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?

We don't need extra respect. TO be fair I don't think anyone's asking for admiration, anymore than I'd admire someone for holding down a standard job. I think they don't want to be denigrated as being lazy, spongers or prostitutes!

Ninchninch

Did you mean your post to sound so smug? of course you did

@zsazsajuju

Of course the SAHP's financial contribution in most cases won't be exactly half, but neither will the working parent's childcare (and active parenting) contribution. Does that mean that the working parent is entitled to less time with the children if the couple were to split?

Most families with SAHPs work as teams where they seek to divide activities in a way that they are happy with. One activity is earning money, another may be staying at home and nurturing, stimulating and caring for the children in the family. Working is obviously renumerated in a manner that can be easily quantified, the value that being a SAHM brings to the family cannot be quantified and trying to assign a monetary value by using au pair/nanny/nursery place costs to calculate a number is totally disingenuous. For some families having a SAHP who loves and cares for the children is a priority and viewed as superior to other childcare options. If the couple are then to split why should the working partner having benefited from having their children raised by a SAHP and all the associated benefits be able to retain all the financial benefits from building a facilitated career?

I'm not mentioning that some families view having a SAHP as the superior model as a way to make WOHP feel bad. I accept that many people feel that having two working parents is just as good or indeed superior and that's absolutely fine. I say it just to reiterate that the decision to have a SAHP is a joint one that is often made where both parents agree that this is the model they want for their families. Nobody is sponging off anybody and both are fulfilling important roles in the family.

FullOfJellyBeans

Yes, I understand that. I am not jumping for joy at being called lazy or a prostitute but I am also not crying in my pillow about it.

I wish people didn't have to resort to name calling to try and win a debate. But it's part of life unfortunately. It starts at school in the playground and it doesn't seem to come to an end. Some people just can't articulate their true feelings/opinions in a well mannered intelligent way.

Sometimes the good old fashioned saying
" sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" needs to be applied.

I know I am not lazy. I know I am not a prostitute. If people honestly think that then I just feel bad for them really. It's their problem. Not mine.

Kappa kappa

No sorry I actually didn't. I just wanted to point out that sometimes there just isn't more to it then trying to live a happy life and we should all just get on with it and appreciate the differences instead of grinding each other down.

Sorry if I came across smug. It really wasn't my intention.

I think the point is that there is a double standard when it comes to women’s parenting. Women who work outside the home (particularly in high pressure traditionally male jobs for long hours) are judged as being bad parents. We don’t generally think the same thing about fathers who work in such jobs.

I think we need better working patterns for all and part of that involves recognition that parenting involves being around at least some of the time. And that applies to both men and women. Also part of this is valuing things women traditionally do (caring, looking after children) more. And accepting that they can be done by either parent. But also we need to recognise that women are not economically helpless- English law at times still has many quite misogynistic concepts e.g. spouse maintenance until you marry again)

kappa being likened to a prostitute for being a sahm feels pretty heinous when you are on the receiving end!

I've bern both a wohp and sahp - I was just as much a mother to my child when woh and anyone who says otherwise to a wohp is a nasty piece of shit. But equally nasty pices of shit are people who tell sahm that they are not setting a good example for their dc!

Nobody goes to work out of an altruistic desire to benefit society. People do it because it finances their lives and/or they derive personal satisfation from their career. If a family unit can manage to finance life with only one parent working, and both partners are okay with that, then happy days. Neither position is inherently more 'right' from a moral pov.

Ninchninch

You're definitely right and obviously the insults come from a place of insecurity. I'm lucky I can work around school hours so consider myself half working parent half stay at home mum so am not too offended either way. It would be nice though if we could try not to drag each other down so much though!

Bumpity - like it or not, being a sahp does not have unlimited financial value. That’s nice that’s how some couples have chosen to organise their family. But on divorce I don’t see why anyone gets money they haven’t earned.

And the reality is that on divorce the non sahp does almost always get to spend less time with the kids. Of course people can change their roles but generally sahp end up as the main careers for children following break ups. In almost every case. And indeed family courts generally try to keep the status quo so being a sahp would have a benefit in terms of being awarded residence of a child following divorce.

Broadly there’s nothing wrong with being a sahp but it’s not the most wonderful thing in the world either. Do what works for you but be realistic about it. Picking up the kids doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly earned half an investment bankers salary. That’s just life.

Bumpity - like it or not, being a sahp does not have unlimited financial value. That’s nice that’s how some couples have chosen to organise their family. But on divorce I don’t see why anyone gets money they haven’t earned.

I'm surprised to see a woman with such a misogynistic view point, it is afterall women who are usually the SAHP.

If 2 adults, as a couple decide one should forego an income for the benefit of their family then why should the person who gave up that income be punished when the relationship.breaks down?

Sorry if I came across smug. It really wasn't my intention.
And I’m sorry that I was so rude! Am having an utterly shit day (ironically not even a work day) and this thread is making me really upset (not because I’m unhappy working before anyone spits that back at me but because of how horribly I was treated when I chose to go back to work after my final child)
I’ll leave the thread now as I’m becoming as hurtful as the mums who hurt me x

I’ve been wohm and sahm. Was I a good role model when I went to work but now a bad role model because I provide unpaid childcare after redundancy? Was I a terrible mother when I had a career but now I’m a good one because I don’t? It’s utterly nonsensical - I would imagine it’s very rare for a sahm to never ever work before or after dc.

However if they don’t have to then why should they? Yes they’re vulnerable but finding a generally poorly paid job that fits in school hours or whatever someone might need to be able to do everything around their husband’s work schedule won’t keep the wolves from the door in the event of a divorce anyway.

Kappa kappa

Not sure if you'll be back to see this but I also agree this thread is very hurtful.

I think I may step away too. Get outside and try and get some of the sunshine squeezing it's way out of the clouds.

I hope your day gets better.

If you're a SAHP then surely you do have some monetary worth? Round here full time childcare is around £700 a month...by staying at home with DS i will be basically ensuring that the £700 is contributed back to the household instead of being paid to a nursery. If i go back to work once DS is born i will be working simply to pay that amount!

I gave up my career when my kids started school! I never imagined that would be the case, but as it turns out, I was really unhappy with the idea of never picking my kids up from school, never meeting their teacher, my kids not being able to go to clubs or have friends home for tea. Turns out that for me personally, when the kids were babies at nursery, it was much easier to deal with than once they were at school. I do still work, but in a different job, with fewer hours and less money. Lots of my FT mum friends consider me a SAHM, despite still working. It’s like my new job doesn’t really count

@zsazsajuju

You just seem so focussed on money and financial measures that I'm not sure anything anyone can say will change your mind.

Yes, from a financial perspective anyone married to a lower earning partner or a SAHP may face losing some of the money they earnt if they were to divorce. That's because you are seen to pool assets and resources when you're married. Resources aren't just financial but include time, effort etc. A SAHP is investing their resources in raising their children in the manner that BOTH parents view as optimum. The WOHP invests their resources in earning money to support the family. Saying the the SAHP shouldn't be entitled to their share of the financial assets accumulated during a marriage is like saying a WOHP should be deprived of the fruits of the SAHPs labour and therefore not entitled to a relationship with the children.

I think you can't get over the fact that some SAHPs have WOHPs that earn more than they could ever hope to earn. True, but most married couples have one higher earning partner and if they were to divorce then the lower earning partner wouldn't just be stuck with what they earnt. That would completely go against the concept of marriage

I will never earn what DP earns in a month, because the field i chose is low paying. So even working 50 hours a week as i was before i left, i was still pulling in around £600 a month less than his take home. I guess to some that means my contribution to the household isn't worth much...yet the childcare aspects always fell to me because i could switch shifts slightly easier than he can. Then again as OP says, we are a team. We don't view our worth at home based on money

Bumpity - it’s in response to your point that sahp don’t “deserve “ less than half the assets on divorce. In reality their contribution may not financially be equal to half. We are talking about split of assets on divorce (hence why I am focusing on financial measures!).

As I have said in practice (and indeed legally) non sahp almost always end up with less child contact time following relationship breakdown.

I think we do need more modern divorce law (in England anyway). We need to move on from the concept of women needing a husband to survive. Of course we should take into account sacrifices one parent has made re children but let’s be realistic about the financial value of those. That’s feminism to me. Not women need a husband for financial security. Realistically some women will struggle to support themselves same as some men. That’s life. I don’t think marriage should be a meal ticket for life.

Also again realistically are BOTH parents always seeing the arrangements as optimal? We are talking about financial splits on divorce after all. If that was really freely agreed between the parties why is there so often an issue?

Hi, just replying to your post from last night. When I was a working mum, I didn’t do half of those things. I never was able to drop my kids off at school or pick them up. I missed assemblies and never met the teachers (apart from at a parents evening if they would make an appointment for me late enough). I had a cleaner, so I didn’t do housework. So I definitely was not a working mum who did “all that and work too”. I quit that job and took a less demanding (and less well paid) one, which means I do get to do all that, and more. When your kids are at school and you have free time in the day, it’s amazing how quickly it gets filled up! I go on school trips, go and help in class, listen to readers, walk the class round for swimming lessons, do my own cleaning . I’m not making any assumptions about anyone’s circumstances, just comparing my previous life to my current one. I’m definitely not lazing around all day nowadays (she says in her PJs on a Friday at noon - inset day today, I’ve got my own kids and home plus another and I’m packing).

Oh. Just realised I’ve seriosuly failed to tag people I was replying to. Not been here for a few years.

I think also if we had divorce law that reflected more the contribution of assets (enforceable pre nups etc) then we may see more men getting involved in childcare and men and women agitating for more flexibility at work. That has to be good for everyone I think.

But contribution at home has nothing to do with how much you earn. I am just talking about splits of assets.

There have always been SAHM-bashing threads on MN but I have noticed that people have become increasingly aggressive.

In fact, I've noticed the general air of nastiness getting worse recently, and I have been on MN (too) many years. There are some quite belligerent posters urging others to go NC over the slightest error by (usually) in-laws, and the LTB thing has now reached epic proportions.

I can only think that some posters are very bitter and feel the need to wind people up in order to make them feel wobbly about their life. And that the only right-minded way to proceed is to smash up that life, no matter how trivial the reason or how devastating the consequences.

It is depressing to think that some people, behind their computers, are smugly satisfied that a SAHM is miserable about being called a prostitute or that someone has cut off contact with a mil over a chocolate advent calendar or had a fearful row with a dh over a plate left on a worktop.

I think if you’re going to make a stand and say sahm aren’t entitled to any assets on divorce it needs to be in an environment where there is true free choice to work or sah - no maternity discrimination, no mum track, no gender pay gap, no glass ceiling, no gender stereotypes, affordable childcare, flexible working. If you’ve not experienced issues like this you might not realise how utterly shit it is to be discriminated against at work for having dc, to watch your dh continue to rise in a lucrative career as a reliable family man and then to have other women say your contribution is worth fuck all and unfeminist. How I would have loved to have an actual choice between a proper career and sah. Hey ho, it’s not about me though is it? It’s about stereotype sah who is either on benefits and sitting the kids in front of Jeremy Kyle with a sausage roll or she’s off to the gym then lunch with the girls as her husband toils in a highly paid and well regarded profession.

Interesting to see how many posters think that work is the be all and end all. How are you going to cope when you retire? I just don't understand how anyone could not find a away to make their life useful and meaningful without working. I suppose it must be a result of habit but makes me wonder what they do in their free time - do they just sit around watching TV?