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?

I think very few people go into marriage thinking it is a 'free meal ticket'. Anything actually if you can get a free meal ticket why the hell not.

Your financial argument might hold water if jobs were paid commensurately with their importance to society but they are not are they? You are focusing on procreation as a financial transaction. Which it isn't. People may well conduct their lives differently if marital law were different but the fact is it is as it is.

In a divorce would you have the teacher take less of the cash than a city trader because the latter brought more money into the marriage?

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

Yes I agree, and it simply proves my point, that some people on here are posting some terrible terrible things.

The only caveat I would add is the prostitution comment is very rare. The one where you don't bring up your own kids, is common on here and repeated by many different posters often.

As said, these women then tend to say the husband is doing a good thing. Putting a roof over their head, providing for the family. But when a mother does it these same women accuse her of not rearing her own kids and caring more for her career. It's deeply mysogynistic at its core. And it is sadly a common mantra on here.

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.

I liked your post @Ninchninch.

think very few people go into marriage thinking it is a 'free meal ticket'. Anything actually if you can get a free meal ticket why the hell not.

Exactly. My DH and I both have very good (almost identical) qualifications. While the DC were very little he was in academia and was paid enough for us to get by on (we were abroad and I just did a little bit of freelance work but certainly wouldn't have found a full time job as I wasn't fluent in the language).

When we came back the initial plan was for us both to work in the same industry - this would have been fairly flexible working hours (one of us would go in early and leave early the other would do the morning drop off then stay later at work) and a decent but not amazing salary each.

As it happened DH was offered a very lucrative job (in a field he was very interested in) but that involved long hours (he gets to see the DC for at most an hour a day). We both decided that this job wouldn't be feasible for us if I was also working full time. As I would need to do 100% of sick days, would need to both drop off and pick up kids (even with after school club this doesn't really work) and we wanted the kids to spend more time with one or other of their parents everyday.

I am able to do some part time work, online during school hours but am certainly not earning anywhere near what I could be if we split the childcare 50-50. There is no way I would have accepted this arrangement if I didn't have the legal protection of marriage so that my contribution to my DH's career and also my sacrifice in terms of my own career is acknowledged. I think it's unlikely we'll split up but there are no guarantees so I absolutely find this protection important. It's certainly not a free mealticket a far as I'm concerned.

Bluntness

I agree the prostitution comment is rare but I have seen lots of comments to suggest that SAHM are "irresponsible and bad role models". I totally agree that I also see unpleasant comments about working mums leaving "someone else to raise their children".

I always worked, self-employed, from home, but 20 years ago there wasn’t this nastiness about SAHMs.

I’ve noticed that these days tradespeople coming to the house always say, So you don’t work, then? in a surprised or even slightly judgemental way. I usually tell them that I work from home, which is true, but I could also tell them that we don’t need me to work, which is also true. And that I enjoy sitting around at home online shopping, which would be true. We didn’t even get child benefit for the last three years we had children at home full time.

I think there’s so much suspicion that that someone is getting something for nothing.

And as for free meal ticket, just add up dog walking, holiday and sickness childcare, laundry, meal planning and cooking, homework help, chauffeuring, cleaning. I did this on top of my part time job but paying someone else costs £££.

Maybe it comes from a bit of jealousy. Who wouldn't want to slob about at home all day? I most certainly would now I have a school age child.

Does anyone actually think many SAHM slob about all day, even if the kids are at school?!

The idea that a sahp doesn't contribute 50% is ridiculous. I'm not taking anything away from my dh, who works hard and is very good at his job, but at the same time he would be first to acknowledge that being free to do his job/study without the stress of childcare considerations has been a massive help to his earning potential. It's not about ironing his socks, as it was so patronisingly put upthread, it's about me taking physical responsibility for sorting our family in terms of cc and logistics and him doing the financial bit so we both cover what is needed. The value of that is underestimated by narrow people who can only think in literal financial measures.
I see why some people believe sah and supporting a male partner is unfeminist but otoh we still live in a country where family life is largely unsupported by employers (and state) and where women do disproportionately higher amounts of childcare and housework even in households where both work ft. Having it all equates to doing it all and being knackered for a lot of women. Perhaps it is a feminist choice to acknowledge that choices aren't made in a societal vacuum and to consciously opt out of being lumbered with more than ones fair share? In an ideal world we'd all work pt in fulfilling, decently paid careers and share domestic reponsibilities, but that is not most peoples realistic experience.

truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/unpaid-work-worth-much-uk-economy/

SAHP do contribute to society. Women who work also do unpaid work ‘at home’. Devaluing of unpaid household/care work does not benefit any women.

Perhaps it is a feminist choice to acknowledge that choices aren't made in a societal vacuum and to consciously opt out of being lumbered with more than ones fair share?

@Iwanna

I agree completely!

I don't feel that being a sahm is an unfeminist choice, my dh and I are still very much equals and respect eachother's roles within the family, I believe the ideals that we instil in them, and the way we treat eachother, will be far more important than whether I go to work while they are little. I do intend to return to work once they are a bit older.

Does anyone actually think many SAHM slob about all day, even if the kids are at school?!

I know SAHMs who spend the time the children are at school pursuing hobbies, meeting friends for lunch and generally pootling about.

I equally know others who do lots of voluntary work, care for elderly parents or have multiple hospital appointments due to DC with SEN and/or are studying.

I have more respect for the second group of people than the first.

I’d no idea it was so bad to be a SAHP until I read MN.

I’m a trailing spouse - so my situation is probably a little different in that I moved for DH to work. The vast majority of the people I know here have one parent working and one parent at home. Personally, I’d love to go back to work part time however that option is quite hard to find here.

I’m not planning on being a SAHP forever, only for another year or so until we move back, baffles me that people get so wound up about it.

I have more respect for the second group of people than the first.

Why do you even care? I think I'd like to pootle around knowing it was pissing you off

@RedSkyAtNight

I wouldn't class either of those examples as slobbing about. I would have no more respect for one SAHM than another dependent on how they choose to spend their time.

What is actually wrong with doing the first though? Lots of men work all day, then come home home and chill in the evenings/play sport at weekend. Lots of sahm to school age kids might have busy early mornings, some hours free in the day and busy evenings taking kids to activities, doing homework, cooking etc. It's just a different order to the day, having their busy times out of sync to their dh's.

What’s wrong with pursuing hobbies? Why should life be all about toil?
Maybe they have a spouse who works away so they can’t pursue hobbies in the evenings/weekends? Should they not be entitled to a life outside of the home?

I was responding to the poster who seemed to think all SAHMs spend their days doing valuable activities.

I personally know a couple of SAHMs who I have zero respect for, and the fact that they spend their days doing as they please is part (but only part) of why I have no respect for them (and no, they don't have spouses who work away, or fill their every non-school days hour with housework or childcare). That's not because they are SAHMs though - purely because of the sort of people they are. I totally take the point that some people may relax all day because they get no rest outside of these hours - which is why threads like this are a bit pointless because for every example you give to prove a point, someone can find an exception.

I work part time so am not really contributing anything to society as earn just below the threshold for paying tax??

Again, nothing inherently wrong with doing as you please, if you can manage to swing it!

I worry for their future' fake concern

It's a type of concern trolling. I'm sure it's the same people who I remember coming into childfree discussions going "oh but don't you worry you might regret never having children when you're old?" It's all such bullshit. See when I'm old, I'm going to go around the internet telling young people to do whatever they want, because whatever you might worry about feeling in 40 years' time is not a good enough excuse to actively ignore and go against what you want to do right now.

And also, it turns out that so far my 20 year old sled was a far better predictor of the wants and needs of 42 year old me than some random with an excess of opinions

@zsazsajuju

The scenario you decide where people can leave a relationship with what they have financially contributed already exists, it's called being unmarried. You don't need to change divorce or settlements I'm sure you've seen the other thread on this forum where there are lots of posters cautioning unmarried women about opting to be SAHMs because of the lack of financial protection and the way the SAHP is not entitled to anything more than they have earnt if the couple are to split.

Marriage is different because two people have purposely decided to legally pool their assets and resources as I described earlier. Both parties know the likely outcome if they are to divorce so if the WOHP doesn't want to end up splitting assets with a SAHP then they shouldn't agree to this setup in the first place. The fact so many WOHPs don't want to share their assets with SAHPs when divorcing is definitely not evidence that they weren't originally happy to have this arrangement when it suited them and their family. Divorces are often acrimonious and many people go back on promises and agreements hence why the law stands as it does.

Boxsets I think that is incredibly rude and misplaced. Like a pp said, I may not pay tax (but have obviously in the past) but I stay at home with my children which enabled my husband to set up and run a successful business which means that I do not utilise "free" nursery places (or nursery at all), I don't claim any kind of benefit or tax credits or anything, we live in an area with outstanding schools but send our children to private schools thus not using up "free" school places at good schools. I know we're lucky but I personally would rather look after my children then pay someone else to do that job while I go and work in a job which would (for what I'm qualified for) not cover the cost of the childcare.