to find it sad that women talk about their DH’a achievements like they are their own

[Curiositykilledthecat113]

On all these “how much do you earn” threads I find it sad to see so many women who gave up careers of a lot of money to be a SAHM and talk proudly about their DH’s income as if it’s their achievement. I wonder why it’s always the woman who cares for the children and how so many woman can decide to give up work leaving them in such a vulnerable position if the husband leaves them.

frieda909 Raising children is an achievement I agree, but basing your entire life on it is just achieving one thing imo, rather than being able to achieve more like most SAHM’s higher earning spouse.

The chances of finding hired care that could be as good as what I provide for him is small ( and it would be £30 a hour for something not as good).

AutumnFalling you put that way more eloquently than I could have. While I support any woman making the decision she feels is right for her, we have a problem until boys and men equally perceive they may grow up to be a SAHD. I feel like when girls grow up considering being a SAHM, it sends the message that their careers are less important then their husband's and a woman's role is primarily in servitude to her husband and family. Not to mention the immense vulnerability and dependency it brings. I would be gutted if I had a daughter and she chose to throw away her career to be a SAHM, just as I would for a boy. But underneath my opinions, I still believe everyone has a right to make that choice.

We don't have kids yet and my OH will go on to be a much higher earner then me (currently neck and neck) but we've spoken about how when we have them he'd be willing to go part time if that was right for our family. Perhaps both of us reducing hours somewhat but both taking the hit equally. Why on earth should it be me that sacrifices my career and not both of us?

Oh good, another thread kicking SAHMs. How original.

If it were me, I would feel like I wasn’t fully achieving my potential if the only successful thing I’d ever done was raising children, knowing that other parents do that and achieve much more every day.

Gosh - you're an inspiration to us all. What do you do, pray tell us? Are you a consultant oncologist? A war reporter? Are you discovering a cure for cancer? Are you out in the killing fields of Sierra Leone, helping the wounded?

....oh, and please also tell us what you do in the school holidays? I'm sure you wouldn't dream of sticking your kids into endless holiday clubs. Or have you managed the ultimate achievement of the high six figure, term time only contract?

Posted early. Dh likes being at home and likes caring for me and the kids. I prefer this as it's nice having all your meals cooked and your house cleaned. Dh likes it as he likes money. Everyone's a winner😀

splendidisolation You put my thoughts into better words.

PoppyPopcorn He could do what he does, with a nanny.

Why do you feel sorry for me OP?

If I had to work, then obviously I would have done just that. That goes without saying.

No I did not "bag a rich man". Everything he has "achieved" has been since we were together.

I have facilitated him to do what he wants to do. He has facilitated me to do what I want to do.

Yes, my career was fine, but, given the CHOICE (which I fully admit I was very fortunate to have), doing the day-to-day care of my kids was far more important and fulfilling. That is the truth of the matter. I accept many women would feel differently.

The way I see it, you only live once so you may as well do what matters to you the most (as far as possible and if you are in the position of having a choice).

Men almost always earn more than women, so when it becomes tricky to balance two careers plus the cost of all the wraparound childcare needed, it's a no brainer that the if anyone's going to quit their job it should be the person with the lower paid job. I.e. The woman.

Most men wouldn't be able to have a family and be high achievers without a wife at home picking up all the other slack. To wit: the single parent argument. How much further could you get in your career with a partner at home looking after the home and kids? As the 'support team' a SAHM has also helped make their partner's achievements happen.

Having a marriage and a family and a home is a team effort imo.

SecondHandSnake And do you think we should encourage this problem by continuing to have women out of the workforce or encourage women to work and be parents at the same time?

I disagree that men couldn’t improve their careers without their stay at home wife, they could hire a nanny.

I find the whole talk about 'choices' in relation to this topic difficult. Working certainly isn't a 'choice' for me, not if we want any kind of life. And how much less do these high-earning husbands (or even a mid-earning one like mine) have the 'choice' to jack it in and pat themselves on the back for their sacrifice made to spend more time with their children.

Dh and I are lucky to do jobs that fulfil us. If money were no object I would certainly work less, but I doubt I'd jack it in completely. I'd certainly do academic research of some kind.

One of the main things I find reassuring about us both working is that if anything happened to dh I know we'd be OK. Not without tough times, but I would be in a position to make sure we got through.

I am proud of my dh's skill in his profession and his achievements, and I have supported him loads towards them, but they're not my achievements. I have my own.

A nanny does not do as much as a SAHP.

There's nothing wrong with making the decision to be a sahp, as long as the set up feels secure to you

But a direct question what do you earn, just needs a direct answer

awwlook I suspect that's because a married SAHP is probably able to make that choice because their spouse is earning enough to take care of the family. A team effort. Whereas a lone SAHP... how on earth are you getting the money to live? From benefits, surely, as if you were working for it you wouldn't be seen as a SAHP. So that's why they're seen as scroungers: one is making that decision as they can afford to do so and the family is self supporting, the working parent is funding their kids. For the other, the state is. And not everyone believes that someone should be able to have kids and not work and expect the state to pay.

It depends upon circumstances surely. I became a SAHM when dh was posted abroad for years longer than originally planned, and I could either up sticks and move, or see my dh, and ds see his Dad every six weeks. I resigned, we moved abroad, and it worked for us as a family. I still examine at GCSE level, but mulling over my options when we move back to the UK.

Becoming a SAHM meant less stress all round for all of us, and although ds is now doing his MA, I do not want to move back to the UK on my tod, just to work. We are comfortably off, and there are people who will need a job more than I do at present.

when people express strong views for/against sahms/wohms it always makes me wonder where their issues come from. If you need to denigrate other choices whilst bleating about what a good Mum you are, there are deeper issues at play. (usually the fact that you’re unsettled, unhappy or guilty about whatever you do)

getahaircut I explained in the other thread why I mentioned my OH's income. It's relevant for the overall picture. Household income is more useful info than sole income.

Curiosity - as others have said life isn't as simple as you paint it.

Nannies are not on call 24/7. Even live-in ones (and we don't have space for ne of those). Where you have one parent whose schedule is unpredictable and often involves overnight stays and trips across the Atlantic, if you have another parent who is in a 9-5 job there is no wriggle room. Those nights out with the team or a conference throws a massive spanner in the works.

Anyway, I don't see why I have to justify my choices to you. You clearly think that SAHMs aren't achieving anything and are sitting at home watching trash telly all day. Most of the people I know who are stay at home parents are working part time and volunteering too. Personally I work freelance very part time around 12 hours a week and do 8 hours a week in a charity shop but that wouldn't tick your boxes of achieving as I could potentially knock the charity work on the head and put my nose to the grindstone for 40 hours a week, employ a nanny and earn £50k. But I don't want to.

And fuck off with your "feeling sorry for SAHMs" - we really don't want it.

I think you need to realise a nanny is not giving the same level of care as a child's parents. The mind boggles as to why its seen as a bad thing to raise your own children. Some parents need to or prefer to work, that is fine. But please don't make out like a nanny would give my children the same care and attention I do

I think rather than them seeing it as some kind of achievement, they are people who have strong and healthy relationships, especially regarding finances, and partners who recognise that the financial and caring contributions each member of the family makes are equally important. Also, it would be a bit odd to post to a thread that your income was 0 and not reflect the fact that your household income was something rather more than that.

And I can't stand the sniffy 'oh, being there for my children was much more important to me than a mercenary career' stuff. Some of us do both, actually. Yes, we may make more extensive use of childcare (I am tremendously fortunate to be able to work round my children's childcare needs to an extent and be at home for them a lot - it does take a stressful toll on me) but when we are with them we are 100% there. We listen, comfort, educate, provide them with a sense of security.

I have equally little time, however, for the notion of 'achieving' being a) something only possible in a high-powered career, usually involving business or sales of some kind, b) something measured by salary and promotions, and c) something essential to a sense of self.

That’s another one I don’t understand, continuing not to work after your children have grown up or at school. How are you contributing to society now?

A nanny just looks after the kids though, and only for 8-10 hours a day. He/she doesn't also cook, clean, shop, deal w sick children through the night, sort out getting suits to and from the dry cleaner, do the weekly shop, remember your mother's birthday, etc etc Dh needs a wife to hold down his job and have a family life- and he finds t a lot more difficult since I've gone back to work and he has to pick up some of the slack. If I wanted career equality it wouldnt work at all. It's a partnership.

HeteronormativeHaybales I agree. It’s possible to do both. Anyone can raise a child.

'raise your own children'

To suggest that people who use nannies or other forms of FT childcare don't raise their own children is offensive nonsense. And I don't use FT childcare.