Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Fallonjamie · 04/01/2017 22:13

You said on your other thread that MN is making you anxious. Starting more threads hoping to get the response you want will not be helpful.

BringMeTea · 04/01/2017 22:14

Starcrossed Your comments were both astute and amusing. Nice work. Grin

Potnoodlewilld0 · 04/01/2017 22:14

Nothing wrong with claiming benefits of it means you get more family time. That's what they're there for

Shock no. Actually they are not for that reason. They are for if you are struggling finacally or too ill to work. It's actually incredibley entitled comments like that give benefit claimants a bad press. Maybe I should tell Dh to fuck his 12 hour work days off so he can come and chill out with us lot Hmm

AbernathysFringe · 04/01/2017 22:14

Also, if it wasn't for single mums on benefits, there'd be no Harry Potter...
Grin

Letseatgrandma · 04/01/2017 22:15

I had worked for over 20 years (Im in my 40's) and really wanted to be at home for a year and was shocked I couldn't get any financial help despite having paid thousands in tax and would be returning to full time work again.

I'm surprised that some people think the state will pay them because they really want to be at home.

Tryingtosaveup · 04/01/2017 22:15

Benefits are for people who really need financial support and are intended to be short term in most cases. ( clearly not short term for disabled people).
OP can't just decide to have more family time and claim benefits instead of working sufficiently to support her children. That means tax payers are paying to support her children.
Can I do that?
What about the father ? Why is he not paying?

NotStoppedAllDay · 04/01/2017 22:15

fringe no. Income support was paid up to youngest child was age 7,then 5, then it was lowered to 3? Now it's going lower I believe.....

It's a requirement to go on jsa and actively look for work

SheldonCRules · 04/01/2017 22:16

Ahh you're the OP who blew the £30k inheritance and still expect your dad to subsidise your lifestyle choices as you don't want to do most jobs or work many hours.

YelloDraw · 04/01/2017 22:16

I don't think there is anything to 'celebrate' about able bodied able minded educated and trained women giving up work to look after babies and not returning to work.

It perpetuates sexism and the glass ceiling.

When men stay at home in equal numbers I might celebrate that choice.

NotStoppedAllDay · 04/01/2017 22:17

Anyway. Looks like op has buggered off

rollonthesummer · 04/01/2017 22:17

We're lucky that the gov. considers it important to give poorer, single people the choice to be with their child.

That's not true though, is it?

Potnoodlewilld0 · 04/01/2017 22:17

to choose not to work shows laziness

Some people can't afford to work

UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea · 04/01/2017 22:19

I had worked for over 20 years (Im in my 40's) and really wanted to be at home for a year and was shocked I couldn't get any financial help despite having paid thousands in tax and would be returning to full time work again.

Really? I find that attitude shocking. Benefits are for when you are ill, disabled, elderly or otherwise disadvantaged and unable to support yourself.

I have worked for over 20 years and really want a Merc. Bastard government refuse to buy me one despite paying thousands in tax and returning to full time work again on the bus.

1DAD2KIDS · 04/01/2017 22:21

It's a simple test for me. If the kids are housed, clothed feed, you are happier and spend more time with them I would say it's all good. Mental and emotional well being is important and not everyone wants to sacrifice that for extra cash and fancier things. And there is no reason why the kids shouldn't be housed, clothed and feed even on a lower income. That's the reason we have things like tax credits, child benifit and the welfare state. At the end of the day you are no good to your children depressed or at the agitation of an existing mh issue (or the state). I have not noticed such discrimination before but totally reasonable to put mental wellbeing first and no doubt the kids will benifit too.

Potnoodlewilld0 · 04/01/2017 22:21

We're lucky that the gov. considers it important to give poorer, single people the choice to be with their child

They don't!!!! What universe do you live in??!! Shock

Potnoodlewilld0 · 04/01/2017 22:22

Hear hear unexpected

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 04/01/2017 22:23

Yes I wonder how many smug happily married 2.4 women looked down on JK Rowling. When she was a single mum on benefits. She's a multi billionaire, now is she not.

Wheel of fortune, and all that.

cherrycrumblecustard · 04/01/2017 22:23

There is definitely an attitude amongst some that a marginal bit of work is all that's needed, and the rest can be topped up with benefits, if you have small children. I do think of it as the tax credit culture really.

downwardfacingdog · 04/01/2017 22:24

to choose not to work shows laziness Fuck off. Why are cleaners, childminders, nursery workers not lazy but a parent who does this work for his/her own family is? OP YABU as evidenced by this PP, whether you are supported by the state or by your spouse, any SAHP will be regarded as lazy by some/many people.

NotStoppedAllDay · 04/01/2017 22:25

Er,Putting it into perspective .... not many jk Rowling out there really

She's a one off and was probably keen to work and actively looking!!

cherrycrumblecustard · 04/01/2017 22:26

Sorry, downward but I hate that argument. It's like trying to claim every car journey I make makes me a taxi driver!

rollonthesummer · 04/01/2017 22:28

It's a simple test for me. If the kids are housed, clothed feed, you are happier and spend more time with them I would say it's all good. Mental and emotional well being is important and not everyone wants to sacrifice that for extra cash and fancier things

DH and I work long hours in stressful jobs. I'm certain our emotional and mental wellbeing would be much better if we worked less and spent more time with our children. I'm sure we are not alone. Should the state fund this?!

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 04/01/2017 22:28

Erm. I don't know what planet you live on Abernathy, but. That doesn't happen on this one. Every time you look at the government. They're talking about lowering the age of the child. When the parent has to go back to work. I think its aged 2 now, isnt it. They don't give a flying fuck about. What's best for the child. Theyre hawked away from their parents. Whether they're ready or not.
Nursery is not compulsory. However it is for children of lone parents.

Awwlookatmybabyspider · 04/01/2017 22:30

Downward makes a very good point.
Why is it all of a sudden a job. When you're looking after someone else's child, and cleaning someone else's house

Brokenbiscuit · 04/01/2017 22:31

Personally, I don't think anyone should be particularly celebrated or encouraged for being a SAHM, regardless of whether they're wealthy or not. If they choose that lifestyle and can afford it, then that's entirely fair enough, but there is no special virtue in it that needs to be encouraged or celebrated imo.