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea · 08/01/2017 16:56

If an employer isn't reasonable enough to understand that people take time off to have babies and raise children, then they're not the kind of people you want to be working for anyway.

NameChanger your circumstances won't apply to every industry or career, especially if you need to keep skills and knowledge up to date. Also, it's not about employers ruling out people with career breaks , it's about people without career breaks having more competitive CVs. Which is possibly one reason why there is a gender pay/leadership representation issue.

ShinyMoonFace · 08/01/2017 17:05

Also, my job was very London-centric. So Dh and I thought that a job was better than not having a job as it meant I could be in roughly my field of expertise.

In the end we simply could not afford for me to work in the same area - not least because DH;s work became quite precarious and we could not count on it.

So, I went freelance for a bit and worked from home. That did not yield anything useful, so I did freelance and retrained - sinking a great deal of money into those costs. Now I frantically do a combo of a new job / freelance in old field taking on any project that comes my way etc.

None of it has been terribly satisfactory to be honest and I ended up taking huge steps backwards.

NameChanger22 · 08/01/2017 17:22

I think people worry to much about having a gap in their cv. I know of lots of people who took 10 - 20 years off to have children and returned to work without a problem. Maybe, if you are in a very high-powered job earning top money then it's different, but people with those careers can afford nannies anyway.

Brokenbiscuit · 08/01/2017 17:40

I don't think a gap in employment is necessarily a problem per se. I do lots of recruitment in my role and a gap of up to 5 years or so wouldn't worry me, add long as the candidate could demonstrate that they had kept their skills up to date. Much longer than that, and I might have a few more doubts tbh.

What does irritate me is when women returning after a break in employment try to big up the skills that they have developed from being at home and pass them off as being valuable to the workplace. No, refereeing between your two small children really isn't the same as managing a small team. And juggling the housework with the school run really doesn't demonstrate that you have amazing time management skills!

Much better to just acknowledge the gap as a time when you have chosen to prioritise your family and explain what you've done to stay up to date or what you're planning to do to get yourself back up to speed.

BlurryFace · 08/01/2017 17:45

DH works and we get topped up a bit by benefits. I stay at home with the kids, I couldn't afford childcare, I dropped out before taking GCSEs FFS.

I don't feel bad, I'll go back to work and pay my way eventually and I should imagine the state pension will be such that I work until I die, so I might as well get "mine" now.

Meloncoley2 · 08/01/2017 20:48

Ha! Having done both, I would say that refereeing between small children is an ideal preparation to managing a team!

Sixisthemagicnumber · 09/01/2017 06:09

Some jobs really are affected by long gaps in employment. My career requires registration (you cannot practise without being registered) and a gap of more than 3 years means you cannot re-register and I am well over the 3 years.

Original poster

malificent7 · 09/01/2017 06:40

Its foolish to assume that a cv fap isnt an issue when your up against people with no cv break.

OP posts:

rollonthesummer · 09/01/2017 07:15

*Today 06:09 Sixisthemagicnumber

Just out of interest, when you go over the 3 year gap, what do you have to do to work in that job again?

Sixisthemagicnumber · 09/01/2017 13:41

In my particular job I would have to retrain fully which would take 2 years in order to be able to re-register and do my previous job. If I was only a year or so outside of the three years I might be able to re-register by proving that I had kept my skills up to date by doing things like attending a certain amount of CPD training. I could still work in related fields in an unqualified and unregistered position but at significantly less pay.

BabychamSocialist · 09/01/2017 14:18

I sort of know what you mean. Unless you're a multi-millionaire you're sort of looked down on for staying at home. But equally, working mums are treated even worse, so I'm not sure what the actual solution is.

Flip

1 2 ··· 8 9 10 11 12 13