SAHM who are to busy too work??

[donners312]

I honestly don't have a problem with SAHM BUT I admit I am fed up of SAHM who claim they are fed up with their car/where they go on holiday/their house/kitchen etc BUT do not work.

If your DH is so shit at providing why don't you get a job and pay for it yourself?

I keep hearing it is because you are too busy to get a job?

or maybe i just need new friends?

I am NOT having a go at SAHM if you and your DH are both happy then `I am honesty happy for your family but i do feel there are some women who would rather not work and accept no responsibility for family finances whilst complaining about how shit their (lovely) life is?

yorick yes, volunteering was something I was thinking of when I wrote that. I was also trying to say that if sahp weren't around to provide certain help, other ppl would have to sort things themselves, having a knock on effect with their family arrangements, finances and/or employment. Yes, we all do favors for others, but it's more often the sahp who will help with others kids out of school hours.

I know plenty of sahm whose dh wouldn't be able to work in their chosen high flying career if 50/50 consideration had been given to both partners and their career paths and ambitions. And that's not always a complete choice, one person has to step back, so you can't blame that choice on the sahp. That's the kind of societal value I think few ppl ever consider.

Don't you just hate when people say I don't have a problem with x BUT? Really if means you do have a problem.
Bit like the prefix no disrespect just before saying something disrespectful.

This whole debate is so odd. Bottom line: you either want to be a SAHP and can afford it, want to be one and can't afford it, or don't want to do it whether you can afford it or not. What do any of those circumstances have to do with anyone outside of your immediate family? Nothing whatsoever. People need to wind their necks in.

it's more often the sahp who will help with others kids out of school hours.

What's your evidence for this? The only friends who have ever helped me with childcare outside school hours have been other WOHP parents. Tbh, they're the only ones who have ever offered and the only ones I've ever asked.

Also, while I accept that it can be hard for two parents to juggle high flying careers, I do know plenty of couples where this works. And even where it might be difficult for two parents to maintain "big" careers with long hours and lots of travel, I can't really think of any role that would stop the other spouse/partner from working in a regular 9-5 type role with little or no travel. So I don't really get the argument that some people need to SAH to facilitate their partner's career. Yes, it might be easier for the family for one person to do that, and that's a valid decision, but surely it's not essential. So again, any benefits are to the family rather than society as a whole.

The exceptions, I think, are those SAHPs who SAH to look after children with disabilities - those who might be described as carers as well as SAHP. Their contributions are significant at a societal level, as well as a familial one.

Have you considered the SAHMs who have had to give up a career as it makes more financial sense for them to be at home. Regardless of whether that's the choice they want to make or not.

Yes. I specifically made the point that I realised it was not always a choice.

Yes, we all do favors for others, but it's more often the sahp who will help with others kids out of school hours.

That is very nice of them, and I suppose at a push you could call it volunteering. I think most people on MN would agree that it's not really the primary reason people SAH, but if you do a lot of such favours for friends, I am sure they are grateful and recognise what you do. If they don't, get new friends.

Don't you just hate when people say I don't have a problem with x BUT? Really if means you do have a problem. Bit like the prefix no disrespect just before saying something disrespectful

And yet nobody has answered my question. Oddly enough, it's a question I came to ask after seeing it on MN. I had been agreeing for a long time that SAHPs do not get enough societal recognition, and then a poster asked, "What recognition should that be? If it's money, go to work. If it's being known for doing something outside of your family, volunteer. If you don't do either of these things, for whatever reason, what exactly should society be giving you that you don't already have?"

I couldn't answer the question and it seems the people I've offended can't either.

I do NOT denigrate SAHMs. I respect people want or need to live in various ways. Nobody should be disrespected for working, staying home, whatever. But if you stay home to run a family, I honestly do not know what form this 'recognition' outside of it should take. For example, I don't agree that valuing more recent, relevant experience in choosing a job candidate shows disrespect for SAHPs.

I'm a sahm mum because I have four kids and would cost more than I earned to put my younger three kids in all day nursery. Plus I'd have no one to take my older son to and from school if I was in work. So it's for common sense reasons.

I am a sahp. I don't require societal recognition since, as you say, I did it for my own family's benefit. However, I would quite like it if 'society' recognised that my dh has benefitted too, that some of his ability to career build has been enabled by having home support and didn't think he is doing me some massive favour while I sit on my arse all day eating bonbons.
I have been on threads where sahm have been called lazy, childish and even akin to prostitutes. It would be quite nice if that shit stopped.

it's more often the sahp who will help with others kids out of school hours.

What's your evidence for this?

All the mums I have known. May be different in your circles, obv but v v rarely did I (as a sahp and while working) get offers of help from wohm. And it wasn't just because they were at work, so I assume it was because their weekends/evenings/days off were more precious to them, whereas I had more 'free time'.

However, I would quite like it if 'society' recognised that my dh has benefitted too, that some of his ability to career build has been enabled by having home support and didn't think he is doing me some massive favour while I sit on my arse all day eating bonbons
You said it much better than me

But why does society need to recognise that your DH's career has benefitted, if indeed it has? Isn't it enough that your DH recognises this? Genuine question, by the way - I'm trying to understand.

All the mums I have known. May be different in your circles, obv but v v rarely did I (as a sahp and while working) get offers of help from wohm. And it wasn't just because they were at work, so I assume it was because their weekends/evenings/days off were more precious to them, whereas I had more 'free time'.

I guess that's the problem with anecdotal evidence, isn't it. In my 12 years of being a WOHP, I don't think I have ever once had an offer of help from a SAHM, but I have had many from WOHPs who understand the challenges of juggling work and childcare. That's not a complaint or criticism of SAHPs by the way - not in the slightest. I have a number of good friends who were SAHPs when our children were younger (nearly all have gone back to work now) and I never had any expectation that they should help. I'm sure that some of them would have done if I asked, but I tended to ask other WOHPs instead because I knew I would have opportunities to return the favour. Clearly, amongst your friends, it's different.

I can't really think of any role that would stop the other spouse/partner from working in a regular 9-5 type role with little or no travel. So I don't really get the argument that some people need to SAH to facilitate their partner's career.

How about dh in the armed forces, works away up to 9 months away with no visits, plans often changed at short notice so can't plan anything or even rely on him for anything. Having small children, job required me at work from 8am with some evening meetings past closing time for childcare. No family to help out or give a break. Friends work and can't help. Job also required work at home in evening and weekends. Any extra travel or meetings away are out of the question due to no-one to have the DC. (I've had to turn down important career progression because he wasn't there to help out). Reflects badly at work. Dh posted to other side of the country (and back again) regularly, so even if not officially working away, he's not home unless we relocate. Which of course means me quitting work. And struggling to find something suitable elsewhere. Certainly not easy finding a suitable 9-5 under these circumstances.

Dh would not be able to go away for long periods of time at the drop of a hat (ie continue in his current career) if I also had kept my original career, because he wouldn't be able to look after DC/pets/house etc, even if he got his arse in gear and tried to arrange something. Which he never thinks about. Even when I worked ft. He has his dream job and doesn't have to worry about the mundane shit.
Do you get it now broken?

Kind of, Fritz, but not really. I get that some jobs (e.g. where evening work is required at the drop of a hat or where travel is necessary) might be difficult, but I don't really understand why SAH is the only alternative - though it's obviously a valid alternative if that's what works for you.

I guess I'm trying to understand why some men are apparently incapable of progressing in their careers without a SAHM to pick up the slack, even though some women seem to manage it without a SAHP. I know some very high flying single parents, for example.

In my own case, I'm the main breadwinner and work in a senior management role. However, DH travels a lot and is often away for up to 6 weeks at a time, sometimes at short notice. We manage toto juggle things quite well because we want to.

Can I ask why people care so much about this debate? Childcare is a job that needs to be done. That’s clear because working parents are paying someone to look after their kids aren’t they? Unless you are using family in which case you’re being facilitated by someone else in the same way a working husband would be facilitated by a sahw so I don’t really think you can criticise. The ONLY reason childcare is seen as menial and unimportant is because it was traditionally the work of women. It should be valued. My husband just pays me half his money (admittedly that’s less than a childminder but he wouldn’t be able to afford that so he probably would afford to work right now if he were a single dad) to look after our kids instead of a childminder, it’s great and I love my life as a sahp. We are both dependent on each other, that’s a marriage. He wouldn’t be able to do his job if he didn’t have me and vice versa. Do I care what other families do? No.

*wouldn't

Broken it's important because sah makes a person financially vulnerable. If society saw it as having benefitted the wohp, this would eventually have the knock on effect of being reflected in a fairer division of money, should the relationship go wrong. As things stand, it is very much seen by society as 'his' money, even though he may have been hugely enabled by all the home support.

Broken, it's not impossible to have 2 full on careers and a family, but some families choose to trade the money for the reduced stress of having to juggle it all. The reduced stress and ease of being able to travel/work late and not worry about when the kids are off sick or have school holidays or needing to be back because the nursery shuts is worth something to the wohp. That is what ought to be recognised.

Broken it's important because sah makes a person financially vulnerable. If society saw it as having benefitted the wohp, this would eventually have the knock on effect of being reflected in a fairer division of money, should the relationship go wrong. As things stand, it is very much seen by society as 'his' money, even though he may have been hugely enabled by all the home support.

But is that true? I thought divorce settlements generally recognised the contributions of the SAHP, and that he/she would usually be entitled to a share of the assets accumulated during the marriage and/or any accumulated pension provision. That's what I often see trotted out on MN, anyway. If that isn't the case, then I would strongly advise anyone against becoming a SAHP - why would anyone put themselves in such a vulnerable position?

"What societal recognition of SAHMs want?"

I'm paraphrasing Yorick's question there, but what a strange thing to ask. What does "societal recognition" even mean?

I hate to break it to some posters, but the mere fact of having a job does not give you societal recognition . If you work in an office, shop or anywhere really, do you think anyone gives a hoot outside of your particular team or department? Very few jobs are influential to society. Most are superfluous to requirements and anyone can be replaced. If you think otherwise, you need to step out of your box.

SAHPs are not asking for "recognition" from anyone, just the basic understanding, tolerance and respect that you would hopefully give to anyone else.

Someone needs to be with children all day and, in most cases, parents are the best persons for that job. It's not an option for many people, but when it is, I have no idea why SAHPs need to justify anything.

Broken, it's not impossible to have 2 full on careers and a family, but some families choose to trade the money for the reduced stress of having to juggle it all. The reduced stress and ease of being able to travel/work late and not worry about when the kids are off sick or have school holidays or needing to be back because the nursery shuts is worth something to the wohp. That is what ought to be recognised.

I get that, totally. I can see why some families might choose not to juggle two full-on careers, and as I've already said on this thread, I think that's a perfectly valid decision. My point was that the benefits of such an arrangement are for the individual family, rather than society, and that the recognition therefore needs to come from the family rather than society as a whole.

I do take your point about the need for society to recognise a SAHP's contributions to the family unit in any divorce settlements, but it had been my understanding - perhaps naively - that this was already the case.

broken I couldn't sustain my career. I was having to refuse things because there was no-one to look after young DC for a few days at a time with dh away for months. And having to relocate after two years or never live as a family unit doesn't help with gaining/keeping the 9-5 either. How would you suggest I have 'juggled' that in order for us both to keep our jobs? (As an aside, 6 weeks away is nothing compared to 9 months. I have great admiration for single parents who can make a 9-5 work, but I have not come across a single parent who had no help at all, with young DC, in the position I was. )

They do when the money is there to do so brokenbiscuit, but there's also a move in the opposite direction by the courts and case law. A SAHP is better off married unless they themselves have significant assets, but the degree to which they are better off may be somewhat eroded in the future.

"My point was that the benefits of such an arrangement are for the individual family, rather than society, and that the recognition therefore needs to come from the family rather than society as a whole."

But the benefits of most jobs or situations where both parents work are equally for "the benefit of the family" and that's it. Most people work for the money or simply because they want to. With the obvious exceptions, few jobs really impact anyone else except for the person doing that job and tho family who benefit from that income.

I would argue that there is a difference between a role and a job. In this way, you could argue that SAHPs have more in common with some of the most valued roles in society - i.e. nurses, social workers or those in other direct caring roles. These roles, paid or not (and when they are paid it's often low) have more "societal value" than someone in a job selling insurance or marketing some product nobody even knew they needed or whatever.

OP - I get where you are coming from.

I am now a single mum - not out of choice to two DCS, one who has a number of major health issues ( congenital heart disease to name one!)Both still in primary school.

I work like a fucking dog, do school drop off 3 days per week, pick up 3 days per week and rely on the best child minder in the world for the other days.

none of them are too busy to work - they like the status quo or their DPs do - wifey at home looking after them!

I know exactly how much I spend on child care and believe me it is not what half the SAHM claim in a divorce court and I pay over the odds for mine, because she is like a third grandmother.

Am sick to death of SAHM who say they know what it is like to be a single parent because thier poor DP is working like a dog to pay for the new car, holidays, school fees.

To be honest I now feel sorry for most married men with a SAHM and think most SAHM over estimate their value and over estiate their bone bloody idleness.

COI : EX pay no maintenance for 2 DCS and last year had them for 6 ONS and no time in the holidays!
Love them to death and would not change them for anything- but god woudl love for someone to stick a stake up EXs and his OWs arse!

Some genuinely bitter people here, aren't there?

oh and I have no cleaner, gardener, driver, handyman, house keeper etc.

I and my DCS do it all - anything is possible.