To feel like I have to justify being a SAHM

[Emlou07]

I fully expect this to go down like a lead balloon...

Do any other SAHM/House wives feel like they have to justify themselves when someone asks what you do?

I always feel like I need to say 'I'm a SAHM, but I'm not claiming any benefits. I also don't just sit around all day'

Not that there is anything wrong with being on benefits!

@olive, someone on page 2 literally said "My dc are all at school, so I spend my days doing yoga and going for coffee". That's what gives SAHMs a "reputation".

What was wrong with that post - remember a lot of people don't give up work to "enable their partner's career", but because they want to be at home with their kids. That is a privelege and also a financial risk, so they can't complain about "loss of earning potential" if they chose that for themselves.

@oliveinacampervan
And why the hell SHOULDN'T the father (who carried on working) be responsible for supporting the mother of his children, (AND their children) if they split up?
The children, absolutely. But why should a man keep supporting his ex-wife until eternity though? What if his ex-wife decides to get a job after the split? What if both partners remarry? If a man or a woman keeps supporting the other spouse financially then there is no incentive for the spouse in receipt of the financial support to get a job or further their career. This doesn't sound logical.

As a previous poster said, a man/father is WAY more likely to forge a successful career if he has the mother of his children at home.
That sounds very 1950s. Some men will have successful careers if their partner is at home. But it highly depends on the type of job they do, and how ambitious or how capable they are. Other men will not, regardless.

I don't give a shit what the person said on page 2 @yolo MOST sahms don't piss around all day doing sod-all, except drinking coffee and doing yoga. And it's fucking insulting for anyone to imply they do.

And why the hell SHOULDN'T the father (who carried on working) be responsible for supporting the mother of his children, (AND their children) if they split up?

Why should a working man support his ex-wife he is not with anymore, if she made a free choice to give up work for her own benefit?

That's like me saying "I'll give up work because I won the lottery, but if the lottery money runs out, I want more of it indefinitely because I now have a low earning potential due to the time out and it's not fair on me".

y. But why should a man keep supporting his ex-wife until eternity though?

Because the deal was that she gives up work and her contribution was childcare - at the loss of her own career .

It doesn’t matter if she remarried. The original contract was for that. The man traps lifelong benefits in terms of increased career benefits. The woman reaps lifelong disadvantage unless she continues to be supported.

If spousal maintenance is abolished (as looks likely) then frankly I don’t see there’s much benefit to woman living with men and having children. All sahms would be in a very precarious position. Maybe they should vote with their feet and get their partners doing half the drudge work, and have them take the career hit as well?

Being a sahm isn’t so that she can stay home and piss about - it’s a family choice which is supposed to benefit the family as a whole. Safeguards have to be in place to protect the more vulnerable member (the sahp) or men get to fuck off with zero consequences, having profited hugely from the woman’s unpaid labour.

*Pseudousername
Trinity - I just mean in an ideal world having a parent at home would be nicer for kids

You are part of the problem love. You say you aren't judging parents who work out of the home, but you very clearly are.*

"love" hhmmm

I'm not even a SAHM myself so how am I judging people that work out of the home...unless I'm judging myself also?

If spousal maintenance is abolished (as looks likely) then frankly I don’t see there’s much benefit to woman living with men and having children.

Hang on, what? What about....love, family, stability, y'know all the reasons apart from their money.

I agree that spousal maintenance should be abolished. A marriage isn't a meal ticket for life. If people want to risk being financially completely dependent on another adult then that's up to them. I'm getting sick of SAHM's wanting respect and approval from everyone for there oh so wonderful contribution to us all. Not to mention their high flying wonderful DH's ending up in a doss house without their support. Cobblers. Be an SAHM if you want but do it quietly.

HOWEVER, I do judge those who make this choice willingly because it suits THEM and it was what THEY wanted, but when things go unfortunately wrong and they end up separating, they blame everyone else for their low income potential afterwards and expect their ex to continue to support them financially

Agree. It's rarely admitted it's because they don't want to work and want to stay home but instead as dressed up as I don't like childcare, my husband can't work without me etc.

People are free to take the financial risk of not working but when it all goes pear shaped blame everyone bar themselves.

I've never met a man who needs his wife to stay home so he can do his job, it's only on MN that there appear to be a whole host of helpless men.

Hang on, what? What about....love, family, stability, y'know all the reasons apart from their money.

If a man has an affair and walks out it’s not the woman breaking the love, family and stability. All that is what should be a given in any relationship.
Marriage is a legal contract as well as an expression of love. The weaker /more vulnerable party is protected by it.

IF that protection is broken, the legal incentives for women to marry drop. Marriage then looks like a great deal for men - lads you can have a wife/skivvy, she will do everything, and when you’re bored of her or she’s a bit old and saggy you can just walk out! No penalty!
But less good for women. If I ever became a sahm (which isn’t impossible given dhs current career trajectory) I would want cast iron guarantees in place for my and the children’s future if he left, became ill or couldn’t work.

I don't make any moral judgement at all if someone wants to be a SAHP.

I know lots. Some are happy. Some are unhappy. Some are ambivalent.

I've been judged for working, because we don't even vaguely need the money. In spite of the fact that DH and I didn't use child care and my DC are now happy, healthy wonderful adults.

Apparently, I should feel guilt and jealousy

@Anatidae
It doesn’t matter if she remarried. The original contract was for that. The man traps lifelong benefits in terms of increased career benefits. The woman reaps lifelong disadvantage unless she continues to be supported.

But the original contract is null and void once they divorce.

And does the man really enjoy lifelong benefits in terms of his career? Not when that man is in a minimum/low wage job. Or when he is simply not ambitious or clever enough to climb up the career ladder.

A woman will not be disadvantaged for life if she earns her own money. She will be empowered instead.

This all sounds very old fashioned to me. My late grandmother, born in 1910, never stayed at home. She had her first child when she was barely 18, her second child some years later but she kept working full time. Both grandparents worked full time in local factories. My grandmother actually became a member of the employees' council. I never thad the impression that she felt unhappy about her situation. The only thing she would say is that she often felt very physically tired combining a full time job with a very early start (I think they started at 6 am or something), doing the housekeeping and keeping her house in ship shape (she was very house proud).

Marriage then looks like a great deal for men - lads you can have a wife/skivvy, she will do everything, and when you’re bored of her or she’s a bit old and saggy you can just walk out! No penalty!

But right now it's a great deal for women. Give up work, then you can get half his money in the divorce anyway! If you don't want your husband to leave you and be disadvantaged - don't give up work, simple. One can't rely on others in life.

I don't buy the "poor old trodden on SAHM" card. The SAHMs I know made that choice themselves (actually one has no kids, and the other has 2 in school, a cleaner and a dogwalker) and are very happy with it, and have no interest in a career. They are not skivvies at all.

If you feel you have to justify your choice to be a SAHM and don't want to, tell them you work from home and you are a childminder. Covers all bases.

does the man really enjoy lifelong benefits in terms of his career

Of course not. He'd very likely have the same job with or without a wife. I never get the argument that a stay at home wife means the man can progress in his career. It would be the same with or without except that he has no choice but to work a needs to support the non worker and family.

It isn't a 'great deal' for women, it's reasonable and fair that if one party gives up work to raise their joint dc the divison of family money on divorce should reflect that. Spousal maintenance is relatively uncommon and never lasts forever. In the event of a split most women go back to work, in fact I'm guessing the over whelming majority go back to work when their dc go to school.

Of course there are financial risks of giving up work but these vary hugely from person to person depending on your income and industry. There are also massive up sides to having one parent not working.

If spousal maintenance is abolished (as looks likely) then frankly I don’t see there’s much benefit to woman living with men and having children so I should have got married so I can leave him in the future and demand he keeps me financially rathercthan because we love ea h other. Ok then.

Marriage then looks like a great deal for men - lads you can have a wife/skivvy, she will do everything, and when you’re bored of her or she’s a bit old and saggy you can just walk out! No penalty! tbh if my DH married me thinking this then he's welcome to leave. I am a SAHM but that doesn't make me a skivvy. It just shows a really low opinion of SAM's to assume that all we are. And he does his share because this is a partnership not a financial arrangbecausbased on who gets the best exit package

@InDubiousBattle
It isn't a 'great deal' for women, it's reasonable and fair that if one party gives up work to raise their joint dc the divison of family money on divorce should reflect that.

But what if the stay at home spouse (male or female, so no discrimination) makes the mistake of cheating after which the marriage breaks down? We had a SAH neighbour, in the 1970s, who would 'entertain' from time to time while her husband was at work. Her son was grown up and had left the house by then.
Should the cheated on spouse, who is working, then still pay maintenance for ever more?

Most of the SAHMs that I know do eventually go back to work tho - I know that’s my plan anyways.

@viviennemary - why should I be quiet about being a SAHM? Maybe caring as a vocation isn’t considered to be something you value, but I value it. I think those looking after children, elderly parents, disabled relatives deserve the recognition they get as it is a valid contribution to society. Without it, where would we be?

You don't have to keep quiet. But stop seeking approval from everyone else. I know a lot of people with jobs that care for children and elderly relatives. . You don't have to be an SAHM to have the monopoly on caring. I would feel disempowered if I did not have my own money. I'd hate it. But that is how I was brought up.

*I would feel disempowered if I did not ave my own money step up and do what is needed which in our house is we a SAHM. I'd hate it. But that is how I was brought up.

Why should SAHP keep quiet? It's not a dirty secret. In many situations it is better for their children and family circumstances.

Child mental health problems are rocketing. Life/family balance is hugely important and should be a priority.

And sorry but yes SAHP should be protected. If they make a valuable contribution and sacrifice for their family they deserve protection.

I am one of 2 full time working parents before I get accused of smugness.

Great Vivienne you've told us that 3 times. Why do you get to bang on about your life choices and others don't?

I had 7 years off. It was hugely beneficial and valuable to all of us. Believe me I didn't give a stuff re being dependant. The benefits enjoyed by all of us hugely outweighed any negatives.

People,families,children and circumstances differ.

It's an absolute load of rubbish that you need a SAHP in order to do well in your career. In the past 5 years I've been promoted twice and doubled my salary. My DH works full time and we have no local family support. It's down to hard work, relatively short mat leaves, a partner who does his 50% of the child care, and also because we have no qualms about using childcare. That's my choice and I know it's not for everyone, but it wouldn't have made much, if any difference, to my career if DH had given up work. I have no problem at all with families who choose to have a SAHP, each to their own, but the constant desire for external validation begins to grate after a while. You don't need to justify yourself to anyone, let alone strangers.

I wasn't the one who started this conversation and asked for validation of my choices. I agree with Stretchoutandwait.