To think a significant minority of MN users don't respect SAHMs?

[Bumpitybumper]

During my time on this forum I have seen the following views being expressed about SAHMs:

• SAHMs are bad feminists and therefore not entitled to any kind of opinion regarding feminist issues. Particular objections are raised about SAHMs having thoughts about feminism in the workplace irrespective of their previous experiences when they were employed.

- SAHMs are sponging financially off their DPs and just don't want to get a job. Many posters seem to think it is impossible for a SAHM's non financial contributions to equal or exceed the financial contribution provided by the breadwinning partner. SAHMs therefore deserve less than there working partners in any break up/divorce.

• SAHMs should be responsible for all housework regardless of capacity to fit this in during the day. If a SAHM struggles to get things done due to ages and temprament of children they are told they are just not trying hard enough.

-SAHMs should do the vast majority, if not all the night wakings with babies and young children. This usually extends to women on maternity leave and holds true even if SAHM is shattered and her working partner is relatively well rested.

There are loads more examples too that I can't think of right now, but I see it pretty much on a daily basis. Is this just me or is the quite a lot of disdain for SAHMs on MN?

When people complain about contributing to society they often fail to see the big picture. If one partner is a high earner they are probably working hours that mean they can't collect their child from school (even after school club) or drop them off. Their spouse is essentially allowing them to earn that salary by staying at home.

This is so true. My DH has a responsible job, Principal Engineer in the Bridges Section of our local Council. He has a lot of meetings to attend, so can't finish work early. We have 2 adopted DDs with attachment difficulties, DD1 has SPD as well, and probably other issues; we've been pushing for months for her to be properly assessed and to have play therapy.

There is no way it would be right to put them in after school clubs or holiday clubs, just so I can work and pay taxes. We have no family support locally, just my 78 year old DM, who is half an hour's drive away and we're very low contact with her.

Also, no one could say I'm not contributing to society, having adopted 2 DDs, who if they hadn't been adopted would be in the care system. (I never normally blow my own trumpet, as I didn't exactly adopt for altruistic reasons, but it's a really big commitment.)

So not to denigrate sahps but I don’t buy the argument that financially they have necessarily contributed half (although obv in some cases they have contributed more than half too)

No, financially I don’t contribute 50% to our household. I’ve never claimed to. DH is a very high earner.
Luckily neither I nor DH determine my worth to the family by my financial contributions.

There are def some women (I haven’t come across men like this) who have a bit of a sense of entitlement and expect their husbands to be like a daddy. Not necessarily sahp but where the husband is the main breadwinner. I do find that a bit creepy but ofc lots of sahp are not like that.

Right zsazsajuju but I don't buy the argument that paid staff do the childcare as well as a parent does. Those are things people say you 'can't monetise' but you probably could if you tried hard enough.

I say that while entirely respecting your right to parent as you see fit - as long as you respect my right to consider my existence worthwhile.

I agree that this wouldn't be true if my DDs weren't adopted. I would then put them in childcare and have a job, because I would like to do that in an ideal world. But we don't live in an ideal world; in an ideal world my DDs wouldn't be living with us, they would be with their birth parents.

Yeah. - I do think that’s right and we should look realistically at the division of resources on divorce. In many cases the sahp spouse would never have been able to accumulate those assets by themselves. While their contribution should not be denigrated, it shouldn’t be over stated either.

And in fact there are many families where both parents work long hours and they have nannies/au pairs.

Of course some families don't want to outsource so much of the childcare and prefer to have a parent looking after the children.

Actually, it isn't always the case that the SHAP is living off their partner. Yes, my DH finances our day to day life, but I owned a flat before we got married, and thanks to the capital I contributed, we were able to buy a lovely detached house in a lovely neighbourhood.

I think part of the vitriol on this subject is a mix of sensitivity and defensiveness.

If I use myself as an example, I dislike it when someone insinuates I cared more for my career than my child, or that I didn't bring my child up because I worked. As a Twenty year old she would laugh in your face and tell you she was no more brought up by her teachers than her child minders and it was her parents who brought her up. Before walking away from you in disgust.

I find it interesting that the women who make these accusations, do not level the same accusation at their own husbands, they save it for other women only.

We also see heinous accusations made at stay at home parents, lazy, sponging, whatever, but I don't think those accusations are quite as heinious as telling someone they didn't bring up or care enough for their own child. However clearly I am biased as we all are.

It's the horrible things people say to each other than is causing others to react. In addition there will also be personal feelings about their choice, causing a sensitivity.

There is no right choice for everyone, there is only the right choice for you, but attacking other women and saying terrible terrible things to them is never going to cause anything other than bad feelings.

Re pp that said paid staff don’t parent as well as them - they don’t parent at all. But they do look after my child very well when I am not there. I am a good parent- lots of staff do a better job than some actual parents and vice versa. We organise our families as we see fit. Children don’t necessarily need their parents 24/7.

My comment in relation to finances was in relation to ops comment on financial splits on divorce. I don’t think someone who is a sahp isn’t contributing to the relationship, but realistically their financial contribution to the partnership is not necessarily half.

We also see heinous accusations made at stay at home parents, lazy, sponging, whatever, but I don't think those accusations are quite as heinious as telling someone they didn't bring up or care enough for their own child. However clearly I am biased as we all are

I do think being called a prostiture is as bad as being told you didn’t bring up your own child, actually. Biased or not!

Lizzie it is really rubbish that you having to justify your life to people who cannot imagine a scenario other than their own.

Red I too know a lot of families who use au pairs, not so many who have nannies as the cost is prohibitive. If our attitude towards aupairs is indicative of how we regard the job of childcare then it is a sorry state of affairs. But I think that is probably a whole other thread.

*prostitute

Actually in my experience, high earners have more flexibility to dictate the hours they work, and even if this is not the case, spouse could work plenty of jobs that enable them to drop up and or pick up from school/ASC. And in fact there are many families where both parents work long hours and they have nannies/au pairs.

Total rubbish. All of my friends and my husband in high earning jobs need to work at least 10 hour days. I'm lucky I can work from home around school hours (which I do mainly for my own sanity). If I couldn't what would the point be of me getting a low paid part time job? I'd be unreliable (my DC throw up very easily when unwell so we have lots of two day absences) and I wouldn't contribute significantly to the household income (or pay any tax on such a low income).

As for getting nanny and au Pairs surely you can see why people don't want to have an army of paid employees putting their kids to bed and doing their homework with them every night? There is no way I would ever consider a working situation where my kids didn't spend at least a few hours with one of their parents every day. Kids need love not just supervision!

Not everyone can afford to have a nanny ( or anywhere to put them ) or au pair - childminders and nurserys are expensive too.
sometimes staying at home does make life a lot easier for the whole family -
most people i know that ' had it all' had immense back up from family or grandparents and able to do the school holiday care as well- they really did benefit a lot more as they paid little or no childcare costs.

Yes bluntness - you are absolutely right. Do any of the people up thread claiming that paid staff don’t look after a child as well as a parent say such things to their spouse? Do they think he is a bad parent for going to work?

Depends what you mean by high earning?

Well I do as it goes but that's a different argument. Also it's not always a 'he'.

The thing is that occasionally people will say they think I am doing the right thing by staying at home to look after my kids and I always, always reply that everyone does what works best for them. I will not hear criticism of working mums (of course they mean mums) as I utterly believe what I say.
And yet judging by this thread I don't think that courtesy is repaid by wohps.

Just to be clear I don't have any objection to people have a nanny or au pair to do school pick ups etc. Although it works best for my family if a parent does this that's just personal to us. But if two parents are really working long hours and commuting they could be out of the house from 7:30am-8:30pm. (These are my husband's hours) then the children really would be missing out on that daily contact with a loving parent.

Yes bluntness - you are absolutely right. Do any of the people up thread claiming that paid staff don’t look after a child as well as a parent say such things to their spouse? Do they think he is a bad parent for going to work?

I wouldn't say that to my husband because I'm not paid staff, I'm my children's mother.

I don't think anyone is a bad parent for going to work though, I don't understand why anyone is so bothered about whether or not anyone goes to work

And yet judging by this thread I don't think that courtesy is repaid by wohps. To be fair I don't think that's true of all working parents (there are just some very defensive posters on this thread). Working parents also get criticism from SAHP.

I don't believe for one minute that sahms are pestering their husbands to ask for pay rises and demanding they leave work 'this instant'.
Although ironically, those men would have had to have left work earlier if they were doing their 50% of childcare!

We also see heinous accusations made at stay at home parents, lazy, sponging, whatever, but I don't think those accusations are quite as heinious as telling someone they didn't bring up or care enough for their own child. However clearly I am biased as we all are.
It's the horrible things people say to each other than is causing others to react. In addition there will also be personal feelings about their choice, causing a sensitivity.

Totally agree with this

I just want to spend time with my children. That really is all there is to it.
I am not changing the world.
I am not repressed.
I just like spending time with my kids.
I don't want any respect for it.
I don't want people to bow down to me and praise me for wiping arsed and washing bedding.
I just want to be happy.
I want my kids to be happy.
I want my DH to be happy.

We are all happy.

I am a sahm because I want to be.

There is nothing more to it.

We don't need extra respect.

It feels pretty heinous from this end, I tell you. But I think I agree that we should probably be nicer to each other.